The Armada Way Independent Learning Review

The full report compiled by the Armada Way Independent Learning Review Panel can be downloaded here.

The Armada Way Independent Learning Review (AWILR) panel, was tasked with looking into the decision to approve the development of Armada Way and to immediately fell the trees.The review which was commissioned by Plymouth City Council (PCC) was carried out to help them learn lessons from the Armada Way tree felling fiasco.

The report vindicates the STRAW campaign.

“The extent to which the Council kept the impending original decision and subsequent mobilisation out of the public domain appears in conflict with the Nolan Principles.”

“The negative impact that the process has had on some of those seeking to legitimately challenge the actions of the public body should also be recognised.”

Coming soon, our full write up of the AWILR report.

“…the objectors who, by any reasonable assessment, had right and reason to pursue their complaints during the period of this review”.

PCC has been given 18 recommendations, and the panel has called on them to do what they can to rebuild trust, which has been significantly damaged by this episode - trust between the council and residents, and within the council itself.

• The Council did not need to use the urgency procedure and in fact, the panel felt that going down another route will have “lead to greater transparency and trust”.
• The consultation was all but non-existent. The 2018 consultation did not do enough to make clear the plan was to fell so many trees and the responses to it did not impact the design.
• The “Information Exchange” in Drake Circus in 2022 was not a consultation but a presentation and also did not make clear the extent of the planned felling.
• The Meaningful Community Engagement (MCE) was a “hollow gesture” and too late to make any difference – a total waste of time and we now know that the felling was being planned before the consultation report was finished.
• The MCE report produced by officers was misleading. In some parts responses were omitted if the respondents opposed the plan. The panel said it made the council look “partisan and exacerbated the growing view of STRAW and its supporters that the Council was underhand and untrustworthy”.
• The secrecy surrounding the planned felling was “in conflict with the Nolan Principles”.
• The information being shared by the officers running the project was misleading and incomplete.
• The Council should not have used Permitted Development Rights and they did not conduct a screening opinion on whether the project required an Environmental Impact Assessment.
• The panel also found that:
• PCC’s record keeping was poor, which was made evident during the legal challenges.
• That senior managers did not adequately support the team when the issue blew up.

The whole debacle has caused significant reputational damage and a conservative estimate of the cost of episode has been put at £3.3 million.