I found myself talking to residents of central Colchester at a consultation on the proposed St. Botolph’s Quarter and yet it seemed residents were more cynical than ever about the plans.

I think how long democracy has lasted and how many fights have been won by the people to have a right to democracy, to have a place, yet more than ever I see local people struggling to find a place in local democracy.

I can understand when I talk to people that there is an air of cynicism and unfaith in local planning.

People feel like council officials and private organisations and businesses are quick to make decisions and deals whereas the public sit below all of that.

Even though there are consultations with the public there is less and less faith that the government will actually take heed of what people say.

Whether it be a consultation on planning or a consultation on hospital mergers, I have always noticed a strong sense of cynicism in the crowd.

At the consultation at Greyfriars, I spoke to as many residents as I could to try and assess the general opinion of the development and it was not good.

In fact there was nary a good word to be said about the developments. The reception by the public was quite cold with four recurring themes. I heard describe it as a ludicrous, outrageous, a joke that they think it’s okay to ram as many properties into a tight space as possible.

The architecture was consistently criticised for lacking the right character and didn’t live up to the standards of residents.

One couple likened them to London slums, square brick buildings with all function and no character. Where is the link back to the charm of the Edwardian and Georgian styles? The appearance in relation to the town centre is key, especially if this is to be built around Firstsite which, by all means, should be a main tourist attraction of Colchester.

Density was also an issue. The plans want to squeeze 339 student apartments into a slim patch of land between Firstsite and Curzon, blocking the view of Firstsite from the Curzon balcony and windows. The distance between Firstsite and the proposed apartment building was quite minute. There is also plans for an 89 room hotel next to Curzon.

Linking in with the last point, there was a strong feeling that the tight layout left little room for congregational space. A very consistent remark was that people felt the North building that was proposed should be removed entirely. Space is definitely key because we shouldn’t be hiding our tourist attractions behind mid-rise apartments.

The last key criticism was the lack of hotel parking which would be directed to the Priory Street car park. I can’t think the residents would feel too great by increased traffic flow.

There will also be no parking for students. There is a valid point that students shouldn’t need cars however many students still do have cars, especially since many might work out of town or they might be in a placement that requires travel. In many cases, students will have cars for this reason exactly, and I think that it is dubious to expect that no student will be needing a car.

My own thoughts on the student rents was that I hoped that they would be priced reasonably. There was little information given about how affordable these rents were going to be.

We were told at the consultation that they would go for "market prices" which is vague considering market prices can vary depending on location and other factors.

I imagine the market price is going to be high for the town centre and if the Amphora Trading company truly was created by the council to help provide certain services and functions of the council, would it be reasonable to ask how much ownership they will have over the new developments?

There was, however, a stroke of genius with the idea to have green rooves which are literally brimming with plant life.

This is a great idea for Castle ward residents who already have to face unhealthy amounts of pollution and we should expand green rooves to other areas of the town centre. They will increase biodiversity in the town centre and absorb some levels of carbon dioxide.

I don’t think the site is necessarily a bad choice for development however I think that local councils need a dramatic shift in their attitudes towards local democracy in planning. Ideas should flow upwards, from the residents.

There should be power to the people not just to criticise the proposals put forward but also to have input, to direct and have more tangible control over the designs. Why couldn’t local residents be given an opportunity to collectively come up with an idea for what they wanted the development to look like?

The counterargument for this is to assume people are stupid and that politicians and officials know what’s best for people.

If you just give people a chance, give them the tools and the know-how and they can be very effective at making local decisions.

An example of this is participatory budgeting which is a fancy word letting people make budget and planning decisions. It is a tried and tested (and successful) concept worldwide and a true testament to the fact that planning and budgeting isn’t something that has to be done by a small group of representatives. In the future, I hope that this is a policy the council and local parties will adopt fully.

Even better, I hope that we will see more resident involvement in Colchester's "arms length trading company" set up by the council.

It cannot truly be labelled an institution for the people if this arms-length company is not directed by the people in an open and transparent way.