CCRU expressed strong concerns to Regenerate regarding this information prior to its release. Subsequent dialogue post release between CCRU and Regenerate have seen Regenerate agree to engage with us on their document.
Our commentary is the first part of that engagement (as a partner) in the Southshore/South New Brighton Community Engagement process. This review has been sent to Regenerate in draft form as, ideally, it requires further independent expert input.
Funding for this expert input is difficult for communities as they are most often under-resourced in an unequal partnership.
CCRU welcome comment and contact specifically from Subject matter experts who feel they maybe of assistance.
The section that has raised the most questions and conversation has been Part 4 Natural Hazards. Accordingly, this brief 'review1' mostly (but not exclusively) focuses on that part. This 'review2' is laid out thematically around what appear to be the main issues, but many are not about the underlying science, but instead about tone, clarity, interpretation of, and sometimes what seems like stretching facts.
The cumulative unintentional effect of the Regenerate Report style raises questions about the fitness for purpose of this report in its current form. However, relatively minor changes could transform this report into a very much more useful and effective community asset.