RICHMOND council's plans to develop land in and around Crane Valley has been left in shreds by the government inspector. The truth is, of course, that the proposals have actually been unravelling for some months.

Also kicked into touch by the inspector is the much vilified plan to close Teddington's North Lane car park and build houses on it.

In both cases the authority met with stiff opposition from campaigners and in both cases it gave the impression that it was only listening to the protests without actually giving them serious thought. In other words it appeared to be paying lip service to the consultation process.

That is a dangerous game to play and now the council is left with egg on its face. Cllr David Marlow is quick to point out the good points from the inspector's report concerning other developments - as he is right to do - but the council seems unsurprisingly reticent to give anything more than a grunt about the two damning decisions.

Both Crane Valley and North Lane were controversial proposals and the groups fighting them put forward powerful arguments.

Crane Valley involved the development of Metropolitan open space and the environmentalists were quick to attack the plans to build housing there. The complex proposals also involved the merging of Richmond's two colleges - something made public by the authority long before the two institutions were ready for that and an idea which has subsequently been shelved anyway. The council was also very coy about what type of homes it planned for Crane Valley and questions were being asked about why the development plan didn't encompass the Harlequins ground where other development proposals were in the offing. Within a couple of months, the Crane Valley project was already looking very shaky.

When it came to a public consultation exercise, the council chose the option - which was always its clearly preferred one - which was least popular with the public. Indeed we asked in this very column last August ahead of the consultation's findings whether critical points of view raised by objectors would actually be listened to.

The North Lane car park attracted even fiercer opposition, but again the authority gave the impression that this was a cut and dried decision to deprive Teddington of a popular car park despite what the residents and shoppers thought.

There are indeed some good issues to come out of the report to back various council initiatives, such as support for the removal of protected status on land around schools which need to expand. But in some ways these are a little lost because the inspector has turned over two major proposals which attracted the ire of the electorate, which was further exacerbated because the authority seemed to take an almost arrogant stance in refusing to listen properly to local people's concerns.

The Crane Valley and North Lane car park decision have been the result of people power. Clearly, the council's thinking on both these projects was seriously flawed and it needs to demonstrate a more contrite and open response than it has so far offered if it is to regain some public confidence.

No doubt it will also be carrying out an internal investigation as to why a lot of time and money was spent on developing two plans which were highly unpopular and ultimately breached planning principles.