Meeting documents

No apologies were received.

None.

to be agreed as a correct record.

The minutes of the meeting held on 15 November 2010 were agreed as a correct record.

Contributor

Avril Davies, Chairman of the Public Engagement & Consultation Task and Finish Group

Purpose

The Chairman of the Task and Finish Group will outline the purpose of the review and the timeline for the delivery of the final report.

Paper

Public Engagement and Consultation Scoping Document

Members discussed what they wanted from this review and how public engagement and consultation should be done in the future.  It was agreed that discussion should centre on issues raised by consultation, when there should be engagement with the public, what officers hope to get out of consultation and what the reflections are on success.

Contributor

Bill Chapple, Deputy Leader, Buckinghamshire County Council

Purpose

Task and Finish Group members have the opportunity to question the Deputy Leader on his views about how the Council currently engages and consults with residents and stakeholders. The Deputy Leader will also outline his views on how the Council will engage and consult in the future.

Papers

None

The Chairman welcomed to the meeting Bill Chapple, Deputy Leader and Sarah Ashmead, Head of Policy, Performance and Communications

It was noted that members of the Group had been tasked to each carry out 10 interviews with members of the public, asking if they had ever been involved in consultation.  Mr Chapple had been invited to the Task and Finish Group because his portfolio responsibilities included consultation.  It was noted that whilst the County Council has a consultations policy and a Consultation Officer, services are responsible for carrying out their own consultations.

The following was noted:

• More members of the public should be engaged in consultation.  Interviewing just 10 members of the public may skew the figures because they may all say they are not interested in consultation.
• Sarah Ashmead stated her remit is to bring communications under one section within the Council. This is not just a cost saving exercise, but to ensure there is a corporate view of communications.  This is improving but there is still work to be done, particularly on the consultation side.
• Bill Chapple considered there were too many uncoordinated consultation exercises.
• In relation to budget consultation, there is a requirement for services to consult if there is a significant change of policy or redesign of service.  The Chairman stated that this was of concern and that rather than consult with the public, there should first be a dialogue and it is how we differentiate these processes.  Where consultation takes place without discussion it can put the Council on the wrong footing and may raise public expectation regarding the outcome. Bill stated the need to show the public through deeds that the Council is listening.
• Peter Cartwright stated that in his opinion he did not feel that the Bucks Debate was done well, although others did not feel the same way.  He felt it could have been delivered through the Local Area Forums.  Bill Chapple stated that all events were widely publicised and much of the cost was taken up through sponsorships. He also stated that some Local Area Forums had opted to take part. It was suggested that it should have been publicised through parish magazines.  Members discussed the possible loss of Buckinghamshire times through cost cutting and agreed that the best way to advertise county wide events was through community magazines and the local members. 
• With regard to the Bucks Debate, Sarah Ashmead said the first stage is about dialogue around the issues and getting a better understanding of them.  The second stage is the January post budget discussion and there will be formal consultation options.
• Avril Davies stated that whilst the Bucks Debate was professionally conducted, it needed advocates from services or councillors to provide more information.  The issues were not always clear and the public were making decisions without necessarily having an understanding of the issues.  An advocate would have been able to better explain the information on the cards. Bill stated that the cards were a fast way to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

Contributor

Val Letheren, Cabinet Member for Transport, Buckinghamshire County Council

Purpose

Members have the opportunity to question the Cabinet Member for Transport about consultation and engagement activity carried out by her portfolio.

Papers

None

The Chairman welcomed to the meeting Val Letheren, Cabinet Member for Transport and Rosemary Bryant, Transformation Manager. The purpose of the meeting was to ask what type of consultation and engagement the Transport Portfolio uses and how it fits in with corporate policy and the results.

The following was noted:

• With regard to how corporate consultation fits in with the Portfolio, Val Letheren stated that each Portfolio understands its own issues and centralising the service does cause problems.  She expressed concern that Central Communications may not be as up to date on service issues and often altered her press statements and, whilst there is tension between the two services, they are now working together better. 

12.15 Mary Baldwin joined the meeting

• Whilst there is agreement that corporate guidelines should be used, there is a need still a need to tailor consultations to the needs of the service. 
• More information is provided for the public in relation to claims forms for damage to vehicles caused by potholes. This had been a concern.  There is now a disclaimer on the front of the form. 
• Work has been undertaken with IT to ensure that all messages to the public, including consultations are on the same webpage.  The web page looks the same as the corporate pages but is produced by Transport and has more functionality.  However, it was noted that this was not the case with the intranet and Rosemary Bryant agreed to look into this.

Action:  Rosemary Bryant

• Other forms of public engagement were through the transport symposiums and the local area forums.  Transport staff are encouraged to engage with the public at meetings, but it was acknowledged that sometimes the wrong message may be given.
• The Transport Service also sends out a customer survey each year in order to gauge public opinion.
• When new members of staff are inducted, they are encouraged to talk to and inform the local member.  The Chairman said she was aware that the Highways engineers do respond to members of the public but do not necessarily inform the local member. She considered that since the Communications and Consultation Team were revising the guidance this would be a good opportunity to look at this culture and improve communication with the local members.  Val Letheren said they were trying to improve communication between the local members and the Local Area Technicians and were working on streamlining the team and improving their communication skills.
• In answer to a member’s question about how the public will be informed about the outcome of Local Transport Plan 3 (LTP3) it was noted that information will be published on the website and there will be press releases and radio interviews.  Consultation with smaller groups generally takes place face to face. It was noted that there is a strategy in place for everything they do. 
• Discussion took place with regard to the Swan Rider consultation.  Val Letheren stated that they must be firm but fair with regard to consultation outcomes and they cannot make  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

Contributors

• Martin Tett, Cabinet Member for Planning and Environment, Buckinghamshire County Council
• Marcus Rogers, Acting Head of Planning, Development and Environment

Purpose

The Cabinet Member for Planning and Environment will outline how the services contained within his portfolio carry out consultation and engagement activities. Members will then have an opportunity to question the Cabinet Member on the effectiveness of these activities.

Papers

Minerals and Waste LDF Consultation

The Chairman welcomed Martin Tett, Cabinet Member for Planning and Environment and Marcus Rogers, Acting Head of Planning, Environment and Development.

The following was noted:

• Martin Tett referred to the report on the Minerals and Waste LDF Consultation, attached to the agenda, and stated that the report did not sufficiently emphasise that two rounds of consultation had happened for this item.  This demonstrated the importance of consultation, responding to comments and giving people the opportunity to raise further issues if they wished.  These were taken into account and significant changes were made to the Plan. 
• With regard to statutory consultations there was a requirement to consult on the MWLDP. 
• The public were also consulted about the new contract for the Management of Household Waste and Recycling Centres and possible changes to service levels. It was considered important to engage with the public and this was done at the sites, as well as through LAFs, direct communication with parish councils, the website and press releases and radio interviews.  Through the engagement period it was identified that sites were not used early in the mornings, but the public considered early closing to be an issue.  As a result of this feedback and information from the traffic count, officers are looking at revising opening hours in the morning and extending opening times in the evening.  Through this savings can also be made.  This was a hybrid approach by engaging in dialogue with the public prior to consultation.  The Chairman agreed that this hybrid approach was successful and even though there is a financial saving, public perception is that a better service will be provided.
• Members discussed whether this hybrid approach could be used with regard to consultation on bus services.  Martin Tett expressed his thanks to Peter Cartwright for his work and expertise in looking at the 305 bus service.  As a result of this there is not only a better timetable but also a financial saving.
• Mary Baldwin asked how the Localism Bill may change the way things are done now.  Marcus Rogers said that members of Think! Burnham and the Burnham Trust had attended a meeting with officers as a result of which some funding had been provided to address local issues.  This was a good example of the Big Society approach and getting to understand the needs of local people.  The Localism Bill also looks at a New Homes Bonus and a Community Infrastructure Levy, a large proportion of which will be passed onto local neighbourhoods.  To achieve this, knowledge of neighbourhood priorities will be key as well as debate to determine how to engage local communities to understand what their needs are.
• It was noted that the Service does not have its own communications team, but has a dedicated communications officer based in the corporate team who understand the work of the service.  However, there can be difficulties with advice received about proposed consultations.
• When the DPD and EfW work began there was no corporate policy or strategy  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

Contributors

All Task and Finish Group members

Purpose

This is an opportunity for members of the Task and Finish Group to highlight and debate the key findings from the day’s evidence gathering meeting.

Papers

None

The Chairman stated there could be a role for central communications as the corporate gate keeper, but that Services should be responsible for putting together consultations. Any consultation should be tested to ensure it was in plain English and the consultation could be carried out either in-house or outside.  We must be more flexible in our approach.

Members discussed the presentations and the following was noted.

• Departmental roles needed defining.
• The need to differentiate between engagement and consultation, and when to do each and in what order, as well as what each is expected to achieve.
• The possible need to drive forward less consultation and more engagement.
• Clear central and service roles as well as clear roles for experts involved.
• The HWRC hybrid approach was a positive way forward
• Communications Team could be the generic gate keeper for the consultation process.
• A corporate checklist for all Services.