To receive and consider the reports, minutes and recommendations of the recent meetings as follows:
(1) Cabinet
- 30 August 2018
- 27 September 2018
2) Scrutiny Committee
- 10 September 2018
- 8 October 2018
(3) Audit Committee
- 18 September 2018
(4) Environment Policy Development Group
- 4 September 2018
(5) Homes Policy Development Group
- 11 September 2018
(6) Economy Policy Development Group
- 6 September 2018
(7) Community Policy Development Group
- 18 September 2018
(8) Planning Committee
- 5 September 2018
- 19 September 2018
- 3 October 2018
(9) Licensing Committee
- 9 October 2018
(10) Regulatory Committee
- 9 October 2018
Minutes:
The Leader presented the report of the meeting of the Cabinet held on 30 August 2018.
The Council had before it questions * submitted by Councillors Mrs J Roach and Mrs N Woollatt in accordance with Procedure Rule 13.2, together with responses from the Cabinet Member for Planning and Economic Regeneration.
Councillor Mrs N Woollatt asked a number of supplementary questions referring to:
Question 1 - The response to this question is disingenuous. My question was not about means of responding to the consultation, it was about the means of informing residents the consultation was taking place, therefore the example of how many responses to N Devon Link Road were online is irrelevant.
In fact to use the N Devon Link Road consultation as an example, in addition to online methods, the start of that consultation was advertised with the distribution of leaflets to 60 parishes, information boards on A361 and posters on local town and parish noticeboards and libraries. Posters are an issue I will cover further later. Research I have carried out of other relief and link road consultations conducted all over the country in the last few years demonstrates that leaflet, letter or postcards advising of the consultation taking place are the norm, with in most cases delivery of these media directly to households prior to or at the beginning of the consultation.
Question 2 - The reason I asked this question was twofold. One
of the routes is literally inches from the showpersons site. I am aware that the Council met
with representatives from this site but I am informed that the
information about the consultation was not cascaded to the rest of
the residents. Surely the Council had a duty to directly inform all
the residents on this site? This is one of the many locations in
Cullompton which did not receive a leaflet delivery.
When it became apparent that the leaflet delivery had failed to be
delivered to the majority of households in Cullompton, the Chief
Executive revealed in an email to me that he tends to resist the
leaflet drop approach as he considers it skews the demographic
responding. When I asked for further explanation he explained that
‘older people’ tend to respond to leaflets. Apart from
finding this comment ‘ageist’ a combination of the
leaflet delivery failure, mainly online advertisement of exhibition
dates and because printed material and questionnaires was not left
available for collection in public buildings in the town, I have
found many older people I have spoken to who do not use online
methods have felt excluded. Is there a document available detailing
the equalities impact assessment and may
I be sent a copy?
Question 3 - The full response to this question appears to have been put to Q4 ... I would suggest that given the failure of the leaflet delivery, if static exhibition boards had been displayed, it could have been mitigated in that at least residents would have a means to view the information other than online. Unmanned exhibition boards are methods I have seen used in other consultations in addition to the manned exhibitions.
Question 4 - Exhibition boards relate to Q4, By material I was referring to leaflets and questionnaires for responses. Again, the leaflet delivery failure could have been mitigated if residents could pick up information from the library or Town Hall for example. Hard copies of the questionnaires would also have made it easier for people who are not online to contribute, particularly those groups who are not comfortable using online methods. I am not clear from the answer why it was decided not to leave printed material available for collection in public access buildings?
Question 5: - I was not suggesting the entire details of the consultation be published in The Crier, a mention would have been sufficient to help advertise the fact the consultation was taking place. Ironically The Crier was delivered to many households prior to the small amount of consultation leaflets which were eventually delivered.
Question 6 - Another disingenuous answer. The
question was asking if posters advertising the
consultation and exhibition dates was produced. The answer
to this is no. No posters advertising the start of the consultation
and exhibition dates was produced or displayed anywhere by the
Council.
The poster referred to above was clearly an afterthought, particularly as the press release with a copy of the poster reminding of the deadline of 25th October was published on 23rd October, too late for publication in the local newspaper which was already printed and on sale at that point!
Question 7 - Yet another disingenuous answer. You have explained what you were told by the distribution company which they have not been able to verify as you have not been supplied with GPS data. Evidence from hundreds of residents indicates that leaflet distribution was not completed over a wide geographical area of the town.
However, the question was what did the Council do to remedy the situation, not what you did to find out what happened. The fact is the Council did nothing to correct the situation. In fact, when I asked this question of the Chief Executive I was told there was no intention to do anything and that “short of hiring a van and megaphone” he was comfortable the Council had done all it could. Well I and many residents aren’t comfortable with the situation and I find that attitude complacent. The results of this consultation will have a huge impact on the town, whichever route is chosen. All residents had a right to be properly consulted. Council did not do all it could. It could have done much more to advertise and provide information in the town and surrounding areas and it should have stepped up its efforts when it was realised that the delivery of leaflets had failed.
Question 9 - Testimonials on a company’s website are not likely to include testimonials from their dissatisfied customers. Was any research on their reputation and reliability carried out anywhere other than the company’s own website?
The company has not provided that tracking information and there is evidence from residents that delivery did not take place in large parts of the town. I even have reports of not every house being delivered to in some streets that they did carry out deliveries. What is the Council going to do to hold this company to account for their breach of contract?
Question 10 - Will the Council be seeking a refund for work that was not carried out?
Question 11 - Leaflet distribution was viewed as an additional means of consultation. Therein lies the problem I think, this view that leaflets are an ‘added extra’. Printed paper information whether by letter, leaflet or postcard is an integral part of publicising every other consultation I have looked at from the past few years. It should have been distributed at the start of the consultation. Not half way through after most if not all public exhibitions had been held, that was in the case of those that did get distributed.
It particularly concerns me when I am contacted by a constituent who finds out about the consultation in its dying days and who has talked to his neighbours to find out they were unaware also. This is from a resident living where one of the routes would directly impact his property. I can’t defend the Council when he should have had a leaflet delivered and the Council did nothing to rectify this when that failed.
Question 12 - Yes, many people are aware, but not all. If you are not an online follower of Council websites, a follower of certain social media pages or a reader of the Culm Valley Gazette you have been left at a disadvantage. Indications from locations of reports that I have had of non-delivery also indicate that there was no delivery in many of the geographical areas most affected by the various routes. For something which will have such a major impact on the town and it’s future we should not be satisfied that many people knew ... the bar should have been set that everybody knew, especially those who will be most directly affected. Given what has happened with the failure of communication direct to householders, will the Council consider doing a second stage of consultation once a preferred route has been identified to feed into and comment on the further work which will take place on development of junction strategies, engineering and environmental assessments and so on prior to submission of a formal planning application? This is an approach I have seen taken by other authorities.
The Chief Executive responded stating that he had been asked by Councillor Mrs Woollatt to explain what ‘demographic profile’ meant in the context of consultation responses and that, having provided such an explanation to her, this doesn’t equate to ageism in anyway. Councillor Mrs Woollatt would receive written responses to her supplementary questions.
Councillor Mrs Roach stated that her questions had not been answered as she had asked for specifics in relation to the Gunning Principles which was case law in relation to consultation and the way in which the Cabinet Office asked for consultation to be carried out. The answer to Mrs Woollatt’s question 11 did not comply with the Gunning Principles of the demands of fairness which were likely to be higher when the consultation related to a decision which was likely to derive someone of an existing benefit, the problem was that the questions that she had asked to lots of consultations had not been answered in full and the answers were not acceptable.
With regard to Minute 62, Councillor Mrs Roach did not feel that her question had been answered.
Notes:
i) Councillor Mrs Andrews drew attention to Minute 60 outlining her views on the proposed relief road;
ii) Councillor Mrs E M Andrews declared a personal interest with regard to Minute 60 as she was Vice Chairman of the CCA and a member of Cullompton Town Council.
iii) * Questions previously circulated, copy attached to minutes.
Supporting documents: