Interview with Dr J M Speight and the Community Planning Co-ordinator, Jim Boot.

The Chairman introduced Dr Speight to the Committee and reminded Members that Dr Speight had written to the Council identifying concerns with regard to the production, and particularly the consultation process, of the Sustainable Community Strategy (SCS).  Members were informed that at their last meeting the Leader of the Council had informed Dr Speight that the development of the SCS was an ongoing process and his opinions would be considered during revision of the Strategy.

Dr Speight informed Members that he had submitted a 25 page response to the SCS consultation which had been received by the Council on the last day of public consultation.  He was of the impression that inappropriate haste and pressure to deliver the Strategy had resulted in a number of errors and omissions.  Appendix A outlines the argument presented to the Committee by Dr Speight.

The Community Planning Co-ordinator, Jim Boot, introduced himself to the Committee as the editor and substantial author of the Strategy.  He informed Members that due to the complexity of the Strategy he had worked closely with a number of officers, in particular the Assistant Director of Development and Community Strategy, Brian Morgan to facilitate its development.  Members were informed that government guidance for the production of the Strategy had not been released until July 2008 and had not been tested by other authorities.

Mr Boot identified that 81% of people who responded to the final public consultation on the draft SCS were supportive of the vision and objectives outlined in the Strategy.  Nevertheless, he thanked Mr Speight for his comments and recognised the benefit of robust debate and having a member of the public acting as a ‘critical friend.’

In response to a question concerning the time scales of the final consultation process, Mr Boot informed the Committee that producing a consultation summary of the draft SCS, following its agreement at Cabinet on 11^th February, took longer than expected.  Therefore public Consultation was only able take place over three weeks.  However, the Committee was informed that Parish Councils and voluntary organisations, of which there were approximately 250, had been invited to view the papers online as soon as they were put on deposit in February, therefore these groups had roughly eight weeks to consider the SCS.  Additionally, consultation with the public had been carried out over a protracted period of 15 months throughout the development of the document.  For example, two focus groups had been run by IPSOS MORI in December 2007 and March 2009, and all the Parish plans published in the last five years had been drawn upon.  An initial ‘Stick up for Maidstone’ consultation had been carried out throughout the previous summer, at a wide range of locations, including the Chequers shopping centre, the River festival, Maidstone Mela, Kent County Show and Peace One Day. The police’s Partnerships and Communities Together consultation and Place Survey had also been utilised. In addition numerous workshops had taken place with interested groups.

Dr Speight identified that the final consultation covered a period of 18 days.  He questioned whether the timing of the consultation had been selected to avoid the newly legislated ‘Duty to Involve’ which came into force from 1 April 2009, and which would have involved Maidstone Borough Council in dealing with local representatives and perhaps even setting up a panel of citizens.  He expressed a belief that not only his own, but also a number of responses from others obtained throughout the consultation period, did not receive consideration.

Mr Boot responded by informing the Committee that the Duty to Involve had not been a factor in the shortened consultation period.  However, there had been a requirement to meet deadlines within the Council’s Forward Plan which had already been the subject of delay.  He noted further that there would be scope for the Strategy to be refreshed annually.  It was also stated that the Strategy should be seen as an evolving process, as opposed to a fixed document.  In the meantime any essential corrections could be included in a summary of the Strategy which was to be published within the Downs Mail in September.  A Plain English version of the full strategy was also to be published at approximately the same time. Mr Boot also informed the Committee that all the public’s submissions had been considered, including that of Dr Speight and that the overwhelming the public response to the document had been positive.  

A Member commented that the Committee should have noticed the changes to the proposed and actual consultation dates in addition to checking that the amendments suggested by the Committee had been added to the document.  A Member also commented that this raised concern with regard to the amount of time given to Members and the general public to consider such documents.  It was requested that at the revision of the SCS, the comments of Dr Speight be used to amend the document, and Dr Speight be invited to present any further comments to Mr Boot.  A Councillor identified the importance of ensuring comments such as Mr Speight’s were taken into account to increase good public relations.

A Member recommended that Dr Speight’s letter be sent to the Committee, Cabinet and Corporate Management Team to raise their awareness of potential problems with the consultation process. 

With regard to consultation, Members considered that consultation deadlines should not be shortened in order to meet deadlines, and that there should be a clear gap between the end of the consultation period and the publication of the document to allow time to work consultation responses into the document.  The Chairman informed Members that the Corporate Services Overview and Scrutiny Committee would be looking at the Council’s consultation protocols later in the year, and recommended that these comments be referred to that committee to inform its review.

Resolved:

That

a)  Dr Speight’s presentation be forwarded to the Committee, Cabinet and Corporate Management Team for information; and

b)  the Committee recommends that the Corporate Services OSC, as part of its review of the Council’s consultation mechanisms, considers:

  i.  Enforcing a delay between the end of the consultation period and the publication of the report; and

  ii.  That adhering to stated consultation periods should take precedence over meeting stated deadlines for reports.