Appendix A

Presentation to meeting of External OSC, 14th July 2009 – Dr. J.M. Speight

I don’t intend to go into the detail of my 25-page submission. That’s not the issue. In any case, Members may recall – Councillor Garland, at the last meeting of this committee, not only remarked on the worth of my contribution, but also indicated that much of what I have had to say may well find its way into subsequent versions of what he described as an evolving document. This is some, albeit small, measure of a consolation. Mr. Boot had previously said something along similar lines, though perhaps not quite as definitive.

My letter spells out the nub of my complaint, outlining the history and other details of the foreshortening of the public consultation.

Unquestionably, in the later dealings, pressure to deliver the Strategy was brought to bear, resulting in inappropriate haste. Haste is the key-word. It’s vitally important to recognise the consequences of the rush to get the Sustainable Community Strategy onwards to acceptance by Full Council.

The unhealthy rapid progression to approval by Cabinet involved a substantial number of omissions – not only regard for my contribution, but also amendments agreed by Cabinet on 11th February and/or External Scrutiny on 17th February. Very briefly these were:

·  targets for affordable homes,

·  the target for bringing empty properties back into use,

·  the number of houses built since 2004,

·  assessment of Maidstone and Tonbridge wells NHS Trust’s management of its finances,

·  the phrase ‘smaller market towns’,

·  removal of a reference to the Leeds and Langley bypass.

None of these was undertaken in the Consultation Draft. And, despite most being marked for correction in the Track Changes version of the Strategy presented to Cabinet on 8th April, they were not implemented in the final version. So there they are – minor though some may be, still slip-ups.

There was a number of other premature amendments to the document, dating as far back as 25th March. Unfortunately, I have not the time to delve into these here. I say premature because it is hardly right and proper that alterations are made before the import of the total consultative process is assessed. Time was needed for this.

Time was also a factor as regards analysis of responses to the twelve – very important – key actions. These were ranked in order of preference as early as 1st April. I am led to believe that the input from 20 respondents, who used the online toolkit (and possibly another 4 who used other means), was not included. Although an updated version of the results incorporating these was presented to Cabinet, this did not make it to the final document. And so, it appears that I am not the only one whose views were left out.

Turning now to dealings by Full Council. The fact that Councillor Horne’s comment regarding the absence of appendices fell on so many deaf ears is only part of the story. All fifty Councillors, who attended the meeting of Full Council on 22nd April, missed glaring errors and failings in what little background material was put before them. If they had digested the Report from Cabinet they would have spotted, for example, the statement [I quote]:

• “Maidstone Borough Council adopted the draft SCS for consultation purposes on 11th February.”

On 11th February, the consultation draft was approved by Cabinet, not Council. This was a regurgitation of what was presented equally incorrectly to Cabinet on 8th April. I leave you to come to your own conclusions.

It was by far and away the worst of a number of flawed statements, others of which were unintelligible transcriptions of what had earlier been reported to Cabinet. No Councillor queried what, in parts, was the nonsense presented to them.

With dismay, then, I have to say that, throughout, not a lot of attention was given by individuals or groups or partners to ensure that things were handled properly. This does not augur well for the efficacy of engagement generally.

If more time had been allowed for people like myself to unearth omissions in the draft strategy (that is to say the full 6 weeks), and if more time had been taken by all concerned post-consultation to comprehensively assess all the input, then quite possibly a lot of the shortcomings would not have occurred.

More haste, less fulfilment, less accuracy, and less accountability, I would say. Where partnerships are involved, MBC should be very concerned on its own behalf. Acting as lead means that, for all participants, it must be beyond reproach.