Communal Container Pilot: Scrutiny Report highlights the need for better consultation by Council

3.49.03pm BST (GMT +0100) Mon 6th Sep 2004

Cllr Dawn Davidson

Reacting to the initial findings of the Communal Bins Scrutiny Panel, Regency Lib Dem Councillor Dawn Davidson said: 'We are pleased the inquiry has upheld the complaints made by residents over the way the Council undertook its consultation process and indeed that more should have been done to ensure that residents had the opportunity to make their views known on the proposals. This means that lessons have been learnt and that any expansion of the communal bin pilot must be properly consulted on.'

Recommendations of the report are below:

REPORT CONTENTS

SECTION

PAGE

1. Background to the Scrutiny Review 1

2. Findings and Recommendations of the Scrutiny Panel 2 - 5

3. Future Action and Recommendation 5

APPENDICES

Appendix 1: List of Participants in the Review 6

Appendix 2: Letter Requesting Scrutiny 7 - 8

Appendix 3: Summary of Evidence Received by the Panel 9 - 12

Appendix 4: Notes of the meetings held on the 22nd March, 30th April and 26th May 2004, together with the Affidavits and Statements of witnesses. 13 - 43

Appendix 5: Template for Executive Reply to Scrutiny Recommendations 44 - 45

1. BACKGROUND TO THE SCRUTINY REVIEW

1.1 The Overview and Scrutiny Organisation Committee (OSOC) initiated the Communal Bins Scrutiny Review on the 23rd February 2004 following a request for scrutiny submitted by Councillor Dawn Davidson.

1.2 The letter requesting scrutiny is included at Appendix 1 to this report. Information in support of the scrutiny request and other background papers to the review are held for reference in Brighton and Hove Town Halls and Kings House, Hove.

1.3 OSOC agreed to establish a 3-Member ad hoc Scrutiny Panel with the remit to review the consultation process that was used prior to the introduction of the communal bins trial in three wards of the city. The trial itself was not to be subject to scrutiny.

1.4 Councillors nominated to serve on the Scrutiny Panel were Councillors Jan Young (Chair), Joyce Edmond-Smith and Mrs. Dee Simson.

1.5 All Brighton and Hove City Councillors whose wards were included in the trial and those residents directly affected by the trial were invited to participate in the scrutiny review.

1.6 The Panel held two public meetings on the 22nd March and 30th April 2004. The first meeting received information from ward councillors affected by the trial and the Chair of the Environment Committee. The second public meeting was held to hear the views of the residents affected by the trial. Those who spoke at the two public meetings had an opportunity to review and confirm the notes, which form appendix 3 to this report.

Also forming part of appendix 3 are the statements and affidavits of some witnesses who spoke at the second meeting of the Panel and are referred to in the notes of the meeting. The panel would like to make it clear that they do not approve the tone and substance of some of the statements regarding the conduct and integrity of members and officers. These are the views of the authors and have been included only for the sake of completeness and in line with custom and practice.

1.7 A third meeting of the Panel was held on the 26th May and in accordance with the Council's constitution and the protocol relating to the process of giving evidence to a Panel meeting, this meeting was held in private. The Panel heard evidence from the Assistant Director and the Head of Operations at City Clean. The two officers had an opportunity to review and confirm the notes taken at the meeting and in accordance with the Panel's recommendation these have been made public and form part of appendix 3 to this report.

1.8 In preparing this report of findings and recommendations, the Scrutiny Panel has taken into account all the views expressed during the review. The Panel's findings are those, and only those, included in the body of the report. Everything else is the view of the persons making the statement and their inclusion does not imply their acceptance as true.

1.9 The Panel would like to thank all those who participated in the scrutiny review. Their final report of findings and recommendations will be presented to OSOC on the 13th September for information and then to Environment Committee on 21st October 2004. It will then be reported to full Council together with any response from the Environment Committee.

2. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE SCRUTINY PANEL

2.1 Legal Position

2.1.1 The Panel requested a view on the legal definition of consultation and the implication for the process under consideration be clarified. The courts have given general guidance which sets out three tests:

(a) Does the consultee have the information required to be able to give comments;

(b) Is there an opportunity to make representations;

(c) Have the representations/comments been taken into account.

2.1.2 With regard to the concerns raised by the residents over the legitimacy of the decision, the committee approved the trial scheme and there was an opportunity to comment on that. Aspects of the scheme were changed as a result of feedback and the final decision to go ahead with the scheme was not taken until the 29th January 2004. As such, all relevant information regarding the scheme had been made available at least by the time of the January committee meeting. It was clear from the proceedings of the committee that Members were fully aware of the concerns of residents and some councillors.

2.1.3 With regard to the experimental traffic order, there was no requirement to advertise it first. Once it was approved, people would have up to 6 months to make representations, which could then be taken into account before a final Traffic Order was approved.

2.2 Clarity of Reports and Recommendations

2.2.1 The Panel felt that the report to the July Environment Committee was ambiguous and could have led to Members not necessarily understanding and possibly misleading the general public.

2.3 Duty to Consult

2.3.1 The Panel feels that the problem seemingly arose from the lack of clarity about what was being consulted on. The intention to obtain views on aspects of the scheme prior to its introduction, whilst understandable, had not been made clear and had led to different expectations.

2.3.2 The consultation process should be used to inform people of the intentions of the proposals and provide an opportunity to gather views/feedback as they may differ to what is anticipated. Having received views/feedback there should be a means of showing how this has been taken into account and whether the proposals have been altered as a result.

2.4 Consultation Process with Residents

2.4.1 Before the trial commenced there was an expectation amongst residents that they would be consulted and that they would be able to influence the decision whether or not their streets would be included in the trial and not simply asked to comment on aspects of the actual scheme. The July 2003 report did nothing to redress this expectation.

2.4.2 There was a failure to distribute the leaflets to all residents, informing them of the introduction of the scheme and whilst this was rectified with a further distribution based on a more reliable database, it had added to the uncertainty of how the scheme would operate.

2.4.3 There was a need to review how information to residents was separately identified and not confused with ordinary 'junk mail' and thereby enable recipients to respond accordingly.

The Panel noted that one individual reported a difficulty with the assisted collection service, however a letter to all households provided information on how to access the service and people requesting the service were visited and individual arrangements made. There had been some difficulties in ensuring that residents requiring assisted collection because of disabilities or age are taken into account in so much as assisted collections were delayed and information regarding the level of service to be provided had been insufficient.

RECOMMENDATION 1

To ensure that everyone concerned (Members, officers and members of the public) are fully aware of what action is being proposed and how that action can be influenced i.e. prior to implementation, during and/or after implementation, the definition for consultation as detailed in paragraph 6.1 (above) be used as the basis for all future consultation and that officers adhere to the council policy as detailed on the Wave.

RECOMMENDATION 2

That future leaflets/circulars/letters to residents are clearly marked as being from the Council and that the database for circulation is checked as being the most up-to-date and that compensatory arrangements are in hand to ensure any delivery failure can be rectified quickly.

RECOMMENDATION 3

That any information circulated to residents regarding changes in services provided by the council should clearly state the contact numbers at the council for further information and for those requiring assisted collection.

2.5 Consultation Process with Ward Councillors

2.5.1 Whilst action was taken to inform the ward councillors of the proposals regarding the trial, the importance of the e-mails was not clear and meant that some councillors did not respond.

2.5.2 The Panel felt that there was a need to bear in mind the limitations of relying on e-mail to inform and contact councillors and that additional methods such as phone-calls and written letters/memos should be used.

2.5.3 The Panel also acknowledged that councillors had a duty to respond and to follow-up matters with officers.

RECOMMENDATION 4

That collective briefings are arranged for ward councillors where proposals are being made which affect their wards. Individual meetings should then be held where Members are unable to attend the joint briefing session.

RECOMMENDATION 5

That the Director of Cultural Services be requested to review the e-mail service provided to Members and officers to see whether a differentiation can be made to ensure recipients are clearly aware of the importance of the information being provided e.g. respective coloured icons for ward issues and urgent items requiring a response.

RECOMMENDATION 6

Records of all communication (including responses), to councillors on major ward issues to be kept until the process is complete.

RECOMMENDATION 7

That Ward Members are consulted on the production of any leaflets/questionnaires that are to be sent to residents in their ward and to receive copies prior to their distribution.

2.6 Use of an Experimental Traffic Order

2.6.1 There was a clear lack of understanding with regard to the Council's powers to use an experimental Traffic Order (TO). The Panel was of the view that residents had been led to believe that there was a requirement to consult over the intended TO, and had not understood that as it was an experimental traffic order it could apply immediately.

2.6.2 The Panel noted that at the end of the 6-month period should the council wish to adopt the TO, it would have to take into account any comments/views that had been received from residents.

RECOMMENDATION 8

That with any future use of Experimental Traffic Orders, it be made clear that the traffic order will apply for a set period and that during that period comments/views can be submitted and will be taken into account prior to the final Traffic Order being adopted.

2.7 Future Consultation

2.7.1 The Scrutiny Panel noted that the consultation process within the trial area had begun and expected all residents to be able to have input in to that process and for the results to be publicised. It was felt that prior to any decision to expand the scheme into other areas, a clear process for consultation with residents and ward councillors should be agreed, in order to prevent the misunderstandings that had occurred with the current scheme.

2.7.2 The Panel noted that guidance on consultation had since been drawn up and were of the view that the Research & Consultation Team should be contacted before any consultation was undertaken, in order to provide assistance and views on the process to be used.

RECOMMENDATION 9

That the Research & Consultation Team should be contacted to provide guidance on future consultation exercises and where appropriate asked to undertake the consultation on behalf of any of the Council's directorates.

3. FUTURE ACTION

3.1 In addition to the formal recommendations of the scrutiny review the Panel ask that all future consultation exercises bear in mind that they should:

(i) Ask not tell;

(ii) Consult and listen;

(iii) Say what you mean.

RECOMMENDATION 10

That when changes are being proposed which affect the service provided to people with additional need including disabilities, consultation takes places with those organisations/groups which represent them with a view to them being able to identify specific requirements and to liaise with those directly affected.