Agenda item

To scrutinise the Council’s approach to consultation and engagement with residents and community stakeholders.

The Committee considered a report, set out at Agenda pages 29 to 34, which examined some of the key issues faced in consulting and engaging with residents and stakeholders in a meaningful way. Specific issues outlined in the report were:

·           Accessibility and inclusion;

·           Accurate and appropriate information;

·           Use of consultation findings;

·           Timing of consultation and engagement;

·           Consultation design and delivery;

·           Potential need for a formalised Consultation and Engagement Protocol.

The report stated Local authorities had a statutory obligation to consult on a range of specific issues of local and national interest. Wokingham Borough Council was keen to exceed its statutory obligations and to consult effectively with local residents, businesses and other stakeholders on issues which affected them. This helped to ensure that stakeholders were involved in the planning, implementation and monitoring of key Council services.

Most of the Council’s public consultation was administered by the Communications, Engagement and Marketing team and managed through the Engage Wokingham Borough online platform. There was a wide variation in response rates which reflected the public interest in the topic under consultation. The Engage platform now had more than 12,000 registered members.

The report stated that the overriding reason to consult residents was to help inform decision-making. There were issues on which the Council was statutorily required to consult and issues upon which the Council would choose to consult. In both scenarios, consultation findings should be used to inform decisions.

In the ensuing discussion, Members raised the following points:

The report outlined the current process for consultation. It was important to continue to improve in order to deliver consistency and fairness for stakeholders. The idea of a Consultation Protocol was welcomed as this would deliver a more consistent approach.

When developing new consultations it was important to think about the target audience, i.e. residents and community groups as opposed to businesses and professional bodies. On-line consultations needed to be as simple as possible in order to ensure wide engagement and the maximum response. As an example, there had been problems with the LCWIP consultation as a consequence of using external software to carry out the work. Consultations should use accessible language and ask questions in a non-leading manner.

In determining which issues to consult on, was the process driven by services? What was the role of the Communications team? It was confirmed that the Communications team were involved in discussions about consultation except when there was a legal requirement to consult. Ongoing discussions could lead to the taking of legal advice about the requirement for consultation. A Consultation Protocol would make this process clearer. For example, in relation to the food caddy liner issue, there was no change in the service provided so it was concluded that consultation was not required.

It was suggested that consultations should include an option of the status quo ante. If there were financial constraints making the status quo difficult, these should be explained as part of the consultation.

How could the Council ensure that differently-abled residents (e.g. non-sighted) were able to take part in consultation exercises? It was confirmed that the Communications team worked directly with specialist groups to ensure that their views were included.

It was important that residents had the opportunity to give the responses they wanted to give, i.e. more than just a yes-no response. This would provide rich data which would be as valuable as the headline numbers.

It was noted that a balance had to be struck between giving options and the reality of financial constraints and the implications of Government policies. For example, current Government housing policy dictated that the Borough would have to take more housing in spite of the opposing views of residents.

An example was given of consultations carried out by the Fire Authority. These provided a breakdown of the residents taking part in the consultations, e.g. younger people and older people. It was confirmed that it was possible to give a breakdown on the responses to specific consultations, for example the waste consultation. Targeted media was used to engage with specific groups.

It was important to note that consultation was different to a referendum. Consultation feedback was used to inform decision making, not to replace it. However, providing a full range of options did mean that all views could be taken into account, including the status quo.

RESOLVED That:

1)     Dave Allen be thanked for attending the meeting to present the report and respond to Member questions;

2)     the development of a WBC Consultation Protocol be supported in principle;

3)     a draft of the WBC Consultation Protocol be submitted to the Committee in February/March 2023.