Agenda item

To consider a report from the Head of Scrutiny and Member Development on the first Session of the Inquiry into Consultation Processes.

The Head of Scrutiny and Member Development submitted a report outlining the findings of the Working Group which had been established by the Board to consider the consultation processes that had been undertaken specifically with regard to the former Miles Hill and Royal Park schools (case study 1) and to identify any lessons that may have been learned under Session 1 of the Board’s inquiry to Review Consultation Processes.

Paul Brook, Chief Asset Management Officer, City Development, Brian Lawless, Group Manager Projects, City Development, George Turnbull, Team Leader, Education Leeds, Rory Barke, North East Area Manager, Environment and Neighbourhoods, and Jason Singh, Area Co-ordinator,  North West Area Management, Environment and Neighbourhoods, were in attendance to respond to questions from the Board.

Members were advised that the North West (Inner) Area Committee had agreed to extend the process of consultation with local organisations on the future use of Royal Park Primary School as a community resource.

With regard to the general disposal of schools, the Chief Asset Management Officer acknowledged that consultation with local communities needed to commence at a much earlier stage in the process.  This would enable a more strategic approach to be applied when considering the disposal of assets.  He referred to Document E of the papers and the aspirational chart that should be applied to any disposal of assets, with consultation being carried out earlier in this process.

In brief summary the main issues discussed were:

·  The process and timing for declaring buildings surplus to requirements.

·  The costs involved with keeping vacant properties secure and free from vandalism.

·  The lack of protocols for dealing with surplus buildings, which should include set timescales and liaison with Ward Members.

·  The fact that the City Development Department and Education Leeds do not have the expertise and skills to undertake consultation and that Environment and Neighbourhoods were best placed to undertake this work.

·  The need for sufficient resources to be made available to undertake the level of consultation required. The two years of discussion over the future use of Headingley Primary, and issues concerning the former Merlyn Rees and Asket Hill schools were given as examples where improvements could be made and which emphasised the effort and costs incurred by all departments involved in these projects.

·  The need to improve collaboration between departments, partners and external agencies.

·  Not raising the expectations of the local community and the critical balance of raising capital receipts from the sale of Council assets to fund the school replacement PFI programme and the inevitable delays which arise in order to carry out consultation on the buildings’ future use.

·  The difference between consultation and communication.

·  The need to improve communication between officers and departments.

·  The disbanding of District Partnerships but the increased importance of partnership working for Area Committees, which were soon to have extended responsibilities.

·  The need, from the public’s point of view, for the consultation process to be transparent, consistent and within a fixed time frame.

·  Provision of a statement of intent when going out for consultation which was realistic rather than aspirational.

·  The need for a consultation floor limit and a target with regard to the number of questionnaires required to be returned by local residents.

·  The need for Education Leeds in particular, to become much more proactive at an earlier stage in the process in looking strategically at Council assets and before any building is declared surplus to requirements.

·  Avoiding crisis management.

RESOLVED – That the Principal Scrutiny Adviser take account of Members’ comments as above and include them in the Board’s final report and recommendations.