Agenda item

To consider the attached report of the Head of Scrutiny and Member Development on the third Session of the Inquiry into Consultation Processes.

The Head of Scrutiny and Member Development submitted a report on Session 3 of the Inquiry to Review Consultation Processes.  The report advised Members of the attendance of a representative from a second company who had been consulted by the City Development Department and who had contributed to the development of the Aire Valley Leeds Area Action Plan.  Also attached to the report were two appendices outlining some consultation methods used by other local authorities in developing Area Action Plans and disposing of surplus school assets.

The Chair welcomed to the meeting Mr Geoff Goodwill, Planning and Development Co-ordinator of Caddick Developments Ltd, to outline his company’s involvement in the consultation process in developing the Aire Valley Leeds Area Action Plan.  Also in attendance was David Feeney, Head of Planning and Economic Policy, City Development Department to respond to queries and comments from the Board.

Mr Goodwill was invited to address the Board on his opinion of the way in which the Council had consulted with organisations like Caddick Developments Ltd in developing the Aire Valley Leeds Area Action Plan.  Mr Goodwill introduced himself and outlined his business and broader involvement in the Aire Valley corridor.  He advised Members that from Caddick Development’s view, the overall consultation process had been very effective, was well prepared and well resourced and had been conducted very professionally.  He thought that the most difficult challenge was getting people involved who did not have a direct interest or involvement in the Plan. He stressed the uniqueness of the Aire Valley which had few residential properties within its boundaries.  Mr Goodwill put forward the idea of identifying a champion within the local community in order to enthuse local people and increase participation.  Mr Goodwill also suggested that because proposals for the Aire Valley were generally not controversial, that it had perhaps been more difficult to engage people to attend consultation sessions and public exhibitions.

Mr Goodwill, like Mr Beaumont at the last meeting, expressed concern that a number of issues which had been identified early in the consultation process had only now started to be worked on.  He also made the point that the emphasis should be on delivery; that there was no point in producing documents that were so abstract as to be incapable of being carried out.

Members then discussed the issues raised by Mr Goodwill which were in brief summary:

·  Achieving better community engagement.

·  Consultation fatigue.

·  Appropriate venues for exhibitions and consultation meetings and how they were advertised – convenient and accessible venues should be selected and areas of high footfall such as shopping centres.

·  A community champion – Members expressed reservations with this idea.

The Chair then welcomed to the meeting Paul Brook, Chief Asset Management Officer, City Development and Tony Palmer, Team Leader, Education Leeds, to respond to queries and comments from the Board regarding consultation around surplus school properties.

Comparisons with other cities that had been included in the report were made, in particular with Sheffield and Bristol.  Officers reiterated that capital receipts from the sale of schools in Leeds were reinvested in Education and the £40m primary review programme. Officers also expressed the view that the earlier the consultation process began the better and would prefer that gaps in service provision in particular communities were identified at an earlier stage, so that demand for buildings could be compared with availability. 

Members then raised various issues with officers which were in brief summary:

·  Matching demand with availability – the example of using a building at the former Merlyn Rees site for youth provision was given. 

·  Involvement of Area Committees that could be charged with regularly reviewing the need for community provision in their area, which could be extended to include the industrial and economic needs of the city – Members were advised by officers that there was an opportunity to take stock  of industrial and economic needs through the core strategy of the Leeds Development Framework.

·  The problems of vandalism to and criminal activities associated with boarded up vacant buildings.

·  The need for individual Plans Panels to take into account the wider needs of the city.

·  The difficulties in defining consultation best practice – Officers advised that Leeds was a Beacon Council.

The Chair thanked the officers and Mr Goodwill for attending the meeting and stated that the Board’s final recommendations on consultation processes would be submitted to the April meeting of the Board. 

RESOLVED –

(a)  That the report be noted.

(b)  That the Principal Scrutiny Adviser take account of Members’ comments as above and include them in the Board’s final report and recommendations, which would be submitted to the April meeting of the Board.

(Note: Councillors Lobley and Monaghan arrived at 1.20pm and 1.42pm respectively during the consideration of this item and Councillor Ewens left the meeting at 2.05 pm at the conclusion of this item.)