Agenda item

O&S.59/17

Consideration was given to a report that provided a detailed overview of the One Council Consultation process, including how the consultation was devised and the range of methods used to engage with the public.

To instigate consideration of this matter, it was PROPOSED and SECONDED and when put to the vote declared CARRIED that:-

‘The Panel proceed to consider the consultation process and responses received.’

By way of an introduction, the Commissioning Manager presented the results of the One Council Consultation exercise that had expired earlier that week.  At the conclusion of this presentation, reference was made to:-

(a)     the telephone survey.  Some Members felt that there were limitations associated with the telephone survey that included:

-      the responder being asked at the offset whether or not they were in favour of the One Council proposal.  These Members stated that this constituted a fundamental difference between the telephone and online surveys;

-      the lack of a statement on the survey advising responders to read the background information prior to answering the questions;

-      the perception that the introduction was somewhat leading in favour of a responder supporting the proposal; and

-      the number of responses across the two councils.  The fact that 382 responses were received in the South Hams, compared to 381 responses in West Devon, did not reflect the population variances between the two areas;

To counter these concerns, officers advised that all Members had been given prior sight of the telephone survey script.  Furthermore, if responders were uncomfortable with answering the questions, they were able to leave the call at any given time;

(b)     completion of the online questionnaire.  Some Members highlighted that a number of responders had resented the fact that, despite not supporting the proposal, they were still forced to complete the survey and offer a view on elements including Council Tax equalisation.  In reply, officers informed that, in the event of a proposal being submitted to the Secretary of State, this would ensure that all responses were still taken into account;

(c)     additional information.  During the debate, Members requested receipt of the following additional information outside of this meeting:

-      A summary of the town and parish council responses to the Consultation process;

-      Access to those letter and email responses received during the Consultation process;

-      The number of telephone survey dropouts; and

-      If possible, the number of respondents who left the online survey part way through;

(d)     the levels of response rates during the process.  Some Members highlighted that a 4% response rate was well above the average for such surveys (deemed to be in the region of 1%).  In contrast, other Members felt that, when considering just how proactive the consultation process had been, a 4% response rate was disappointing;

(e)     the face to face public consultation events.  The view was expressed that these events had been successful and a number of Members wished to pay tribute to the Leader, Deputy Leader and their Executive Member colleagues for the amount of work and effort that they had put in during the process.  Furthermore, particular praise was also paid to the Commissioning Manager for working tirelessly throughout the process to get to this point;

(f)      the ICT glitch.  In noting that the glitch was outside of the control of the Council and had occurred on the last day of the consultation period, officers advised that mitigating measures (including extending the consultation period by one day) were put into place to minimise the impact of this unfortunate disruption;

(g)    a motion being PROPOSED and SECONDED as follows:-

‘That the results of the consultation indicate that South Hams residents and the parish and town councils that represent them are opposed to the merger.  This Panel therefore recommends to Full Council not to proceed with the merger.’ 

In introducing the motion, the proposer and seconder advised that, since the overwhelming majority of responders in the South Hams were against the proposal, he now considered it timely for the Panel to reflect the public view and recommend that the Council did not proceed.

Other Members felt that, since the purpose of this meeting was to focus solely on the consultation process, consideration of this motion was somewhat premature at this time and pre-emptive of the discussions to be held at the SH/WD Joint Steering Group meeting on 19 October 2017 and the Special Council meeting on 31 October 2017.

When put to the vote, the motion was declared LOST.

(NOTE: in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 15.6 (Right to require individual vote to be recorded), Cllrs K J Baldry and J P Birch requested that their votes in favour of this motion be formally recorded.)

(h)     the role of the Audit Committee.  A Member expressed his disappointment that, to date, requests for an extraordinary Audit Committee meeting to specifically consider this proposal had been refused.

It was then:

RESOLVED

That the Council note the following views of the Panel:

1.       That the Panel are satisfied that the Single Council Consultation Process has been conducted in an open and transparent manner, with full independent overview to ensure best practice has been applied.  In reaching this recommendation, the Panel ask Council to note the strength of the Independent Advisor report;

2.       That the Panel are of the view that the process contained a full range of participative options to enable residents, businesses, Town and Parish Councils and stakeholders to express their views;

3.       That the Panel note the distinct difference between the Online survey outcome and that of the Independent telephone survey;

4.       That the Panel is however disappointed at the level of response, with 96% of electors in the South Hams choosing not to participate.