To answer questions submitted by Opposition Group Leaders on items on the agenda.
Minutes:
Question from Councillor Birch to Councillor Inglis
“The basis for the recommendations in the 'Bingham Car Parking Project Update' report is the data accrued by traffic data collection company, ITP. The methodology they used to obtain their data consisted solely of 'in person' surveys of car park users.
Do you not agree that this methodology shows blatant sampling bias, where those residents who are actively avoiding the car parks, because of years of being unable to find spaces, are not represented in the data, and therefore the results do not reflect the true nature of Bingham's parking crisis?”
Councillor Inglis stated that he did not agree, as the report clearly stated that in addition to commissioning on-site surveys the Council had conducted an online survey, which had been well publicised on social media and via press releases including coverage by the As a result of this promotional work, the survey had received over 1,500 responses and this information was used to help inform the package of measures presented in the report this evening.
Councillor Birch asked a supplementary question to Councillor Inglis.
“With regards to the charging options that have been presented tonight, option 5 has caused public outrage and has been opposed by all local representatives. Given the potential for option 5 to detrimentally affect local businesses, and impose further financial burdens on residents, might Cabinet be inclined to reassess and go for option 4, thereby prioritising the well being of local residents and the local business community over short term financial gain?”
Councillor Inglis reiterated that details would be explained when Item 7 was considered later in the meeting.
Question from Councillor J Walker to the Leader, Councillor Clarke.
“Despite a generally favourable report from our Peer Challenge colleagues, it feels like the responses/actions are a done deal. ?Almost like the theme in the report of the Borough talking 'to' its residents rather than in collaboration with, has still not been taken and runs quite deep, as is evident even in response to the suggestions, with no mention of any wider engagement.
Will all Councillors and residents get the opportunity to offer suggestions on how we can all make the changes suggested in this report and proactively engage in the process of improvement?”
The Leader thanked Councillor Walker and advised that the responses and actions were designed to highlight work that was underway, which the Peer Team were unable to see, as well as future improvements that the Council could work on. The feedback had been welcomed and there was a proposal to include an engagement section in the next Communications Strategy, and any Councillors or residents that wanted to submit comments were very welcome to do so. The Leader stated that the Council did have a programme of engagement on a wide range of policy items, as well as its biennial residents survey. The next survey would be delivered to every household in the Borough in the June edition of Rushcliffe Reports and the Council would be delighted to receive more feedback from residents. Whilst developing the new Economic Growth Strategy, comments would also be welcomed, and the Leader reminded everyone that the Bingham Car Parking survey had also encouraged engagement.
Councillor Walker asked a supplementary question to the Leader.
“Would the Communications Strategy come to scrutiny to provide another opportunity for engagement?”
The Leader advised that initially the Strategy would be reviewed and it was likely that it would be renamed the Engagement and Communications Strategy, to reflect that. Following its adoption, it would then be available for scrutiny.
Question from Councillor Way, on behalf of the Leake Independent Group to the Leader, Councillor Clarke.
“With reference to Appendix B, Key Recommendations, page 4, Governance/Performance/Culture, Item 7 states ‘RBC should consider undertaking a comprehensive review of its scrutiny function, the role and number of overview and scrutiny groups, processes and procedures, aligned with progressing RBC’s Corporate Strategy, with Councillor engagement at its core’.
The subsequent response states that a review was carried out in 2018. As this is six years ago, and predates the last two elections, where new Councillors have joined, and bearing in mind that this must have been a topic raised many times to warrant this recommendation, and is covered at some length on pages 16 to 17 of the report, is it not time a new review takes place and the scrutiny process is itself scrutinised?”
The Leader thanked Councillor Way and advised that a review was undertaken between September 2018 and February 2019 by the Centre for Public Scrutiny (CfPS), which was now the Centre for Governance and Scrutiny, and that had been reported to Council in March 2019. The independent review included desk research, observations of meetings, a Councillor survey, and many interviews. The Leader stated that the CfPS had recommended a single scrutiny overview group, with task and finish groups to investigate specific topics. This model of scrutiny was widely used in larger councils and very different to what had been operating well at Rushcliffe for many years, which was recognised by the review team. Therefore, a transitional arrangement was approved by Council, which had a smaller Overview and Scrutiny Group that reviewed corporate items on a cyclical basis, managed requests for scrutiny and work programmes of the three themed scrutiny groups. An internal review of this arrangement was scheduled for 12-18months time. The Leader confirmed that the transitional arrangements were reviewed and reported to Corporate Overview Group in September 2020, when it was concluded that the transitional arrangement were a significant improvement on the previous model and that they should be maintained. Views of both Councillors and officers were sought as part of this review and were detailed in the report. The Centre for Governance and Scrutiny ran a Scrutiny Improvement Review programme and it had also published a self-evaluation toolkit, which could be used if it was felt a review was needed. Further training for Chairs and Vice-chairs was planned for this year to focus on quality of debate and questioning as well as managing the meeting and that would hopefully result in more effective meetings.
Councillor Way asked a supplementary question to the Leader.
“The question about scrutiny had strong links to paragraph 2 on page 16 of the Feedback Report and quoted “Officers for example can take Councillors’ questions as criticism, when Councillors often just want to know how or why the Council responds to various situations. This can lead to Councillors asking fewer questions for fear of offending officers, hindering their understanding of how Council operates and relations with officers” and that this was quite noticeable sometimes in scrutiny meetings. What steps could be taken to address this issue to promote better working relationships and understanding between officers and Councillors.
The Leader hoped that continued training for scrutiny would encourage constructive questioning, with constructive criticism and assistance in suggesting new ideas, and it was important that all Councillors agreed to have those conversations to ensure continued benefits for residents.