Public Involvement in Local Politics Options

[Ruwan Uduwerage-...]

How nice of Ruwan to allow us along to one of his meetings.

Strafin,

If you are not already, you should seriously consider standing as a politician for you seem to be able to put a different twist on what was meant so easily.

I personally would love to see greater involvement of the residents of Newbury in local politics and certainly physically within the council chamber. NTC is about to commence some research into how it as a council can improve its engagement practices and it would appreciate any (realistic) thoughts and suggestions that you and the other followers of this forum have to make the engagement more effective.

An example is the practice of having two Councillors stand at the entrance to the a Town Hall every Saturday for the Councillor's Surgery. Although this is useful, how more effective could it be?

Ruwan Uduwerage-Perera
Councillor for Victoria Ward

[Andy Capp]

An example is the practice of having two Councillors stand at the entrance to the a Town Hall every Saturday for the Councillor's Surgery. Although this is useful, how more effective could it be? Ruwan Uduwerage-Perera Councillor for Victoria Ward

The problem is that politicians 'require' authentication regards their surgeries; i.e. to ensure the questioner has genuine concerns, and are not just out to cause a nuisance.

While standing outside on a Saturday morning is OK, it limits the opportunity for anyone to engage. I would like to see a more Internet based approach so that people who perhaps 'suffer' from deference, or low literacy can still engage. I realise though that this has a cost implication, but at the end of the day, everything else in life is moving that way, so why should politics be different.

[Simon Kirby]

An example is the practice of having two Councillors stand at the entrance to the a Town Hall every Saturday for the Councillor's Surgery. Although this is useful, how more effective could it be?

The Town Council has some deep structural problems, and fixing those is going to take a paradigm-shift in attitude and not some small rearrangement of the deck-chairs.

The Town Hall Steps is ineffectual, but it's as real as the Council can tolerate. It ticks the engagement box, but it is entirely on the Council's terms and is no real engagement at all. It does no harm, but it does no real good.

Asking questions at Council meetings is a democratic right, but what allotmenteer is going to stand up and ask a difficult question after the way I was dealt with - the Council could hardly have sent a stronger message if it had publicly eviscerated me in the town square singing Glory Hallelujah to marching band accompaniment. My question was not vexatious, and the Council chose to suppress a difficult question rather than engage with an inconvenient reality. That designation of Vexatious Complainant still stands and until the Council publicly apologies for the slur and makes amends it won't even have started to puts its problems to bed.

That reality of course was that Trading Standards had upheld my complaint about the tenancy agreement and the Council had to amend the tenancy agreement, but yet the Council would not withdraw the unenforceable forfeiture. I was offered my tenancy back if I signed a secret no-criticism clause, but I refused to sign away my right to freedom of expression, and no reasonable Council would have asked me to do it. That cost me my allotment and a lot of money too - and I want that all back! If the Council is genuine in its desire to engage then it will engage with this complaint.

It's not about changing the details of what the Council does, it's about changing attitudes at the Council. Change that and everything else falls into place.

[Berkshirelad]

The Town Council is still living in the time before the unitary authority came into being.

It is now effectively a parish council with very little real clout. It even tries to pretend that it has decision making powers for planning; where, in reality, it is simply consulted by the real authority.

[Simon Kirby]

How nice of Ruwan to allow us along to one of his meetings.

I took RUP's invitation to be as much a personal welcome to me as a general welcome - bear in mind the the Council as a corporation has given me bell book and candle and I'm about as welcome as a toenail in a pork pie, so for the deputy leader of the Council to extend a genuine invite was generous and much appreciated. And I like the guy too - he's what the Council should be.

[Simon Kirby]

The Town Council is still living in the time before the unitary authority came into being.

It is now effectively a parish council with very little real clout. It even tries to pretend that it has decision making powers for planning; where, in reality, it is simply consulted by the real authority.

WBC are obliged to consult the parishes, but they're not actually obliged to pay any attention to what they say, and in the most part that's a good idea because you do at times get some ill-informed parochial nonsense at the parish level.

If the Town Council was serious about saving the tax-payer some money it would drop the planning meeting altogether. It costs quite a bit in officer time and running costs for them to prepare the submissions and hold the meetings - I think half of council committee meetings are planning meetings. As you say the committee give the council the appearance of power which is what they like but it serves no useful purpose.

[On the edge]

RUP does appear to be a breath of fresh air, I sincerely hope he succeeds and is not got at or just resigns in frustration.

NTC has simply lost all credibility. The structure seems to work in other places, so we are left with a massive mind set change. That will necessarily demand staff change and new leadership.

When both LibDem and Tory parties at national level smash into Labour for imposing gagging clauses in NHS how dare their local representatives think it acceptable and appropriate - what arrogance!!!

[Ruwan Uduwerage-...]

WBC are obliged to consult the parishes, but they're not actually obliged to pay any attention to what they say, ...

If the Town Council was serious about saving the tax-payer some money it would drop the planning meeting altogether.

As someone that has to attend most of the committee meetings at times when I would much rather be elsewhere I may well agree with you, and I would have agreed totally regarding the Planning & Highways Committee, that is until I saw what it actually does.

The Planning & Highways Committee albeit having no actual power does afford the public another opportunity to express their opinions for or against issues that impact on their lives. It is an opportunity to express in a public forum matters that are then picked up by the media and further publicised.

It is also an opportunity for the public to quiz developers who sometimes promise much but then deliver something totally different to people expectations. It is very apparent sitting where I do that unprepared or questionable developers do not find the Planning & Highways Committee a pleasant experience when the Councillors pose probing questions and this can be and is at times reported in the press.

I personally believe that public meetings of the Council although tedious or even pointless to some are a critical part of increasing openness and transparency and as such form a vital part of safeguarding democracy. Would I wish to reduce public access to local governance, No! But, I will accept that there may well be a more effective, efficient and economic ways of doing things which hopefully members of this forum will assist in identifying.

@Andy Capp

As for

The problem is that politicians 'require' authentication regards their surgeries; i.e. to ensure the questioner has genuine concerns, and are not just out to cause a nuisance.

naturally coming from a policing background I am keen that at least someone can corroborate a concern and is willing to be named, albeit if necessary I would as far as possible protect someones anonymity.

I totally agree that merely standing outside the Town Hall would not ideal if that is all that Councillors did to engage. NTC is interested in seeking to enhance the 'Saturday Experience' and also to adopt new approaches which could be as you have highlighted exploiting the internet. Your opinions and thoughts are I can assure you will be warmly welcomed.

Ruwan Uduwerage-Perera
Councillor for Victoria Ward

[Simon Kirby]

The Planning & Highways Committee albeit having no actual power does afford the public another opportunity to express their opinions for or against issues that impact on their lives. It is an opportunity to express in a public forum matters that are then picked up by the media and further publicised.

It is also an opportunity for the public to quiz developers who sometimes promise much but then deliver something totally different to people expectations. It is very apparent sitting where I do that unprepared or questionable developers do not find the Planning & Highways Committee a pleasant experience when the Councillors pose probing questions and this can be and is at times reported in the press.

But does it actually achieve any of that though? There was just one question asked by the public in the last year, and that wasn't a planning matter, so that doesn't speak to me of any great public participation in the process.

Councillors are lobbied of course which is participation of sorts, but the nature of those discussions aren't published so there is a lock of openness there in a way there isn't for letters of support/objection to the planning authority.

But ultimately NTC isn't the planning authority. Anyone with comments on a planning matter has a right to lodge them with WBC and have them considered directly by the planning authority, and I don't see that NTC adds any value here.

I feel you're right though about holding developers to account. On the big questions such as Sandleford the developer could have done more, and so too could WBC, so the NTC meeting at the rugby club had some merit. If was devalued for me by the lib deb "No to Sandleford" campaign which tainted it rather, but all the same it was a good idea.

But the planning meetings themselves in my view are pointless, or at least of such little value that the cost can't be supported. Nothing to prevent the NTC hosting ad-hoc community engagement meetings on planning or any other matter of community interest, but I don't see that the public interest is served by NTC's planning meetings.

[Exhausted]

The Planning & Highways Committee albeit having no actual power does afford the public another opportunity to express their opinions for or against issues that impact on their lives. It is an opportunity to express in a public forum matters that are then picked up by the media and further publicised.

It is also an opportunity for the public to quiz developers who sometimes promise much but then deliver something totally different to people expectations. It is very apparent sitting where I do that unprepared or questionable developers do not find the Planning & Highways Committee a pleasant experience when the Councillors pose probing questions and this can be and is at times reported in the press.

There are a few town councillors that are also WBC councillors and perhaps they may go away with pre conceived ideas about applications from the NTC meeting but this should not colour their judgement if they are on the WBC planning committee. Developers are very unlikely to go to WBC planning without researching their application and ticking the appropriate boxes. They do not want to waste money. WBC have professional planners and they ensure that any application meets guidlines. The Town Council, with respect, have little knowledge of the subject and do not have any professional support. Their decision is based sometimes on doubtful information. Developers know that the council has no power so probably only send along their office boy although for the councillors, the plans are available on the planning portal.
Using the press to make their decision meaningful is not always fair to the developer but they do of course have the right to send their views, as does any other member of the public, to be added to the planning application.

Here is a response from NTC on the development of the old Travis Perkins site in Mill lane.

Split decision
Object strongly to the development
of offices when there are already so
many vacant offices in the Newbury
area.
Support strongly – the development
of housing, including affordable
housing
Members sympathised with the
developer regarding the policy
constraints for this site.
If the development were to proceed,
a £reasonable S106 contribution is
requested towards improvement in
nearby Victoria Park.

At least Phil Barnett felt that he should address the planning meeting and inform them of the NTC planning decision but as it went to the committee with a recommendation for approval it was pretty much cut and dried before anybody said anything.

Interesting that WBC are asking the developer for amongst others, an S106 for the library of £7,000. and are also asking for a contribution of £13,260 for 'open spaces'. I wonder if the town council will get any of that for Victoria Park.