Notes
Meeting Title: / Informal Meeting of Community Network Panel ChairsDate/time: / 21 April 2016 (2.30-4.30)
Location: / Council Chamber, New County Hall, Truro, TR1 3AY
Chaired by: / Jeremy Rowe CC
Attendees: / Ann Kerridge CC (Bodmin CNP); Ian Thomas CC (Camborne, Pool, Illogan & Redruth CNP); Rob Rotchell CC (Camelford CNP); Andrew Long CC (Caradon CNP); Dick Cole CC, John Wood CC (China Clay CNP); Bob Austin (Cornwall Gateway CNP);Lionel Pascoe CC (Hayle & St Ives CNP); Carolyn Rule CC (Helston & South Kerrier CNP); Jim Candy CC (Liskeard & Looe CNP); Ken Yeo (Perranporth & St Agnes CNP); Sue Nicholas CC (West Penwith CNP); Rob Andrew, Steve Foster, Mark James, Guy Thomas (Communities & Devolution team)
Apologies: / Nicky Chopak CC (Bude CNP); Vivian Hall CC (Launceston CNP); John Fitter CC, Pat Lambshead CC, Max Beeson (Newquay & St Columb CNP); David Hughes CC (St Blazey, Fowey & Lostwithiel CNP); James Hetherington, Chris Wells (Truro & Roseland CNP); Bill Maddern CC (West Penwith)
ACTIONS/KEY POINTS
1. Piloting ideas for enhancing Community Network Panels
The officers presented a paper outlining possible options for enhancing the Panels, as originally presented to the Localism PAC in December 2015. The options, presented to the PAC as ideas for discussion, were based on research of practice in other authorities and the experience of operating the Panels since 2009. The proposal before the PAC had been to carry out consultation on the options; the PAC advised against doing this until the boundary review had been completed, but indicated their support for piloting options in a few areas.
The CNP Chairs/representatives were asked for their views on the options. These are summarised in the tables below:
Table 1: “Straightforward” options that could be piloted relatively easily (low risk/low cost)
Option / Summary of option / Summary of CNP Chairs’ viewsA. Options for increasing public engagement (listed below) / Overall benefits for CNPs: enhanced public profile; improved picture of local public views
1. Recruit public as “subscribers” / “Subscribers” would be encouraged to attend meetings, follow the CNP’s work, and interact (e.g. via social media/surveys) / (General view on public engagement):
The key strength/advantage of CNPs is as networking forums (and information/expertise exchanges) for Members, Town & Parish Council and other representatives. Public attendance/interest is welcome, but the success (or failure) of CNPs does not rest on this. Accordingly, we need to ensure a proportionate approach (and allocation of resources) to public engagement. We also need to ensure that we do not cut across or undermine Town & Parish Council efforts/mechanisms to engage the public in their meetings.
(Subscriber proposal)
CNPs may wish to pilot this in their engagement plans, but should bear the above points in mind. If they take up this option, they will need accurate information on the geographical location of subscribers (e.g. in case of CNP boundary changes).
2. Advertise existing Petition facility / Petitions relating to a matter specific to a CNA and supported by 1% of its population should be scheduled for debate at the CNP.[1] / Support. Members asked about the source of the petition procedure; a link is provided below.
3. CNPs to have social media presence (Facebook/Twitter) / Currently piloted in Truro/Wadebridge CNAs / Allow CNPs to explore this if they wish to do so (bear in mind general points re public engagement). Give information to CNPs about pilots.
4. Questions / Allow public to submit questions in advance of meeting (with exclusions, e.g. issues that should be referred to the relevant T&PC) / Support, where CNPs wish to do this.
5. Consistent approach to local consultation meetings. / Concept that all CC local consultation meetings should be carried out via CNP or joint CNP/CC/partner events to provide a strong, consistent brand / Support.
B. Options for improving links between Cornwall Council and the CNPs (listed below) / Overall benefits: CNPs would become more effective community engagement tool, and would be able to influence more effectively
1. Information & Attendance Protocol / A formal protocol for responding to CNPs’ requests for information (including an escalation procedure in event of nil or unsatisfactory response)/officer attendance / Most CNP Chairs reported that, while this had been an issue at times in the early days of CNPs, there are now no/few problems with obtaining information/securing officer attendance. However, one CNP Chair reported occasional issues with officer attendance, and another that there are still times when it takes too long to get a response. CNP Chairs therefore supported the introduction of a light-touch protocol on this; Rob Andrew indicated this could be incorporated in a wider protocol officers are working on in relation to responding to requests for Member information (another aspect to be covered in this will be service consultation with Members on issues in their divisions).
Another comment was that the Council’s response to lobbying by CNPs on local issues could be poor and that CNPs need to be given more respect/weight.
2. CNP Forward Plan / To produce a Forward Plan of key issues coming up at CNP meetings, helping CC/partners to plan consultations / Support (keep simple)
C: Options for improving links between CNPs and partner organisations (listed below) / Overall benefits: partners have maximum opportunity to use CNPs to consult/engage; better working relationships; enhanced profile for CNPs
1. Partner agenda items / Standing/regular/rolling slot for key partners on CNP agendas / Allow CNPs to explore this where they do not already do so.
Attendance by Town & Parish Councils is very good in many areas, and CNPs are working hard to encourage this. There are still some issues, however (e.g. local councils who rarely/never attend). The issue works both ways – T&PCs need to keep CNPs/communities up to date with what they are doing.
2. Multi-agency working – reporting links / Ensure effective reporting links (e.g. submission of minutes/written or oral summaries) between CNP and other appropriate local partnership meetings / Support, where CNPs wish to do this (one outcome to avoid is taking up too much time at meetings, to the detriment of other business)
D: Budget-related options (listed below)
1: Community Chest / (a) Regular written report to CNP on Members’ Community Chest spend
(b) Give Members opportunity to make cheque presentations at/before Panel / Support both, where CNPs wish to do this.
-
Table 2: Other options – may have significant pros/cons and/or be harder to implement
Option / Summary of option / Summary of CNP Chairs’ viewsA. Increasing public engagement
1: Public agenda items / Allow public to suggest agenda items in advance of meeting (subject to exclusions) / Not supported given the comments about public engagement (see Table 1 above).
2. Participatory democracy / Encourage use of PD techniques, e.g. participatory budgeting/”voting” on issues / Members referred to previous PD pilots (e.g. Bodmin and China Clay), the PD style question on Council Tax rises at previous budget consultations, and the LDF process (akin to participatory democracy). They did not favour a Cornwall-wide initiative on PD for CNPs at this time.
B: Improving links between CC/CNPs
1. Performance monitoring / Submit key performance information to CNPs (e.g. on local services/customer feedback) / CNPs should be supported if they wished to receive such information. Where they do wish to do so, it is vital to use plain language and avoid jargon.
C: Improving links between CNPs/partners
1. Multi-agency working / Encourage CNPs to carry out more multi-agency work on agreed priorities, including via task & finish groups / It was felt CNPs work well with partners (see comments in Table 1) and they should carry on at their own discretion according to local circumstances/priorities.
D: Budget-related options:
1: Community Chest / (a) Annual celebration of Community Chest (e.g. as done in St Austell CNP)
(b) Give Members opportunity to do PB exercise using Community Chest / Support, where CNPs/individual Members wish to do this.
2.Local Devolution Fund: progress
Officers gave a summary of LDF proposals received to date. In total, about 60 proposals had been received, two thirds under the “devolution” heading and the remainder related to partnership working.
The CNP Chairs/representatives each outlined the progress of the LDF in their CNAs. The consensus was that the process was working well and that the funding was enabling the CNPs to support some really worthwhile projects.
3.Around the networks
The CNP Chairs/representatives gave updates on how their CNPs were progressing. They felt that, in general, the CNPs are progressing well and doing valuable work, especially in their core networking role. The principal concerns expressed were about (i) engagement with rural parishes in some areas and (ii) the need to review the stage in the planning protocol where the planning officer consults the parish council on their final recommendation (after considering the latter’s formal response to the planning authority on the application in question).
4.Planning Portfolio Holder/Head of Service visits to Panels 2016
Edwina Hannaford CC and Phil Mason were seeking to arrange a second series of visits to the 19 CNPs in 2016, and had asked whether CNPs might consider joint meetings where possible/appropriate. CNP Chairs advised this would have to be on a case-by-case basis, as it might be desirable/possible in some areas but not in others (e.g. areas which had a high number of planning issues that they might wish to discuss).
5.Date of next meeting
It was agreed that another meeting be held in six months’ time (October 2016).
Page 1 of 6
[1]Under the Council’s Petitions Scheme, petitions relating to a matter specific to a CNA and supported by signatures equivalent to 1% of its population will be scheduled for debate at an appropriate Community Network meeting. This means that the issue raised by the petition will be discussed at a meeting which all local Councillors can attend. The meeting will then reasonably determine how your petition will be dealt with and what the process will be. (