Agenda item

It was moved by the Chairman that Item 11, Berkhamsted multi-story car park petition review would be the next item on the agenda and this was agreed by Members.

Wendy Conian was given an opportunity by the Chairman to express her concerns.

I’m Wendy Conian, the petition organiser.

I requested this review because I didn’t think the Council had fully engaged with or meaningfully responded to the requests contained within the petition.  Nor did I think the Council had complied with the terms of its own petition scheme.

Elliott Brooks’ report finds that the Council did comply with its scheme and acted appropriately.

I disagree with his findings and could provide a detailed commentary on his report but feel there is little point rehearsing those disagreements here, as I think it highly likely you will accept his recommendation. 

Notwithstanding this, I want to say that if I had written this report to you my recommendations would have been:

·         If you have a process, comply with it – work within the designated time frames, be clear about the roles and responsibilities of those tasked with enacting the policy, communicate these things to the person bringing the petition or complaint or whatever it is.

·         Don’t make it incumbent on the petition organiser to be the one continually chasing progress and pushing the process along.

·         The scheme provides for early resolution of the petition concerns through discussion – use that provision and…

·         Try actually talking to the people raising the concerns.  Instead of putting obstacles in the way to dialogue, instead of expending your energy in shutting down discussion and creating intimidating and alienating processes, why not find ways to establish meaningful dialogue.  You never know, it might result in something positive and better solutions to some of the challenges our communities face.

If your purpose in the petition scheme is to allow communities to make representations to the Council about important issues and fully and productively engage with them in discussion of those issues, then I believe you are failing.

If it is an exercise in ticking boxes to somehow being seen to demonstrate engagement with the community, maybe you are doing that, albeit even then not very well.

Even if one accepts Mr Brooks’ analysis that the Council complied with its scheme, I would say that that compliance has merely been with the ‘letter of the law’, not at all with its spirit.  You may possibly have ticked your boxes, but you have not seen fit to engage in good faith with the community who had and still have huge concerns about your plans to build this car park in their town. 

The petition was a measure of last resort by a community who desperately wanted to talk about this issue but had been stonewalled time and again from doing so.

We were treated as supplicants to the Council, not as citizens with an intelligent interest and concern about plans which will affect our community and with serious reservations about the value we will be getting as taxpayers from this misguided project.  You could have agreed to meet with representatives to explore the basis of these concerns, to truly understand them and seek to find alternatives that could have been agreeable to all parties. 

You may have come to the same conclusion to press ahead with the plans but at least the community would have felt that a genuine attempt had been made to take seriously their concerns.

In conclusion, as a taxpayer and citizen, I think you need to do better.

Cllr Chapman said he will take into consideration Wendy Conian’s comments. A balanced decision is made and we now need to listen to the Officers.

Wendy Conian and John Higgins were asked to leave the table by the Chairman.

E Brooks, looking at this as an independent person, explained his findings and recommendations which are included in the report. The petition scheme recognises the importance of giving residents an opportunity to communicate their concerns about issues in their local area and as such it supports all of the Council’s corporate objectives.

E Brooks gave clarity that the purposes of the findings were to review how they dealt with the participation.

The report was centred on 2 issues and that the recommendations are that DBC complied but there were issues on communication, however it was clear who they were and should communicate too.

Cllr Chapman asked E Brooks if he was satisfied that the issues raised by the participant.

E Brooks confirmed that he was satisfied.

The Chairman reiterated that the argument was debated at Full Council and we are here to discuss the findings. Cllr Chapman asked if DBC should consider this further ‘’has it been adequately dealt with’’

E Brooks explained that all issues raised have been covered and he was satisfied, DBC do not need to consider this further.

Cllr Douris added that he felt it was unreasonable for the organiser to chase officers. In the terms is there evidence to support the contention.

E Brooks said yes, the time scales weren’t kept to. In terms of the organiser chasing

There is a 2 way conversation, the dialog was appropriate. This is acknowledged.

Cllr Guest arrived at 7:50pm

Cllr Douris asked if this caused damage to the petition.

E Brooks stated that his findings ‘’didn’t not show’’ any damage caused, it just caused frustration.

Cllr Harden asked why it allows the public to say they are not happy with the decision.

Cllr Chapman said that we are only here to discuss the process and not what happened at Full Council.

M Brookes stated that it was part of the national scheme, it’s one of the steps in the scheme and ‘’its gives’’ the public the right to challenge the process and it enables us to ensure that DBC have followed the process correctly.

Cllr Chapman asked Members if they agreed with the recommendations on page 69.

All Members agreed to the recommendations ‘’except Cllr Guest’’ who reserved the right to comment as she came in late.

Actions: None

Outcome: The report was noted.