From Tilehurst Globe

Our comments on the Park Lane/Tilehurst Consultation: Report on Views Expressed - Report by Director of Education and Community Services

Our main criticism of this report is that it

¨       uses the consultation leaflet to support its desired action to go forward to the next stage of the process, but fails to report on a number of key factors relating to the leaflet including the process of consultation/information dissemination

¨       fails to report on the meetings/drop-in sessions that RBC arranged at  the schools and the library

¨       misrepresents Tilehurst Globe's meeting

¨       fails to report on a number of views given to RBC

The report uses the replies to the consultation leaflet to support its desired action to go forward to the next stage of the process, but fails to report on a number of key factors relating to the leaflet

1.       We found that copies of the consultation leaflets during the initial consultation period between 16th June and 31st July were not generally available to members of the public.

2.       A two sided A4 leaflet was posted to addresses in the area. The A4 leaflet contained information about the proposal but did not include the pre-printed reply slip. The report does not give the numbers that were sent out or the area covered.

Question: What was the percentage of responses in relation to the posted leaflets?

3.       A second consultation leaflet was an A3 folded leaflet with a pre-printed reply slip. Members of the public had to ask to obtain this leaflet and the reply slip. This A3 consultation leaflet and the reply slip was not readily available. It was not easy for ordinary residents not immediately connected with the Park Lane/Laurels Blagrave schools to find one. The consultation leaflet and the reply slip was also available on the RBC web. This was not mentioned in either the A4 leaflet or in the A3 leaflet. In other words it was made difficult for the general public to respond to the proposals.

Question:  Was the response high or low compared to other consultations conducted in Reading? Please give examples.

Question:  What was the purpose of putting the consultation leaflet and reply slip on the web if the information was not disseminated?

Question:  Why did the web submission process force people to fill in all sections of the form including comments before allowing it to be accepted?

Question: Is the total number of responses (447) sufficient to represent the views of the people of Tilehurst?

Question: At the meetings held in the schools on 1st July and 15th July, were the leaflets with reply slips readily available and were they handed out to the people who attended the initial consultation meetings held in the schools?

Question: What proportion of the responses were from people connected with the schools?

4.       The analysis in section 3.1 of the RBC report does not give a breakdown of the replies by the status of the person responding or an analysis of the comments by status. Respondees were invited to say whether they were a parent, a school governor, a member of staff at xxx school, a local resident or other. We would consider this a critical part of the reporting process.

Question: If there was no intent to use the status as part of the analysis, why ask for it?

Question: If no analysis is reported based on the status of the respondent, was it because the result was not acceptable when putting forward these proposals?

5.       Similarly the analysis in section 3.1 of the RBC report does not give a breakdown of the replies by postcode or an analysis of the comments by postcode. We would also consider this to be a critical part of the reporting process.

Question: If there was no intent to use the postcode as part of the analysis, why ask for it?

Question: If no analysis is reported based on the postcode of the respondent, was it because the result was not acceptable when putting forward these proposals?

6.       Tilehurst Globe found that the A3 leaflets with the reply slip were not generally available to members of the public. Members of our group were asked for a reply slip, so we photocopied the reply slip for people who asked for it. There was no mention in the report of photocopied reply slips being handed in.

Question: What number of responses were given on photocopied A4 sheets?

The report fails to report on the meetings/drop-in sessions that RBC arranged at the schools and the library

1.       RBC arranged 1 public open meeting at Park Lane Junior school on 30 June.

RBC also arranged 4 drop-in sessions when RBC officials were available to answer questions at the Laurels, Tilehurst library, Blagrave nursery and Park Lane Junior school.

2.       The public open meeting and the drop-in sessions are specifically not reported on.

3.       This report does not give any analysis of the number of people who attended or the type of questions posed, or the views given at the public open meeting on30th June.

4.       This report also fails to give any analysis of the number of people who attended each drop-in session, the questions that were asked and views given at these sessions. As a consultation exercise we would consider it imperative to do so. For example, we would wish to know whether the views received in the school environments were different from those received in the library.

Question: Why were the meetings not reported on and analysed fully as part of the initial consultation exercise?

Question: Were the type and content of questions and points raised at the different meetings/session different according to the location of the meeting/session? In other words, did the environment meeting/drop-in session influence the type of person attending and what was said?

5.       At the session in the library on 2nd July we know that only 4 members of the public attended. (One of those was a Tilehurst Globe member who attended to see how successful the drop-in session was.)

Question: Is 4 members of the public viewed as being representative of the views of the people of Tilehurst?

The report uses Tilehurst Globe's meeting of 16th July as substantive evidence but fails to report fully on the outcome of the meeting

1.       Tilehurst Globe hosted a meeting which was specifically labelled an information gathering session. The purpose of the Tilehurst Globe meeting was to allow the public to understand what the proposals implied while not in the school or library environment. This report partially uses information from the Tilehurst Globe meeting to support their stance, but fails to report fully on this meeting. The minutes of the Tilehurst Globe meeting have been widely distributed and are available on the Tilehurst Globe website.

2.      The report states 3.5 The Tilehurst Globe has engaged fully with this consultation...

However, we invited the officers connected with this scheme to our meeting on 16 July on the express understanding that our meeting was a question and answer session and that we did not wish the meeting to be considered to be an integral part of the initial consultation process. The attendance of RBC officers was for the benefit of the public and our members to better inform them of the proposals and allow local people not directly connected with the schools to find out what is going on.

3.       This was one of a series of meetings where we have invited speakers to give us information about local matters, for example, in January and February 2003 Pat Baxter and Colin Thomson came and talked about the local area enhancement scheme; in June 2003 Joe Devaney talked about the plans for the new health clinic. Indeed, Jo Lovelock came to a previous meeting (2nd November 2002) to outline the Park Lane proposals to our members. We also invited Alex Kennedy to talk about Libraries for the 21st Century, but he was unable to come at the last minute.

4.       About 60 people attended our 16th July meeting. At the end or our meeting we had a show of hands for and against the proposals as outlined by the officers at the meeting. The vote was 6 for the proposals and the rest (54) against the proposals . This was not mentioned by RBC in this report.

Question: Why was the show of hands omitted from the report?

5.       This report has therefore attempted to make the involvement of Tilehurst Globe appear to be part of RBC's initial consultation exercise but has succinctly failed to report fully on the outcome of the meeting.

Question: Because the meetings/drop-in sessions were not reported fully, is there any method of determining whether the views expressed at the Tilehurst Globe meeting were substantially different from those expressed at other meetings/drop-in sessions.

6.       Our connection with the Park Lane Relocation project is part of our ongoing Planning for Real activity. We have undertaken a number of surveys throughout the year. Previous results have been given to the Agenda 21 Forum and published with the minutes. The two surveys that we undertook in the summer were conducted at the June fete in Victoria Rec and the Triangle. The results of these surveys have also been submitted and discussed at the last Agenda 21 Forum, which took place on 1st September 2003 and should also be published with the minutes.  The surveys showed about 10% support for the Park Lane Relocation proposals.

The Agenda 21 Forum also agreed the following:

The Agenda 21 Forum notes the consultation taking place and the imminent decision of the future of Park Lane Primary School and Blagrave Recreation Ground, and would ask:

a)      That the consultation process initiated by the Agenda 21 Forum and overseen by the Consultation Control Board be duly implemented and fully considered;

b)      That the 17 characteristics of a sustainable society, as identified  in Reading Borough Council's Local Agenda 21 strategy, be taken into consideration;

c)      That opportunities for an holistic view of the various development proposals and ongoing reviews impacting upon the area (including Park Lane School proposals, the Local Area Enhancement Plan and the Open Spaces Review) be taken.

This should now have been received by council officers connected with this project.

7.       Tilehurst Globe specifically asked to be kept informed of the progress of this project. Since our meeting we have had no feedback, indeed we have not been sent a copy of the cabinet report.

The report fails to report on a number of views given to RBC

1.       We know that a number of people wrote letters expressing their views. These alternative methods of reporting are not mentioned in the report. We do not know how many people send in letters, emails etc.

Question: How many people sent in their views using methods other than by using the reply slip?

Question: What other methods were used?

Question: Has this alternative information been collated?

Home