Agenda item

A.   Evaluating The Provision Of A People’s Panel (Recommendation #33)

B.   Evaluating The Provision Of A Citizens’ Assembly (Recommendation #39)

C.   Piloting The Place Standard Tool (Recommendation #39)

5A. Evaluating The Provision Of A People’s Panel (Recommendation #33)

RESOLVED: Members of the LDWG agreed that a People’s Panel should not be set-up in Lewisham at this time, although the detailed analysis and resultant discussion noted the potential benefits of a People’s Panel model in some circumstances.

RESOLVED: Officers to explore more bespoke options for involving seldom-heard communities in the business and decision-making of the Council and report back to the Working Group in early 2020. Other LDR recommendations currently underway within the ‘Public Involvement’ theme will also consider effective engagement with the seldom-heard as an integral part of their evaluation.

5B. Evaluating The Provision Of A Citizens’ Assembly (Recommendation #39)

RESOLVED: Members of the LDWG welcomed the report but, following a robust discussion on the cost-benefits of Citizens’ Assemblies and consideration of other public involvement mechanisms that have emerged from the Local Democracy Review or are already in use across the Council, it was agreed that the Working Group would not recommend to Mayor & Cabinet that a Citizens’ Assembly be undertaken at this time. However the detailed analysis and resultant discussion noted the potential benefits of a Citizens’ Assembly model in some circumstances.

RESOLVED: Salena Mulhere agreed to engage with the Director of Culture & Community Development about how existing borough-wide mechanisms for civic participation (such as Local Assemblies) can be better utilised.

5C. Piloting The Place Standard Tool (Recommendation #39)

RESOLVED: Members of the LDWG agreed that the Place Standard tool should be piloted in support of the Neighbourhood Community Infrastructure Levy (NCIL) process as well as broader Neighbourhood Development initiatives where appropriate.

5A. Evaluating The Provision Of A People’s Panel (Recommendation #33)

Stewart Weaver-Snellgrove introduced the report and summarised its key points, including:

§  Purpose and operation of People’s Panels (e.g. how participants are selected, the frequency of meetings)

§  Cost implications of setting up and managing a People’s Panel

§  Overall strengths and weaknesses of the People’s Panel approach

§  A case study of the Lewisham Citizens’ Panel (1997-2007)

§  Outputs from a benchmarking exercise with a selection of local authorities who have established Citizens’ Panels

He then presented the four options outlined in the report for delivering this recommendation to the LDWG for consideration and recommended that option 4 be agreed.

The following points were highlighted in the subsequent discussion:

§  Many of the panels used by other local authorities were not representative, but rather an expensive way of encouraging more residents to respond to consultations – other mechanisms (e.g. information on Council Tax bills) could be used to do this instead

§  It was important for communities to have sufficient time to reflect on consultations (Stewart Weaver-Snellgrove confirmed that the Council’s engagement guidance provided advice on the suggested duration of consultations)

§  The creation of a ‘local entrusted resident’ (based on the Local Entrusted Organisation model) should be explored, particularly in relation to seldom-heard groups and individuals

§  If the LDWG agreed not to set up at People’s Panel at this time, then would this place more pressure on the delivery of other recommendations, such as the provision of information in places that constituents use and meet (#16) and expanding the model of councillor surgeries (#17). Stewart Weaver-Snellgrove advised that work regarding these recommendations was underway and a report would be presented to the LDWG in March 2020

RESOLVED: Members of the LDWG agreed that a People’s Panel should not be set up in Lewisham at this time (option 4), although the detailed analysis and resultant discussion noted the potential benefits of a People’s Panel model in some circumstances.

RESOLVED: Officers to explore more bespoke options for involving seldom-heard communities in the business and decision-making of the Council and report back to the Working Group in early 2020. Other LDR recommendations currently underway within the ‘Public Involvement’ theme will also consider effective engagement with the seldom-heard as an integral part of their evaluation.

5B. Evaluating The Provision Of A Citizens’ Assembly (Recommendation #39)

Stewart Weaver-Snellgrove introduced the report and summarised its key points, including:

§  Purpose and operation of a Citizens’ Assembly (e.g. key features, when should a Citizens’ Assembly be used, how participants are selected, average duration of an assembly)

§  Overall strengths and weaknesses of the Citizens’ Assembly approach

§  Cost implications of setting up and managing a Citizens’ Assembly

§  Proposal to focus on climate change as a topic for Lewisham

§  Outputs from a comparison exercise between Citizens’ Assemblies on this topic previously held in Lewisham (2005) and Camden (2019)

§  Proposal and indicative timeline for a new Citizens’ Assembly (approval by Mayor and Cabinet, procurement of provider, delivery and implementation/evaluation)

The following points were highlighted in the subsequent discussion:

§  The Council was due to hold a climate forum in late January 2020, which would take the form of a ‘listening event’

§  There were concerns about whether the questions developed for Camden’s Citizen’s Assembly were contentious enough and if the assembly had provided sufficient understanding of the trade-offs that residents were prepared to make. Members also discussed whether residents/attendees should be provided with the questions in advance of the assembly and if Camden’s assembly was fully representative

§  There was an opportunity to refresh the Local Assemblies programme and re-evaluate the Council’s community development function as a whole – this work should look at the relationship between this function and the corporate centre, increase the focus on seldom-heard groups and enhance activities that directly add value (e.g. community conversations)

RESOLVED: Members of the LDWG welcomed the report but, following a robust discussion on the cost-benefits of Citizens’ Assemblies and consideration of other public involvement mechanisms that have emerged from the Local Democracy Review or are already in use across the Council, it was agreed that the Working Group would not recommend to Mayor & Cabinet that a Citizens’ Assembly be undertaken at this time. However the detailed analysis and resultant discussion noted the potential benefits of a Citizens’ Assembly model in some circumstances.

RESOLVED: Salena Mulhere agreed to engage with the Director of Culture & Community Development about how existing borough-wide mechanisms for civic participation (such as Local Assemblies) can be better utilised.

5C. Piloting The Place Standard Tool (Recommendation #39)

Stewart Weaver-Snellgrove introduced the report and summarised its key points, including:

§  Purpose and cost implications of the Place Standard Tool

§  Operation of the tool (14 different element)

§  Evidence for how the tool has been used by Kirklees Council

§  Options for using the tool in Lewisham

The following points were highlighted in the subsequent discussion:

§  L&Q are currently using the Place Standard Tool, so the LDWG should seek feedback on their experience

§  The tool provides an opportunity for members, officers and residents to think more holistically about communities

§  There were concerns about how easily the tool could be used as a comparator across different wards, but it was agreed that its main purpose was to identify specific priorities for communities (and so the importance placed by residents on different elements would necessarily be different, depending on the area)

RESOLVED: Members of the LDWG agreed that the Place Standard tool should be piloted in support of the Neighbourhood Community Infrastructure Levy (NCIL) process as well as broader Neighbourhood Development initiatives where appropriate.