Agenda item

That the following comments be referred to Mayor and Cabinet and copied to Business Panel for information:

1)    Safer Stronger Communities Select Committee have reviewed the proposed NCIL procedures at ward level and borough-wide level and have concerns about both the structure and the overall strategy. For example, the Committee is concerned regarding the engagement process having the ability to engage with a broad sector of the community. The Committee is also concerned that there were data flaws and errors in the process.

2)    The Committee therefore request that the decision on the NCIL borough-wide pot be paused in order that it can be reviewed more widely.

5.1       Winston Castello and James Lee introduced the report to the Committee. In the discussion that followed, the following key points were made:

·         It was important to understand how far the engagement techniques were able to get a broad range of views representing the whole of the community.

·         Local Assemblies did not necessarily reflect the demographics of their area and therefore it could be problematic for them to be used as a consultation tool without broader engagement.

·         A number of members raised concerns that the methods of consultation used by Common Place did not work well for the NCIL process. For example the top priority in Catford South was listed as “transport and roads” but as a ward with only £20,000 there was very little that could be done towards transport and it may therefore look like people were not being listened to.

·         In response the Committee were informed that the consultation continued to be a learning process. It wasn’t possible to have bespoke consultation mechanisms for each individual local assembly but it was important to have a mechanism that was broader than just individual attendees due to the sums of money involved in some wards. It was acknowledged that the nature of the system that asked people to look at a map and drop a pin meant it led people to think of projects that were sometimes too broad for the sums of money involved.

·         A member of the committee said that the data the local assembly had received from the consultation had been wrong and the numbers did not add up. The process forced people to think about particular themes. For example as it was a map based process if someone was thinking about poverty it would not be clear where to drop a pin. Also the pre-listed criteria that people were given was based on criteria such as air quality and roads without options for community themed ideas and there was very little meaningful and comparable equalities data collected.

·         A member of the Committee stated that for the borough-wide money it would be good to have more consultation from a wide range of the community.

·         A member of the Committee commented that it should be clear about from where the priorities for the borough-wide pot allocation were drawn up and the focus on mitigating the impact of local development should be maintained.

·         A member of the committee was commented that the on-going sustainability of funds needed to be considered.

·         A member of the Committee commented that the Common Place consultation website was a bit confusing and there had been confusion between the themes and the projects and the process in general unless they attended the assembly meeting. If the remit and details of the money was clearer as well as details of the decision-making it would improve the process.

·         A member of the Committee was concerned that the allocation of NCIL money through the Local Assemblies was not appropriate as it was not representative enough of all communities and needs of residents.

·         A member of the Committee commented that the proposals for the borough-wide pot seemed to not have been generated by public consultation or input and that therefore a referral should be made to ensure that the equalities implications were fully considered.

·         The Committee were informed that consultation for the borough-wide money had included a range of different mechanisms but more work would continue to be done to streamline consultation mechanisms.

5.2       RESOLVED:

That the following comments be referred to Mayor and Cabinet and copied to Business Panel for information:

1)    Safer Stronger Communities Select Committee have reviewed the proposed NCIL procedures at ward level and borough-wide level and have concerns about both the structure and the overall strategy. For example, the Committee is concerned regarding the engagement process having the ability to engage with a broad sector of the community. The Committee is also concerned that there were data flaws and errors in the process.

2)    The Committee therefore request that the decision on the NCIL borough-wide pot be paused in order that it can be reviewed more widely.