Issue - meetings

At its meeting on 18 November 2024 the Overview and Scrutiny Board agreed to establish a working group to consider the BCP Council developing Consultation Framework in response to report brought to the Board on Consultation methods and responses The group met three twice during April and May 2025.  Subsequently, the Board requested the working group to broaden its original remit to include an examination of recent consultations and examples of previous consultations, with a view to identifying any lessons that could be applied to future practice. The working group met a further 4 times from September to December to undertake this task and formulate recommendations to improve issues around consultations. The findings of the working group and detail explaining the rationale behind the recommendations which the Working Group have formulated are summarised in the appendix to this report.

The Lead Member of the Working Group presented a report, a copy of which had been circulated to each Member and a copy of which appears as Appendix 'A' to these minutes in the Minute Book.  It was explained that at its meeting on 18 November 2024 the Overview and Scrutiny Board agreed to establish a working group to consider the BCP Council developing Consultation Framework in response to the report brought to the Board on Consultation methods and responses Subsequently, the Board requested the working group broaden its original remit to include an examination of recent consultations and examples of previous consultations, with a view to identifying any lessons that could be applied to future practice. The findings of the working group and detail explaining the rationale behind the recommendations which the Working Group had formulated were presented to the Board. The officers who supported the working group and the relevant portfolio holder also addressed the Board. There were a number of points raised in discussion of this issue including:

• Managing expectations: It was emphasised that expectation‑setting was crucial, particularly where views will be divided; caution was advised regarding councillor commentary on social media during live consultations.
• Notification for ward members: Several members stated that 24‑hour notice had sometimes been experienced and that longer lead‑in was necessary for effective local engagement. Members asked for sufficient detail prior to launch and not merely awareness that a consultation would occur.
• Councillor conduct: Concerns were expressed about online conduct and misinformation. It was noted that Councillor behaviour is governed by the Code of Conduct and Standards processes, with limited sanctions; the working group had focused on improving methodology rather than policing conduct. 
• Confidentiality: A suggestion to withdraw early‑notification privileges from any councillor who breached confidentiality was raised; officers cautioned this would be impractical to operate and outside the consultation team’s remit, suggesting any such measures belong with conduct/standards governance
• Clear framing on survey purpose: Members supported prominent explanation that consultations inform, but do not decide, and suggested link‑through to the published framework; a “tick acknowledgement” was discussed as a possible nudge to improve comprehension. Officers agreed to incorporate clearer front‑end statements upon framework approval.
• Representative Sampling / Citizens’ Panel: Clarification was provided that a Citizens’ Panel (distinct from a Citizens’ Assembly) would be a representative sample recruited via professional methods (e.g., telephone/online sampling and face‑to‑face intercepts), used alongside open consultations for surveys/focus groups to reach broader, less polarised views. Cost and methodology (including mobile recruitment and geographic/demographic spread) were noted.
• Method and engagement: Members advocated creative, hands‑on approaches (e.g., participatory budgeting exercises) to help residents understand trade‑offs, noting past local examples and recent panel work on town centre priorities that used budget‑reallocation scenarios.
• Question Design: It was proposed that the framework state explicitly that questions would be meaningful and capable of informing decisions (not merely objective/non‑leading). Officers undertook to review the draft to ensure this intent is explicit.
• Professional standards:  ...  view the full minutes text for item 103