Present: Chairman - Cllr R R Dray (RD), Cllr C C Cannell (CC), Cllr D S Efde (DE), Cllr A H Eves (AE), Cllr Mrs E P Gadsdon (EG), Cllr J N Gooding, Cllr M Hoy (MH), Cllr J L Lawmon (JRL), Cllr Mrs J R Lumley (JRL), Cllr Mrs C M Mason (CM), Cllr D Merrick (DM), Cllr R Milne (RM), Cllr Mrs C E Roe (CR), Cllr Mrs L Shaw (LS), Cllr D J Sperring (DS), Cllr C M Stanley (CS), Cllr M J Steptoe (MS), Cllr I H Ward (IW), Cllr M G Wilkinson (MGW), Cllr A L Williams (AW), Cllr S E Wootton (SW), Angela Hutchings (AH), Angela Law (AH), Dawn Tribe (DT), Matt Harwood-White (MHW), Naomi Lucas (NL), George Farley, gbpartnerships (GF), Nikki Hopkins, gbpartnerships (NH), Andrew Rowson (AR), Duncan Blackie (DB), Lisa Newport (LN), Peter Buist (PB),
Apologies:
Notes: Helen Lock
Duration: 19:30 to 21:29
Note 49/21
Election of Chairman
Arrangements for nomination and election of Chair.
Cllr M J Steptoe proposed Cllr R R Dray to be elected Chairman of the Partnership Panel for the forthcoming year. This was seconded by Cllr D S Efde
A vote was taken by a show of hands as follows:
For (6): Cllr Efde, Cllr Eves, Cllr Mrs Lumley, Cllr Sperring, Cllr Steptoe
Abstained (1): Cllr Stanley
Cllr R R Dray was duly elected Chairman.
Cllr Mike Steptoe thanked the Members of the Partnership Panel for their support over the last few months and handed over to the new Chairman Cllr Robin Dray
Cllr Robin Dray thanked the Members of the Partnership Panel for their trust in him and also thanked Cllr Mike Steptoe for the professional and inclusive way that he had Chaired previous meetings. Members, Officers and guests including George Farley and Nikki Hopkins from gbpartnerships were welcomed to the meeting.
Note 50/21
Notes of meeting held on 23 April and matters arising
The notes were agreed as an accurate record with one correction:
Item 46/21 - Risk Analysis. The “3 risks identified” should read the “3 principal objectives identified”.
MHW confirmed that Minutes would be available in the Members’ Drop, to include Minutes of past meetings.
Note 51/21
Presentation of Engagement Feedback
The Chairman advised that the presentation on feedback was for all Members and stressed that no formal decisions had yet been taken. Any formal decisions would be for full Council in the autumn as previously advised. The presentation would be given by DT and NH. Questions would be taken after the presentation, firstly from Members of the Partnership Panel and then from other Members. The contents of the presentation (sent in advance to all Members as a P&C document) and any information should be treated as Private & Confidential for information and for the purpose of discussing the next stage. All feedback would be considered by the Council formally and publicly once the Partnership Panel and the Partnership Board had been updated. As a courtesy all information was being imparted to interested parties which would result in due process.
DT introduced the presentation and explained that it was a consolidation of the feedback on both the Rochford and Rayleigh sites
NH introduced herself to the meeting Feedback received was a as a result of a rigorous engagement process. Various methods had been utilised despite the challenges of Covid-19. These included:
- Creation of the Voyage Partnership website;
- Stakeholder Focus Groups;
- Partnership Panel meetings;
- Design User Groups;
- Pre-Application Engagement.
- Call back service
Rochford sites
The two-week pre-application consultation window had been extended. The information contained within the presentation sent in advance to Members including numbers of responses, the key themes and verbatim comments was presented.
Rayleigh sites
The pre-application engagement window had also been extended due to the high level of responses. The information contained within the presentation sent in
Note 52/21
Member Questions
- NH confirmed that whilst engagement methods with the public had been slightly different to what was planned due to Covid-19, in her experience the numbers responding were on a par with usual, if not slightly higher.
- MHW confirmed that results of the survey would be released publicly once feedback had been reviewed by both the Partnership Panel and the Partnership Board.
- NH confirmed that usage data from the Voyage Partnership website was collected and reported on. Although she did not have the actual numbers to hand, there had been a spike (in the hundreds) of the amount of traffic to the website following the webinar.
- NH advised that gbpartnerships had not been in correspondence with the Theatre Trust. However, RDC had received correspondence from them and were responding as part of the engagement.
- NH advised the Partnership Panel that at this stage the proposals had been shared with the public. The feedback that had been sought and received would be listened to.
- Concern was raised around parking and MHW advised that the output specification set out the requirement for the amount of public car parking to be retained and planning policy set the requirements for the residential proposals. The proposals were compliant in terms of the output specification and the parking policy.
- AL reminded Members that any wider discussions around parking/design and application should not be included in Partnership Panel meetings. Discussions should be around the feedback received and questions arising from that feedback.
There were no further questions from the Partnership Panel and the Chairman opened questions up to other attendees:
- MHW confirmed that results of the survey and feedback would be publicly available after it had been to the Partnership Board. The final decision (‘stop/go’ decision for all sites bar The Mill site would be taken in Autumn this year, with the Mill site planned for February 2022). The decision would be made by Council.
- NH confirmed that feedback was received in many different ways and was fed back to the design team and the wider team.
- MHW confirmed that the letter received from Theatre Trust as part of this process and the response to it would be included with feedback to be released publicly. The National Trust Local Committee had also been fully informed as part of the Stakeholder Focus Group meetings. Furthermore, any statutory consultees would be consulted with at the planning stage.
- A comment was made that the feedback should be made available in time for the next Council meeting.
- Concern was raised about the low engagement response and the nature of those responses.
- A request was made to share the survey results sooner rather than later. However, efforts to engage with the public through various different methods were applauded.
AR introduced himself as an Advisor from the LGA supporting officers on the Programme, AR commented that the consultation process had, in his opinion, been robust and professional and had been carried out well, particularly in difficult circumstances. Negative comments on a survey were not unusual and it was for Members to decide on how to use that information.
AH confirmed that the feedback (anonymised) would be publicly released by the end of June after it had been to the Partnership Board for further review. The results did not need to go to full Council prior to being released.
- AH confirmed that the letter from the Theatres Trust together with the letter from the National Trust Local Committee would be released to Members before being shared with the public. To share all feedback with members before public release was, however, a huge task and a technical solution would need to be looked at if possible. In the meantime, specific items could be discussed outside of this meeting if members wished to raise them.
- A comment was made that the project was for the whole district. Also, previous consultations had also had a predominantly negative response. Those that don’t respond were often in the majority. Whilst there were concerns about various aspects, not many people had indicated that it was a bad thing to rationalise assets and give the public a better service.
- AH confirmed that she had made no statement to the press that this project had been paused as this had been suggested by a visiting member.
- A comment was made that Members must take notice of and listen to those that have responded to the survey.
- SW advised that in light of responses received it would be discourteous not to pause and reflect. He would be calling for a pause whilst the results of the engagement process were considered. AH advised that the programme allowed for time to reflect on feedback and no decision would be made before this was brought before full Council. For clarity “pause” did not mean that everything in the programme stops. The process itself allowed for a period to pause and to consider feedback by the Partnership Panel and in turn the Partnership Board. The options would then be reviewed and corporate governance would follow. AH committed to share feedback before the end of June.
Note 53/21
Items for next Partnership Board
- That the Partnership Board consider amending the current Terms of Reference to allow for a Vice-Chair to be proposed for all future meetings of the Partnership Panel commencing with the next meeting of the Partnership Panel.
- That the Partnership Board consider the engagement feedback and advise as to how best to proceed in light of the responses from residents, particularly with regard to the feedback received in relation to the Mill Hall site in Rayleigh.
- That the Partnership Board look at the possibility of direct funding for, but not limited to, arts and culture in relation to the Mill Hall site, and if there is suitable funding, whether this could result in a variation to the current plans for that site under the Asset Delivery Programme.
- That there will be an improvement and major increase in communication and publicity to deter false/misinformation.
- That the economic reasons for the asset review be better communicated to the public.
- That due consideration should be taken of the benefits of having a more modern building for carbon neutrality, rather than trying to adapt a building that was built some time ago. It is common knowledge that today’s modern techniques give a far better carbon neutrality which is the aim of the Council’s step policy by 2030.
Note 54/21
Any Other Business
Next meeting is on 15 June 2021