Manipulation of consultation results

This section relates to a separate formal complaint made in 2011. It is included to demonstrate the incredible (and frankly rather bizarre) lengths the council will go to manipulate this consultation and also the way in which it repeatedly covers up its actions.

In February 2011, in the DPD Allocations consultation, the council's proposals for Hockley were unanimously rejected by all 496 respondents (many of whom used a standard 'pro-forma' form of response).

Bizarrely, the council then manipulated the consultation by diverting 460 legitimate responses to a section other than that for which were clearly marked and properly intended ("TC7/9"). The council correctly recorded the comments under Section TC7 but, for unknown reasons, posted the comments to Section E10 instead of the specified TC9. This was despite the very clear heading and the fact that Section E10 was not mentioned anywhere in the objections.

Their action denied those 460 people (including myself) their democratic right to have their valid objection recorded as intended. They repeatedly refused to correct this and gave numerous, different, conflicting reasons for its actions. None of the responses remotely suggests an appropriate reason for posting the comments to section E10 and resulted in the HRA making a formal complaint.

The council eventually acknowledged overriding residents' clear instructions by posting objections to a different section, but still have not accepted that their policy was inappropriate. The varying and contradictory explanations clearly demonstrated a corporate 'cover-up' mentality, further discouraging any confidence in the consultation process. The final review undertaken by the then RDC Deputy Chief Executive, Graham Woolhouse (GW), appears to have been very superficial and another 'whitewash'.

It is clear that RDC has been repeatedly abusing the consultation process by ignoring and/or manipulating consultation results during the wider Core Strategy process

The Council's responses:
1. "Each representation can only be placed against one policy / section of the document to which it is made against (although a single response may contain multiple representations)." (Sam Hollingworth (SH), Project Leader, 11 August 2010).

Comment: This was totally inappropriate as the responses had already been registered twice!
* GW's response makes no reference to the clear designation expressed by all 460 respondents and suggests he did not even examine the original submissions (likewise for Mr Scrutton's response).
* GW also states "Nevertheless, I must reiterate that the respondents have the opportunity to request that the way in which their representation has been registered be changed." This seems oblivious to the fact that this is exactly what I was complaining about i.e my request to change had been repeatedly refused! So, in essence, his response totally agrees with my complaint whilst still rejecting it!


2. "all the comments received are shown; all are registered against options / sections chosen by respondents (including your representation on the Hockley town centre boundary which you yourself registered against Option TC7) or, if not specified, comments were registered against what was felt to be the most appropriate option / section" (Sam Hollingworth (SH), Project Leader, 11 August 2010).
Comment: This was totally inappropriate as the designated option was clearly specified!

3. "when a resident submits comments in this way, they must choose which section / policy / option their comment is to be registered against. However, if representations are submitted by post or email and the response gives no information about the specific sections or policies to which the representation is intended to apply, then Officers inputting the information to JDi must decide which policy / option / section they are registered against" Shaun Scrutton, Head of Planning 25 August 2010.
Comment: This was totally inappropriate as, again, the designated option was clearly specified!

1. "In terms of determining how responses are registered on the system, in cases where responses are received in a form other than through our online system, Officers must make a judgement as to which section of the document they best relate to" (Graham Woolhouse, Deputy Chief Executive 27 August 2010)
Comment: Confirms residents' wishes are not material but at least this response appears to accurately represent the way the council actually views consultations!

2. "I could see no particular reason why a generic response could not be posted to multiple locations just so long as the comments contained therein were relevant to that section. It transpired that the software that the council had at its disposal did not facilitate this concept; I then encouraged our officers to discuss this dilemma with the providers of the software and a method of cloning was subsequently devised." Cllr Keith Hudson 8 September 2010. Comment: This response suggests that the problem was a software issue and contradicts the officers' assertions that they were following standard procedures. We believe that this is probably the closest to the truth.

3. "Whilst you may personally disagree with the decision to register the text in question against Option E10, the Council is of the view that - having regard to the content of the representation and that of Option E10 - such action was entirely appropriate."
The final review undertaken by the then RDC Deputy Chief Executive, Graham Woolhouse (GW), appears to have been very superficial and another 'whitewash' because: Clearly he finds nothing wrong with this overriding of clear, specific and appropriate instructions from respondents.
Comment:
* GW's response makes no reference to the clear designation expressed by all 460 respondents and suggests he did not even examine the original submissions (likewise for Mr Scrutton's response).
* GW also states "Nevertheless, I must reiterate that the respondents have the opportunity to request that the way in which their representation has been registered be changed." This seems oblivious to the fact that this is exactly what I was complaining about i.e my request to change had been repeatedly refused! So, in essence, his response totally agrees with my complaint whilst still rejecting it!