Salisbury Democracy Alliance

Tag: Salisbury City Council

  • SDA comes of age

    SDA makes successful presentation to Area Board

    The Alliance was able to report to the Salisbury Area Board on 3 July following the three successful People’s Assemblies we ran in the City. The response was on the whole positive and we did feel that we have made some progress in our quest to improve the manner in which decisions are made in the local political sphere.  We are grateful to Karen Linaker for her help in arranging for our presentation.

    Mark Potts presented the results of the three assemblies noting that around a 100 people attended at least one of the meetings and some all three.  It demonstrated a keen interest by people who were concerned and interested in the future of the City and wanted to be involved in what happened.

    There were two main types of consultation: DAD and EDD he said.  They stood for Decide – Announce – Defend and, Engage – Deliberate – Decide.  Unfortunately, there had been a tendency towards the former where people felt proposals had all been decided and their involvement was just a formality. The Alliance was naturally enough, keener on the second approach.

    The top five

    After the three meetings the top five issues emerged.  They were:

    1. Housing and issues around quality and affordability
    2. Traffic and transport
    3. A Community Hub
    4. An Environment Centre
    5. A college for the performing arts

    A full description of these and a brief report of the final assembly, can be found on this link.

    Mark said that present in the room, were the five ‘champions’ for each of these ideas and he suggested the next step is some kind of engagement with councillors and others. He mentioned the idea of citizen’s juries, another idea being promoted by SDA, which has been successfully used to tackle more complex problems.  It was true they cost money but the cost of getting these things wrong needs also to be considered.  They have the advantage of engaging experts into the debate and engaging a cross section of citizens in the process.

    Responses

    In response to Mark’s presentation, councillors had some questions and comments.

    Cllr Sven Hocking asked how will those who took part in this event or SDA help councillors find the budget.  Mark replied that it was not the role of SDA to try and manage the council’s budget.  We were only seeking to submit ideas.

    Cllr Ricky Rogers said on the housing issue, it was government who decide.  Developers were in a strong position he said.  This was a matter which came up in our debates and is a fair point. 

    Cllr Ed Rimmer was more sceptical.  He thought it better for people to engage in the existing system.  He questioned whether the [five priorities] reflected the wishes of the wider community. Is there not a risk that what is proposed subverts the [electoral] system we have?  After all, the councillors here have been voted in to represent people. How can SDA demonstrate political balance?

    In replying Mark said we were not suggesting our method was better. He stressed people had given up their time.  The point was our method was deliberative.

    Cllr John Wells said he had attended one of the sessions. He suggested some of the ideas should be built into the things they are engaged in already.

    There followed a general debate in which it was stressed that the process was about helping the councillors do their job.  It was agreed that better engagement was wanted and was a good idea.

    Cllr Paul Sample (Chair) said the work was opportune.  There was a review of the Area Boards underway and he welcomed the ideas and energy put in.  “Keep doing what you’re doing – it’s not wasted!” 

    Comment

    After the work put into organising and running the three assemblies, we were encouraged with the overall response we received. There does seem to be a change of attitude among the majority of councillors that admits they do need input from organised events of this kind.

    It is true that councillors (and members of parliament) are voted in to run things but the question is how many of the public would have read their manifestos before doing so?  How do you accommodate changing circumstances?  Are people only to have a say every 4 or five years?  As new problems or opportunities arise is it not best to tap into any local expertise?

    The three sessions demonstrated the degree of enthusiasm and commitment local people had. The point surely was to bottle some of this enthusiasm and use it to change or improve things. Trust in politics is at a very low ebb. People feel ignored and left out. This kind of deliberative approach would surely put a small dent in that thinking.

    The future

    We shall be meeting soon to consider next steps and there will be a post here so subscribe if you want to remain in touch. Why not join us? We need more people who want to play a role in local affairs. As we have debated in several of our Democracy Café meetings (next one on Saturday July 12th, 10:00 in the Library finishing at noon), the role of parties in the local political scene is doubted by many and is seen as an irrelevance. We are not a political party and our aim is to improve how things are run.

    Peter Curbishley

  • Citizens’ juries

    Exchange of correspondence on the issue, and cost, of Citizens’s Juries

    If there is one thing that is guaranteed to get people agitated is the issue of tax and its related topic, community charge. A key promise by politicians of all shapes and sizes – almost always broken – is that they will keep such taxes low or at least not raise them. They also promise to do this and that policy to improve our lives which usually requires, in some form, er … tax. We will tackle waiting lists (but not raise your taxes), we will sort out the pot holes (but not raise your community charge), we will improve … well you get the idea (but not …).

    I claim no scientific basis for the following but it seems to me that people respond to this issue in one of three broad ways. Firstly, there are those that say ‘they don’t mind paying more tax as long as it’s spent on X’ where X is something they favour e.g. the health service. This is the hypothecation view and it has many problems one of which is different people favour different things they want taxes to be spent on. How do you decide?

    The second group is ‘I wouldn’t mind paying more tax but they only waste it’. ‘Waste’ here can mean many things but it often means, on enquiry, money spent on things they don’t approve of: in the current climate that will be hotel accommodation for the boat people.

    Finally, there are those that believe that lower tax means everyone is better off. It overlooks the simple fact that yes, you can buy some new clothes or go out for a meal or two with the money saved but you can’t buy yourself better roads, a health service, defence and all the other things that make life bearable. Some things just have to be done collectively or they won’t get done at all. Tax is our contribution to a good society.

    So this is part of the backdrop to an exchange of letters in the Salisbury Journal. The Parish Poll conducted by Salisbury City Council recently has produced a huge amount of correspondence and in turn led Cllr Charles McGrath (Con) to write on 27 April, complaining about the conduct of the poll which voted for a cap of 5% on the precept. He then says “This is the administration that pledged to make ‘Your voice Heard’ in their Strategic Plan for Salisbury City Council, and once supported the concept of of self-selecting Citizens’ Juries which have cost some councils £40k – over twice the amount of a parish poll” (our italics).

    This week (4 May) Dickie Bellringer, a member of SDA, replied […] “I would like to correct a piece of misinformation disseminated by Cllr Charles McGrath in last week’s postbag the citizens’ juries are self-selecting. This is untrue. Citizens’ Juries are examples of deliberative democracy for which residents are selected randomly in order to deliberate on important local issues.

    “They can draw on, and interrogate expert witnesses who will provide information.

    “[…] Cllr McGrath writes that Citizens’ Juries have cost some councils £40,000 but Salisbury Democracy Alliance has been campaigning for Citizens’ Juries for many years and, by working with local partners, should be able to produce a Citizens’ Jury for less than £18,000”.

    He finishes by referring to the Talkshop event mentioned in our last post, which takes place on 27 May.

    The idea of letting people’s voices to be heard is a familiar one but few are in possession of the time or expertise to make significant contributions. There is a need for advice, and time for people to digest and understand the complex issues around a local economy. The Strategic plan – referred to by Cllr McGrath – is my view flawed in many respects. See the link above. I wonder how many will have read all the reports and supporting material? Whether it’s £18,000 or Cllr McGrath’s exaggerated £40,000, isn’t it better to find a way to sound and achievable solutions than following the path of a somewhat flawed plan?

    But the backdrop is always the issue of tax and how much we should pay. Politicians are never able to say that lower taxes do not automatically make you better off. The years following austerity has seen spend on a wide range of public services and local authorities decline precipitately with the results we are now witnessing.

    Peter Curbishley

  • Salisbury City Plan – a response

    We receive a response to our comments about the City Plan

    In our previous post, we referred to a letter we had written to the Salisbury Journal lamenting that the preparations for the proposed City Plan had not used a citizens’ assembly. We went on to discuss what we felt to be some of the significant shortcomings in the documents made available. We also wrote to some of the councillors in the same vein as the letter in the Journal and one councillor has replied in the following terms:

    “I understand that you and your colleagues are disappointed, but this is not the beginning of the Neighbourhood Plan process, when an approach such as you suggest might perhaps have been more appropriate.

    Work on the Plan began under the previous administration of this council in 2018 with a well-publicised call for help from volunteer community members. I can see that at that point, a Citizens’ Jury might well have been helpful in setting objectives and priorities. I wasn’t a councillor at that point and I don’t know whether it was suggested. 

    But I do know that over the last three or four years those volunteers, along with some councillors, have put in literally hundreds of hours of work, including holding several public consultations on specific elements of the Plan’s proposals, and by the time I took on the chairmanship almost a year ago it would not have been feasible or desirable to start unpicking what had already been achieved.

    The aim of this latest consultation is to attract responses from as many individuals and interest groups as possible at this stage of this process, known as Regulation 14. We are required to do this as a steering group, and we will have to satisfy an inspector that we have done so. 

    Further stages of consultation will follow, as required by law, after the draft Plan is refined as a result of this exercise, and we will continue to be guided by the advice of our professional neighbourhood planning consultant on how best to proceed with this.

    I know you will not be happy with this answer but we are where we are“.

    We are grateful to the Councillor in taking the trouble to reply. It leaves open several of the points we raised. The idea of a citizens’ assembly was suggested at the beginning of this process. If ‘literally hundreds of hours of work’ by volunteers and councillors have been spent on this, why have some of the glaring omissions we pointed out not been spotted? Why are the alarming predictions of an ageing population – and the deleterious effects that will have on the city’s economy – not been highlighted? It really does look as though the process is charging off in the wrong direction and is gaining a momentum all of itself. The final stages will almost certainly focus on procedural points not on the substance.

    It looks as though the process is too far advanced for a change of direction so truly ‘we are where we are’.

  • Salisbury City Plan

    Welcome if you have come here from seeing a letter concerning the Salisbury City Council Neighbourhood Development Plan (SCCNDP) in the Salisbury Journal (Let citizens have the say (sic) 4 August 2022). The letter expressed disappointment that the Council has decided not to use a Citizens’ Assembly to help prepare such plan. We have tried on several occasions to interest them in this process but so far without success. So what is it all about? It’s how do you go about devising a plan such as the SCCNDP and come up with something which is meaningful, grounded in some evidence, achievable and faces up to the situation Salisbury finds itself in. We believe that the best way to deal with complex issues such as this in the public realm is by using a Citizens’ Assembly.

    A lot of work has gone into the plan and there are elements discussing shopfront designs, a strategic environment assessment, a Churchfields master plan (you can’t say they aren’t brave), housing analysis, and a community survey report among others. SCC has to be commended for this work that has gone into this. There are lots of charts, and coloured diagrams. But having ploughed through report after report, chart after chart and photo after photo several omissions are evident:

    • There is no kind of analysis of where Salisbury sits in terms of other competing commercial centres. Are we doing better than them or worse? Our level of voids is slightly above the national average which, for a prosperous southern city, should surely be a bit of a worry. The City does not exist in isolation and people are free to travel for their shopping or entertainment to other centres. What does the City have to do to attract visitors? Things like the range and quality of restaurants is not mentioned for example.
    • A huge amount of effort has gone into environmental and design issues which one could hardly argue with. But what are they designed to do? What is the purpose of the proposals? A researcher with the Institute of Government says “quick wins on making town centres look nicer are not a long-term fix”. Having nice shopfronts is desirable of course but is it sufficient to enable Salisbury to compete with other centres? I could not find any such argument to support the plan.
    • They have also spent money – quite a lot of it by the length of the report – on a Community Survey Report by Community First in Devizes. Astonishingly, the report almost fails from page 8 where it notes that over half the respondents were over 60! It then claims that it is ‘broadly evenly split in terms of gender’ before telling us that 57% were female and 42% were male. A new meaning to ‘evenly split’ I feel. The highest proportion was in the ’69-69′ age group apparently (sic). You cannot claim such an unbalanced set of people can give you anything much meaningful in terms of policy especially in terms of the needs of young people. No conclusions are drawn, there is no executive summary and there are no recommendations.
    • A lot of time has been spent in asking people what they want and needless to say you get responses which are extremely aspirational. Of course people want to protect the environment, who doesn’t? But will they give up their 4x4s to achieve any of this wish list?
    • More money has been spent with an American consulting firm AECOM who have spent a lot of time analysing a range of sites in Salisbury from the point of view of how they might be developed sustainably. Again, all very fine but isn’t it putting the cart before the horse?
    • I could find no mention of Brexit. Whether you are a Remainer or a Brexiter, the effects of leaving the EU cannot be denied either way. Yet there is no analysis of its negative effects or any opportunities there might be.

    All in all, a great deal of time and quite a lot of money has been spent on producing suggested plan after suggested plan without much in the way of cogent analysis of what the City needs to survive. Take the Profile report. Largely descriptive with some history thrown in, it is a kind of ramble around the city educational establishments and infrastructure with the odd random suggestion thrown in such as we need ‘to find means of encouraging innovation’ and we need a ‘well-connected and reliable transport system’ and other such bromides. Since the lack of any such integration has been around for decades, what chance is there achieving anything now or in the immediate future? What powers does the City Council have to achieve any such integration, desirable though it no doubt is? It ends with a collection of foreign town centre photos.

    Having identified ‘finding means of encouraging innovation’ as a goal, one such area is science and technology and links to universities. A page or two later there is this paragraph: ‘Salisbury does not possess a university and given its population size and its proximity to four universities within 25 miles it is unlikely to however the science based industries located in or around the city may make it attractive to universities wishing to locate departments or faculties’. Perhaps it is intended at a later date to encourage a university to locate such a facility here.

    Demographic effects

    The Housing Needs Assessment identifies the imbalance in Salisbury’s housing stock and the need for more social/affordable housing and calculates that there is a need for 1,512 such units over the plan period. It discusses the difficulty of achieving this with developers unwilling to provide them and planning inspectors unlikely to support more forceful planning policies. Powerful developers can bring in expensive surveyors and get affordable housing provision removed or reduced which LPAs are largely powerless to defend. But the key element of the report, and something which will have a profound effect on the plan policy as a whole, is the analysis of the city’s aging population. In short it refers to a ‘dramatic shift in demographics expected in the future: an 85.6% increase in those aged 65 and above‘ and that ‘the elderly population will be 14 times the size of Salisbury’s younger population by 2036‘. The recommendations in the report are bland and of limited utility.

    This is dramatic stuff. Such an imbalance will have significant consequences for the economy. Tarting up shopfronts and planting more trees will not matter if the population becomes more and more elderly. Trying to attract a university faculty to set up will be made much more difficult if there aren’t the young people and limited places for them to live. It will affect spending patterns, the ‘night time economy’ and more and more care homes will be needed. There will be economic impacts with reduced spending, increasing pressure on infrastructure, and what experts term ‘increased dependency’. It is probably true to say this fact alone will be the dominant consideration in the next few years. Yet this potentially explosive fact is hidden somewhat in one of the reports.

    Citizens’ Assembly

    Would an assembly have produced a better result? We would say ‘yes’ of course so we need to say why. Firstly, as we have noted above, if you produce a community report based on an unbalanced and mainly elderly pool of people, you’re going to get an unbalanced result. A CA would properly select a group of people demographically and socially balanced. There is an organisation which would do this for us.

    Secondly, the discussions would be informed by experts. Such experts might suggest for example, what are the important factors in developing a city economically beyond something of an obsession with the environment. Consideration might have been given to looking at Salisbury’s relationships with competing centres of retail and leisure in the vicinity – what are we good at, what needs to improve. Participants would have an opportunity to debate and discuss in detail the elements of a plan not asked to read a collection of unconnected documents. Finally, one would also hope that the process would lead towards the elements of a strategy: where to start and where spend needs to be focused to achieve a realistic outcome. This must be better than expecting people to plough through pages of unconnected reports.

    Policy options from promised legislation also seemed to have been overlooked. The current issue of The Planner* (pp 24 – 27) suggests various policy changes which could be of use in this exercise. For example the Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill (LURB) may introduce rental auctions to enable local authorities to lease a shop which has been empty for at least 366 days. Since Salisbury has slightly above the national average of empty shops, this would be of great value. Easier Compulsory Purchase Orders may also be introduced. These and other proposals may become law in the plan period and are worth considering now.

    Of course, we wish SCC well with this exercise while lamenting a missed opportunity for a more in-depth approach. Most of the responses they have received so far are either ‘satisfied’ or ‘happy’ however, although few who have responded to the detailed reports. The results will go to WC as the LPA thence to an inspector and finally, maybe, a referendum.

    *Street and Level, Journal of the Royal Town Planning Institute, August 2022

    Peter Curbishley