A consultation by West Sussex Council to the public has resulted in a number of changes to the service including a change in opening and closing and the implementation of charges.
But an investigation by Crawley News 24 has discovered some serious concerns including the inclusion of leading questions within the survey and the complete ignoring of residents views asking the question what the whole point of the consultation was.
The consultation was as a result of a review undertaken by the West Sussex Council’s Waste Department who needed to identify savings of £2 million per annum.
The final report claimed:
“The review has shown that, whilst our current provision is well run, there are many efficiencies that can be made that would still provide an effective service – and in instances relating to fly-tipping, an improved one – and still achieve significant savings for the authority and taxpayers.”
The report was finalised following 4899 responses to a public consultation across a wide demographic of West Sussex costing the council almost £16,000.
But analysis of the consultation has highlighted what appears to be leading questions.
The first and main question in the survey asked:
Thinking about the time you normally visit, what is your view on the proposed opening hours?
But of the five answers available, three all started with “I support the proposed changes…” meaning that if you wanted a change in hours you had to support the proposed ones first.
The council were quick to point out that an option to choose “i don’t agree” was available and there was even space for comments but it doesn’t answer why leading questions were used in the first place.
Gemma is a resident in Ifield who has regularly used the centre while refurbishing her home. “I wanted to be able to go in the evenings but either I accepted the proposal and a suggestion for later opening times or I just rejected the whole thing. My thought was if it just got rejected then we would end up having to start it all over again with another proposal. Why didn’t they just change the questions to ‘do you want it open later or earlier?’”
A spokesperson from West Sussex Council said:
“Each question on the consultation had a blank box for people to submit their views. There were no restrictions on this and people could comment in their own words with their opinions. The information gathered was analysed and considered when decisions were made.”
So information gathered, analysed and considered but now it also appears it was also ignored.
One question asked:
To what extent do you agree or disagree with introducing charging to cover the cost of disposal of non-household waste?
An overwhelming majority making up almost 33% strongly disagreed and yet in the final decision report there are suddenly charges being applied.
The council responded again:
“These changes had to be made due to the need to make substantial savings following reduced government funding, and to avoid cutting other critical services.”
So if there is a clear objective necessary and there is no intention to follow what the public want then why hold a public consultation that cost thousands for no other reason than what appears to be ‘lip service’?
Clearly the public need to voice an opinion but an opinion only matters if it is listened to and if a majority say one thing then in a democratic society you would expect that to lead the final decision…
…except here.
Article originally appeared on Crawley News 24
The Institute cannot confirm the accuracy of this story or confirm that it presents a balanced view. If you feel this is inaccurate we would welcome your perspective and evidence that this is the case
