Contact: Peter Brown, ext 6256

1. Summary

1.1 This report summarises the deliberations and final considerations of the Steering Group and stakeholders who have contributed to the Best Value review of Transport Network Improvements. An improvement plan is proposed with four broad outcome areas, namely to provide:

(i) integrated joint working/working smarter;

(ii) fit for purpose solutions;

(iii) an accessible and responsive service; and

(iv) effective people development.

The Committee is asked to endorse its content.

2. The Service under Review

2.1 Under Local Government legislation and the Highways Act the County Council has a statutory duty to fulfil the role of `highway authority' (for all roads other than motorways and trunk roads for which the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions is the highway authority). The County Council's obligation under this legislation is to maintain the integrity and safety of the highway network. Unlike the maintenance of the highway network, where there are standards and targets for the appropriate level of service provided, the level of improvement of the highway network to meet demands and needs is agreed locally and subject to County Council transport policy.

2.2 This review has examined the County Council's activities in implementing schemes to achieve the objectives of its transport policies, contained in the Local Transport Plan, by devising, designing and delivering transport infrastructure improvements on the ground. The review topic was identified in conformity with the service defined as `Infrastructure Development' within the former Planning and Transportation Committee Service Plan. It therefore replaced three reviews originally proposed to cover each of the service's main constituent teams (Transport Policy, Implementation and Engineering Consultancy).

2.3 The initial objectives defined for the service are to deliver schemes which meet national and local policies and corporate objectives by:

(i) implementing improvements to the transport network giving priority to public safety, environmental protection and to people with special mobility needs;

(ii) improving the transport network to meet the identified needs of all sections of the community;

(iii) encouraging the use of alternative means of transport to the private car and road freight by providing and helping to improve travel/transport choice;

(iv) ensuring the transport network is improved in accordance with appropriate Government and local procedures and standards;

(v) implementing improvements to the transport network in accordance with the agreed timescales and budgets of the capital programme; and

(vi) reviewing the effectiveness of the service in meeting the above objectives.

2.4 This service directly involves the equivalent of approximately 130 staff, almost wholly within the County Surveyor's Department. This has also recently been supplemented, through a partnership with a Term Consultant (W S Atkins), by an additional 25 staff, with more being recruited. The service also involves the use of other external consultants who provide technical advice and management of the contactors who construct the final product. The service is dealing with a capital programme that is currently in the order of £23 million per annum (works and fees). The scale of the programme is expected to maintain this level or possibly rise in future years as a result of greater transport investment by the Government. The origin of funding for capital works has mainly been from Central Government and developer contributions. The ability to implement the programme is therefore heavily influenced by external bodies. Mobilisation of resources to meet this new level of programme is continuing and there is a backlog of work which will need to be dealt with, resulting in a peak workload delivery over the next two years before the level of activity settles down to a consistent flow. This review therefore reflects the transitional stage the Council finds itself in and the evolving market situation that prevails.

2.5 The process for developing transport network improvement schemes is summarised in Figure 1. In its simplest form, schemes proposals are developed in concept as part of the area transport strategies by the Transport Policy team. When scheme preparation commences the Transport Policy team undertakes investigations to devise the best way of providing solutions to meet the policy objectives. Staff from the Implementation team then get involved preparing a design brief for the design work undertaken by the Engineering Consultancy. The Engineering Consultancy then take the design work forward, preparing cost estimates and overseeing the tendering of scheme contracts before supervising the implementation of the works by an external contractor. In recent years an increasing proportion of this work has been undertaken by external consultants (including staff of district councils) on an ad hoc basis or by a partner consultant on a long-term contract.

Links to Corporate Aims

2.6 The corporate strategy sets out the County Council's overarching aims and objectives. Aim 2 of the strategy 'Stewardship of the Environment' contains a major corporate focus 'Develop Sustainable Strategic Policies for Land Use Management and Transportation'. Other aims such as Aim 1 'Developing the Quality of Life in Hampshire', Aim 3 'Achieving Economic Prosperity' and Aim 5 'Providing High Quality, Accessible Services' are also supported through the development and implementation of transport network improvements. Transport is key to most activities and its efficient use and improvement, having due regard to the environment, is a major contribution to achieving the corporate aims. The Corporate Strategy also recognises that an effective and efficient transport network will be achieved through:

(i) investing in transport infrastructure; and

(ii) developing and implementing integrated and sustainable transport systems in partnership with stakeholders.

2.7 This service has important, direct relevance to the Corporate Sustainable Development Strategy (specifically travel and transport, but also with many other links to other themes) and links with the devolved corporate strategies for e-government, Crime and Disorder, and Equalities.

Value of Projects

2.8 The transportation capital programme comprises schemes funded through Supplementary Credit Approval (SCA) by Central Government, County Council funded schemes and externally funded schemes, usually related to land development proposals. The level of the capital programme varies in accordance with the nation's economic outlook. Recently, funding levels have more than doubled and forecast funding levels over the next four years vary between £20-£30 million per annum.

2.9 Change in the funding mechanisms from Central Government may add further pressures to budgets but this is an area which has always been volatile and requires a flexible approach to match human resources to budget availability.

Extent of Service

2.10 Delivery of the transportation capital programme includes a wide spectrum of professional officers from various council departments and other external sources. The service is delivered by a mix of public sector and, increasingly, private sector resources which are called upon as necessary to provide the relevant skills.

2.11 The following table provides a detailed forecast breakdown of the average annual involvement of County Council staff engaged in delivering the transport capital programme. This will vary from year to year depending on the size of the programme and the stage of development of the Local Transport Plan. It should be noted that with the recent rapid growth of the financial allocations for this service, additional staff resources are being mobilised to meet the higher demands for design work. It is not therefore practical or relevant to use historic records to determine the likely level of future input. The table below indicates the expected level of resources to deliver a programme of about £25 million based on existing resource utilisation. Also, it is expected that the `smarter' working practices being implemented will limit the additional levels of staff required to less than the scale of increase in the budget and volume of service delivery.

Total fee element of the Transport Capital Programme £8,584,000.

3. Summary of the Review Process

3.1 This review commenced in early 2001 through the formulation of an officer steering group under the leadership of Stuart Reynolds (Chief Engineer - Implementation). This group has overseen the development of the review.

3.2 The first formal stage was the preparation of the review's scope which was agreed by the former Planning and Transportation Best Value Review Panel on 24 April 2001. This early stage had followed the identification of potential improvement areas for the service and these were confirmed for future investigation. The five areas were as follows:

(i) External Service Provision (Should the County Council or someone else do this work?);

(ii) Product Procurement (How should tasks and projects be divided up between different teams and providers?) ;

(iii) Democratic Process and Minimising Bureaucracy (Can the process be made more efficient without prejudicing necessary safeguards?);

(iv) Public Engagement (How can the right information be obtained and more trust and commitment be built whilst maintaining efficiency?); and

(v) Managing and Developing Skills for the Task (How can methods of training and retaining staff be improved?).

Subsequently, a sixth theme emerged during the preliminary considerations of the steering group. This theme related to `Whole Life Costings' (Should (and how could) long term costs and benefits to the County Council, society and the environment be better evaluated?).

3.3 Investigations then commenced in each of these topics assisted by participants attending a series of `challenge workshops' held during June 2001. The participants represented a range of interests, including business partners, competitors, customers, interest and community groups and local authorities. At each of the workshops participants were invited to visualise the elements of an ideal service and to identify the means and barriers to achieving them. They were also invited to comment on any other areas of the service that affected them. The outcomes from the challenge workshops were reported to the former Planning and Transportation Best Value Review Panel on 23 July 2001.

3.4 In tandem with considerations by a panel of non-managerial front line staff and managers within the County Surveyor's Transport Branch, the steering group formulated a number of options and action areas for improvement that would seek to meet the suggested objectives of the ideal service. This evaluation also considered the service against the framework of the European Foundation for Quality Management (EFQM) model and in line with the requirements of the County Council's devolved strategies for sustainable development, equalities, crime and disorder and e-government.

3.5 Whilst consultation had taken place with key stakeholders and interested parties during and in association with the challenge workshops, additional public attitudes research was required on public perceptions of the service. In particular, this centred on the way in which the public were consulted during the preparation of the proposals. As a result a number of learning points were incorporated into the action plan.

3.6 The identified options were presented to the Environment Policy Review Committee on 18 October 2001. These were then considered in more detail by the participants in a second series of challenge workshops held during November 2001. The outputs from these helped refine the proposed action plan submitted with this report.

Consultation - Internal Customers

3.7 A key element of consultation with internal customers was with the elected Members. Their involvement was achieved both through the formal proceedings of committee process and through the more informal challenge workshops.

3.8 Staff consultation was conducted in two ways. Firstly, managers involved in the service contributed to the review through a series of workshops as part of the County Surveyor's Transport Branch development programme. This included a review of the service with regard to the framework set by the EFQM and the County Council's devolved corporate strategies. The views of other staff were elicited mainly through a group of up to 10 non-managerial staff who were invited to contribute, in-depth, issues of staff interest in this service (particularly relating to Managing and Developing Skills) and to complement the actions from other ongoing initiatives following the corporate survey of staff attitudes in 2000. The staff group had five internally facilitated workshops using a discussion guide prepared by MORI and exercises to challenge the emerging findings of the steering group. The group's satisfaction with the robustness and usefulness of the sessions have been independently assessed by the County Council's staff representative. Ad hoc e-mail bulletins and presentations were also used to keep the remainder of the department's staff informed of progress with the review.

Consultation - External Customers

3.9 Consultation with a wide range of the service's stakeholders was conducted mainly through the two series of challenge workshops and associated discussions. These stakeholders included representatives of potential competitor organisations as well as service suppliers and users. Surveys were also commissioned to seek views from external stakeholders, including representative bodies, pressure groups and people not accessed through the usual opinion surveys. These focused on people directly affected by three recent improvement schemes (Lyndhurst High Street, South Hampshire Rapid Transit at Waterlooville and Badger Farm, Winchester). A summary of the main learning points is attached as Appendix 1.

Comparison

3.10 Information to compare Hampshire's performance with that of other local authorities and private sector organisations has been sought through collaborations with the County Council's Term Consultant and the South East Counties Service Improvement Group (SECSIG) and South West Counties benchmarking clubs. This has covered the collation of indicators to measure the effectiveness of processes and service outcomes.

3.11 In common with colleagues at other authorities, the officers have shared concerns about the lack of clarity on the emergence of performance indicators. While there had been much liaison with various benchmarking groups, problems over different definitions of service review topics and organisational structures in different authorities contributed to the inability to identify a clear, uniform set of agreed Performance Indicators (PIs). Indeed, there are no Audit Commission or Best Value Performance Indicators to cover this element of local authority transport responsibilities. In view of this, the Steering Group felt it appropriate to wait until the options for improvement had been confirmed and then identify relevant PIs that would help measure the success in achieving improvement. Where possible these should be tied up with indictors emerging through County Surveyors' Society, SECSIG, etc. As well as Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) it is proposed to compare processes as this may also lead to service improvements. Although not considered as part of the review process comparison with similar organisations, such as water authorities or hospitals, may also provide service improvements.

Competition

3.12 Evolution of this service in the past, partly in response to the requirements of Compulsory Competitive Tendering (CCT), means that it already benefits from using a mix of inhouse provision with that from a very robust private sector for most activities. In particular, part of this service is already provided in close collaboration with a private sector competitor. Information on comparative performance has therefore been examined. Representatives of actual and potential competitor organisations who supply similar services were also involved in the challenge workshops.

Challenge

3.13 Guidance from Central Government clearly indicates the need to consider whether services should be delivered by the private sector or in partnership with the private sector. Arising from the previous CCT initiative the County Surveyor has considered extensively the effective way of delivering this service. The threefold increase in the levels of funding for the Capital Programme in the past two years also led to the need to review who and how this service should be delivered and culminated in the appointment of a private sector partner (W S Atkins) in April 2001 on a three to five year contract. This review has therefore not sought to challenge the concept of private sector investment as it already is in place but has sought to build upon the recent fundamental changes. A further challenge of the service is to question whether it should be delivered. This would normally be undertaken as part of this review, however the need for this service is intrinsic to the Policy Review which will consider what service should be delivered.

3.14 A number of internal exercises with managers have been carried out to test the service's current strengths and areas for improvement. For this, methods from the EFQM model for business excellence were utilised. The resulting areas for improvement were fed into the challenge process.

3.15 The EFQM helped establish perceptions and views from the key stakeholders and staff representatives. To achieve an external focus, invitations were sent to:

(i) colleagues from Dorset County Council, whose size and geography matches Hampshire, and from four district council partners;

(ii) the Term Consultant, W S Atkins;

(iii) the maintenance contractor, Raynesway Construction Southern Limited, and other main contractors;

(iv) stakeholders involved in the Local Transport Plan process; and

(v) representatives of service users and the general public.

3.16 The challenge stage also included consideration of the relationship between this service and its impact on the corporate policies on sustainable development, equalities, e-government, and crime and disorder.

Sustainable Development

3.17 The review has been particularly mindful of this service's contribution to sustainable development in a number of fields. Consideration of these issues has been facilitated by the Environmental Challenge Team and the involvement of the steering group and a team of officers from the Transport Branch.

3.18 Issues relating to the efficient day to day delivery of the service have been largely covered by the Environment Grouping's Sustainable Development Action Plan that was developed during 2001. This will deal with a range of issues relating to good environmental practice in the office.

3.19 The outcomes table indicates a number of topics that have been derived, either directly or indirectly, from sustainable development considerations. These include:

(i) improving public consultation contributing to community engagement and social inclusion;

(ii) developing a framework to assess whole life costings; and

(iii) examining options to better tap into the future labour market by engaging young people in the service.

Equalities

3.20 Equalities issues have been considered both within the context of the employees who contribute to the service and those who receive or need access to the service. For the former, a key factor for consideration has been enabling more flexibility to assist people who have difficulties complying with the requirements of full-time working regimes to be employed in the service. Ensuring the engagement of `hard to reach' groups in the consultation processes also features in the action plan.

E-Government

3.21 E-government issues have been prominent in a number of the review's topic areas. In particular, improved communication has been noted as a key issue in the field of public engagement. Means of furthering and widening access to the service will be a key feature in the actions arising from the improvement plan.

Crime and Disorder

3.22 The provision for community safety and crime reduction measures through land use and transportation planning and environmental management schemes is a key policy in the County Council's Crime and Disorder Strategy (Policy 5). The development of the Transport Capital Programme contributes to the reduction of crime and disorder through the promotion and monitoring of appropriate measures to improve the sustainability of the works programme. Consideration of this issue in scheme development provides integration of corporate objectives and promotes efficiency in service delivery and added value to projects.

4. Member Input

4.1 As noted above in paragraphs 3.1-3.6 Members have been engaged in this review process through the consideration of reports by the former Best Value Panel or the Policy Review Committee at the key stages and participation in the two series of challenge workshops. Unfortunately, the delay in the 2001 elections limited their involvement during the initial challenge workshops. Their involvement, in tandem with the changes taking place as part of the `modernisation agenda', was however timely as it has raised mutual concerns about the role of the elected Members in the scheme development process. Accordingly, a number of the proposals in the action plan deal with elected Member issues.

5. Lessons Learnt

5.1 This review was guided by earlier Best Value reviews and sought to make the review process focused and meaningful to those who are engaged in the delivery of transport schemes or those who are affected by them. At the outset of this review it was considered that the review and its outcomes should focus on integrating the Best Value culture into the daily work process and not appear as an additional process or `bolt on'. The review process was perceived by those who were involved to be effective and appropriate.

5.2 By relating the review to those areas of maximum impact it is hoped that the results will help to provide positive guidance for future working practices which will make a noticeable change to the service delivery. It is also hoped that outcomes arising from the improvement programme can be integrated with the forthcoming review of the Quality Assurance (QA) system in the County Surveyor's Department.

5.3 Best Value and other such initiatives are often seen by staff and stakeholders to be surrounded in mystique and are often avoided because they may be perceived as change for the sake of change. The process adopted for this review sought to identify with those perceptions and to show that its purpose was to seek real improvements for all involved to the benefit of all. By demonstrating an openness to the review and a willingness to be self-critical, the scepticism often shown to the change process has been minimised.

5.4 Engaging stakeholders in in-depth reviews was not achieved without considerable effort. Getting their involvement and time commitment in the challenge workshops proved very useful. However, with the range of reviews across departments and other authorities all being undertaken over a short period it is considered fortunate that a good response was able to be achieved. Overall it is considered that the national approach to Best Value and `drip fed' guidance has not assisted in the efficient delivery of the review.

5.5 The delivery of this service has for a number of years been based around a small capital programme. The sudden increase in the value of this programme has inspired officers to seek new ways of working in order to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of resources. This has arisen as a result of many factors and pressures on the service, but on reflection the need to change working practices when the business environment alters is now seen as a key management function. Of particular note is the change in the service delivery process. Past experience has likened delivery to a `relay race' or `production line' process, where each team adds its input as the project progresses (as indicated in Figure 1). This method may have served the small programme but with many more projects the working practices need to adapt to engage all players throughout with individual project team members taking the lead as necessary in a pace making role. This approach is seen to give greater engagement and ownership of projects and better quality output.

5.6 Some of the systems and processes adopted in the past have tended to stifle innovation and improvement of the service. The previous approach to QA is a good example, where staff were guided to conform with past practice. The new enlightened approach seeks to look at the process and encourages staff to seek continuous improvement. There are some very close links emerging between Best Value and QA, and there is a need to ensure these are complementary to each other. To this end the Transportation Branch is in the process of preparing a quality procedure entitled `Delivering the Capital Programme' to initiate a Capital Programme project from its initiation through to its completion and the review of its outcome. The procedure includes a checklist covering policy objectives and technical elements to assist in clarifying the requirements for the delivery of transport infrastructure.

5.7 The series of Best Value reviews across the Council and nationally have assisted in developing this review. Much of the Best Value process is about challenge and measuring differences of approach. Benchmarking is highly important in this respect, however the development of this review has highlighted the difficulty in identifying useful and obtainable information. Indeed this is an area of the Audit Commission's KPIs that is missed. Through liaison with other counties and the County Surveyors' Society's national working parties, KPIs are being developed but it is noted that finding suitable data which can be shared has proved a difficult task, which is still ongoing.

5.8 The Council's services have necessarily been broken down into manageable streams. Expectedly there are overlaps between these streams and cross cutting issues. The main overlap with this review is with the Policy Development review and the interface will need to be examined further as that review continues. The effectiveness of the review was also considered incomplete as it did not cover the earlier consideration of the Council's traffic management team within an earlier `pathfinder' review. This part of the service should be more integrated with future reviews of this service which should also take a wider review of the integration with other services.

6. Discussion

6.1 The Audit Commission's recent announcement that it wanted to see `step changes' emerging from Best Value reviews demonstrates a frustration that the initial reviews around the country were not focusing on key service areas or thoroughly exploring the best areas to identify improvement options.

6.2 This review has challenged service delivery in a rigorous way and has focused on key areas where a significant benefit can be achieved. However, throughout the review it became apparent that this service area is already dynamic and has been subjected to change and improvement which will be demonstrated in the review outcome. Indeed, the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (DTLR) recently commended the County Council on the quality of its service. The award of 'Centre of Excellence' for the Local Transport Plan and letters from the Government Office for the South East (GOSE) of 12 and 13 December 2001 all indicate support for the well above average service delivery.

6.3 An area of the service that eluded discussion at the challenge groups, but which could have a significant bearing on service delivery and communication, was the use of the media. The press and television are frequently involved in work undertaken in the transport area but are often seen as a negative communication tool. It was perhaps understandable that the media were not invited to participate in the review workshops as this would have intimidated participants and reduced open discussion. The media do however offer a way of improving communication and their use/involvement will be reviewed as part of the action plan and as a cross cutting issue.

6.4 One of the frequent concerns of the public is in the time it takes for the planning and implementation process to produce a scheme on the ground. There are several reasons for this but one of the key reasons is the apportionment of risk. Because the delivery of Transport Network Improvements involves the political process, the risk of failing or delivering publicly unacceptable schemes is avoided by extensive design modification and repeated consultation. Were the level of `failure' to be considered acceptable it would be possible to reduce delays and costs associated with some schemes. This would require a considerable culture change and it is not therefore proposed as part of the action plan. However it should be noted in any comparable statistics with the private sector that this is a cost local government must bear.

6.5 A further impediment to speedy delivery is the implications arising from dealing with the views and actions of objectors who do not agree with the Council's decisions and who delay implementation through legal or other processes. Whilst improved consultation arrangements and the proposed charter can better define `reasonable' obligations and seek to reduce unresolved disputes, the Council will watch with interest the Government's proposed changes to the development planning system.

6.6 Overall, this review has looked closely at key opportunities for improvement and has sought to appropriately balance the effort input to the review with the expected outcome. In undertaking the review the principles of Best Value were used to guide the process. This review seeks to improve the service, not by changing minor working practices but through development of the Best Value culture throughout the process. This will continue and enhance the advances made in recent years to examine and improve the methods and outcomes of service delivery.

6.7 One of the key outcomes of this Best Value review has to be the development of a new attitude towards working practices which does not just accept the status quo but challenges why schemes should be delivered in a certain way and examines the achievement of objectives. The focus of the outcomes has emerged on the process rather than the end product. In subjecting the service to the review it was apparent that most concern lay with the way in which the service was delivered. It is intended that the action will improve the service delivery process but by doing so there should be added value to the product at the end of the process. Little evidence emerged that those involved in this service had concerns about the end product. Indeed there are very few complaints from the local communities about the end product of the service. This is also supported by the accolade given by the DTLR/GOSE.

7. Summary of Outcomes

7.1 Although the review's six main themes were used to channel thoughts and discussions, it was soon evident there were significant areas of overlap and that there were a number of overarching issues which had implications for each of them. These helped the steering group to reframe the issues that should set the framework for the Action Plan. These four broad outcome areas are to provide:

(i) integrated joint working/working smarter;

(ii) fit for purpose solutions;

(iii) an accessible and responsive service; and

(iv) effective people development.

The issues within each of these topics are:

(i) Integrated joint working/working smarter

· Improved multi-disciplinary working

· Early team involvement

· Reduced bureaucracy

· Efficiency savings

· Consultation and design

(ii) Fit for purpose solutions

· Sustainable solutions

· Whole life costs/benefits

· Performance monitoring

· Impact on other budgets

(iii) An accessible and responsive service

· Accessible scheme information

· Effective consultation

· Local Member involvement

· Feedback on decisions

(iv) Effective people development

· Skills audit

· Proactive recruitment and retention

· Career development

· Performance reviews.

The details of the improvement plan are included in Appendix 2.

7.2 The improvement proposals relate to a number of facets of the service. Importantly, a number of issues are being addressed through the concurrent preparation and implementation of the Environment Grouping's Organisational Development Strategy and the Learning and Development Strategy. The outstanding issues may be summarised as:

(i) continuing to find more effective ways of procuring the service through a mixture of internal and external resources;

(ii) developing a project team culture throughout all project contributors, cemented through better project inception;

(iii) developing better methods of feedback and learning to improve project management and staff development;

(iv) identifying and agreeing more effective means of dialogue with stakeholders and, in particular, integrate this with an improved level of involvement with local elected Members at all stages for project development;

(v) making financial decisions better informed on long-term and external cost implications; and

(vi) integrating continuous improvement, innovation into the Quality Assurance system.

7.3 None of the outcomes from this review have fundamentally changed the aims and objections of this service. If anything the review has demonstrated that there is a general support for the service and a desire by many stakeholders to become involved and assist in the service. The proposed Improvement Plan focuses on the key issues. In order for the review to succeed it will be important that the culture of Best Value is absorbed in the organisational working practices, one vehicle being the cycle of Branch Management workshops. This is already being considered by the changes that have been made and the desire to meet future demand. The Improvement Plan will need to be closely monitored, challenged and improved itself as the initiative are implemented and by so doing the philosophy of Best Value will continue as part of normal working practice.

Recommendation

That the Improvement Plan for the Transport Network Improvements Best Value Review be endorsed.

6903/SJR

APPENDIX 1

SUMMARY OF RESEARCH ON PUBLIC CONSULTATION METHODS

BY LYNNE MILLER ASSOCIATES

As part of the Transport Network Improvements (TNI) review research was commissioned through Lynne Miller Associates on obtaining stakeholder views and perceptions on the Council's consultation processes. This examined the consultation procedures on three recent proposals for transport improvements:

(i) Lyndhurst (for the High Street improvement scheme);

(ii) Waterlooville (for the South Hampshire Rapid Transit); and

(iii) Winchester (for the Badger Farm Road/Oliver's Battery Road South junction).

In each case two discussion groups of around 12 people were formed. One group consisted of people who had been involved in the consultation process, whilst the second group consisted of people who had not been involved.

In brief, these surveys revealed generally good satisfaction from those people who had been engaged in the consultation processes. However, there were a number of concerns that deserved further consideration:

(i) Many people had a low awareness of where the scheme ideas had initially come from and in the absence of such information they were prone to make a variety of interpretations.

(ii) There was criticism of communication methods which were acknowledged as well intentioned but too often ineffective. Radio and local papers could not be relied on to disseminate information. Leaflet drops were seen effective although these should perhaps be supplemented by a personal letter or call to the immediate neighbours and frontagers of schemes.

(iii) The fact that consultations were often first undertaken after a good deal of preliminary design work called into question the Council's true commitment to consultation. Consequently, people felt that the proposals were being imposed.

(iv) Consultation processes too often attract responses from self-motivated, middle aged, articulate people while leaving other parts of the community, such as young people and other `hard to reach' sectors, under represented and engaged. Greater inclusivity is required.

(v) A key criticism related to the lack of feedback following consultations on the views expressed, how they were taken into account and the grounds for the final decision.

(vi) Most people did not know how the decision making process worked or how to influence it. Importantly few people were aware of, or inclined to use, the opportunity to express opinions via their ward councillor.

Consideration is already being given to how the shortcomings in this report can be addressed by remedial action and issues relating to giving better feedback on consultation outcomes and Executive Member decisions are in-hand on some current proposals as a trial.

Improvement Plan APPENDIX 2

Improvement Plan

Improvement Plan

Improvement Plan

Transport Network Improvements

The Implementation Process

Policy Development Devise Design Deliver Scheme Life

_{...............................................} ___________________ ______________________ _______________________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Transport Policy

Implementation



Engineering Consultancy



W S Atkins W S Atkins

Ad hoc consultants



Contractor Maintenance contractor ^{............................................................}

Figure 1