Barbara Janke, now the leader of the Council and ward councillor for part of the proposed Cliftonwood pilot zone, complained at a public meeting that she had not even had sight of the consultation documents before they were sent out.
Simon Cook, now the deputy leader of the Council and ward councillor for part of the proposed Cliftonwood pilot zone, stated publicly that had he seen the document before it was sent out “it would certainly have not gone out in this form.” He said it was phrased very poorly and the questions were vague.
All four councillors for Clifton, whose wards cover the whole Clifton pilot zone' described the consultation as 'flawed'.
Neil Harrison, whose Cotham ward includes part of the proposed Kingsdown pilot zone, and who has expertise in the field, has complained at great length about the quality of the consultation. He told the Evening Post: "What I cannot work out is whether this is just a really poorly designed exercise or whether it is a deliberate attempt to stitch up the consultation to a pre-conceived result - is it a shambles or a sham?"
Alex Woodman, Chair of the Council's Sustainable Development and Transport Scrutiny Commission (which reviews the work of the Council's Transport Department) and whose ward includes part of the proposed Kingsdown 'pilot zone' said that he was 'disappointed by the quality of the consultation'.
The Conservative group on the City Council said that 'the consultation over the Residents' Parking Scheme was fundamentally flawed and there is no democratic mandate to impose these pilots - either in the areas proposed or elsewhere. Local residents and businesses feel cheated by the botched consultation and the fact that Labour seems determined to rush ahead regardless.'
We sent the documents to a number of household names in the opinion research industry – people who are experts in the field of collecting information on public opinion. Here are some of their comments:
“I ...would agree that there are serious flaws in the questionnaire, that the exercise lacks objectivity and makes unwarranted assumptions”
“Your concerns are definitely justified. The survey does not appear to be particularly balanced; only really focusing on the advantages of the scheme without contextualising the disadvantages. The wording as well suggests people need to answer the questions a certain way.
”Question 1 is a poor question. It is not at all clear how people should answer if there is enough space sometimes but not always”
“Question 3 is a bad question – one of the first rules of questionnaire design is that the answer should match the question!” “The sheer amateurishness of this and other questions will deter people from completing the questionnaire at all”
“Question 5…is both a leading question and almost an implied threat.”
In short, the quality of the consultation documents – and therefore the validity of the results – was simply awful.
But it was even worse than that!
Bristol has two major universities and a large population – both students and staff - whose lives revolve around the academic calendar.
There is a belief, at least in some parts, that students should not have cars and certainly Bristol University discourages students from bringing cars to the city.
However, students and, of course, staff are people and democracy works for them too. To carry out a consultation, especially in areas substantially occupied by university students and staff, entirely during the summer vacation beggars belief! That the consultation started the very day that Bristol University’s summer vacation started makes it almost impossible to believe this was some sort of unfortunate accident.
No reliance can be put on any results derived from a flawed consultation carried out when a significant part of the population was missing.
**NOVEMBER 2008**
The results of the summer's consultation were reported to the Council's ruling Cabinet, despite the major criticisms which had been made.
The proposals were overwhelmingly rejected across the city but the Council identified two areas, Cliftonwood and Kingsdown where 54.9% and 51.1% respectively of respondents expressed support for the proposal.
The Council's Cabinet, again despite the major criticisms which had been voiced over the consultation, gave the go ahead to progress the schemes in Cliftonwood and Kingsdown.
**NOVEMBER 2008 (pt 2)**
Conservative councillors Peter Abraham and Richard Eddy 'call-in' the decision to proceed in Cliftonwood and Kingsdown for further scrutiny, using a procedure available to opposition councillors.
The 'call-in' puts the decision to proceed on-hold, pending a call-in committee hearing.
**JANUARY 2009**
At the call-in committee hearing Lib Dem councillor Dennis Brown made three recommendations on behalf of the call-in committee, which were formally agreed by Mark Bradshaw, the Executive Member responsible for the proposals. These were:
1. The Cabinet must formally specify that there will be a proper consultation on the two revised pilot schemes in the two pilot areas and adjacent streets before proceeding. Only if a majority within the relevant pilot areas are in favour should the scheme proceed. Residents, community groups, businesses and local ward councillors must be closely involved to ensure meaningful consultation.
2. We propose that the Cabinet must formally confirm that these are truly pilot schemes, with formal reviews of effectiveness and acceptability at 6 months and 2 years
3. We further propose that once the consultation is completed and a fully costed and detailed plan is available, together with resources to mitigate effects on adjacent areas, that this is the subject of a further Cabinet decision prior to implementation.
Cllr Barbara Janke has explained that:
This will mean that work will take place with residents and interested parties to draw up the detailed proposals for the areas concerned. Once the proposals are completed, they will be subject to a full consultation of those residents within the schemes and in adjacent roads. Only then if there is a majority of residents in support, will the schemes go ahead
**APRIL 2009**
Bristol City Council issued, on 6 April 2009, new consultation documents on Residents' Parking to residents and businesses in parts of Clifton, Cliftonwood, Cotham and Kingsdown. The Council has called the two areas being consulted 'Cliftonwood' and 'Kingsdown'
Both the 'Cliftonwood' and 'Kingsdown' titles are misleading. The 'Cliftonwood' area stretches to the Students' Union and almost to the Victoria Rooms. The 'Kingsdown' area includes part of Cotham. To add to the confusion the 'Cliftonwood' area was earlier referred to as 'Brandon Hill'.
You can view maps of the areas on the Council's website at www.bristol.gov.uk/respark
We have expressed concern that, again, this consultation has been undertaken during the universities' holidays (albeit only partly this time). It seems entirely wrong to us, even more especially this time because the two areas are well known as home to a great many university students and staff, to commence a consultation on a major issue in the middle of the Easter vacation when many will be away.
We are further concerned that the documents start off by saying that 'a residents' parking scheme is planned for your neighbourhood.' In fact, the Council is only consulting on the possibility of some sort of scheme - a residents' parking scheme is not planned for any neighbourhood and you can still say NO.
Also, as if to prove the point that if the Council gets a toe-hold in charging people to park they would rapidly look to expand into other areas of the city, the 'Cliftonwood' consultation area has been enlarged and the 'Kingsdown' one has more than doubled in size from the one being considered just a few months ago. This is 'because there is a growing indication that many residents immediately ouside (the original area) may be supportive of managed parking for their own streets.' Eh?
