To receive a presentation from the Senior Manager: Marketing and Communications.

The Committee received a presentation by the Senior Manager: Marketing and Communications on the feedback from the Budget Consultations that had recently been undertaken.

The Committee noted that the key messages from the public consultation process were as follows:

·  The Council was required to save £28 million during the coming financial year.

·  This was part of an ongoing programme of savings which totalled £129 million over the next few years, up to 2020-21.

·  The vast majority of savings this year had been found without a massive impact on services and staff.

·  There were, however, a series of proposals which had been published on 18 December 2015 and had been subject to consultation with the public.

·  This consultation concluded for the majority of proposals at the end of January 2016.

·  The Cabinet would consider the results of the consultation and use them to inform its budget proposal to the Council.

The Senior Manager: Marketing and Communications reported on the methodology behind the process and the number of responses (10,000) and their geographical break down from 2010/11 to 2015/16.  He also informed that there were three petitions in respect of the Council’s budget proposals in relation to:

·  Save Girtrell Court Respite Home.

·  Stop the Job Cuts, Stop Service Cuts.

·  School Crossing Patrol, Christ Church School.

The Committee noted that there was support for the following proposals:

·  Shared Services. 

·  Charging for Services.

·  Alternative Delivery.

·  Commissioning Services.

·  Reviewing the use of Council owned buildings, provide services from a smaller, more cost effect number of locations.

The Committee also noted the responses in respect of the following proposals:

Garden Waste Charging

201 comments had been received from residents on this proposal.  The general themes of the feedback were:

·  A large proportion of comments received actually supported the proposal to increase the cost, stating that a £5 increase in the annual cost was reasonable.

·  Those people who disagreed with the proposal expressed concern that it could lead to increased levels of fly-tipping and reduced recycling rates if people opted out of the service.

Re-Provision of Girtrell Court

189 comments had been received through the Council’s consultation channels, which could be summarised as follows:

·  Residents expressed concerns about the level and quality of alternative provision available in the private and voluntary sector; these concerns were being addressed in the ongoing consultation process.

·  Residents were concerned that relationships with staff and other users of the Girtrell Court facility would be lost should the service be re-provided elsewhere.

Self-Assessment

48 comments had been received relating to this proposal, which could be summarised as follows:

·  This proposal was generally supported provided that provision was made to support those people unable to complete self-assessments.

Community Safety

42 comments had been received related to this proposal, which could be summarised as follows:

·  Residents were keen to ensure that any changes to the community safety services mentioned did not lead to a reduction in service.

Leisure Centre Concessions and Golf

114 comments had been received relating to this proposal, which could be summarised as follows:

·  Residents were generally understanding and at times supportive of the proposal to reduce concessions to make leisure centres more cost-effective.

·  Some concerns were expressed about the impact on health and wellbeing and suggestions were made about different proposals and pricing structures for the services which were currently available for free.

Re-Provision of Library Service

The Council had received detailed feedback on this proposal from the Friends of Wirral Libraries Steering Group, which had been considered as part of thisconsultation process. 90 further comments had been received, which could be summarised as follows:

·  Residents expressed concerns that a library service relying more on volunteers and community support would be less reliable and quality would suffer. 

·  Some residents were in general agreement with this proposal if it resulted in no library closures, and other residents highlighted that a smaller number of better libraries would be the preferable option.

·  A number of residents had expressed concern about the potential loss of professional librarians and their associated knowledge and expertise.

Community Partnership: Parks

The Wirral Parks Friends Forum had expressed concerns in relation to this option around the availability of volunteers, and the wider deliverability and impact of the proposal. 55 comments had been received relating to this proposal, which could be summarised as follows:

·  Residents expressed how valuable Wirral’s parks were to their local communities and the wider environment.

·  Many residents were generally supportive of this proposal, provided volunteers were provided with enough advice and support.

·  People made a number of other suggestions related to income and efficiency to further protect Wirral’s parks and open spaces.

Charges for Pest Control

38 comments had been received, which could be summarised as follows:

·  A number of residents disagreed with implementing a charge for this service.

·  Around an equal amount of residents did agree, with many of these stating that a form of means-testing should be employed to ensure the most vulnerable were still able to access the service if required.

Highways and Road Safety

The Council had received a petition in relation to part of this budget proposal. 72 further comments had been received, which could be summarised as follows:

·  This proposal had received mixed feedback, with most comments focussed on ensuring safety was paramount when making any changes.

DHP and Welfare Advice

A number of letters had been received specifically in relation to the Council’s welfare advice services, which had been considered as part of this consultation.  A further 60 comments had been received, which could be summarised as follows:

·  Residents were generally comfortable with the proposal in relation to Discretionary Housing Payments.

·  Comments had mainly focused on the welfare rights service provided by the Council, with residents expressing how valued the service was.

The Committee was informed that the Council was required to set its budget and Council Tax Levels during March 2016 for the following financial year.  The Council’s budget meeting was on 3 March 2016.  The Cabinet would meet on 22 February 2016 and agree a budget to recommend to the Council.

Following the presentation Members were given the opportunity to ask questions and Officers responded to them as appropriate.  Issues considered included the following:

·  Whether the consultation feedback had provided a quantitative or qualitative picture and whether it was broken down into constituencies as they may have different priorities.

·  Libraries and volunteers to run them – community management and the need to consider the findings of the Mori Poll.

·  The consultation findings had been transcribed by Officers and were available online.

·  There had been a consultation exercise but only a small number of consultees had taken the time to set out what they thought.

·  The response rate to the consultation was correspondingly low for Wallasey.  A mechanism was required to represent Wallasey.  However, it was possible to get a feel for this as those who did respond to the consultation usually made the same points.

·  There was an overwhelming response to the consultation online rather than hard copy.

·  People who are unhappy will respond to consultation.

RESOLVED: That

(1)  the Senior Manager: Marketing and Communications be thanked for his presentation on the feedback from the Budget Consultations that had recently been undertaken; and

(2)  the content of the presentation be noted.