Fatally Flawed and or misleading? Hounslow's Public Budget Consultation Document 2011
Hounslow's Public Budget Consultation Document 2011 At a meeting of the LBH Executive held on the 8th February 2011 (see page 143) the closure of Chiswick Day Centre and Bedfont was agreed along with other financial cuts. The savings title was; Ref CS13-15; Redesign of Day Opportunities for older people The 'Description of Saving' as '£790k efficiency by reducing the nuimber of sites used for day services. Chiswick and Bedfont to close' Summary of relevant consultation results; Approximately 55% of respondents to the General Resident Survey agreed with the closure and 32% disagreed' However in the Budget Consultation Document 2011 circulated throughout the borough Item reference number CS13-15 was as follows, REF; CS 13-15 SAVINGS PROPOSAL; Reconfiguration of day care services Service Impact; This proposal would see an ongoing commitment to increased choice with services provided to the most vulnerable service users and those requiring specialist services. Seven day coverage would be retained with front line services being redeployed into existing care vacancies. Two management and 17 other posts would be deleted or redeployed. POTENTIAL FOR SAVINGS 2011/2012 Up to £790k. Finally Residents were asked to 'please indicate how strongly you agree that savings should be made in then following areas' with a range of five marking boxes beginning at 'Strongly Agree' and ending 'Strongly Disagree' In my view no one would be able to interpret this item in this publicly circulated document with the closure of the Chiswick Day Centre . It follows too that the collated interpretation of the residents returned consultation views/ preferences in respect of CS 13-15 mentioned above was fatally flawed. Post the receipt of the public's response, LBH Executive made some adjustments to their proposed cuts including Library closures, Youth services and other matters. I believe too that if the closure of the CDC had been properly and clearly stated in the publicly circulated consultation document, the public response would have been overwhelming against its closure. My view is not speculative. The current LBH E Petition against closure and a paper based one provides corroborative evidence of the public's anger and desire that this Centre remain open. Disingenous is the word that comes to mind. John Cllr John Todd
John Todd ● 5553d0 Comments