Mr. Paul Hogan:

The public meeting format is ineffective at this stage of the process. What is much more useful is what already happens, namely, the provision of information on what the issues for the future might be. People do not find that is something they can easily relate to in a public meeting format. It is much more effective as a one-to-one exhibition or engagement. That is what happens and is what is also used at later stages when there is a draft plan. When there is no draft to discuss and it is just issues and what might happen in the future, it can be very difficult to mobilise interest from the public over the course of different evenings or weekends, as must be the case when there is a sole reliance on public meetings. To catch as many people as possible, there must be quite a wide spread of times, formats and locations. It does not work as effectively as intended in the legislation. Having an element of choice is the way forward.

I am not aware of lobbying. That did not come to me. The matter was discussed in the context of engagement with the Local Government Management Agency, LGMA, over a response to Covid and the fact that the provision was effectively holding up progress on a plan which had a ticking timeline, where people could not gather to meet, and therefore this had to be addressed. It is an opportunity to widen the scope of the engagement at the early stage. I do not share the view that there is an "us and them" situation between the elected members and the county and city managers at this stage of the process. It is a very open and non-controversial stage in the process, or at least it should be, because people are just trying to understand the issues. It is in everyone's interest to get the information out there, both publicly and online, and that will continue.