Number crunching

The BBC yesterday reported that:

Residents living in homes owned by a Surrey council could be banned from smoking on their balconies.

According to the report, written by journalists working for the Local Democracy Reporting Service (which I'll return to):

[Runnymede] council said the proposed ban was due to the "anti-social impact of smoking" as well as limiting cigarette litter falling from balconies.

It also featured the results of a consultation with 'impacted residents' which seems to have been a major influence on the council:

• Out of 174 residents, 40 responded to the local authority survey - 83% of whom were non-smokers.
• Four people said smoking should not be allowed on a balcony that is next to another home
• 16 people said it should not be allowed on any balcony
• 20 people said it should not be allowed if it causes a "nuisance" to other residents

Anyway, the council last night discussed and agreed to the proposal and this morning I was on BBC Radio Surrey with, I think, Mark Nuti, chairman of the Housing Committee.

I began by pointing out that most council house residents are from lower economic groups so the ban will discriminate against people who can't afford their own homes.

I added that smoking on balconies is not a public health issue because there is not a shred of evidence that smoking in the open air is a significant risk to anyone else's health.

I also noted that even Nuti admitted that the consultation had "not had as many respondents as we would have liked".

That's putting it mildly!

Effectively, Runnymede Council has banned smoking on council-owned balconies on the say so of just 16 or 20 people (ie not even a majority of the 40 respondents, who themselves represented less than 25 per cent of the 174 residents invited to respond).

Nuti's response? If residents didn't respond they can't feel very strongly about it.

Anyway, I finished by saying, "What next? Are they going to ban smoking in people's gardens as well in case a puff of smoke drifts over the garden fence?"

It demonstrates though how easy it is to ban something if you set your mind to it, or enjoy the acquiescence of the local media.

And that brings me back to the Local Democracy Reporting Service which I was unfamiliar with until I saw it added to the byline on the BBC report.

I looked it up and according to the BBC it's a public service news agency whose journalists are funded by the BBC but 'employed by regional news organisations'.

OK, well that explains why the Runnyside story appeared on both the Surrey Live and BBC websites, credited to the Local Democracy Reporting Service.

Although BBC Radio Surrey invited me to be on their breakfast programme, no-one from the Local Democracy Reporting Service asked Forest for a reaction to the proposed policy ahead of the council meeting so it went completely unchallenged and, surprise, surprise, was duly passed.

I'm sure the Local Democracy Reporting Service offers a valuable service but it would help local democracy if reports on issues such as this did a bit more than parrot the council line.