LOCAL DEMOCRACY AFTER MAY 2015: PROMOTING PARTICIPATION

A discussion paper from the Campaign for Democracy in Canterbury District

27 May 2015

SUMMARY: KEY QUESTIONS

The new Canterbury City Council elected in May 2015 will operate a Committee system in
place of the previous Executive system. An important aim of the new system is to promote
better engagement between the Council and local people. The Councils Governance
Commission, which drew up the detailed proposals for the new system, identified five areas
in which the new Council could improve participation. The Campaign for Democracy in
Canterbury District has produced a paper which explores these five areas and suggests a
number of other ways in which councillors and local residents could become more proactively engaged. Some key questions are:
1

The Area Member Panels (CAMP, HBAMP, RAMP and WAMP) already provide one way
of involving local people.
How can local residents be made more aware of the existence of the AMPs?
How can the meetings of the AMPs be made more welcoming, with more public
participation?

The Council will be setting up a Community Governance Review to look at the idea of
separate town councils for Canterbury, Herne Bay, and Whitstable, or new Parish
Councils.
What are the possible advantages of town councils, and of urban parish councils?
If AMPs have greater powers, are town councils necessary?

The Governance Commission suggested that the Council should make more use of its
power to co-opt members of the public onto its sub-committees and working groups.
Would it be a good idea to co-opt individuals and/or representatives of recognised
community groups onto some sub-committees or working groups?
How should the Council decide who should be co-opted?

The Governance Commission recommended that the Council should review its ways of
consulting the public.
Are there ways in which the public could be consulted at an earlier stage in decisionmaking?
How can public consultation be more than just a tick-box exercise?

The Governance Commission suggested extending the rights of members of the public
to speak at Council meetings.
How can this be done without turning meetings into a free-for-all that goes on for
ever?
Could members of the public sometimes be given a right of reply in meetings?

One of the other issues which was flagged up during the meetings of the Governance
Commission was the need to change the political culture that prevailed under the
Executive system.
How can councillors engage more effectively with the residents in their wards?
How can residents be encouraged to take a keener interest in the work of the
council?

LOCAL DEMOCRACY AFTER MAY 2015: PROMOTING PARTICIPATION

1.

Introduction

This paper has been written by the Campaign for Democracy in Canterbury District
(CDCD) which was set up in February 2014 in order to make local democracy work
better for local people. In 2014, CDCD campaigned for the Council to change from
the Executive system to a Committee system. This change has now come into effect
with the election of the new Council in May 2015. The Councils decisions will no
longer be made by a small group of councillors chosen by the Council leader all from
the same political party, but rather by committees in which all the parties are
represented.
The introduction of the committee system will be an improvement. It will make local
democracy more representative. All the councillors whom we elect to represent us
will have a say in the making of decisions. However, it will not in itself guarantee
greater opportunities for participation in decision-making by members of the public
themselves.
CDCD will continue to campaign for local democracy which is not only more
representative but also more participatory. By participatory democracy we mean a
system which empowers local people to contribute by making their views known and
influencing decisions. The purpose of this paper is to explore ways of achieving this.
We hope that the paper will be read by members of the new Council, by Council
officers and by all local people who want to make a real difference to their
community.
2.

New Institutional Practices

We take as our starting point the final report and recommendations of the
Governance Commission, which were approved by full Council on 27 November
2014. The Governance Commission was set up to devise the structure of the new
committee system for Canterbury City Council. Its final report laid out a framework
establishing the names and functions of the new committees and the procedures
which they should follow. In response to representations from CDCD and other
members of the public, the report also recognised that a new committee structure on
its own will not be enough to meet the aspirations of local people for improved
democracy. It identified a number of ideas which it recommended the new Council
to consider. In this paper, we will suggest how they can be taken further. We will
also suggest that they need to be underpinned by a new political culture with more
pro-active engagement by both councillors and local residents.
The new practices suggested by the Governance Commission to promote more
meaningful public involvement include, in particular, the following five
recommendations:

Reviewing the working of Area Member Panels

Commencing a district-wide Community Governance Review
Co-opting members of the public onto sub-committees and working groups

LOCAL DEMOCRACY AFTER MAY 2015: PROMOTING PARTICIPATION

Developing a new consultation strategy

Reviewing the speaking rights for members of the public at meetings.

These issues were put on the back-burner pending the election of the new Council in
May 2015. They now need addressing.
We see these five recommendations as important because they are all ways in
which the work of the Council can be made more accessible to local people,
encouraging them to become more involved in decisions about the communities
which they live in and about Council policy. The importance of empowering
individual residents to influence decision-making will be one of the two main themes
of this paper. A series of controversial decisions by the Council in recent years has
left many residents feeling powerless. The experience has shown how contentious
local decision-making can be if members of the public feel excluded from the
process. The five recommendations in the Governance Commission report provide
the opportunity to create a more inclusive approach.
The second main theme in the paper is the role that can be played by community
groups, including civic societies such as the Canterbury Society and the Whitstable
Society, residents associations and single-issue campaigning groups. We will be
suggesting that such organisations can help to disseminate Council information,
stimulate the participation of local people and provide a channel for such
involvement. This is not to say that they should be the only channel. Nevertheless,
they are an important voice to be listened to, alongside the views of individuals who
have their own contributions to make.
With these two themes in mind, we will now look in turn at each of the five
outstanding issues identified by the Governance Commission for further discussion.
2.1

Reviewing the working of Area Member Panels (AMPs)

The Area Member Panels are the five groups of Councillors who represent
Canterbury, Herne Bay, Whitstable, and the north and south rural areas. Each AMP
meets regularly to discuss matters of concern in that particular area. They do not
have decision-making powers, but have previously been able to make
recommendations to the Executive and will now be able to pass on
recommendations to the new committees. The Governance Commission Report
noted that The AMPs are generally well attended by members of the public and are
a means of engaging residents and community groups in the work of the council at
the most local level. It recommended that the work of the Area Member Panels is
supported and should continue under the committee system.
We would like this to go further. Area Member Panels provide an ideal forum for
experimenting with ways of increasing public involvement, and we should like to see
them do more in this direction. They could experiment for example with different
seating arrangements, allow public input within debates, and set aside sessions
specifically for public contributions. The meetings of the Governance Commission
which were held in public in 2014 were themselves a good model for what could be
done. Members of the public were encouraged to participate fully in those meetings,

LOCAL DEMOCRACY AFTER MAY 2015: PROMOTING PARTICIPATION

to sit in seats normally reserved for Councillors and to speak on equal terms with the
members of the Commission. The Whitstable Area Member Panel has led the way
in making the format of its meetings more inclusive, and we would like to see the
other AMPs follow suit.
Increasing opportunity for public involvement brings with it the risk that it may simply
provide a platform for those who shout the loudest. It is not always clear how far the
contributions of members of the public represent anyone other than themselves.
This may not matter. Individuals can provide valuable input, but organised
community groups also have a role to play. Bodies such as residents associations
and civic societies could be encouraged to attend meetings of AMPs on a regular
basis and be asked to contribute to agendas and to disseminate information to the
wider public. This could help to achieve two things: on the one hand, it could
encourage community groups to contribute more positively and constructively and,
on the other, it could stimulate broader public involvement. AMPs should experiment
with new arrangements of this kind.
The Rural Area Member Panels already obtain some input from Parish Councils,
which, as elected bodies, are able to represent the views of their electorates. The
roles of Parish Councils and their representatives should be extended to give them
automatic membership of the Panels.
2.2

Commencing a district-wide Community Governance Review

The terminology of governance is confusing. The word governance is used in

general to mean the way in which government, either national or local, is carried on.
Canterbury City Councils Governance Commission, to which we have been
referring, was set up specifically to manage the change from an Executive system to
a Committee system. A Community Governance Review is something different.
National legislation in 2007 gave local councils the power to hold Community
Governance Reviews which would make arrangements for community empowerment
at the most local level. This means, in particular, decisions about the role of parish
councils, including the establishment of new parish councils and changes to the
boundaries of existing parishes. Such decisions could include also the creation of
separate town councils within the district. A Community Governance Review could
recommend new town councils for Canterbury, Herne Bay and Whitstable.
The Governance Commission Report recommended That the new council in 2015
be asked to commence a district-wide Community Governance Review. It also
made this comment:
If town councils were created as a result of the review, it would clearly affect
the councils own arrangements for area working and local engagement. It
would therefore be sensible to review the role of the AMPs in parallel with any
Community Governance Review. The review would also consider the current
structure of parish councils across the whole of the district.

LOCAL DEMOCRACY AFTER MAY 2015: PROMOTING PARTICIPATION

We support this recommendation, but we do not think that it should be rushed. As

the new Council will need time to adapt to the Committee system, we believe that a
Community Governance Review should not happen until 2016, after the first annual
review of the Committee system. Waiting until then would also have the advantage
of allowing time for AMPs to experiment with new practices, including roles for
community groups and parish councils. The Community Governance Review should
then consider whether such experiments have been successful, and whether they
are sufficient in themselves or point to the need to go further, with the creation of
town councils or urban parish councils. We in CDCD do not at present have a view
on whether separate town councils for Canterbury, Herne Bay and Whitstable would
be a good thing. We do think that the question should be considered, but at the right
time, with the right evidence. As an alternative, the creation of new parish councils in
the three urban areas could also be considered by a Community Governance
Review.
2.3

Co-opting members of the public onto sub-committees and working

groups

The Governance Commission Report noted: Representations received in response

to the Commissions survey described the expertise available locally and indicated
there could be considerable scope for greater co-option onto sub-committees,
working parties and review panels than had been previously. It recommended that
external representatives be co-opted onto working groups, sub-committees and
review panels where external expertise would improve deliberations.
The representations referred to here came in part from CDCD. Co-option is an
obviously appealing way of involving local residents more actively in the work of the
Council, and we support the recommendation. The Commission refers to subcommittees, working parties and review panels as the bodies for which co-option
would be appropriate. Working parties and review panels are set up to deal with
specific issues and have a limited time-scale, and we assume that members of the
public would be co-opted simply for the specific tasks. Sub-committees are standing
bodies with a longer duration, and co-options onto these would presumably be of
corresponding duration. We envisage that, in both cases, those who were co-opted
would be non-voting members of the sub-committees or working groups. This would
enable the co-opting to be done without any need to change the Councils
constitution.
It does again raise the question: If members of the public were co-opted onto subcommittees and working groups of the Council, for whom would they be speaking?
In some cases it wouldnt matter, if the aim of co-option was simply to recruit the
services of individuals with relevant expertise. But in other cases it would be
desirable for the co-optees to be representative of a community, and this is where
community groups could have an important role to play. If the Council continues its
practice of setting up Best Value Reviews (perhaps under another name) to make
recommendations on specific issues, it would be appropriate to co-opt from a
community group particularly affected by the issue in question. Similar
arrangements could be envisaged for Working Groups focusing on particular

LOCAL DEMOCRACY AFTER MAY 2015: PROMOTING PARTICIPATION

geographical areas or particular areas of concern, such as the Kingsmead Working

Group or the Student Community Working Group.
2.4

Developing a new consultation strategy

The Governance Commission Report rightly noted:

Representations were received from members of the public that they wished
to be consulted at the earliest opportunity in the development of council policy
or the design of a service. They also suggested the limitations and
parameters the council were required to work within should be set out more
clearly when consulting on specific topics in order to manage the expectations
of what was possible.
The Commission therefore recommended that the Council elected in 2015 be
requested to develop a new consultation strategy.
We support that recommendation. Many local people have voiced their
dissatisfaction at not being properly consulted, on matters such as the Local Plan
and more specific issues such as the proposed sale of Kingsmead Field and the
Westgate Towers Traffic Scheme. A crucial phrase is the reference in the
Governance Commission Report to consultation at the earliest opportunity. This
points to the need for consultation to be more than a tick-box exercise. Consulting
at an early stage should not be consultation on policies which have already been
drawn up, but consultation on the problems and a genuinely collaborative search for
new approaches and solutions. This requires open-ended discussion, rather than
simply asking the public to say Yes or No to what is on offer.
Local community groups could play a role in making consultation more effective by
acting as channels of communication, alerting local residents to the fact that
consultations are taking place. We are not suggesting that they should have any
privileged status or that their responses should be given a greater weight than any
other responses to consultations. We would, however, like to propose that
recognised community groups should be informed when consultations are taking
place, so that they can disseminate the information and encourage local people to
respond, as well as responding on behalf of their own members. One way of
determining which community groups should be counted as recognised groups for
this purpose would be to employ the conditions laid down in the Localism Act for
having the right to bid and the right to register Assets of Community Value (i.e.
having a formal constitution and elected officers and, in the case of groups which are
not registered charities, being able to provide 21 signatures in support of
recognition).
We would like to see serious consideration given to the ideas on consultation which
have been promoted by Civic Voice, the national coordinating bodies for civic
societies. Its publication Collaborative Planning For All says:
Civic Voice believes that real community participation, through early, inclusive
collaborative methods, must be supported and embedded at all tiers of

LOCAL DEMOCRACY AFTER MAY 2015: PROMOTING PARTICIPATION

planning to generate a common sense of ownership and deliver high quality

places. It is crucial to recognise the difference between consultation and
participation consultation without participation is simply asking people to
agree with what has already been decided by others and it is likely to prompt
a negative reaction.
Civic Voice proposes a method of consultation known as the Charrette process. A
charrette is a collaborative event in which local people come together with expert
facilitators to share in creating plans for their own locality. We suggest that this
technique should be explored for use in the Canterbury district. CDCD is planning to
organise a seminar within the next year on the possible use of charrettes. This is
also another area in which community groups could play an important role, as they
would be well placed to provide forums in which such charrettes could take place.
2.5

Reviewing the speaking rights for members of the public at meetings

As the Governance Commission rightly noted, Public speaking rights are very
important, and for this reason the Commission recommended that committees
should be encouraged to relax the time limits for public speaking and to review their
arrangements. We support this recommendation, and would like to see some
committees, such as the AMPs, experiment with extending the time allowed from
three minutes to four minutes.
We would also favour giving speakers a right of reply on some occasions. What is
especially frustrating is exercising ones right to speak at the beginning of a meeting
or of an agenda item, and then finding ones contribution misunderstood, distorted,
or simply ignored. Being able to clarify misunderstandings would increase public
confidence in the system.
Extending the speaking rights of members of the public, and allowing them to speak
more than once, carries the risk that meetings might then become interminable and
chaotic. One solution might be to allow groups of residents to agree on a principal
speaker who would be entitled to contribute to the debate and to exercise a right of
reply at the end. We would like to see such ideas tried out.
Speaking rights at meetings of the Planning Committee are a special case. At
present the Councils rules allow for up to three people to speak in favour of a
development proposal and up to three people to speak against, and we are not
suggesting that this should be changed. The rules also appear to give special
speaking rights to representatives of Parish Councils, Residents Associations and
advisory groups. We should like to see these rules clarified, and clear criteria for
deciding which groups should have such rights.
*****
These then are some ways in which the five outstanding issues could be carried
forward, changing Council practices in order to increase public involvement, and
making use of the part which community groups and associations could play.

LOCAL DEMOCRACY AFTER MAY 2015: PROMOTING PARTICIPATION

3.

A new Political Culture

As we noted above, we are looking not just for new institutional practices, but also
for a new political culture. We are using the phrase political culture to refer to a
shared understanding of the values which underpin the decision-making process and
of the roles which councillors and members of the public should play within that
process. We believe that the prevailing political culture needs to change at two
levels.
3.1

Pro-active engagement by councillors

One of the reasons that the Executive system of decision-making was contested so
strongly was that it marginalised the majority of councillors from the decision-making
process and reduced them to mere tools in a rubber-stamping machine. It also
encouraged a culture in which councillors in the majority party felt obliged to defer to
the views of the Executive rather than speak out for the residents of their wards. The
adoption of the committee system will make the Council more representative insofar
as all the councillors whom we elect to represent us will be part of the decisionmaking process. This, however, will not in itself guarantee that they will represent
the views of the residents in their wards or take account of their concerns.
How are they to do so? Firstly, they need to make themselves available to residents
by holding regular surgeries. But rather than just waiting for people to come to
them, they should actively seek out the views and concerns of as many individual
electors as possible. One way of doing so would be to engage with organised
community groups. Some councillors in parished areas already attend Parish
Council meetings, and this should be an expected practice. In the same way,
councillors in non-parished areas need to attend the meetings of local groups such
as residents associations and civic societies and enter into two-way dialogue. Some
of them already do this. It needs to become standard practice, something that is
expected of all councillors.
The Council could also do more to draw the attention of local people to Council
business. One way in which it could to this is for the Council to take out a regular
column in local papers, alerting the public to upcoming meetings, issues,
consultations and policy reviews.
3.2

Pro-active engagement by residents and community groups

If councillors are to play a more pro-active role, local residents have a corresponding
responsibility to engage more actively with their ward councillors, irrespective of their
political party. As residents we have, over the years, tended to adopt too passive an
approach to local decision-making. We have let the Council 'get on with it without
paying sufficient attention to Council decision-making and the impact of national
policies at a local level. If residents are to be taken seriously as key stakeholders,
then we need to take a much keener interest in the work of the Council.

LOCAL DEMOCRACY AFTER MAY 2015: PROMOTING PARTICIPATION

Residents also need to learn to speak more frequently with a common voice. This is
where residents associations and community bodies can play an important role.
The Localism Act introduced by the government in 2011 proposed giving greater
powers to voluntary and community groups alongside formally elected bodies such
as parish councils. We suggest that there is a role for both kinds of bodies. Greater
involvement for residents associations and civic societies will help to clarify whether
there is also a need to create town councils or parish councils for parts of the urban
areas.
4.

Conclusion

The switch to the Committee system is an important first step to enhance local
democracy. But it is only a first step. The aim should be to make the system not
only more genuinely representative, but also more participatory. Canterbury City
Councils 2012 Corporate Plan made 10 pledges. Pledge 9 was Encouraging
involvement:

By 2016 our communities will be even more active, influencing policy makers,
running services and managing facilities.

This, according to the Corporate Plan, will require

An increase in the number of people saying that they feel they can influence
the decisions that affect their local area

CDCD wants to help Canterbury City Council to hit that target. In this paper we have
suggested how this can be done by building on the five recommendations from the
Governance Commissions report. We hope to work with all Councillors, Council
officers and local people to achieve it.
Campaign for Democracy in Canterbury District
27 May 2015