Document Pack

CANTERBURY CITY COUNCIL

GOVERNANCE COMMISSION
MEETING TO BE HELD ON MONDAY, 10 NOVEMBER 2014
AT 7.30 PM IN THE GUILDHALL, WESTGATE, CANTERBURY
Distribution
Independent Chairman: Chris Gay
Councillors:

Councillor Baker, Councillor S Cook, Councillor Cragg, Councillor Dixey,

Councillor Doyle, Councillor Fitter, Councillor Gilbey, Councillor Howes,
Councillor Perkins and Councillor Wratten

Officers:

Colin Carmichael, Matthew Archer, Haroon Awan, Mark Ellender, Charlotte

Hammersley

AGENDA
Page (s)
1

Apologies for Absence

Minutes of the last meeting

Outstanding matters from the previous meeting

2-8
9 - 16

TO DISCUSS
4

Scrutiny Going Forward by Councillor Baker

17 - 18

TO DISCUSS
5

Draft report of the Commission to Full Council

TO CONSIDER

Any other urgent business

19 - 41

Agenda Item 2

Document
Pack
Page
2

)*+# ,

-&

! "#
&. - $ ! /

$ % &! "#'(
!
&% &

#$
& #

$ & 0
!

"
"

%
%

'
!

&

&

(##

(##
&) * %

"*

% &#

&+

1 2

'
!

&

. /0
(##

-1 '
&*
!

(##

"3

*
1

31 " "!
*
&
4 5

4 +#

&

& &

) & *

) & * &
.) & * &
&

&
2
% &
.
,

&

, )#
# *
#

&

&.

*
*

,'
* #

&*

&
*

.#
#4

Page 3
/

4 2

4! 2
-

1
$&
& *
# & &
6
%
#
%
*
* .
*
%
#
*
#

&
%

*
&

&

&*
&

&
&

&

&
*
&
*

&&

&
!

#*
#

"

<+

"
'

&
&
&
* 2
, )
# #
#

#
&

#
&

* %

,
&

-000
$

&

&

##

&

"& #
*

*
&

(##

&

% #
##

&
#

&

&
,
#&

#
2

% ,

%
%

&, )
#
##
# +

&
&
%

#
&

&

&

& &

&

%
&

&&

9 %
&
, '
* %& &
* % *
*

'

&
&

&

%
*

. &
& %

'
#

#
&

&
*

#
*

*
*

,
&

5
,
#&

&
*

*
, "&&
*
.
,

*
&

* %&
**
(% %

#
.

"
*

1 -

#
.

% &
&
&# &

&

% ;#

&

#
1

&

&

$7
=;
* %&
#9 #

7
&
,

%
&

& &

Page 4
:

'

*
%

&

&

!
*

.
, 9 *
**

#
'
3

& $&

&#

&
%
* %&

#
**

*#

&

&

1
'

# &
*
&
&#
* %
#
#
*
&&
,

*
&
&

##
, )

&
&

&

&

&

#
&#

#
*

>

&
& &

*
$ *
'
*
*
?
"

'
$

&
*

&

, '

%
&
&

'

&

.9
'

&

&

%
*

&

*
*

. $##

&
.

&

(##
*
&

& $ & 1

&
&

##
& #

&

&
*

&
&
&1

&

,
1
#

* %& &

&
, '

& %
*

?
&

&

&5 $ $

##
#
#

, )
% &, ' *

&
&

&
% .

& *

&

"

&

&
*

. $##

"

&

&) * %
# *
&
#
*
, ' #
&
*

#$
$

* #

&5 $

&

#
&

&&

1 * %&

&
#

%
1

&
&

#
#

*
# &

& ##

&

,
&
&,

Page 5
-

&

&

& &,
'

&

&

&

" 9$$ ,

&

" 9$$ ,

'
-

'
!- & &

'

$ !

&

5 &

&
&

" 9$$ ,

% &-

&

&

* %&

% , '
&
#
& # "!
&
"!
%
& #
%
9 %

#"
*

#
=, '
&

*
%
*

<'
#
*

,
!

"
#$%&
(

'

&
&

!/

'

" 9$$ ,
%

2 &%

&

&

Page 6
'

##

& & ##

&
&

& &

&

,
)

" 9$$

&

&

&

/ &7

, &

'

%8$

*
&

&
&

!
*

&, )
.#

,)
8

&
* .

& &

&
9 %

,
*

'

'

&
& &

" 9$$

5 9
)
*
+
) * %
$
9

!
(##

8
.

&9
&

*
&" &

&
. 89
&
%

89 *
&
%
,

*
&

&

, 9 &

'

&

89 *
&
*
#%
, (##
% . &

&

%
%

&

, '
&
&9

$
" 9$$

+"

,#$$)$$$

+"

,#$$)$$$

&

1
*

-*
"

+"
/

89
&

% , @ &
&&

9 %

*
*

.*

Page 7
'
*

(##

&

&

&8

1& :

&

&

'

&

&
"
'
'
'

&
#

&

&

&

#
*

##
&
#
#

$
2

!
*

?
?

&
&

?
&

% &

$ &&

&

&$

& / &7

&

&

'
## #

&

&

&

(##

&

&
#C

&

&

'

&

&
4 $
)

'

* &

&

" 9$$

'

&

* % & &?

; 6

'

$ ,& $

)
"

** *

&

&
,

&

5 9
*

&

<

*
0)
%

>
&

&#

&
*

'
*

#&
!
, +

&

&9
(##

&
&

&9
&
% ,
&

&

&&

+
&

Page 8
##
&
*
#

&&
& *
&

%
&

,
!
&

&

&

&%
$&
&# &
%

&
'

&

&.
&
*

, )
&#

&
*

" 9$$

4
!

&

1
&

&

&
* * ,'
*
& (% %

& #&
%
&
* %&
*
&
* *
,

&

#
&

, )#
+

A
&

*
*

#
#

(##

&

&
,

&

&) * %
* %

&5

&
*

&

'
%

&
#

&!

&
* #

&

&

&
* ,

. 0> %

. -0 3. '

&

'

5
&

C,/- *

. D,/0*

Page 9

Agenda Item 3

Canterbury City Council Future Committee Structure

Outstanding matters from the previous meeting
1. Introduction
At the last meeting on 20 October, the Commission considered a report setting out
various features of a proposed committee structure. The report together with the
views expressed by the Commission at that meeting have informed a draft report to
Full Council set out later on this agenda for the Commissions consideration.
Whilst there was broad agreement for the majority of the recommendations set out
in the report to the last meeting, it was agreed that some of the recommendations
required further discussion. This paper highlights those areas of the report which
the Commission agreed to return to at this meeting.
2. Full Council
The role of the Full Council would remain unchanged. Full Council would continue to
have responsibility for approving the budget and policy framework and decisions
outside that. The minutes of the councils committees would be submitted to Full
Council and could be debated, but resolved decisions could not be overturned, as is
currently the case.
At the meeting on 20 October, Ed Hammond, Head of Programmes, Local
Accountability at the Centre for Public Scrutiny advised that the role of Full Council
could be developed to include a review of the policy framework at the outset of the
council year ahead to identify any upcoming matters that could benefit from a Full
Council debate. Previously, the council held State of the Area debates which had
similar intentions but these were not continued. These could be reintroduced or
alternatively, a mechanism which enabled Full Council to identify topics it wanted to
debate during the course of the year could be introduced.
3. Service Committees
Under the Committee System, decisions will need to be taken by a series of
committees covering the councils different functions and made up of councillors
from all political parties reflecting the political balance of the council. Previously, it
was usual for the councils officer and committee structure to align. However, the
current council officer structure is designed around cost, performance and customer
satisfaction rather than groupings of related functions. Since the Committee System
last operated, local government has changed and it will continue to change as
economic austerity extends into the future. In whatever structure is adopted, it is

Page 10
not perceived there would be an immediate need to change the officer structure. It
is suggested that it would be more appropriate for the committees to represent the
functions relating to the councils key policy priorities. These would also reflect
functions which may relate to one another.
At the meeting of the Commission on 20 October, the Commission considered an
assessment of the number of reports made to the councils committees over the
past four years and the topic areas they covered. The analysis showed that there
would be a reasonably even spread of business if three service committees were
introduced as set out below. The committee names provide an indication of the
types of functional areas it is proposed they cover. Please note that the list of
functions for each committee is not intended to be exhaustive. The structure is also
set out on a chart at Appendix A.

Policy and Resources Committee

A Policy Committee existed in the councils previous committee system and is a key
feature of the committee structures of those councils that have reintroduced the
system since 2012.
The Policy and Resources Committees role could include:
-

Taking decisions on matters that cut across more than one service committee.
Approval of the councils Corporate Plan.
Recommending a Capital and Revenue Budget to Full Council and Medium Term
Financial Strategy.
Corporate performance monitoring.
Shared Services matters.
Matters relating to General Purposes that are currently within the remit of the
General Purposes and Licensing Committee (e.g. staffing matters, electoral
registration, appointments to outside bodies).

Under the present Executive system, Licensing and General Purposes functions are
combined into one General Purposes and Licensing Committee. It is suggested that
matters within the remit of General Purposes which include electoral registration
functions, health and safety at work, pensions, staffing matters and Contracts
Standing Orders be incorporated into the Terms of Reference of the proposed Policy
and Resources Committee.
The council also has an Appointment Sub-Committee and Regulatory Appeals SubCommittee that report into the General Purposes and Licensing Committee. These

Page 11
Sub-Committees deal with senior council officer appointments and appeals and meet
very infrequently. Such bodies would in future report to the Policy and Resources
Committee.
At the meeting on 20 October, the Commission also discussed whether or not the
proposed Policy and Resources Committee should have a co-ordinating role with
greater financial and policy making powers than the other service committees.
There is a need for such a committee is to provide strategic oversight of policy
development and decision making. The Committees co-ordinating role is intended
to meet the efficiency principle as it would ensure that work programming makes
the best use of the councils resources.
An example of how this oversight role would work in practice can be demonstrated
in the way that budget and performance monitoring would take place. Individual
service committees would consider budget and performance reports for those
functions within their terms of reference. All reports would then be submitted to
the Policy and Resources Committee together with any comments from the services
committees so that one body would have complete oversight of the budget and
performance of the council as a whole. The councillors of the Committee would be
able to effectively scrutinise the reports in a way that the way of working and the
size of Full Council would not allow.

Regeneration and Property Committee

The functions that would be included within the remit of the Regeneration and
Property Committee include:
-

Recommending relevant policies to the Policy Committee (e.g. Corporate

Property Strategy)
Property disposals
Economic Development
Regeneration
Parking, travel and roads
Budget and performance monitoring
(A separate Planning Committee, would deal with Development Control
decisions)

Community Committee

The functions that could be included within the remit of the Community Committee
include:

Page 12

Recommending community policies to the Policy Committee

Housing
Environment
Health
Culture
Leisure
Community development
Community and voluntary sector funding
Community Safety (and community safety scrutiny)
Budget and performance monitoring

The Commission also discussed an alternative committee structure based on the

councils officer structure which is set out at Appendix B. It was broadly felt it would
not work as well as one designed around functions for the following reasons:
-

If the committee system were aligned to the officer structure, there would
potentially be greater duplication with reports needing to go to several
committees.
The officer divisions are not as easily understandable to members of the public
as are areas of the councils activity. The majority of responses to the
Commissions questionnaire suggested committees that addressed council
functions.
Linking the committee structure so closely to the officer structure would not
allow for individual functions to move easily between officer services.
Significant change to the officer structure could not take place without change to
the committee structure.
If the officer structure was changed, the Member expertise developed would
either be located within the wrong committee or would also need to be moved.
Conflict could arise between individual committees due to some services being
represented on more than one committee with, for example, policy issues being
decided by one committee and operational issues by another.
There would be an increase in workload as certain reports (e.g. parking, property
and housing) would need to be considered by more than one committee.

Recommendations:
-

That the councils services committees be aligned to the councils functions

rather than the present officer structure.

That three service committees be introduced to reflect the business of the

council: Policy and Resources, Regeneration and Property and Community.

Page 13

That matters relating to General Purposes be included in the Terms of

Reference of the proposed Policy and Resources Committee.

4. Decision review
A process could be introduced for controversial decisions taken by a committee to
be reviewed. Under the councils previous committee system, the Policy Committee
was able to review and in effect call-in decisions taken by another committee but
not yet implemented.
It is proposed the Policy and Resources Committee could review a decision when
certain conditions had been met:
-

The review is requested within three working days of the day on which the
decision was published;
The request is made in writing to the Monitoring Officer that the decision be
reviewed and the request is signed by at least one third of the Policy and
Resources Committee.

It was also suggested at the meeting of the Commission on 20 October that to

ensure Decision Review did not cause unnecessary delay to decision making and was
only reserved for exceptional circumstances, a set of criteria should be introduced to
assess any potential review.
A decision could be reviewed if there was evidence:
-

The decision had not met the normal requirements for decision making (for
example financial or equalities implications not being considered or
inadequate consultation).
The decision had been taken outside the Budget and Policy Framework.
The decision was not supported by a proper reason explaining why it had
been taken.

A decision could not be reviewed if:

-

It has been certified as urgent in accordance with the councils urgency

procedures.
It has been taken by a regulatory committee of the council (Planning or
Licensing).

The Commission also discussed whether Decision Review should fall to the Full
Council rather than the proposed Policy and Resources Committee. Whilst this

Page 14
would reflect the ultimate sovereignty of the Council, the size of Full Council and
frequency of its meetings would mean that decisions could be slowed down to such
an extent that they were not taken in a timely fashion without a special meeting
being called. The sense of the previous meeting is reflected in the recommendation
below that if the Commission consider there should be a mechanism by which
decisions can be reviewed, then that power is exercised by the Policy and Resources
Committee.
If this role were to fall to the Full Council then it is suggested that the number of
signatures required should be sufficiently high to ensure that decision making was
not significantly slowed down on a regular basis. Cambridgeshire County Council
allow for decisions to be reviewed either by their General Purposes Committee or
the Full Council although there is a significant hurdle to be crossed before Council
can debate the decision. Decisions can be reviewed by eight or more councillors of
the Council at the General Purposes Committee (which consists of 17 Members). For
a debate at Full Council, the threshold is set higher so that more than half of the
Council (69 Members) must support the review. For practical reasons previously
referred to, Cambridgeshire have ensured only the most compelling cases are
subject to decision review.
Recommendation to Full Council: that controversial decisions be referred to the
Policy and Resources Committee for a decision review in cases where the conditions
and criteria outlined above have been met.
5. Next steps
The views of the Commission on the features of the proposed committee structure
outlined above will inform the recommendations to be included in the final report to
Full Council. A draft of the final report is set out later on this agenda for the
Commissions consideration.

Appendix A
Structure 1 (aligned
to council functions)

Other Committees

Full Council
(39)

Joint
Transportation
Board (9)

Committees
Planning
(9)

Regeneration
and Property
(9)

Community
(9)

Licensing
(9)

Licensing
Sub
(3)

Appointments
Sub (5)

Audit and
Governance
(9)

Regulatory
and Appeals
Sub (5)

Governance
Working Party
(7)

Area Member Panels

Canterbury

Herne Bay

Standards
(5)

Whitstable

Rural North

Rural South

Page 15

Planning SubCommittee
(4)

Policy
(9)

Whitstable
Harbour Board
(5)

Appendix B
Structure 2 (aligned to
officer structure)

Other
Committees

Full Council
(39)

Joint
Transportation
Board (9)

Committees
Licensing (9)

Direct
Services
(9)

Commissioned
Services
(9)

Planning and
Regeneration
(9)

Strategy and
Democracy
(9)

Resources
(9)
Standards

(5)
Planning Sub
(9)

Governance
Working
Party (7)

Planning Site
Visit Sub

Appointmen
ts Sub (5)

Regulatory
and Appeals
Sub (5)

Area Member Panels

Canterbury

Herne Bay

Whitstable

Rural North

Rural South

Whitstable
Harbour Board
(5)

Page 16

Licensing
Sub
(3)

Page 17

Agenda Item 4

Scrutiny Going Forward

A discussion paper by Cllr Neil Baker
Introduction
I decided it may be useful to put forward some thoughts regarding the ongoing
Scrutiny function of Canterbury City Council post-May 2015, when a committee form
of governance will begin.
I have deliberately not included any recommendations in this paper as my chief aim is
to focus a public debate on the matter at meeting of the Governance Commission.
Neither have I checked whether any of these ideas are actually achievable in practice.

Policy and Resources Committee as the Senior Committee

The issue of whether the Policy and Resources Committee should be seen as a
senior committee and have the ability to alter the views of other committees has
already been the subject of some debate.
On one side of the argument, there is a feeling there needs to a be a committee which
can meet more often than Full Council in order to provide a focal point. On the other
side, there is concern the P&R Committee could become an Executive in all but
name.
This ties in with the overall discussions about how the scrutiny function will be
performed going forward. While cross party committees will mean there is an inbuilt
scrutiny element at all times, there appears to be a lack of formal call-in process.
At the previous meeting of the Governance Commission, the idea of having Full
Council as the final arbiter was raised. While I believe everybody considers Full
Council to be the sovereign body of the Council, even if a process were put in place to
refer decisions to Full Council this could lead to an excessive waste of time for what
could be urgent items. Potentially, two months could pass between a committee
decision being called-in and Full Council next meeting.
Having emergency Full Council meetings is theoretically an option, but the costs
involved could quickly spiral out of control. This could be reduced by having very
tight rules on how items can be referred to Full Council but this risks stifling
democracy, something the Governance Commission has heard lots of representations
about and hopes to avoid.

Page 18

Therefore, could another option be a middle ground of having an ad hoc Scrutiny

Committee which only meets when call-ins of decisions are lodged (and approved
under whatever set of new criteria may be needed) to then decide whether the issue
does indeed warrant a referral to Full Council?
None of this ignores the fact that whatever form of Governance, whatever Committee
structure, whatever Party or coalition of Parties hold a majority of seats, decisions will
always have to be made and, of course, some of these decisions will be more popular
than others.
It is essential that any form of ongoing scrutiny cannot be hijacked for political
purposes purely to delay decisions being taken. If this were to happen, there are
reputational risks as well as, in may cases, financial risks.
This suggests ongoing scrutiny would need new rules about the call-in process, and on
a related but separate note, a detailed policy of which decisions could be made under
emergency powers and how they are reported needs to be implemented (or, rather, reevaluated as this is already in place) under the existing governance structure).

In Summary: Questions to Consider

-

Is the Policy and Resources Committee a senior Committee that can reverse
the votes of other Committees but have no oversight relating to its own votes?

Would it be worth considering, if at all possible, creating an ad-hoc Scrutiny

Committee which can call the decision of any Committee in for review to
decide if it needs to be referred to Full Council as the sovereign decisionmaking body (with real thought needed about how to ensure any call-in
process cannot be hijacked for purely political purposes)?

Page 19

Agenda Item 5

Canterbury City Council Future Committee Structure

Draft report of the Governance Commission
1. Introduction
All local authorities operated under a committee system until the Local Government
Act 2000 came into force which required most councils to adopt an Executive
system. Most of those adopted a Leader and Cabinet. The Localism Act 2011 has
since given councils the option of reintroducing a committee system if they choose
to do so. The city council has committed to adopt a committee system for
implementation at the Annual Council meeting in 2015.
The report sets out a draft committee structure which incorporates proposed
recommendations to Full Council on which there was broad agreement at the last
meeting and recommendations the Commission agreed to return to at this meeting
for further deliberation.
2. Methodology
At its meeting on 24 July 2014, the Council resolved to change its governance
arrangements to a committee system. It was also agreed that the councils Political
Management Member Panel should act as a Commission, with an entirely
independent Chairman to develop the detailed design of how the Committee system
would operate practically.
Mr Chris Gay, who was Chief Executive for 24 years until his retirement in 1996, was
appointed to the role of Chairman by the current Chief Executive, Colin Carmichael.
The Commission Members were Councillors: Neil Baker, Simon Cook, Harry Cragg,
Michael Dixey, Rosemary Doyle, Ben Fitter, John Gilbey, Joe Howes, Alex Perkins and
John Wratten.
The tasks of the Commission as in developing the new structure were agreed at the
first meeting on 8 September as follows:
-

To identify the number and names of individual committees and how will they
relate to the other committees of the council.
To identify the broad roles, responsibilities of those committees.
To identify whether, and to what extent, each committee will have power to take
decisions on matters within their area of responsibility.

Page 20
-

To identify whether there will be an overview and scrutiny committee, and if not,
how the councils limited statutory scrutiny duties will be met.
To identify whether there will be a mechanism for matters decided by a
committee to be referred to the Full Council or any other committee for
reconsideration.
To consider where there are perceived difficulties with public consultation and
engagement, how, if at all, this can be addressed within the new committee
system arrangements.
To consider the schemes of delegations both from council to committees and
from committees to officers.
To consider how the committee system will demonstrate accountability of
decisions taken.
To review the potential costs associated with the committee system
arrangements.

The Commission subsequently held five meetings in public to develop the

Committee System structure set out in this report. To inform its recommendations,
the Commission invited participation from members of the public at its meeting,
received written representations and considered evidence from council officers and
an expert witness from the Centre for Public Scrutiny. The Commission also
considered the structures adopted by other councils that had moved to the
Committee System since 2012.
3. Features of a committee system
Under a committee system, decision making flows from the full council meeting as a
body. The council can delegate (and sometimes must delegate) its functions to
politically balanced committees or officers except where regulations prescribe that a
function cannot be delegated. Committees can appoint and delegate to subcommittees and a committee or a sub-committee can delegate further to an officer.
The committee structures of councils that have chosen to return to the committee
system vary but there are some common themes. Most have a Policy Committee
(some are called Policy and Resources or Policy and Finance) in addition to service
area committees such as housing, community and environment which take decisions
on all aspects of their subject area. There do not tend to be geographic area
committees at a district council level. Very few have adopted separate overview and
scrutiny committees and none at a district level.

Page 21
There are different approaches adopted by councils in that some operate a
traditional system with multiple service committees. This approach requires careful
co-ordination between the committees to ensure strategic oversight is not lost.
Most councils have instead adopted a streamlined system which consists of two or
three service committees plus regulatory committees. This council had moved
towards the latter approach by the time the Executive system was introduced as a
result of the Local Government Act 2000.
4. Context to the proposed committee structure
The committee system that the Commission recommends must address the
democratic needs of the council. It must also oversee a substantial economic and
administrative entity. The council is an organisation which employs over 700 people
and spends approximately 120 million each year serving a population of around
150,000. It effectively runs 75 separate businesses under its umbrella covering a
diverse range of services from waste and recycling, through to food hygiene,
planning, building control and licensing pubs and taxis. These services are entirely
unconnected to each other yet each of them requires decisions to be taken either by
councillors or officers on a daily basis for them to function effectively.
This council is quite unique in its diverse nature of coast, country and towns. It
serves three distinct major urban areas Canterbury, Herne Bay and Whitstable all
of similar population sizes but each with different needs and 26 parish and town
councils in the rural areas. The council owns over three per cent of the geographical
area of the district. This means the number and types of decisions taken are quite
different in scale to most other district councils.
The council is seeking to be inclusive in its decision making where that can be done
and is appropriate, whilst operating within the financial and legal framework set by
central government which can restrict the decision making options available to it.
This context has informed the following design principles which have provided the
framework for developing the outline structure set out in this report:
-

Engagement the committee structure should ensure that decision making is

connected to local people.
Economy that the overall resources including the number of meetings and
workload for councillors under the committee system should aim to be no
greater than under the present Leader and Executive system and be capable of
further refinement.

Page 22
-

Efficiency the structure allows the councils operations with sufficient process
both to run smoothly and to achieve timely decision making.
Effectiveness decisions taken address issues identified as needing to be
addressed.

Economy, efficiency and effectiveness are the statutory Best Value duties which the
council, as a Best Value authority, has a duty to secure. Engagement is an additional
principle that seeks to ensure that the committee structure allows for both
councillors and members of the public to engage in the councils democratic
processes in appropriate ways, whilst delivering the key Best Value requirements as
the overriding objective.
Representations received also suggested that the Commission should consider the
design principles of empowerment, transparency and accountability. Transparency
and accountability represent the standards the council is required to meet legally so
will need to be embedded into any system the council operates. The adoption of the
committee system is intended to foster empowerment by involving more councillors
directly in decision making. The Localism Act 2011 has provided mechanisms by
which community bodies of various design can seek greater control over matters
such as services, community assets and neighbourhood planning. The council has
adopted a policy of engaging with these processes and the new council may wish to
review how that policy is working.
5. Full Council
The role of the Full Council would remain unchanged. Full Council would continue to
have responsibility for approving the budget and policy framework and decisions
outside that. The minutes of the councils committees would be submitted to Full
Council and could be debated, but resolved decisions could not be overturned, as is
currently the case.
At the meeting on 20 October, Ed Hammond, Head of Programmes, Local
Accountability at the Centre for Public Scrutiny advised that the role of Full Council
could be developed to include a review of the policy framework at the outset of the
council year ahead to identify any upcoming matters that could benefit from a Full
Council debate. Previously, the council held State of the Area debates which had
similar intentions but these were not continued. These could be reintroduced or
alternatively, a mechanism which enabled Full Council to identify topics it wanted to
debate during the course of the year could be introduced.

Page 23
6. Service Committees
Under the committee system, decisions will need to be taken by a series of
committees covering the councils different functions and made up of councillors
from all political parties reflecting the political balance of the council. Previously, it
was usual for the councils officer and committee structure to align. However, the
current council officer structure is designed around cost, performance and customer
satisfaction rather than groupings of related functions. Since the Committee System
last operated, local government has changed and it will continue to change as
economic austerity extends into the future. In whatever structure is adopted, it is
not perceived there would be an immediate need to change the officer structure. It
is suggested that it would be more appropriate for the committees to represent the
functions relating to the councils key policy priorities. These would also reflect
functions which may relate to one another.
At the meeting of the Commission on 20 October, the Commission considered an
assessment of the number of reports made to the councils committees over the
past four years and the topic areas they covered. The analysis showed that there
would be a reasonably even spread of business if three service committees were
introduced as set out below. The committee names provide an indication of the
types of functional areas it is proposed they cover. Please note that the list of
functions for each committee is not intended to be exhaustive. The structure is also
set out on a chart at Appendix A.

Policy and Resources Committee

A Policy Committee existed in the councils previous committee system and is a key
feature of the committee structures of those councils that have reintroduced the
system since 2012.
The Policy and Resources Committees role could include:
-

Taking decisions on matters that cut across more than one service committee.
Approval of the councils Corporate Plan.
Recommending a Capital and Revenue Budget to Full Council and Medium Term
Financial Strategy.
Corporate performance monitoring.
Shared Services matters.
Matters relating to General Purposes that are currently within the remit of the
General Purposes and Licensing Committee (e.g. staffing matters, electoral
registration, appointments to outside bodies).
5

Page 24

Under the present Executive system, Licensing and General Purposes functions are
combined into one General Purposes and Licensing Committee. It is suggested that
matters within the remit of General Purposes which include electoral registration
functions, health and safety at work, pensions, staffing matters and Contracts
Standing Orders be incorporated into the Terms of Reference of the proposed Policy
and Resources Committee.
The council also has an Appointment Sub-Committee and Regulatory Appeals SubCommittee that report into the General Purposes and Licensing Committee. These
Sub-Committees deal with senior council officer appointments and appeals and meet
very infrequently. Such bodies would in future report to the Policy and Resources
Committee.
At the meeting on 20 October, the Commission also discussed whether or not the
proposed Policy and Resources Committee should have a co-ordinating role with
greater financial and policy making powers than the other service committees.
There is a need for such a committee is to provide strategic oversight of policy
development and decision making. The Committees co-ordinating role is intended
to meet the efficiency principle as it would ensure that work programming makes
the best use of the councils resources.
An example of how this oversight role would work in practice can be demonstrated
in the way that budget and performance monitoring would take place. Individual
service committees would consider budget and performance reports for those
functions within their terms of reference. All reports would then be submitted to
the Policy and Resources Committee together with any comments from the services
committees so that one body would have complete oversight of the budget and
performance of the council as a whole. The councillors of the Committee would be
able to effectively scrutinise the reports in a way that the way of working and the
size of Full Council would not allow.

Regeneration and Property Committee

The functions that would be included within the remit of the Regeneration and
Property Committee include:
-

Recommending relevant policies to the Policy Committee (e.g. Corporate

Property Strategy)
Property disposals
Economic Development
Regeneration
Parking, travel and roads
6

Page 25
-

Budget and performance monitoring

(A separate Planning Committee, would deal with Development Control
decisions)

Community Committee

The functions that could be included within the remit of the Community Committee
include:
-

Recommending community policies to the Policy Committee

Housing
Environment
Health
Culture
Leisure
Community development
Community and voluntary sector funding
Community Safety (and community safety scrutiny)
Budget and performance monitoring

The Commission also discussed an alternative committee structure based on the

councils officer structure which is set out at Appendix B. It was broadly felt it would
not work as well as one designed around functions for the following reasons:
-

If the committee system were aligned to the officer structure, there would
potentially be greater duplication with reports needing to go to several
committees.
The officer divisions are not as easily understandable to members of the public
as are areas of the councils activity. The majority of responses to the
Commissions questionnaire suggested committees that addressed council
functions.
Linking the committee structure so closely to the officer structure would not
allow for individual functions to move easily between officer services.
Significant change to the officer structure could not take place without change to
the committee structure.
If the officer structure was changed, the Member expertise developed would
either be located within the wrong committee or would also need to be moved.
Conflict could arise between individual committees due to some services being
represented on more than one committee with, for example, policy issues being
decided by one committee and operational issues by another.

Page 26
-

There would be an increase in workload as certain reports (e.g. parking, property

and housing) would need to be considered by more than one committee.

Recommendations:
-

That the councils services committees be aligned to the councils functions

rather than the present officer structure.

That three service committees be introduced to reflect the business of the

council: Policy and Resources, Regeneration and Property and Community.

That matters relating to General Purposes be included in the Terms of

Reference of the proposed Policy and Resources Committee.

7. Licensing Committee
A Licensing Committee is statutory and is required primarily to determine individual
licensing applications. Beyond that it should discharge all of the authorities licensing
functions except those of licensing policy. It has also specifically been given functions
in the Gambling Act 2005.
Presently the work of the Licensing Committee is combined with that of the General
Purposes Committee.1 However, once the authority moves into a committee system
that amalgamation of functions into one committee is more difficult to justify under
the terms of the legislation. In a committee system it will be important to distinguish
between the different roles of different committees. There will be no executive body
with the task of taking the leading role within the council. The focus of the Licensing
Committee would be on its licensing functions. On policy issues the Licensing
Committee will have to give its views to the Community Committee if time allows,
ensuring there is both a technical consideration of the policy by one committee and
the broader community perspective and recommendation to Council by another.
A new Licensing Committee will, apart from its annual meeting, not have a scheduled
rota of meetings but will meet as and when it is needed. At the outset of the year, it
will appoint panels to make decisions on licensing applications. Those functions
which relate to the determination of other licensing applications (hackney carriages
for example) could also be delegated to this committee under the general power of
delegation to committees in the Local Government Act 1972.

It is suggested elsewhere in this report that the former General Purposes Committee Functions are
incorporated into the work of the Policy and Resources Committee.

Page 27
Recommendation to Full Council: that a Licensing Committee be established to
appoint panels to determine licensing applications and to carry out related
licensing duties.
8. Planning Committee
The Planning Committee which deals with development management and related
decisions is not a statutory committee. However, the requirements imposed on the
council means it is essential to have a specialist committee to determine planning
applications. For similar reasons to separating the Licensing Committee from the
Community Committee, the Planning Committee should stand alone from the
Regeneration and Property Committee to give it focus and lessen the chance of
conflict of interest.
Recommendation to Full Council: that the Planning Committee continue under the
Committee System.
9. Audit, Performance Standards and Governance
A Committee or number of Committees needs to cover the following functions which
have grown since the last committee system:
-

Internal and external audit

Signing off the councils accounts
Standards dealing with the code of conduct and complaints arising under it
Governance relating the political management of the council and how it
organises itself.
Performance monitoring

Audit: Currently, the council has a Scrutiny and Audit Committee whose Members
receive training and is non-decision making. It makes recommendations to the
Executive or other committees as appropriate.
As the work of the Audit Committee was combined with that of the Scrutiny
Committee in 2012 to become a non-decision making body, it became necessary to
establish a separate Accounts Committee which meets once a year to approve the
accounts and is decision making in that respect. Under a new committee system
there would be no requirement for a scrutiny function so the Audit Committee could
stand alone as a decision making body with the power to sign off the Accounts, thus
negating the need for a separate Accounts Committee.
Performance: the Scrutiny and Audit Committee currently has a performance
monitoring role. Under a committee system it is suggested that quarterly service
9

Page 28
performance monitoring is reported to the relevant committee. The Policy and
Resources Committee would have a corporate performance monitoring role and
consider the annual performance report.
Standards: the Standards Committee comprises both city councillors and co-opted
parish councillors. When the statutory code of conduct was abolished in 2012, it was
suggested that Standards could be combined with Audit as a committee solely of city
council Members. However, the parish councils strongly supported a council
committee on which they were represented, as the city councils Monitoring Officer
also has responsibility for the parish councils. The role of Parish Councillors on the
Standards Committee suggests that it should remain as a standalone committee.
Governance: the Political Management Member Panel (PMMP) serves to discuss and
develop governance issues, particularly technical ones, with officers in an informal
way before making recommendations to Full Council or relevant committee.
Under the new committee system, a proposed Governance Working Party would
take on the role of the PMMP but the Working Partys findings would then be
formally debated by its parent committee in advance of Full Council.
Recommendations to Full Council:
a) That the Standards Committee be retained under the Committee System.
b) That an Audit and Governance Committee be introduced.
c) That a Governance Working Party which makes recommendations to its parent
Audit and Governance Committee be introduced.
10. Overview and Scrutiny
Overview and Scrutiny is a feature of the Leader and Executive system, designed to
provide checks and balances to more centralised decision making. The councils
overview and scrutiny function has evolved since its introduction. Presently there is
an Overview Committee which considers matters in advance of the Executive and a
Scrutiny and Audit Committee, the scrutiny element of which focuses on scrutinising
decisions that have been taken by the Executive. The Scrutiny and Audit Committee
also manages a rolling programme of scrutiny reviews.
Whilst scrutiny is a feature of the Executive system, it can operate in a committee
system in broadly three ways:
1) A standalone scrutiny committee. This could only have the responsibility for
examining the work of other committees and undertaking the councils statutory
scrutiny requirements.

10

Page 29
2) Scrutiny is embedded into the work of individual committees with each
committee responsible for monitoring budgets and performance relating to its
functions. In addition, members of the committee could highlight areas of
concern and request reports on issues relating to their functions in much the
same way as the present Scrutiny and Audit Committee does.
3) Scrutiny is conducted by Full Council whereby a council-wide debate on an
aspect of the work or report of a particular committee could take place. This
option would present a legal concern that the council could be debating issues
without having had access to all the relevant material. Therefore, if there was to
be a debate at Full Council, Members would need to consider all material
associated with the issue which would suggest that this type of scrutiny could not
take place as a matter of routine.
Most councils that have adopted a committee system since 2012 have chosen to
embed scrutiny within the work of each committee. The exception is Brighton and
Hove Council which has a standalone scrutiny committee, but as a unitary authority
has wider statutory scrutiny powers (health and flood scrutiny) than those of district
councils.
District councils have just one statutory scrutiny requirement under a committee
system. That is to scrutinise crime and disorder issues at least once each year.
Currently the Scrutiny and Audit Committee carries out this requirement by
examining the performance of the Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership on a
six-monthly basis. Rather than establish a separate committee to carry out this duty,
crime and disorder scrutiny could be embedded into the work of the relevant service
committees terms of reference. The Community Committee could carry out this
role.
It is also suggested scrutiny of performance and budgets takes place within the
proposed committees. These checks and balances will also be enhanced by the
retention of the Area Member Panels, suggested elsewhere in this report. A role of
the Area Member Panels is to make recommendations on local service delivery by
keeping watching brief on the performance and decisions taken by the committees.
Recommendation to Full Council: That the councils statutory scrutiny duties
(namely crime and disorder scrutiny) should be embedded into the terms of
reference of the relevant committee.
Recommendation to Full Council: that performance and budget monitoring falls
within the remit of the relevant committee.

11

Page 30
11. Area Member Panels/Committees
The five Area Member Panels (AMPs) that form part of the councils current
structure of committees under the Leader and Executive system, did not exist under
the previous committee system. They were introduced to allow Members to express
views on services relating to their particular part of the district to the Executive. In
addition, the AMPs have served to promote local democracy and their engagement
role had developed over time. The AMPs are generally well attended by members of
the public and a means of engaging members of the public in the council at the most
local level.
Recommendation to Full Council: that the work of the Area Member Panels is
supported and should continue under the committee system subject to the next
recommendation.

A further consideration for this Commission in relation to area working is that in

April 2013, Full Council considered a report looking at whether a Community
Governance Review should be carried out to look at the option of creating town
councils in the district. It resolved: That the interest in initiating a Community
Governance Review be reassessed following any Electoral Review in 2013. A
Community Governance Review in the near future would be timely as guidance
suggests that local authorities should be encouraged to review their electoral
representational arrangements every 10-15 years2. The last full review of the
Canterbury district was carried out in the late 1980s.
The Electoral Review is due to complete in December 2014 for implementation at
the local elections in May 2015. It is therefore suggested this council recommend a
Community Governance Review for the district to the new council.
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.
Recommendation to Full Council: That the new council in 2015 be asked to
commence a district-wide Community Governance Review, and that the role of the
Area Member Panels be reviewed in parallel.

Department for Communities and Local Government and Local Boundary Commission for England Guidance,
March 2010.

12

Page 31
12. Other meetings
Joint Transportation Board
The Joint Transportation Board (JTB) is primarily a consultative body of Kent County
Council. So, the principle of the JTBs future is for the County Council to decide,
although the city council could also choose to withdraw. The JTB usefully provides a
forum for city and parish councillors to discuss highways functions which are mainly
a county function but which have local public interest. As a body primarily of the
County Council, the work of the JTB could not be incorporated into the work of a
service committee.
Recommendation to Full Council: that the Joint Transportation Board continue
under the committee system.
Whitstable Harbour Board
Prior to 2002, Whitstable Harbour activities fell within the remit of the Property and
Engineering Committee. Following a Best Value Review recommendation, the
Harbour Board was introduced in 2002/03 to give strategic direction to the
management of the harbour and its property portfolio. It has the status of a
dedicated council committee with delegated authority from the Council to make
certain decisions relating to the Harbour. The Board comprises both elected
councillors and independent members with relevant expertise.
Recommendation to Full Council: that the Whitstable Harbour Board continue
under the committee system.
Working parties, sub-committees
Working parties were a feature of the previous committee system which have also
been used by this council under the Leader and Executive system.
The sub-committees that operated under the previous committee system were
specific to the business of the council as it was then. For example, the Housing
Appeals and Central Services Sub-Committees, neither of which are now likely to be
relevant following operational changes. Sub-Committees can either be selfcontained with their own decision making powers, or they may make
recommendations for their parent committee to resolve.
It will be for the individual committees to appoint sub-committees to address the
business needs of the council as necessary. Similarly it will be for the new council to
establish the working parties it needs at the beginning of the council year and
reappoint or disband them annually thereafter. In order to ensure resources are
managed appropriately, it is suggested the Policy and Resources Committee could
13

Page 32
authorise any working parties that need to be established during the course of the
year.
Elsewhere in this report, a Governance Working Party is suggested to cover
necessary functions. Otherwise it is suggested that the working parties to be
recommended to the new council be considered once the Commissions work to
develop a committee structure has concluded.
Whist co-opting external representatives onto working groups and review panels is
possible under the current Constitution, it has rarely occurred. In fact, the last
notable example was when a representative of the Kent Association of Parish
Councils was co-opted onto the 2004 Parish Contributions Scrutiny Review. The
purpose of the co-option was to improve the deliberations of the review panel and
act as a link between the review process and the parish councils in the district.
Instead, external advice has been regularly sought through expert witness sessions
during reviews. 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.
Recommendation to Full Council: that the process outlined above for appointing
sub-committees and working parties be commended to the new council.
Recommendation to Full Council: that the Political Management Member Panel
considers the working parties to be recommended to the new council following the
conclusion of this Commission.
Recommendation to Full Council: that external representatives be co-opted onto
working groups, sub-committees and review panels where external expertise
would improve deliberations.
13. Best Value Reviews
Best Value Reviews (BVRs) were a feature of the previous Committee System,
intended to focus on the best value duty of continuously improving efficiency,
economy and effectiveness. In 2012 the council decided to reintroduce a version of
Best Value Reviews as they had been particularly valued previously and were seen as
a way of extending the role of non-Executive councillors. Whilst our present BVR
programme does not operate in exactly the same way as it did under the Committee
system, BVRs provide a mechanism for taking a time limited look at specific issues
and making recommendations for improving them.
Previously the programme of Best Value Reviews was overseen by a sub-committee
of the policy committee. If BVRs were to continue then it is likely the Policy and
14

Page 33
Resources Committee would co-ordinate an annual programme with individual
committees making recommendations on review topics. By having a co-ordinating
role, the Policy Resources Committee would have oversight of the programme and
ensure resources were managed appropriately.
Whilst BVRs have been valued by this council, they are not necessary for the new
committee structure to operate from day one. It is therefore suggested that it be
left for the new council to decide whether or not to carry out a programme of BVRs.
Recommendation: that a report be brought to the new council for it to decide
whether Best Value Reviews should continue under the new committee system.
14. Delegation of powers
Delegation to officers: the scheme of delegation is designed to allow the council to
run effectively and efficiently on a day-to-day basis, whilst Members have the role of
taking significant decisions and developing the policies of the council to which the
officers work.
When the new Executive system was introduced, the scheme of delegation to
officers was largely transferred across. The delegated powers have been updated
and refined over the years and have also incorporated new policy areas such as
licensing but there have been no fundamental changes in approach. The delegated
powers are reviewed annually and there has been very little comment or concern
over the years.
Recommendation to Full Council: that the current scheme of delegation be
continued under the committee system.
(*The scheme of delegation will be set out as an appendix in the final report to
Council.)
Delegation to committees: The council sets the budget framework each year.
Decisions that fall within the budget framework can be taken by committees.
Decisions outside of the budget framework would need to be approved by council.
Recommendations to Full Council:

Expenditure up to 200,000 per decision and within the budget framework

could be approved by a Service Committee;

15

Page 34

Expenditure over 200,000 per decision would need to be referred to the

Policy and Resources Committee for approval with unlimited expenditure
within the budget framework.
Expenditure outside of the budget framework would need to be approved
by Full Council.

15. Frequency of meetings and urgency provisions

It is suggested that the service committees meet approximately every six weeks
initially, although this will need to be reviewed and the frequency increased or
reduced as appropriate to meet the business needs of the council. Existing
committees such as the Planning Committee which are recommended to be carried
forward to the new system, would continue to meet with the same regularity as they
do now.
Provisions for taking urgent decisions must be incorporated into the arrangements.
It is suggested they should only be used where failure to take the decision would, or
would be likely to, harm the interests of the council and/or public. Previously, the
council had Executive Sub-Committees whose task it was to take urgent decisions
between meetings. They were flexible as to whether they would meet during the
day or the evening. It is suggested these sub-committees are revived. Sometimes it
might be appropriate to convene a special meeting of a sub-committee, other times
a joint meeting between a service sub-committee and the policy/sub-committee
might be needed where a decision falls outside the required budget or policy
framework of the service committee.
Where it is not practical for a meeting to be convened, the Chief Executive may also
take an urgent decision and if possible, consult the chair of the relevant committee
and/or monitoring officer.
In order for a decision to be classified urgent, the following criteria could be applied:
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
g)

A service not being provided;

The council breaking the law or financial rules;
The public being put at serious risk of harm;
The council suffering significant financial loss;
Consultation deadlines not being met;
In the event of a major incident;
Any other unforeseen circumstance which makes delay imprudent.

16

Page 35
Recommendation to Full Council: that the procedure and criteria for allowing
urgent decisions to be taken be introduced.
16. Committee size/Member and officer workload
Currently the city council has a broad representation of councillors of working age
and in designing the new system, it needs to ensure that the number of meetings
that councillors would be expected to attend is not so onerous that it prevents a
broad spectrum of people from standing as councillors. If there were to be an
increase in the total number of meetings held from the present system then there
would be resource implication for both Members and officers, particularly in light of
the reduction in councillors from 50 to 39 which will coincide with the
implementation of the new committee system.
Based on the structure outlined in this report, 39 councillors would share 80 places
on 10 committees.3 An average of 2 committee places per councillor. Each councillor
would also attend 1 Area Member Panel and Full Council. For comparison under the
current Leader Executive System, 50 councillors share 109 places on 11 committees,
an average of just over 2 committees per councillor (plus Full Council, AMPs, scrutiny
and Best Value Reviews).4
There would be a total of 93 meetings a year (plus Full Council and AMP meetings).
This is based on the committees meeting on the following number of occasions:

Committee
Planning
Planning Sub (primarily for enforcement)
Licensing Sub
Licensing
Policy
Community
Regeneration and Property
Joint Transportation Board
Whitstable Harbour Board
Audit and Governance
3

Approximate number of meetings

required5
13
6
26
2
8
8
8
4
6
4

Analysis of Green Card. Licensing &Licensing Sub and Planning/Planning Sub counted as 1 committee.
Appeals and Regulatory Appeals not counted as meet rarely and not on current green card. 2.05 committees
4
2.18 committees per councillor.
5
Approximate number of meetings is based on assessment of current workload and assuming service
committees will meet on six weekly basis.

17

Page 36
Governance Working Party
Standards
Total:

4
4
93 meetings

The approximate number of meetings when compared to the last year of the
previous committee structure and the councils current Leader Executive system is as
follows:
Year
2015 onwards
2013/14
2001/02

Number of meetings
93
105
84

The size of the future committees will be largely dictated by the political balance of
the council which will not be known until after the Local Elections next year. The
membership of committees will be subject to any necessary adjustments to achieve
political balance but when the Commission considered the issue at the last meeting
there was a view that each committee should consist of at least nine members. It
was important to allow for broad representation and wide debate but this would
need to be balanced against work load on which issues it will be for the new council
to take a view.
Membership of nine would mean the average number of committee places each
member held would be broadly the same as under the present Leader and Executive
system (although the workload for individual councillors under an Executive system
is not as evenly balanced as a committee system allows). More than nine could
increase Member workload so the new council will need to find a suitable balance
between workload and representation on committee.
Recommendation to Full Council: Each committee should comprise of nine or more
Members.
17. Shared Services
Since the council last had a committee system of political management it has
entered into the shared delivery of services with other authorities which will carry on
under the new system. These shared working arrangements have led to the creation
of two committees; the East Kent Joint Arrangements Committee and the East Kent
(Housing Management) Committee.
The East Kent Joint Arrangements Committee is shortly to be replaced by a new joint
committee between Canterbury City Council, Dover District Council and Thanet
18

Page 37
District Council. Kent County Council and Shepway District Council are not actively
participating in the sharing of services and will formally leave the present
arrangement when the new committee comes into effect. Services delivered are
human resources, information communications technology, revenues and benefits
and the contact centre dealing with the various ways the council interacts with the
public.
With the creation of the arms-length management company, East Kent Housing, a
substantial amount of housing activity was passed to this new company controlled
by its corporate members Canterbury City Council, Dover District Council, Shepway
District Council and Thanet District Council. The East Kent (Housing Management)
Committee oversees the workings of East Kent Housing and performs the important
role of deciding on certain key matters when the parties are in dispute. This has
proved to be extremely rare.
Where a Member is placed on a joint committee they have a vote on that joint
committee and the decisions of that committee will bind the council and the other
participating councils.
18. Partnerships
A feature of modern local government is partnership working more generally.
Although the city council has never had individual executive member decision
making, individual members of the Executive have attended partnership meetings.
The Leader of the council, as the source of Executive power, could, if the occasion
demanded it bind the council by his decision. In the new arrangements it must be
assumed committee chairmen will take these partnership roles. An individual
member in a committee system cannot take a decision that binds the council.
Therefore, either officers will need to be empowered to make decisions if necessary
at these partnership bodies; or alternatively the chairman will have to have the
necessary skills to know how far he or she can go in indicating a decision that his
council would be likely to support; or he or she will have to make sure they have the
necessary decisions in place beforehand which can then be relayed to the
partnership.
No recommendations are required from the commission on these matters. The
change to the committee system simply presents issues which must be worked
through on a practical basis.
19. Decision review
A process could be introduced for controversial decisions taken by a committee to
be reviewed. Under the councils previous committee system, the Policy Committee
19

Page 38
was able to review and in effect call-in decisions taken by another committee but
not yet implemented.
It is proposed the Policy and Resources Committee could review a decision when
certain conditions had been met:
-

The review is requested within three working days of the day on which the
decision was published;
The request is made in writing to the Monitoring Officer that the decision be
reviewed and the request is signed by at least one third of the Policy and
Resources Committee.

It was also suggested at the meeting of the Commission on 20 October that to

ensure Decision Review did not cause unnecessary delay to decision making and was
only reserved for exceptional circumstances, a set of criteria should be introduced to
assess any potential review.
A decision could be reviewed if there was evidence:
-

The decision had not met the normal requirements for decision making (for
example financial or equalities implications not being considered or
inadequate consultation).
The decision had been taken outside the Budget and Policy Framework.
The decision was not supported by a proper reason explaining why it had
been taken.

A decision could not be reviewed if:

-

It has been certified as urgent in accordance with the councils urgency

procedures.
It has been taken by a regulatory committee of the council (Planning or
Licensing).

The Commission also discussed whether Decision Review should fall to the Full
Council rather than the proposed Policy and Resources Committee. Whilst this
would reflect the ultimate sovereignty of the Council, the size of Full Council and
frequency of its meetings would mean that decisions could be slowed down to such
an extent that they were not taken in a timely fashion without a special meeting
being called. The sense of the previous meeting is reflected in the recommendation
below that if the Commission consider there should be a mechanism by which
decisions can be reviewed, then that power is exercised by the Policy and Resources
Committee.

20

Page 39
If this role were to fall to the Full Council then it is suggested that the number of
signatures required should be sufficiently high to ensure that decision making was
not significantly slowed down on a regular basis. Cambridgeshire County Council
allow for decisions to be reviewed either by their General Purposes Committee or
the Full Council although there is a significant hurdle to be crossed before Council
can debate the decision. Decisions can be reviewed by eight or more councillors of
the Council at the General Purposes Committee (which consists of 17 Members). For
a debate at Full Council, the threshold is set higher so that more than half of the
Council (69 Members) must support the review. For practical reasons previously
referred to, Cambridgeshire have ensured only the most compelling cases are
subject to decision review.
Recommendation to Full Council: that controversial decisions be referred to the
Policy and Resources Committee for a decision review in cases where the conditions
and criteria outlined above have been met.
20. Consultation
One of the Commissions tasks was to assess where there were perceived difficulties
with public consultation and engagement, how, if at all, this could be addressed
within the new committee system arrangements. The Commission considered the
councils different approaches to consultation at its meeting on 26 September which
include the Annual Residents Survey, Community e-panel, questionnaires and online
surveys, focus groups and public speaking at committee.
The council uses a wide variety of consultation techniques which often go above and
beyond the minimum requirements. However, improvements could be made in
communicating how decisions have been informed by consultation and engagement
processes. 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.
Whilst these are issues that cannot be addressed through the design of a committee
structure, it was considered that the new council should be asked to develop a new
consultation strategy which addressed the points raised during the course of this
Commission.

21

Page 40
Recommendation to Full Council: that the Council elected in 2015 be requested to
develop a new consultation strategy.
21. Speaking rights
Members of the public can speak at council committees to inform debate and
decision making. The usual speaking right allow for individuals (speaking on behalf
of themselves or organisations) to speak for three minutes, subject to notice having
been given to Democratic Services in advance. The exception is the Licensing SubCommittee where speaking rights are limited to relevant interested parties.
Representations to the Commission have highlighted a concern that the provisions
for speaking at council committees can be restrictive and do not provide an
opportunity for further points to be made later in the meeting.
Public speaking rights are very important. However, a restriction on the time
allowed for speakers ensures fairness for all that want to have their say and avoids
excessively lengthy meetings. There are also other ways that members of the public
can make representations for example, in writing, social media or by approaching
individual ward members directly in advance of an issue being debated at
committee.
The number of registered speakers does vary depending on the committee and issue
being debated. Whilst a high number of registered speakers would make it
necessary to impose the three minute rule (for example the recent Planning
Committee meeting where 45 people registered to speak), but there may also be
occasions where at the discretion of the committee chair, a relaxation of the time
limit could be appropriate to allow for a longer contribution or further comment
during debate. The appropriateness of such a relaxation would be very much
dependent on the committee and therefore it is suggested that each committee be
recommended to review their speaking and engagement arrangements six months
into the operation of the new system.
Recommendation to Full Council: that each committee be encouraged to relax the
time limitations for public speaking where appropriate and when time allows.
Each committee should also review its speaking and engagement arrangements six
months into the operation of the new system.

22

Page 41
22. Conclusion
The draft structure set out in this report is intended to enable the council to function
effectively from the Annual Council meeting in 2015. It will be a new way of working
and consequently adjustments may need to be made once in operation. As
highlighted by the Centre for Public Scrutiny it will be important to review the
structure once it has bedded in to ensure it fulfils the design principles set out in this
report.
Recommendation to Full Council: that the new council be strongly encouraged to
review how the committee structure is working in practice towards the end of the
first calendar year of operation.
23. Next steps
The Commissions views on the recommendations set out in this report are sought to
inform the final report and recommendations to be made to the Full Council on 27
November.
Subject to the views of Full Council, the key features of the committee system
outline in this report will be advertised and necessary constitutional changes made
to enable the new system to operate from the Annual Council meeting in 2015.
These will be discussed at the Political Management Member Panel and proposed to
Full Council in due course.

23