Council merger is risk to democracy

Two decades ago we had Scottish and Welsh devolution, then the London Assembly and the arrival of London’s first elected mayor (Councils’ Bid For Super Authority Is Biggest Shake-up In 40 Years, Gazette, January 26).

These institutions have brought democracy closer to the voters.

The Good Friday Agreement heralded the reinstatement of power devolved to Northern Ireland, and in recent years very substantial powers have been devolved to Northern parts of England, the best known example being the Northern Powerhouse, which has given local government a raft of important new economic levers.

These constitutional reforms have given voters far greater say on how money is spent and what policies are introduced.

With the exception of the special case that is Northern Ireland, in Scotland, Wales and London, political power has moved between parties as voters expressed a desire for change.

Voters of all political colours in these places will tell you that they feel closer than ever to political power and have greater ability to influence policy than at any time in the past (it is too early to say how well Northern devolution will work).

In the South and South East of England nothing has changed but now we have a proposal to merge four district councils.

No doubt the motive is saving money, but we need to take care that democracy is not injured in the process.

The city of Canterbury has had the ability to control much of its own destiny for many hundreds of years.

Councillors meet voters every day in the streets of the city.

The Gazette holds councillors and officers to account through its news pages and letters columns.

The decisions made by councillors in Canterbury district are decisions they have to experience because they live here.

A mega council in east Kent will diminish democracy and accountability.

Fewer people will be elected to represent Canterbury district. Those elected will have far more to do, so the quality of service from councillors will be under strain. Competition between the four very different areas that will make up the proposed council will be intense. Sometimes, perhaps often, Canterbury, Whitstable, Herne Bay and the villages will lose out.

During the referendum on Europe, we heard the mantra: “We want our country back.”

The country agreed with that sentiment and voted to have the UK in control of critical issues.

I have a strong feeling that many in the Canterbury and district area want to keep control of the area’s affairs. Local government is meant to be local. We don’t surely want bureaucrats in a building miles from where we live, work and pay our council taxes.

We don’t surely want fewer councillors to fight for us and help solve our local problems.

We don’t surely want to have less control over our lives than we have now?

We also surely want the ability and freedom to throw out one political party and replace it with another if we are dissatisfied.

That’s much harder to do with big super councils. The case for giving up much of our local democracy and local control has not been made.

Let’s reject the idea and keep our council local. Martin Roche Merton Lane, Canterbury

The proposal for the councils in Canterbury, Thanet, Dover and Shepway to merge into an east Kent super council would seem to represent the worst of all worlds. Services and decision-making would become more remote for most residents and by definition less locally focused.

At the same time, Maidstone-based Kent County Council (KCC) would continue to exist as a separate, upper tier of local government.

At present, KCC operates as a partner in joint transportation boards (JTB) with each of the district councils.

The current system is cumbersome and bureaucratic enough, with projects to paint a yellow line or to shorten a parking bay sometimes taking the best part of a year from proposal to implementation.

How much more convoluted would it be to have an east Kent JTB where parking on pavements in Whitstable were dealt with on the same agenda as potholes in Romney Marsh?

I agree with Prof Richard Scase that a better option would be for KCC to be broken up and its powers devolved to unitary authorities which would deliver genuine efficiencies with joined-up services provided by a single authority.

An east Kent unitary authority could be complemented by town councils for Canterbury, Whitstable and Herne Bay which would assume, as one of their functions, the role of local planning consultative body.

Unfortunately, I suspect that a combination of tradition, inertia and vested interests will prevent this from happening. Peter Halfpenny Canterbury Road, Whitstable