Town councils are not what’s needed

I refer to Richard Norman’s letter in last week’s edition concerning the local democracy review.

It’s true to say that Richard has been at the forefront in recent times in his attempts to influence greater transparency in the way that local government operates and that he, together with Local Democracy Forum colleagues, played a leading role in influencing the change from the ‘cabinet’ to the ‘committee’ system of local government.

The options he identifies are all relevant and all have varying degrees of merit.

However, I feel that one obvious option has not been mentioned. In acknowledging that the governance of the district by elected councillors and appointed officers over the past several years has lacked transparency and left much to be desired, it is also acknowledged that there has been a noticeable improvement since the present leadership has been in office.

Perhaps the option of wholesale change that involves the establishment of town councils in Herne Bay, Whitstable and Canterbury together with the disbandment or merger of parish councils is unnecessary. Certainly the additional costs involved are a factor that cannot be dismissed.

What does appeal however is an adjustment to the way that the present area membership panels operate and the powers that they can exercise.

Membership could be extended to local residents, businesses and other stakeholders who would be allowed to discuss and debate issues along the lines of a neighbourhood forum as suggested by Mr Norman.

Another suggestion would require that ward councillors be co-opted onto a committee that is determining any issue related to the ward that he or she represents.

In particular, a councillor should be co-opted to a planning committee that may be discussing an application for their ward and he/she be allowed to discuss and vote on the issue.

The same procedure should be followed in any deliberations of the licensing committee. But let it be clear that it is only our elected representatives who should vote on various issues.

We must be cognisant that local democracy is based on a system of elected representatives who are expected to represent the interests of a defined electorate that has voted for them.

It may be that over the years many of these elected representatives have failed to consult over many issues and that decisions they have made have not taken into account the wishes of their electorate.

If they were to be subjected to reporting to an annual meeting of their electors in order to explain the actions they have taken, supposedly on behalf of their electors, then perhaps there would be more transparency all round.

It is true to say that many residents are frequently confused by the division of responsibilities of the existing Kent County and Canterbury City Councils. The establishment of yet another tier of government would be even more confusing. Alan Thomas Cathedral View, Market Way