East Devon council meeting cuts sent back after backlash

East Devon District Council’s proposed reductions prompted objections from committee chairs who said they had not been consulted about changes affecting their work.

The proposals included reducing full council meetings from five to four a year, scrutiny meetings from six to four and audit and governance meetings from five to four.

The asset management forum and budget setting and capital allocations panel would each drop from four meetings annually to one.

However, full council agreed on Wednesday, October 14, to refer the proposed changes to its constitutional working group for further consideration.

The review had been drawn up to release staff capacity for local government reorganisation, but members questioned the case for pressing ahead while that process was paused.

Cllr Christopher Burhop (Newton Poppleford and Harpford, Independent), chair of the audit and governance committee, said he was concerned that he had not been consulted.

He wanted an opportunity to discuss the implications with the council’s finance officer and external auditors, including the timetable for approving and signing off the external audit.

"I’ve not had that courtesy, I’m afraid," he said.

Cllr Ian Barlow (Sidmouth Town, Independent) challenged the proposed reduction in asset management meetings.

He argued that councillors needed regular opportunities to check whether decisions were being implemented, rather than waiting a year for an update.

"It might be easier if you just made a suggestion, let’s get rid of the councillors and just run it as cabinet and officers and get rid of us," he said.

Cllr Barlow said reducing the forum to one annual meeting would make it harder for members to challenge what was happening.

"I don’t think it’s right. And I don’t think it’s fair. It’s certainly not democratic," he added.

Council leader Cllr Paul Arnott (Coly Valley, Liberal Democrats), who was presenting the recommendations, said he did not disagree with Cllr Barlow.

He acknowledged concerns about how the proposals had reached council and proposed referring the meeting changes to the constitutional working group.

Cllr Mike Goodman (Sidmouth Sidford, Conservative) supported the rethink, saying he had already written to the relevant portfolio holder asking for the paper to be withdrawn.

He argued that committee chairs and political group leaders should have input alongside the working group.

"If this went through, this would reduce the transparency of our council," he said.

"Transparency is so important."

Scrutiny committee chair Cllr Vicky Johns (Ottery St Mary, Independent) said she had raised the issue when the proposals first came before cabinet.

She told members she had received apologies from the portfolio holder and monitoring officer after discovering that scrutiny meetings were to be reduced by two a year.

Cllr Johns said she was shocked to learn that the audit and governance chair had also not been advised.

She suggested scrutiny should examine how such decisions were being developed without other councillors knowing about them until the proposals emerged.

"I think an awful lot seems to be slipping through the net at the moment," she said.

Cllr Sarah Jackson (Axminster, Independent), who chairs the constitutional working group, supported bringing the proposals back for another look.

She agreed that committee chairs should be consulted before the working group considered their feedback.

However, Cllr Jackson also warned that the council needed to remain mindful of staff resources if reorganisation resumed.

She said the review should consider different approaches depending on the government’s eventual decision.

The council’s report said the meeting changes were intended to release capacity while maintaining sufficient member oversight.

It formed part of wider preparations for reorganisation, which could require substantial officer time for work on services, finances, staffing, contracts and governance.

Following the debate, councillors approved the amended recommendation referring the meeting changes back for further work.

The proposed reductions were therefore not adopted at this meeting.