The need for transparent Town halls

Traditionally, council business was carried out through a committee system. Decisions were taken by the council or delegated to a committee or officer. Council officers would refer to “council policy”. The question of who actually ran the thing and how they did it was a holy mystery.

The Local Government Act 2000 was designed to deliver efficiency, transparency and accountability. The council’s activities were divided into policy-making, executive decision-taking and scrutinising. Leadership was to be provided by a “cabinet”. The idea was that decision-makers within it would be readily identifiable and so easier to hold to account by overview and scrutiny committees.

Each authority was required to adopt its own constitution, choosing from four options:

• A directly elected mayor, supported by a cabinet chosen by the mayor from councillors. Portfolio holders can take executive decisions alone.
• A directly elected mayor supported by a manager to whom strategic policy and day-to-day decision making are delegated.
• A leader elected by the council and a cabinet of councillors, either appointed by the leader or elected by the council.
• Authorities with a population of less than 85,000 could opt for a council with an enhanced policy-making role, with implementation given to small committees.

So, can all this demystify the workings of a local authority? On the surface, it would appear so. In a typical regeneration situation, the council wants to combine its land assets with private funding to develop derelict land. Under these arrangements, the decision to approve a deal would be made by the cabinet or a group of members or officers.

However, all is not as simple as first appears. The council must set the policy in which the cabinet is to operate, so any departures from policy invoke council involvement. This means decisions taken by the cabinet require scrutiny, and can be challenged after the event. Most importantly for developers, the cabinet does not exercise planning powers.

Many councils are Reluctant to give officers the level of authority developers might feel is necessary

The importance of following correct procedures cannot be overstated. Failure to do so could call into question the validity of decisions, since the council must always act within its powers and exercise those powers reasonably. The issue of delegation to officers has proved particularly controversial, with many councils reluctant to give them the level of authority developers might feel is needed. In dialogue with the authority, it is essential to be clear about what is being agreed and what is being taken back for further consideration.

At the end of January, the government published a series of papers setting out its vision for local government as a community leader and leading player in the regeneration and development process. In particular, the government believes that an elected mayor with strong executive powers is crucial to regeneration.

So far, only 10 authorities have opted for a directly elected mayor, but the government will press for mayors with greater powers to be at the forefront of regeneration. The ability of a mayor to do deals on behalf of the council could give a fresh impetus to the regeneration process. At the same time, recent government papers have called for a stronger role for local communities. The effect of the interaction between a strong mayor and a vociferous community remains to be seen.

Denis Cooper is a senior associate in Eversheds’ local government group