The Deputy Leader, Councillor Ashley Wise, introduced the report and proposed the recommendations.

Councillor Wise spoke in support of the proposed name change and wider recommendations relating to Area Committees. He explained that the proposals formed part of a package of 14 recommendations which had been considered by Area Committee Chairs over a number of meetings, and took into account feedback from both the public and Members.

He stated that the feedback indicated some uncertainty about whether the current name clearly reflected the role and purpose of Area Committees, and that respondents to the consultation were largely those who already engaged with the committees. Councillor Wise explained that the recommendations therefore sought to look beyond existing attendees and consider how engagement, attendance and participation could be improved more broadly.

Councillor Wise outlined that the proposals aimed to strengthen public involvement in policy development at a local level, including practical measures such as improving access through hybrid meetings to enable fuller participation by those attending online. He confirmed with Member their awareness of the decision made by the Western Area Committee, and formally put forward the relevant recommendations for consideration by the Council.

In seconding the recommendations, Councillor Ben Martin reserved his right to speak.

The Mayor invited comments from members.

Members were invited to make comments and these included:

•      questioned whether Area Committees were fulfilling their intended purpose, with the view expressed that a more fundamental review was required to determine whether they remained effective or necessary;

•      concerned that procedural or naming changes would not address underlying issues if Area Committees were not operating as intended;

•      acknowledged that the proposals had been subject to review through working groups and committees, with differing views on whether further reconsideration was appropriate;

•      Area Committees operated differently across the borough and  a “one size fits all” approach risked undermining their effectiveness;

•      opposed to reducing the number of meetings, particularly where committees were intended to consider future policy impacts at a local level;

•      Area Committees should be better used to feed local and parish views into policy development, rather than limiting their role;

•      restrictions on meeting venues could reduce local engagement, with the view that committees should retain flexibility to meet in locations appropriate to their area;

•      the scheduling and format of public participation could be improved, including consideration of holding public forum sessions separately from formal committee business;

•      supported the work of the review group while opposing specific recommendations, with some Members indicating a preference to vote against individual proposals rather than seek amendments;

•      practical challenges existed around venue availability and logistics when meetings were held in different locations;

•      concerned about accessibility of venues, including issues relating to hearing, mobility, sight impairment and acoustics;

•      supported online or hybrid meetings as a way of improving accessibility and increasing public engagement;

•      online meetings during the pandemic had attracted higher attendance than in‑person meetings;

•      highlighted the importance of ensuring sound quality for both in‑person and remote attendees;

•      concerned around the safety of Members and officers when meetings were held in remote or unfamiliar locations; and

•      clarification that some council‑owned venues were not available for evening meetings, limiting their suitability for Area Committees.

Councillor Baldock proposed, and Councillor Jayes seconded the following amendment:

A clause be included that area committees be able to set the dates, locations and frequency of meetings to suit their local areas.

Members were invited to debate the amendment.  Comments made included:

•      questioned whether Area Committees had the authority to make decisions, with the view expressed that any extension of decision‑making powers would require a formal change to the Constitution;

•      sought clarification that the proposal related to allowing Area Committees greater flexibility in setting meeting frequency, rather than conferring decision‑making powers;

•      concerned that allowing meetings to be arranged on an ad‑hoc basis would create significant practical difficulties for officers, including venue booking, accessibility, availability of facilities, and reliable Wi‑Fi;

•      venues were often booked well in advance for regular events, limiting the feasibility of one‑off bookings, and that past experience had highlighted issues with accessibility, equipment and facilities;

•      a Member survey on Area Committees had received a low response rate, and the recommendations had been developed by a working group which had met on multiple occasions;

•      it was unreasonable to seek to overturn the outcome of that work at a late stage when opportunities to contribute had previously been available;

•      confirmation provided that, under the Constitution, extraordinary meetings could be called by the Mayor or relevant Chair, or by a proportion of Members;

•      the discussion highlighted continuing uncertainty about the status of Area Committees or forums and the implications of any change in terminology;

•      the proposals had been through the appropriate working group process and that repeated reconsideration risked inefficiency;

•      attendance and engagement at Area Committee meetings had been higher when meetings were held online; and

•      greater use of online meetings could improve accessibility, engagement and value for money, though noting that this would require a separate constitutional change.

In summing up, Councillor Baldock clarified that the amendment was not intended to allow ad‑hoc or unstructured changes to Area Committee arrangements, but to provide committees with greater flexibility within the Council’s established processes. He explained that committees would continue to work within an agreed schedule, with any changes to the number of meetings subject to a formal vote and programmed in advance, rather than being decided on a meeting‑by‑meeting basis.

Councillor Baldock stated that the intention was to allow each Area Committee to determine, through a vote, what meeting frequency and format worked best for its individual area, including the option to reduce the number of meetings or to hold meetings online where appropriate. He emphasised that this flexibility would be exercised collectively by the committee and not as a “free‑for‑all”.

Councillor Baldock concluded that the purpose of the amendment was to empower Area Committees to adopt arrangements suited to their local circumstances, rather than applying a single approach across all areas

The Monitoring Officer advised that Area Committees had a much more limited role than service committees and did not currently have decision‑making or budgetary powers. He explained that decisions with budgetary implications fell outside the existing scope of Area Committees.

The Monitoring Officer then stated that, as the committees were presently constituted, the proposed amendment could not practically be made at this stage. He advised that any change of this nature would require a more fundamental review of the role and powers of Area Committees and would go beyond the scope of the work undertaken by the working group, which had focused on clarifying existing arrangements rather than expanding committee functions. He concluded that the proposal was therefore not considered practicable to implement at the present time.

On being put to the vote the amendment was not carried.

The seconder of the motion, Councillor Ben Martin, stated that, while the consultation response rate had been limited, the review process had involved several weeks of work, extensive public engagement and consideration through multiple stages. He emphasised that the proposals had been through the appropriate processes and argued that it was now time for the Council to proceed with the full set of 14 recommendations.

Councillor Martin also noted that, under the current constitutional arrangements, Area Committees operating solely online would not have decision‑making powers. He concluded by urging the Council to support and approve the recommendations as presented.

In summing up, Councillor Wise, the proposer, explained that the recommendations brought forward by the working group had been agreed by consensus rather than by a majority vote. He stated that this included the participation and agreement of the Chair of the Western Area Committee, and that no decisions had been made without the involvement of those affected.

He advised that the issues raised during the debate had already been discussed in detail by the working group and subsequently presented to other committees before coming to Full Council. Councillor Wise commented that, while Members were entitled to hold differing views, repeatedly revisiting matters that had already been examined through agreed processes risked undermining the purpose of working groups.

He reiterated that the recommendations were informed by practical experience, particularly concerns previously raised about venue availability, accessibility, Wi‑Fi reliability and ensuring that appropriate equipment was in place for meetings. Councillor Wise concluded that these issues had directly shaped the proposals now before the Council.

Resolved:

(1)  That, following consideration of the vote at Western Area Committee on 27 November 2025 requesting that for recommendation 4, Western Area Committee meetings should take place in community venues in the Western Area and not in Swale House.

(2)  That the 14 recommendations (as amended by recommendation 1) proposed by the Area Committees Review Member Working Group and recommended by Policy & Resources Committee be agreed