At last night’s Council meeting, David Edmonds put forward a motion that, on the face of it, should have been uncontroversial.
It called for something most residents would assume already exists: genuine transparency, respect for consultation, and clear accountability in decision-making.
Putting Residents First
The motion set out four straightforward principles.
First, it reaffirmed the Council’s commitment to being open, transparent, and accountable—placing residents at the heart of decisions.
Second, it proposed that where a formal consultation shows a clear majority against a proposal, the Council should either rethink it or provide a clear, evidence-based justification for proceeding anyway.
Third, it required every Executive report following a consultation to include a clear “Impact of Consultation” section—so residents can see exactly how their views were taken into account.
Finally, it asked the Overview and Scrutiny Management Committee to review consultation processes to ensure they are fair, accessible, and include a proper feedback loop.
A Modest Proposal… Or So You’d Think
None of this is radical. It is, frankly, the minimum standard most people would expect from a modern local authority.
Yet the reaction from the Liberal Democrats was extraordinary.
Rather than welcoming a push for greater transparency and accountability, their response suggested a real discomfort with being held to that standard.
“Consultation Is Not a Box-Ticking Exercise”
I seconded the motion and chose to speak at the end of the debate.
Listening to the criticism from the opposition, you could be forgiven for wondering whether they had actually read the motion at all.
Nothing in it suggests that consultations should become referenda. What it does say—quite clearly—is that feedback should be taken seriously and factored into decisions, rather than decisions being made in advance and consultations used to justify them afterwards.
Across the chamber, several members spoke warmly about representative democracy.
But it is worth remembering that this same principle was notably absent in Shinfield, where some of those very voices complained about residents being given the opportunity to vote in an election. Democracy, it seems, is only welcome when it delivers the “right” answer.
Partway through, I was interrupted by the Leader of the Council with what can only be described as a non-existent point of order.
On resuming, I made the central point again.
Consultations may not be referenda—but they must mean something.
Listening to Those Affected
Residents and local businesses who take the time to respond are often those most directly affected. They understand the practical realities, the benefits, and the pitfalls far better than those more removed from the day-to-day impact.
This is particularly true when large numbers respond.
We have seen this clearly in recent decisions by the Liberal Democrat administration—whether it is the introduction of new parking charges or the removal of large numbers of litter bins.
In both cases, residents spoke loudly and clearly.
And in both cases, their views were brushed aside.
When Trust Breaks Down
When consultations produce overwhelming feedback, the responsible course is simple: stop and listen.
Not dismiss the results. Not press ahead regardless.
And certainly not claim “You said, we did” when the reality is the exact opposite.
That approach undermines trust—not just in individual decisions, but in the Council itself.
Even where the Council cannot deliver exactly what residents want, it still owes them honesty: a clear explanation and proper reasoning.
Anything less is not consultation. It is box-ticking.
Residents Deserve Better
For all these reasons—and because residents deserve to be heard, not ignored—I was proud to second this motion.
