Governance and decision-making processes in local government: Opportunities for evidence inputs and stakeholder involvement in local authorities

Case and site selection

Key decisions, Scrutiny Committee reviews and Regulatory Committee decisions were selected based on three criteria: their established, recurrent nature, the size of their potential impact, and alignment between their thematic focus and public health research initiatives. In the analysis and discussion, we use specific examples from the London Borough of Islington. Islington has several characteristics that reflect a ‘typical’ case (Gerring and Seawright 2007), in that the majority of LAs have adopted a Leader and Cabinet model of governance, rather than a Mayor-led or Committee system; and elect all of their members every four years (Local Government Association nd, Local Government Information Unit 2026, Paun et al. 2019). Across local authorities, there are similarities in core processes as well as some differences; for example, each council will have a scrutiny function, although how it operates in practice is a local choice. The analyses we present here therefore reflect a within-case comparison, which subsequent work can draw upon for cross-case comparative analyses, including changes as a result of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026.

Data collection and analysis

These analyses are based on document review, observation and participant observation through co-author involvement directly in and supporting these three decision-making and governance processes. We used a standardized analysis framework to classify types of evidence, stakeholder roles and timeframes for each process.

Patient and public involvement

The topic of this article was inspired by the Evidence Islington HDRC resident co-design group. Members of the public have not been directly involved in drafting this article, which is aimed at scholars and research practitioners. In parallel, however, a group of Islington residents developed a booklet entitled ‘Your Voice in Local Government’, which provides an accessible explanation of how decisions are made and how the public can be involved.

Local authority institutional structure

Before characterising the three governance and decision-making processes, we first provide a brief overview of the institutional structure within each of these processes take place. There are different structures of local government throughout England, with different powers and responsibilities, some of which will change as a result of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026. In London boroughs, including Islington, as well as metropolitan districts and unitary authorities, one authority will be responsible for the majority of local government functions in their area. In London and metropolitan areas, some strategic functions will be provided by regional bodies, such as the Greater London Authority.

Every four years, eligible voters in Islington elect three council members per ward. Elected councillors in turn elect a Leader and appoint councillors to Scrutiny, Regulatory and Non-executive Committees. The responsibilities of each committee and the rules governing decision-making processes are set out in the Council’s Constitution. The full Council agrees the overall budget for the year and sets council tax, within the parameters established by central government.

The elected Leader of the Council appoints councillors to the Executive or Cabinet, who are responsible for major decisions regarding council services. In addition to the Leader and Deputy Leader, there are 7 Executive members¹ who cover thematic portfolios (as does the Deputy Leader): climate, environment and transport; communities and partnerships; children, young people and families; health and social care; community safety and neighbourhoods; homes and neighbourhoods; inclusive economy and planning; and finance. These portfolios broadly reflect the foci of council departments and functions. The Executive/Cabinet are responsible for recommending the overall budget to the full Council, monitoring the council’s budget and performance and setting fees and charges. They agree major strategies and policies (e.g. Housing Allocations Scheme, Anti-Social Behaviour and Housing Repairs policies, Adult Social Care, Special Educational Needs and Disabilities, Education and Net Zero Carbon strategies), review and make planning policy recommendations to the Council and decide major changes to services.

These are full-time positions, enabling Executive/Cabinet members to delve into more issues and in greater depth. In contrast, backbench councillors may have full-time jobs in addition to their elected role. In Islington, Executive/Cabinet members hold Political Leadership Meetings with their respective corporate directors (e.g. Corporate Director for Health and Social Care) on a monthly basis, following a fixed agenda that covers finance, performance, risks and issues, key projects, change programme, progress against Delivery Plan and communications. They may also interact more frequently, as needed.

Councillors set political priorities and take decisions on high level policy and strategy. They are accountable to the electorate and represent their views, considering local issues when taking decisions or providing feedback on services, and serving as an advocate for their ward and constituents. Councillors work closely with Senior Officers on the performance and direction of services. Council officers are politically impartial and are accountable to the council as a whole. They are responsible for the operational delivery of services and management of staff and services. Officers provide advice and make professional recommendations, making day-to-day decisions in the implementation of strategies and policies. Both elected councillors and officers are involved in the three decision-making processes we profile here.

Governance and decision-making processes

It is within this broader institutional context that key decisions, Scrutiny Committee reviews and Regulatory Committee decisions take place. Table 1 presents an overview of each, covering the purpose, examples, timelines, people involved and types of evidence typically required. The final reports of Scrutiny Committee reviews are submitted through the governance process, but also involve earlier stages, and key decisions include a much broader range of decisions, so the three processes are presented separately. Non-executive Committees, which predominantly oversee internal council functions such as the pensions fund, audit matters, officer employment and appointments and committees relating to grievances, investigations and appeals are not covered here, following the selection criteria explained at the outset.

Key decisions

The definition of a key decision is informed by the Local Government Act 2000 and set out in Islington Council’s Constitution: decisions which are financially significant, set by thresholds for expenditure and savings, and which are significant in terms of their effect on communities living or working in an area comprising two or more wards. In Islington, two wards cover approximately 25,000 to 40,000 people and financially significant is defined as >£500,000 for revenue or > £1 million for capital. From October 2023–24, Islington council considered 96 key decisions: over half of which (58%) were related to procurement and contract awards, 11% dealt with the budget, 11% new strategies or programmes, 6% planning, 6% school restructuring, 5% Scrutiny Committee reports or responses and 2% other.

Officers prepare a report explaining the decision, with recommendations for the Executive to approve. All reports must detail what alternatives have been considered, financial, legal, equalities and environmental implications, and what consultation, if any, has been carried out with the public. Alternative options are typically specific to the proposal, comparing a new programme relative to the status quo or a modified version of the programme, rather than a very broad examination of the full range of policy instruments that could be used to reduce air pollution or improve children’s health, for instance.

Equalities implications are informed by a standardized Equality Impact Assessment (EQIA). An EQIA identifies the impacts of the proposed changes on residents, service users, local communities, businesses, visitors, voluntary or community groups, council staff, trade unions, other public sector organisations and on each protected characteristic group, as well as plans to mitigate negative impacts.

Statutory consultations are mandated by law for specific types of decisions, such as certain planning applications, environmental impact assessments, school consolidation and changes to public services. Local authorities are also under a statutory general Best Value Duty to consult when reviewing its service provision and policies as outlined in the Local Government Act 1999 and the Best Value Statutory Guidance 2024.

As part of report preparation, officers typically present and discuss preliminary ideas and report drafts with their colleagues, at management meetings of other council departments and at the Corporate Management Board, comprised of corporate directors from each directorate and the Chief Executive. These reports are typically first approved by the departmental management team and corporate director of the report author. Typically, draft reports will be submitted to the relevant Executive Members and Leader of the Council for review, to provide a political steer on the decision being sought.

The details of forthcoming key decisions are published on the publicly available Forward Plan at least 28 days in advance, sometimes up to six months ahead of time. Key decision reports are published five clear working days before the Executive meeting, which is held in public (on weekday evenings in Islington) and broadcast live online, where the decision is made. Members of the public may attend these meetings and ask questions. Prior to implementation of the decision, there is a ‘call-in’ period during which backbench councillors may request that the decision is paused and reviewed. In Islington, 3 working days is allowed for any 5 councillors to call-in the decision.

Scrutiny committee reviews

Broadly, Scrutiny Committees review the performance of services, make recommendations for improvement, and hold the Executive to account. They receive quarterly updates on council performance and annual reports related to their remit. This includes the performance of key partners, such as local NHS Trusts and the London Metropolitan Police.

In Islington, there are five Scrutiny Committees, again reflecting the council’s main service delivery directorates. Each year, one councillor is appointed as the Chair and will work closely with officers and councillors in planning the committee’s work plan. In addition to councillors, Scrutiny Committees may have independent, non-political co-opted members. In some cases, this is a legal requirement; for example, Scrutiny Committees with responsibility for education functions must include representatives of Parent School Governors and Church Schools in the local area. In other cases, the local authority may choose to appoint independent members to ensure the committee has a broad range of expertise and experience. Islington’s Homes and Communities Scrutiny Committee includes three residents representing tenants and leaseholders in council housing. Scrutiny Committee meetings are also open to the public, who can ask questions and make comments at the Chair’s discretion.

Each committee selects one main topic over the summer each year, receives evidence from September to February and develops recommendations in March, which is included in a final report submitted to the Executive. The Executive subsequently provides a point-by-point response to each recommendation, detailing if and how the recommendations will be put into practice. Recent topics have included overcrowding, accommodation for adult social care service users, persistent absence from secondary school and managing complex anti-social behaviour that involve multiple services and agencies.

As part of the evidence gathering phase, councillors review reports and receive verbal testimony from council officers, voluntary and community sector organisations and independent experts, which occasionally include academics and policy specialists. Scrutiny Committee members also gather evidence through site visits to speak with service users and meet with frontline staff and may hold workshops with residents to understand their views.

Regulatory committees

Regulatory Committees determine licensing and planning applications. Under the Licensing Act 2003, the Council is the Licensing Authority for venues which sell alcohol, gambling and late-night entertainment. This includes new premises licenses and variations to existing licenses, such as amended conditions and operating hours. The Committee also conducts reviews of a licence if the premises has been found in breach of their conditions to determine if the premises is able to continue operating, or if alternative conditions should be applied to their licence. The Licensing Committee is comprised of 15 councillors, each of whom sit on licensing subcommittees, which make decisions. Licensing decisions are guided by the Licensing Policy 2023–27.

The application itself is the primary piece of evidence considered, which must include blueprints or maps and specify measures that will be taken to prevent crime and disorder, public nuisance, promote public safety and protect children from harm. The committees also review any written and verbal evidence from representatives from the Licensing Authority (council officers), Metropolitan Police, local residents, noise, health and safety, trading standards, public health, safeguarding children and the London Fire Brigade. The first three stakeholder groups are most commonly represented.

The Planning Committee considers contentious and major applications, which in Islington are 10 or more houses and offices with 1000 square meters of floor space. Planning decisions may be emotive and generate considerable public interest, depending on the scale of the proposed development, history of the site and impact on neighbouring properties. Planning sub-committees consider minor applications, such as modifications to a single property. Neighbours in the immediate vicinity are notified but anyone can comment either in favour or against an application. Details of any representations received are reported to the committee.

Overall planning decisions are guided by the 2020/21–2036/37 Local Plan, informed by the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), the London Plan (the Spatial Development Strategy for Greater London) and other topic-specific documents such as the London-wide Strategic Housing Market Assessment, Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment and the North London Waste Plan.

Under law, Regulatory Committees are separate from the Executive/Cabinet as a political safeguard. For example, the Executive sets planning policy and then the Planning Committee then takes regulatory decisions under policy. Regulatory Committees must consider applications on their own merits, but decisions must be consistent with the authority’s agreed policy.

The Planning Committee is required to determine applications against the policies in the council’s Development Plan, unless there are other compelling reasons, so discussion at the meeting will focus on if the development is compliant with policy or not. This can include scale of development and objective factors like the size of bedrooms, but also more subjective factors, such as design, and if a new development is in keeping with the local area.

For both Planning and Licensing Committees, papers are published five clear working days before the meeting, which is open to the public. Meeting procedures allow any objectors and applicants to speak. The council must determine applications received within statutory timescales.

Comparison across processes: Opportunities for evidence to be incorporated into governance and decision-making processes

As illustrated, all three processes follow established procedures and timelines. They vary somewhat in the types of evidence that is compulsory and is more commonly used, and in which stakeholders are directly involved.

Types of evidence. Broadly, the Wednesbury Principle of reasonableness (Upton and Taylor 2012) underpins what evidence is selected and how. This principle indicates that decision-makers must make sound and reasonable decisions and have a duty to consider all relevant matters and exclude irrelevant matters, otherwise decisions could be challenged on grounds of being unreasonable or irrational.

Key decisions, Scrutiny Committee reviews and Regulatory Committee decisions may consider a range of evidence from primary and secondary sources, including internal data, public feedback and grey literature. All three processes often use local evidence and guidance, such as the demographic profile of service users and the Local Plan. They may also draw on regional and national sources, such as reports from the Local Government Association or specialist professional associations, or publicly available statistics to benchmark against other areas and national standards, for example. The breadth of evidence for key decisions and Scrutiny Committee reviews tends to be greater than that for Regulatory Committees, in part because of the latter’s more technical nature.

In Islington, key decision reports must discuss four types of implications: financial, legal, equalities and environmental; therefore, evidence that relates to these aspects will be directly relevant. In the context of declining local authority resources over the last 15 years Brien 2026, Ogden and Phillips 2024), evidence on financial implications, including staff time, is particularly important.

A decision should be financially feasible within the agreed service budget; therefore, research recommendations and evidence reviews that call for new programmes and large budget increases are not actionable if they cannot be funded through the agreed service budget. In addition, many cost-effectiveness analyses of LA programmes estimate savings to the NHS. Studies that examine costs and savings to local authorities along specific timeframes would be even more relevant.

In addition to financial implications, decisions may be constrained by other factors, such as the amount of available land on which new residential or commercial units could be built. For example, recommendations that call for tens of thousands of new units of social housing will need to be considered within what is practically feasible, given space, housing availability, budget constraints and the legal context.

Timelines. Each governance and decision-making process follows set timelines and steps. Findings from a PHIRST evaluation that are published 4 days before a key decision is reviewed, for instance, would therefore not be included in the report that needs to be published 5 days in advance. However, the results may help to subsequently inform implementation of a new programme.

Topics and timelines are publicised in advance but rarely more than 6 months. These timelines preclude large scale primary data collection efforts, particularly by academics since Institutional Review Board approval processes for which may take at least that long. Therefore, existing studies, evidence reviews and analyses of secondary data are more feasible to include.

Most LA Scrutiny Committee processes will follow a similar annual cycle, which is relatively fixed and set by May elections and annual meeting timelines. An evidence review conducted by an MSc student in the summer, for example, is perfectly misaligned with this cycle, where topics are decided in the summer and recommendations issued in the spring.

Key decisions and Regulatory Committee decisions take place throughout the year. Key decisions are bookended by less formal internal stages when proposals are being shaped and when decisions are implemented in practice.

Stakeholder involvement. All three processes involve elected members as well as council officers. In Islington, they all provide the opportunity for public comment prior to and at the meeting in which the decision is made, although each local authority will have their own rules and processes for involving the public in decision-making. Scrutiny Committee reviews will often proactively elicit inputs from service users and independent experts. In practice, the number of people directly involved in each decision-making process varies but may be relatively small. Each decision deals with a specific thematic issue, which aligns well with the disciplinary specialisation of many scholars and voluntary and community sector organisations who may have valuable evidence to contribute. External knowledge producers and remote knowledge brokers, such as academics or LA research practitioners, may have less direct access to informal stages in decision-making processes, unless they have relationships with Senior Officers, who develop and draft most key decision reports.

Assessing the use of evidence in decision-making processes

As noted above, key decision reports and meetings where decisions are made for all three processes are held in public, so the types and quality of evidence that is cited could be systematically analysed. This, however, would not capture evidence that informed reports and decisions but was not explicitly referenced, so relying on public documents alone would likely underestimate the types and use of evidence that was considered.

Interviews with stakeholders who are directly involved would provide an additional set of perspectives and capture policy discussions that precede Executive meetings, for example. However, access may be a challenge given the seniority of decision-makers and responses may be affected by recall and social desirability biases. Elected members and senior council officers involved in these processes are often part of multiple decisions and so could provide a comparative perspective, which could be a useful criterion as part of a purposive sampling strategy. Observation at meetings held in public would offer insights into dynamics among stakeholders and would be less burdensome for decision-makers, although more time-consuming for researchers. Research practitioners who are embedded alongside senior decision-makers – as opposed to front line staff or mid-level managers, which may more often be the case – could take an ethnographic research approach, allowing for greater depth but perhaps a narrower focus.

Some governance processes will be the same or similar across local authorities, such as key decision processes covered in the Local Government Act 2000 as well as Regulatory Committee statutory timelines. Other aspects of governance and decision-making processes will be locally determined, including the definition of what is considered financially significant, the types of implications required in key decision reports (equalities and climate implications may be less common), the extent of involvement of members of the public, number of committee members, and the number of days, number of councillors required and circumstances under which a decision can be called in, and the timelines and process for internal review of reports before they are published. The extent and type of variation will be important considerations in case study selection for future comparative analyses, a nascent research area that is ripe for further enquiry.