The Landscape Institute: Governance, Accountability and Member Trust

Posted on Posted in landscape architecture

In 2022 the Landscape Institute removed its President-Elect before he could take office. For many members — including six Past Presidents of the Institute (PPLIs) — this was not an isolated incident but a defining moment. It raised fundamental questions about governance, due process, transparency and the direction of our professional body.

This article sets out the concerns that have emerged. They relate not only to one decision, but to wider structural issues affecting accountability, financial stewardship and member engagement. Many members see the removal of a president elect as a ‘canary in the coal mine incident.’ It points to serious issues affecting the performance of the Landscape Institute.

1. The Institute’s Purpose — and Its Direction of  Travel

The Landscape Institute was founded in 1929:

“To promote the study and general advancement of the Art of Landscape Architecture in all its branches, and to serve as a medium of friendly intercourse between the members and others practising or interested in the Art.”

Historically, the Institute existed to:

  • Advance professional standards
  • Facilitate exchange of knowledge
  • Represent the profession government bodies and to the media
  • Support delivery of public goods by members to the public

In 2025, the Board announced that the Institute intends to generate 50% of its income from commercial activities. Members were not consulted prior to this announcement. The PPLIs believe the merits and potential disadvantages of the decision should have explaind and discussed, online and offline. Income generation is necessary. But when a chartered professional body moves toward a commercial funding model of this scale, legitimate questions arise:

  • How does this align with charitable objectives?
  • How will success be measured in public benefit terms?
  • What safeguards will prevent mission drift?

At the same time, governance changes were introduced so that the Board of Trustees will no longer be chaired by the elected President. Members have asked how this affects democratic accountability within the Institute. The PPLIs do not support the policy change and would have liked an opportunity to express their views in an LI forum -online, offline or both.

2. The Governance Review — and Its Implementation

In 2021 the Institute commissioned an external governance review, by Catherine Brown, at significant cost (some members believe it cost £97,000 others that the total cost may have been £220,000).

The review identified weaknesses in governance structures and made recommendations for reform.

While some changes have occurred, many members consider the implementation seriously incomplete. No comprehensive public progress report has been issued setting out which recommendations were adopted, rejected or deferred, and why.

Subsequent expenditure on further governance advice has reinforced the perception that structural problems remain unresolved, with money spent on investigating the problems instead of on resolving them.

3. The Removal of the President-Elect

The 2021 presidential election attracted an unusually high turnout. The successful candidate stood on a platform that included:

  • Full implementation of the governance review by Catherine Brown
  • Greater transparency about decision-making and decisions
  • Stronger member engagement in the affairs of the LI
  • A renewed focus from the LI on public benefits achieved through LI expenditure and actions

Following Brodie’s election two complaints against him were raised by Board members, investigated with due process and dismissed because there was no case to answer. The first complaint is believed to be about Brodie being a meber of a group which used the name of our most distinguished Past President (Sir Geoffrey Jellicoe). (It had been thought, wrongly, that the LI owned the rights in the use of his name.) The second complaint related to Brodie’s election ‘campaign’.

A third challenge to Brodie’s presidency was handled under the Institute’s whistleblowing procedure. This process resulted in the President-Elect being removed before taking office. The PPLIs  belief is that the because the whistleblower held a position senior to the president elect the WB procedure was inappropriate. The solicitor’s report, commissioned by the Board (covered by the legal expenses of £169k specified in the 2022-2023 LI Annual Report) contained a sworn witness statement by the then president of the LI identifying herself as the whistleblower (which was commone knowledge within days). In the opinion of the six PPLIs the incident was (1) the incident was trivial  (2) it could not have affected the public reputation of the LI, because it was in internal Zoom meeting attended only by two Board Members and the CEO and two staff members) (3) the prosecution of the case did not follow due process nor the principles of natural justice and appears to have been led by the Board (4) a far better approach, which the PPLIs recommended before the removal, would have been to use normal disciplinary procedures and entrust the management of the investigation to the Advisory Council.

Because whistleblowing processes are confidential, full documentation has not been made available to members. However, several aspects continue to cause concern:

  • The Advisory Council was reportedly given limited time to review extensive documentation.
  • The President-Elect was not able to address the Advisory Council directly.
  • Serving Board members may have exercised undue influence on the Advisory Council.
  • The PPLIs have not been allowed to address the Advisory Council and the Board has only agreed to speak to them on the strict condition that the removal of the president elect is not discussed.

In 2023, members requisitioned an Extraordinary General Meeting (EGM) calling for an independent inquiry. The EGM passed a motion in favour of such an inquiry. The Board refused to recognise the EGM on the grounds that the motion could not be implemented due to regulatory and drafting issues. As a result, no independent review has taken place. The absence of an LI  President for two years following these events has also raised constitutional questions among members.

4. Financial Stewardship and Transparency

Public accounts show that the Institute has recorded operating losses since 2019.

Members have raised questions about:

  • Reported legal and advisory costs associated with the whistleblowing matter (reported at over £169,000 in the 2023 Annual Report with possible additional costs in 2024-26).
  • Expenditure  of an estimated  £400,000 on a new IT system (“Project Kestrel”), following a prior £250,000 IT investment. Members with experience of IT systems wanted to make the case for SaaS instead of custome software.
  • Use of funds from the sale of Barnard Mews (approx. £1.2m), originally described as ring-fenced for property investment
  • The confideniality of detailed Board and Finance & Risk Committee minutes

These issues do not imply misconduct. However, in a charitable professional body funded largely by member subscriptions, transparency around significant expenditure is essential to maintaining trust.

5. Member Satisfaction and Communication

A 2023 membership survey revealed high levels of member dissatisfaction. A subsequent survey was commissioned in 2025, but its findings have been withheld. Members believe this may be because levels of satisfaction have further declined. Without a statemen,t and with Board minutes confidential, they cannot be sure. Figures have not been released but it is believed that corporate membership has been near static for a decade in which, for example, Australian and American equivalent bodies have enjoyed substantial growth.

Communication barriers remain a recurring concern in the membership:

  • Branch representatives cannot directly contact branch members without central mediation.
  • There are no Institute-facilitated opt-in lists –  for governance discussion, for discussion of special interests (eg climate change mitigation) and for opted-in member-to-member communication
  • Members report difficulty obtaining direct responses to detailed AGM questions (see section on AGM Q&A reports, below.)

While the GDPR prevents publication of contact data,  members are aware that lawful opt-in systems are widely used by comparable professional bodies and that opt‑in requirements came from UK GDPR, the Data Protection Act 2018, and PECR.

The Institute’s founding aim — to serve as a “medium of friendly intercourse between the members” — requires modern mechanisms to enable structured, respectful member dialogue.

6. Representation of the Profession

Questions have also been raised about who represents the profession in policy consultations and public forums.

Members argue that engagement on technical and professional matters should be visibly led by qualified practitioners, supported by staff facilitation but not provided staff. Clear delineation of roles would strengthen confidence in the Institute’s external voice. The attendance of LI staff (who lack professional landscape qualifications) at consultations and briefings is seen as costly and ineffective. Before the Institute became a corporate body work of this kind was done entirely the Institute’s professional members, led by its presidents and other senior elected members.

7. Governance, Not Personalities

The concerns outlined by the six PPLIs are not about personalities. They are about governance standards.

In any chartered body, the removal of a democratically elected office-holder is a serious matter. So too are:

  • Restrictions on member communication
  • Significant unreported expenditure
  • Limited transparency in decision-making

The cumulative effect of these issues has been a decline in member trust. Trust is not restored through silence. It is restored through transparency.

8. What Members Are Asking For

The Past Presidents and supporting members are calling for:

  • An independent review of the 2022 events, not led by those  involved, and including an open discussion between the PPLIs and the Advisory Council
  • Publication of a clear implementation report on governance reforms, followed by speedy implementation
  • Transparent reporting of major expenditure decisions
  • GDPR-compliant opt-in communication channels for members
  • Clear alignment between LI strategy and charitable and the charitable objectives for which the LI exists
  • The use of SMART criteria to assess actions by the Landscape Institute

These are believed to be mainstream governance principles in well-run professional bodies.

Conclusion

The Landscape Institute plays a crucial role in advancing environmental stewardship, climate resilience, environmental quality and public wellbeing.

But a professional body’s authority rests on:

  • Democratic legitimacy
  • Procedural fairness
  • Financial transparency
  • Member trust

The events since 2022 have exposed structural weaknesses that must be addressed. Members are not seeking conflict. They are seeking harmony, effectiveness and clarity. Like the PPLIs, many members believe that clarity is entirely consistent with the Institute’s founding principles and continuing purpose.

Links to information resources

 

ANNEX: Points from LI AGM Q&A Reports (2023–2025)

Note: the video records of the AGMs  on the LI website show that they fail to satisfy the principle  for valid AGMs. The Byng principles make it clear that a meeting is only valid if those entitled to attend can see and hear one another well enough to participate in its business. Where some directors and board members are visible only when speaking, and others are unidentified or barely visible at all, the meeting falls short of the mutual visibility and real‑time accountability that Byng requires.

Context

The following material is taken from published LI Annual General Meeting Q&A reports and relates to questions submitted by members and responses published by the LI.

  • They are in the public domain
  • They are the Institute’s own published responses
  • They do not assert facts beyond what was written by the LI
  • They relate to governance, strategy and member communication

Each extract includes the question, the LI’s published answer, and a brief comment. As examples of clearly expressed question not receiving clearly expressed answers

1) Governance, Branch Engagement & Member Input (AGM 2023)

Member question:

“Collaboration with volunteers is essential … How is this issue going to be addressed moving forward?”

LI response:

“The branch review … will take into consideration all key elements from purpose to processes … Branch Chairs have been consulted … The next step is for all members to have the opportunity to feed back their thoughts … once the recommendations … have been finalised.”

Commentary:
This response shows that branch engagement was framed as something to be consulted at some future stage rather than an immediate operational change. At the start of 2026 no means of member-to-branch communication was in place.

2) Member Consultation Beyond Chairs (AGM 2023)

Member question:

“Will you be engaging with the rest of the Committee members as well as simply the Chairs?”

LI response:

“We will be as consultative as possible with our branch communities and members more widely.”

Commentary:
The answer indicates a general commitment to consult but does not commit to specific processes or timelines for enabling the facility.

3) Subscription Fees and Institutional Strategy (AGM 2023)

Member question:

“How can the current level of subscription fees be justified?”

LI response:

“This is a challenge … driving forward plans to diversify … one key challenge is to move from the current 25:75 split of income … to more 50:50 or even 60:40.”

Commentary:
This relates directly to a commercial income strategy that is a central concern of members. Many do not want the LI to be conceived as a ‘business’, especially when much of the revenue would come from selling CPD and recruitment services to the membership and the practices. Providing it yields a profit and does not influence decisions, members tend not to object to carrying advertising.

4) Agenda Controls (AGM 2023)

Member question:

“Given the debacle of last year’s AGM … assurances that Q&A is limited to questions?”

LI response:

“Within the time limit, members will have the opportunity to ask a question … the only request is to keep them as succinct as possible and relevant to the business of the AGM.”

Commentary:
The response reveals that the LI interprets Q&A scope primarily in terms of formal meeting procedure rather than enabling free member dialogue. Many members, who see the AGM as the only opportunity they have to question Board decisions, are concerned about short and vague responses.

5) Transparency of Digital Systems & Member Interaction (AGM 2023)

Member question:

“Please could the consultation … use online forums/ workspace … to allow reflective contributions …?”

LI response:

“This is what … Project Kestrel will achieve … to bring about more collaboration and engagement …”

Commentary:
This indicates that digital engagement is contingent on a future internal IT project rather than immediate member facilities. The PPLIs take part in a LinkedIn Landscape Institute Members Group which is not recognised or supported by the Board and Secretariat.

6) Perceptions About Behavioural Impact (AGM 2023)

Member question:

“The last AGM reported a disturbing amount of unacceptable behaviour … Is it improving?”

LI response:

“With Rob Hughes … new permanent CEO … refocus on membership … we hope members will see this … and feel able to engage collaboratively.”

Commentary:
This is a formally published acknowledgement of a topic raised by members, with an institutional reassurance. It remains the case that the LI believes the PPLIs are responsible for ‘bad behaviour’. They disagree with this categorisation and believe they have a right to engage in discussion on significant issues.

7) Strategic Priorities and Deficits (AGM 2023)

Member question:

“Can you confirm total losses or deficits over the last 5 years … and provide forecasts?”

LI response:

“Annual Reports and Accounts are publicly available … We are unable to disclose specific financial information for 2023/24 and future years prior to audit … but we disclosed that 2023/4 will be another deficit … and we’re on track to achieve a surplus by 2025.”

Commentary:
This confirms that certain financial data are not disclosed directly at the AGM and refers members to public reports — a material governance detail. The PPLIs note that despite the Landscape Institute’s physical office being closed there was another defecit for 2024-5

8) Minutes Publication & Transparency (AGM 2024)

Member question:

“Can the full minutes of board meetings … currently confidential … be made available …?”

LI response:

“The key word is confidentiality, and for that reason the minutes referred to will not be shared.”

Commentary:
The response is a direct statement of the current LI position on the confidentiality of minutes. The PPLIs regret the departure from the principle of publishing the minutes of  Board Meetings and the non-implementation of the Brown Report recommendation that they should be published.

9) Access to Finance Committee Minutes (AGM 2024)

Member question:

“Why are the minutes of Finance and Risk Committee confidential?”

LI response:

“The Finance & Risk Committee is a sub-committee … it advises the Board. Some issues are confidential as being of business interest only … internal reviews … once concluded will give greater transparency.”

Commentary:
This is a published explanation of why some governance records are not accessible to members. Keeping the information confidential is a departure from the former practice of publishing the details. The reference to ‘business interest only’ is unclear and puzzling. In the interests of transparency and open governance the information should be available to the members whose money is being spent.

10) Liability and Strategic Alignment (AGM 2025)

Member question:

“Do the Trustees agree that public benefit must be identifiable and proven by evidence … how will this be identified and measured …?”

LI response:

“As a charity we must demonstrate how we deliver direct public benefit … something the Board will look at with Advisory Council for the new Corporate Strategy.”

Commentary:
This confirms a formal acceptance of what should alway haves been a necessary governance commitment – to public benefit assessment. It is a key aspect of charitable accountability. But to date (January 2026) members have seen no information about the introduction of  Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant and Time-Bound (SMART) in the assessment of the public benefits achieved through LI budget allocations.

11) Legal Expenditure Disclosure (AGM 2025)

Member question:

“Please supply further details relating to the purposes for which the legal expenditure was undertaken …”

LI response:

“This line covers advice for all our business activities … in accordance with their legal responsibilities the Board took legal advice … in relation to ongoing correspondence about the whistleblowing process and outcome … the 2023 Officer and Advisory Council elections and the proposed EGM.”

Commentary:
This statement acknowledges that legal expenditure included advice connected with the whistleblowing process, the 2023 officer and Advisory Council elections, and a proposed EGM. But it does not quantify or clarify or justify the specific sums used for specific purposes.

2025 AGM – unedited Q&A examples – link to Q&A report 

6.1 Whistleblowing Policy and Purpose:

Member Question: With reference to the Institute’s Whistleblowing Policy and the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998, will the Board confirm that the purpose of whistleblowing provisions is to protect individuals in a position of vulnerability when reporting serious wrongdoing in the public interest, and that such provisions should not be used by a President or other senior officeholder to pursue or instigate disciplinary action against another elected officer? In the interests of transparency and good governance, will the Board consider reviewing the Institute’s Whistleblowing Policy to ensure that it clearly defines the circumstances in which the procedure should and should not be used, consistent with the spirit and intent of the legislation?

Response: The LI’s Whistleblowing policy was reviewed in 2024. It is published on the website and meets all legal and regulatory requirements.

6.2 Continuity of Archival Transfer and Collection Integrity following MERL Deposit:

Member Question: The decision to transfer the Institute’s archive to MERL was made on the principle of effective long-term preservation and accessibility. However, it is understood that since the initial transfer, the Institute has not deposited any subsequent archival material with MERL, resulting in a growing gap in the collection’s historical continuity. Given that established archival best practice requires regular and systematic transfer of records to maintain a collection’s completeness and integrity, and to uphold the accountability of the Institute: (1) What steps will the Board take to re-establish a formal, mandated schedule for the periodic transfer of new archival material to MERL? (2) How will the Board ensure that all ‘gap’ material created since the initial transfer is identified, appraised, and promptly deposited to restore the continuity of the historical record?

Response: The LI has a long-standing relationship with MERL who host the LI’s archive under an agreement and grant which is reviewed annually as part of our annual planning and budgeting.

14 Public Sector

Member Question: Would be great to understand work being done to support and connect with landscape architects working in the public sector? I understand there used to be a public sector working group – so wondering whether could re-start? As they have reduced so much over last few years, that think the remaining LAs are feeling quite isolated, so think important to support. Thanks!

Response: As a chair of Policy & Public Affairs Cttee we’re looking very closely at the moment at the way the planning an infrastructure bill is developing, and other planning initiatives as part of the government’s planning reform approach. And clearly, that is a key part of the public sector. Many of our members work in local planning authorities advising them on landscape. And I, myself, have a long history of working in the public sector. One of the things I’m acutely conscious of is a buoyant and active public sector and landscape is the key to it being a buoyant and active private sector in landscape. Then the private sector is heavily dependent on employment on the way the planning system is interpreted in terms of supporting landscape. We’re putting a lot of energy into looking and trying to influence the way the government is looking at planning reform and hoping to emphasize the landscape-led approach and good planning, design, and management. Landscape being a key part of the planning system and associated with all new development at all scales. We are also hoping to do an event next financial year as well to support those members working in the public sector. We do talk to organisations like Public Practice which get landscape architects into the public sector but there’s more we can do and to support them.

15 LGA’s Planning Advisory Service: 

Member Question: Regarding the reference to LGR and Devo, are there plans to engage with the Local Government Association’s Planning Advisory Service? This may also be an effective way of raising awareness of the landscape-led approach and engaging the public sector in promoting landscape careers.

Response: They are an organisation we want to engage with as they are vital.

16.1 Member Communication and Participation Rights:

Member Question: Under the Companies Act 2006 and the Charities Act 2011, members of a charitable company have statutory rights to participate effectively in its governance. These include receiving notice of meetings and resolutions (CA 2006 ss. 308–309), requisitioning a general meeting (s. 303), circulating statements or resolutions to other members (ss. 314–317), and inspecting or obtaining, by reasonable and secure electronic means, the register of members for legitimate governance purposes (ss. 113, 116–117, 119). Although neither Act prescribes the communication medium, the Board and Secretariat have a duty to ensure that members can exercise these rights in a practicable, secure, and non-obstructive manner consistent with data-protection law. In many modern professional and charitable bodies, this duty is met through secure, opt-in email systems or equivalent online platforms that allow members who consent to participate both to receive governance-related messages from the Board and to communicate with other members who have opted in, using information drawn from the statutory register. Does the Board accept that the Institute should provide such reasonable facilities for member-to-member as well as Board-to-member communication, and, if so, what arrangements are currently in place—or planned—to fulfil this duty?

Response: There are some mis-understandings and mis-interpretations of the law in relation to data protection and its application in relation to member-to-member communication and the LI must comply with legislation and the law and as far as data protection legislation this is summarised below:

  • The Companies Act 2006 requires a register and index of names of members to be made available (Article 116). The By-Laws require the members register to be available.
  • Personal data, which includes addresses, phone numbers and email addresses are strictly protected under data protection legislation and regulations. This is overseen by the Information Commissioners Office and there are severe penalties for organisations which breach those requirements.
  • The legislation draws a distinction between the data controller, and the data processor. The data controller (in this case the LI) has additional responsibilities to a data processor under the law. A data controller must comply with the UK GDPR and be able to demonstrate compliance with the data protection principles, taking appropriate technical and organisational measures to ensure that the act of data processing is carried out in line with the law.
  • There are two important things to note in relation to this question: Data must be shared with us on an opt-in, not an opt-out, basis and that data can only be used for the purpose for which it was collected in the first place. Please do see the Information Commissioners Office website for more information about this.
  • The recently enacted Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 will, in the coming months, expand the legal bases on which charitable organisations can rely on legitimate interests in the furtherance of their charitable objectives. The Information Commissioners Office is currently consulting on the implementation of this change, which is expected later in 2026. Once that guidance has been produced, we will ensure that our systems and processes meet those new requirements.
  • In relation to requisitioning an EGM or to raise an item to be voted on at an AGM are clearly set out on our website in the general meetings policy General-Meeting-Policy-and-Process-Sept-2024.pdf.

16.2 Responsiveness and Service Standards:

Member Question: Please will the Board explain what measures are in place to ensure that communications from members—such as letters and emails—are acknowledged and answered within a reasonable timeframe and to a consistent professional standard, as would be expected of a chartered body and registered charity? If no formal service standards currently exist for member communications, will the Board consider adopting and publishing such standards to promote transparency and accountability?

Response: The LI aims to answer and respond to members questions as soon as reasonable possible, but the response time will depend on the complexity of the questions and the availability of individuals to answer them. However, the best way to raise items for discussion / consideration by the LI is via your branch and the branch representative can bring items for discussion at Council. That way we can determine if this is an issue across the wider membership and consider how we might respond to ensure the answers reach as many members as possible.

16.3 Governance, Accountability and Measurable Performance:

Member Question: Given that the Board holds ultimate fiduciary responsibility for the Institute’s direction and that the Chief Executive reports directly to it, will the Board please explain: (a) what key performance indicators (KPIs) or equivalent measures are used to assess the Chief Executive’s performance and ensure that strategic priorities reflect the interests and needs of the wider membership; (b) why such KPIs are not currently published in the Corporate Strategy or Annual Report; (c) What specific, quantified, and time-bound targets (e.g., SMART targets) are being adopted for membership growth (e.g., net annual percentage increase) and membership satisfaction? Furthermore, what specific mechanism and frequency is the Board establishing to publicly report progress against these targets to the wider membership? (d) how the Chief Executive’s duties to serve the interests of the membership, as well as to report to and implement the decisions of the Board, are defined and monitored in practice.

Response: The Board has processes in place for reviewing the performance of all staff including the CEO and monitoring the overall performance of the organisation. A report back on overall achievements and performance of the LI for each year is set out in the Trustee report in the Annual Report. This is shared with members and regulatory bodies such as the Charity Commission, is available publicly on the website and reported back on to the members at the AGM.

16.4 Empowering the Branches:

Member Question: Respecting the Board’s commitment to fulfilling the Landscape Institute’s charitable mission and securing the profession’s long-term future, as set out in the Corporate Strategy, I am submitting the following question regarding Branch empowerment. Recent analysis indicates that comparable international professional bodies, such as the Australian Institute of Landscape Architects (AILA) and the American Society of Landscape Architects (ASLA), operate with a highly empowered branch/chapter structure. While the LI’s membership has remained largely static since 2000, the AILA has leveraged this regional model to nearly double its membership in the same period. Could the Board outline a definitive, time-bound strategic plan to significantly increase the autonomy, dedicated resources, and operational capacity of the LI Branches, using these successful models as a blueprint to foster a necessary debate on decentralisation and unlock our collective potential for growth and local advocacy? Crucially, what is the LI’s measurable target for membership growth over the next five years that this strategic plan is intended to achieve, and how will the Board report on its year-by-year progress?

Response: It is important that all members engage in the next phase of the branch review. Any questions and thoughts as regards empowering branches need to be directed via your branch so that they can be fed into the next stage of the branch review alongside feedback from other members and inform Council discussions.

17 Postgraduate Landscape Planning Courses:

Member Question: I am aware that landscape planning courses are planned at a postgraduate level in Ireland. We need to ensure our UK universities are aware of the opportunities in putting on postgraduate landscape planning courses. We have huge job opportunities going forward in landscape planning. I hope we can begin to educate our students in the UK.

Response: This will be picked up through both the competency framework review, and through our engagement with our HE partners. If you’ve got more information on what’s happening in Ireland please do send it on.

18 Design Champion:

Member Question: Can we get a champion for design quality?

Response: We do sit on the Design & Placemaking Forum of MHCLG which is chaired by the chief architect in a MHCLG and trying to emphasise the need for quality development, not just quantity.

The following  analysis evaluates the Landscape Institute’s (LI) responses to questions 14–18 against the governance standards established by the 2021 Catherine Brown Review (CBR) and subsequent commitments to transparency.

Governance Analysis: Questions 14–18

Question LI Response Summary Conflict with Catherine Brown Review / Best Practice
14. Public Sector Support Claims engagement with MHCLG and planning reform; mentions a previous public sector working group. Procedural Drift: While the LI cites engagement, the lack of a formalized working group contrasts with the CBR’s goal of “re-democratisation” and member-led advocacy.
15. LGA Engagement Expresses a desire to engage with the Local Government Association’s Planning Advisory Service. Action Gap: The response remains aspirational rather than offering a concrete schedule for engagement.
16.1 Member Communication Cites GDPR as a barrier to member-to-member contact; states data must be on an “opt-in” basis. Specific Breach: The CBR explicitly provided the solution to this: “Every Branch member should be asked if they agree to their contact details being available to the Branch Chair”. By failing to implement this simple “opt-in” tick-box, the LI is maintaining a “serious disconnection” noted in 2021.
16.2 Responsiveness Directs members to raise issues via branches; claims to respond as soon as “reasonably possible”. Transparency Failure: CBR Recommendation 14 demanded “increased transparency”. Directing members to an opaque branch-to-Council chain conflicts with the 2021 pledge to publish minutes “as a matter of course” within three weeks.
16.3 KPIs & Targets Claims achievements are in the Annual Report; refuses to publish specific SMART targets for growth. Accountability Gap: The refusal to provide quantified, time-bound targets makes it impossible for members to monitor if the Board is making “wise use of scarce resources” as outlined in your narrative.
16.4 Empowering Branches Refers members back to the “next phase” of the Branch Review. Delay Tactic: The CBR recommended immediate structural links between Branch Chairs and the Advisory Council to ensure members’ priorities drive decision-making. Deferring this to another review phase ignores the 2021 “New Ways of Working” ambitions.
17. PG Planning Courses Links educational standards to the Competency Framework review. Curriculum Delay: Members expressed concern that basic design skills are missing from conversion MAs; the LI response defers a fix until the framework is complete.
18. Design Champion Cites presence on the MHCLG Design & Placemaking Forum. Facilitator vs. Actor: This supports the point that representation is often left to “Secretariat staff” rather than volunteer professionals with site-specific expertise.

The responses to Question 16 represent the most significant evidence of governance failure.

  • The GDPR Pretext: In response 16.1, the LI claims they cannot facilitate contact due to data protection. Yet the Catherine Brown Review provided the specific “Opt-In” remedy for this four years ago. The Board’s refusal to build that opt-in facility appears to be a deliberate choice to prevent member-to-member communication, not a legal requirement.
  • The Byng Rule Violation: In response 16.1, the Board dismisses “mis-understandings of the law”. However, they fail to address the Byng v London Life (1989) precedent, which mandates that a Board must ensure all members can participate effectively in a meeting. By failing to provide a secure platform for members to discuss resolutions, they are obstructing the statutory rights they claim to uphold.
  • Failure of “Improvement Provisions”: The LI admits they are “looking at how we can report… in a more focused way”. This admits that current reporting is not focused or transparent, despite the £97k (or more) spent on the Brown Review
About

Tom Turner