Illustration highlighting the challenge councillors face in balancing housing and planning responsibilities with the demands of paid employment
New research suggests being a local councillor can demand almost as much time as a full-time job. But with many elected representatives already balancing professional careers and public responsibilities, are residents getting the representation they were promised? Recent events affecting Newcastle Great Park bring the issue into focus.
Serving as a local councillor is a significant responsibility. From representing residents and responding to community concerns to scrutinising planning applications and attending council meetings, elected representatives play an important role in shaping the areas they serve.
But unlike MPs, local councillors are not generally employed on a full-time basis by the authorities they represent. Many continue working in their existing careers while fulfilling their council duties.
It raises an important question: can someone realistically hold down a demanding full-time job while also providing the level of representation their community expects?
For residents of Newcastle Great Park, where concerns over unfinished roads, delayed infrastructure, healthcare provision and continued housing development have persisted for years, the question is particularly relevant.
Councillor duties can amount to another full-time job
Research published by the Local Government Association (LGA) in August 2026 suggests the responsibilities of elected local office are considerably more demanding than many people might imagine.
The study, undertaken through LSE Consulting, found that councillors surveyed spent an average of approximately 27 hours per week carrying out their council responsibilities.
However, respondents believed they needed around 35 hours per week to perform their duties effectively.
For someone already employed for 37 to 40 hours a week, that could mean balancing two roles demanding a combined 70 hours or more, before accounting for commuting, family responsibilities or personal commitments.
The research also found that councillors holding positions attracting additional responsibility allowances spent an average of 29.2 hours per week on council business, compared with 21.6 hours for those without such responsibilities.
Perhaps most revealingly, only 7% of councillors surveyed considered full-time employment to be fully compatible with being an elected councillor.
A further 45.3% described full-time employment as only slightly compatible with their council responsibilities.
The findings suggest that the difficulty of balancing employment with public office is recognised by councillors themselves.
How many councillors continue working?
According to the LGA's 2022 National Census of Local Authority Councillors, 20.3% of respondents were in full-time paid employment, while another 11.7% worked part-time.
A further 15.8% were self-employed or freelance, while 40% were retired.
More recent research published in August 2026, involving 325 respondents, found that 21.8% were employed full-time, 12% worked part-time and 12% were self-employed.
Another 35.4% were retired.
These figures demonstrate that a substantial proportion of elected representatives continue to balance council responsibilities with other employment.
However, the research does not establish how many councillors have reduced their working hours or moved from full-time to part-time employment specifically because of their elected duties.
The two surveys also involved different groups of respondents and should not be treated as evidence of a definitive national trend.
Nevertheless, the findings raise legitimate questions about whether current arrangements provide councillors with sufficient time and resources to fulfil their commitments.
Great Park highlights the importance of committee attendance
The issue has particular relevance to Newcastle Great Park following recent debates about infrastructure and further housing development.
Ahead of the May 2026 local elections, a candidate who was subsequently elected as a Castle Ward councillor publicly campaigned on an infrastructure-first approach to future development, while also openly criticising the Labour Party's approach.
In a Facebook post published on 9 April 2026, the councillor declared:
"Labour can keep counting, but we’ll keep holding developers to account."
The post went on to make a firm commitment to residents:
"Infrastructure must come before more housing. We will continue to block development until the companies involved deliver on the promises they made to this community."
He also stated:
"Whether it’s schools, roads, or healthcare, we are putting local people before corporate profit. It’s time developers lived up to their end of the bargain."
The statements presented a clear political position, contrasting the councillor's proposed approach with that of Labour and promising a more determined challenge to developers over outstanding infrastructure.
Further public comments outlined proposed measures to challenge planning variations, pursue the enforcement of Section 106 agreements and use the planning process to apply pressure over unfinished infrastructure.
In one particularly direct statement, the councillor declared:
"No surgery, no sign-off on the next 100 houses."
Such commitments naturally created expectations among residents concerned about the continued expansion of Great Park without the delivery of long-promised infrastructure.
Following the election, the councillor became a Vice-Chair of Newcastle City Council's Planning Committee, placing him in a position to participate directly in decisions concerning further development.
However, attendance information published by Newcastle City Council raises questions about participation in meetings during the months that followed.
According to Newcastle City Council's official attendance records, the Castle Ward councillor serving as Vice-Chair of the Planning Committee attended just one of five recorded meetings, representing an attendance rate of 20%. Apologies were submitted for the remaining four meetings.
The council's records confirm attendance on 19 June 2026, with apologies recorded for meetings on 10 July 2026, 4 September 2026, 18 September 2026 and 2 October 2026.
The contrast between the councillor's strong pre-election criticism of Labour, his public commitment to holding developers to account and his subsequent Planning Committee attendance record raises legitimate questions about how those commitments are being fulfilled.
It is important to emphasise that apologies were submitted for all four absences. The publicly available information does not establish why the councillor was unable to attend, and there is no evidence demonstrating that employment commitments were responsible.
Committee attendance is also only one aspect of a councillor's work. Elected representatives may contribute through correspondence, ward casework, meetings with officers and other activities outside formal committee meetings.
Nevertheless, where planning and infrastructure form a central part of an election campaign, particularly one involving direct criticism of political opponents and explicit promises to challenge further development, participation in the Planning Committee is an understandable area of public interest.
Residents are entitled to examine whether the commitments made during an election campaign are being reflected in the actions of those subsequently elected to represent them.
Residents can examine the published information through [Newcastle City Council's official councillor attendance records](https://democracy.newcastle.gov.uk/mgAttendance.aspx?UID=11155).
Further housing development progresses while infrastructure concerns continue
The relevance of Planning Committee attendance became particularly apparent on 2 October 2026.
At that meeting, Newcastle City Council's Planning Committee considered proposals for another 155 homes on land north of Brunton Lane, adjoining Newcastle Great Park.
The application, submitted under reference 2025/1264/01/DET, includes 36 two-bedroom flats, 14 two-bedroom houses, 86 three-bedroom houses and 19 four-bedroom houses.
The scheme also includes provision for affordable housing and financial contributions towards healthcare, education and other local infrastructure.
The committee agreed that it was minded to grant planning permission, subject to the completion of a Section 106 legal agreement and relevant planning conditions.
The Castle Ward councillor who had previously campaigned for an infrastructure-first approach was recorded as having submitted apologies for that meeting.
There is no evidence that the councillor's absence altered the outcome of the application.
Planning Committee decisions must be made in accordance with planning law, applicable planning policies and relevant planning considerations. An individual councillor cannot simply prevent development on the basis of a campaign commitment.
However, committee meetings provide important opportunities for elected representatives to question planning officers, scrutinise proposals, raise concerns and participate in decisions affecting their communities.
The situation therefore raises a broader question about how councillors balance their responsibilities, particularly when decisions directly relate to issues they have campaigned on.
Should councillors have to reduce their working hours?
One possible approach would be for councillors with demanding professional careers to consider whether reduced working hours are necessary when taking on elected office, especially where they also accept additional committee responsibilities.
However, the practicalities are far from straightforward.
Under employment legislation, eligible employees are entitled to reasonable time off for certain public duties, including serving as a local councillor.
But employers are not generally required to pay them for that time.
Councillors themselves receive allowances rather than conventional employment salaries.
According to Newcastle City Council's published Members' Allowances Scheme for 2026/27, the basic annual allowance is £10,543.
The scheme also provides an additional annual allowance of £3,954 for Planning Committee Vice-Chairs, subject to the council's allowance rules.
While these payments recognise the responsibilities of elected office, they may not be sufficient to replace the income lost by reducing paid employment.
For councillors with mortgages, families or other financial commitments, moving to part-time employment may simply not be affordable.
There is also an important question of fairness.
If public office effectively required candidates to be retired, independently wealthy or financially secure enough to reduce their employment, local democracy could become less representative of the communities it serves.
Working-age residents, younger professionals and those with caring responsibilities could find themselves excluded from elected office.
Any discussion about councillor availability must therefore consider not only what residents should expect, but also whether elected representatives receive sufficient support to meet those expectations.
Attendance alone does not tell the whole story
It would be unfair to judge any councillor's entire contribution solely on the number of committee meetings they attend.
Representing residents involves considerably more than sitting in the council chamber.
Much of a councillor's work can take place behind the scenes, including helping residents resolve problems, communicating with council departments, examining planning documents and pursuing local improvements.
There may also be entirely legitimate personal, professional or council-related reasons for missing individual meetings.
However, attendance records remain one of the few publicly available measures through which residents can assess participation in formal council business.
Where councillors accept additional responsibilities, particularly on committees directly related to their election commitments, it is reasonable for residents to expect transparency about how those duties are being fulfilled.
It is equally reasonable to ask whether existing working arrangements and committee schedules allow councillors to participate consistently.
A wider question about accountability
The issue is not necessarily whether councillors should be prohibited from holding full-time jobs.
Such a restriction could discourage capable people from standing for election and make local government less accessible.
Instead, the more important questions concern the expectations placed on councillors and whether those expectations can realistically be met.
Should candidates be more transparent about the time they can devote to elected office?
Should those accepting additional committee responsibilities consider whether their existing commitments allow them to attend important meetings?
Could councils provide greater flexibility, support or alternative meeting arrangements to help working councillors participate?
And should there be clearer public information about attendance, committee responsibilities and the work carried out between meetings?
These questions apply to councillors across every political party.
Residents deserve transparency and results
For communities such as Newcastle Great Park, the debate goes beyond the working arrangements of individual councillors.
Residents have spent years raising concerns about unfinished infrastructure, outstanding facilities and the pace of further housing development.
When candidates make commitments to challenge developers, prioritise infrastructure and hold decision-makers accountable, it is reasonable for residents to expect those commitments to be pursued once they are elected.
That does not mean every campaign promise can be delivered, particularly where planning legislation and decisions by other organisations limit what an individual councillor can achieve.
But it does mean residents should be able to understand what action their representatives are taking, what obstacles they face and how effectively they are using the opportunities available to them.
The latest national research suggests that balancing paid employment with elected office is a genuine challenge.
The question is whether the current system provides councillors with the time, flexibility and resources they need to represent their communities effectively.
Ultimately, residents should not have to choose between councillors who understand the pressures of working life and councillors who have enough time to fulfil their public responsibilities. A properly functioning system should make both possible.
For Newcastle Great Park, where important decisions about housing and infrastructure continue to shape the community's future, transparency and accountability remain essential.
Editorial note: This article draws upon publicly available information, including Newcastle City Council's official attendance records, published planning decisions, national research and public statements made before the May 2026 local elections.
The Great Park Gazette makes no assumptions about the reasons for any councillor's recorded absences and does not suggest that an individual councillor's attendance determined the outcome of any planning application.
Sources
- [Local Government Association – Benefits, remuneration and terms and conditions of councillors, August 2026](https://www.local.gov.uk/publications/benefits-remuneration-and-terms-and-conditions-councillors)
- [Local Government Association – National Census of Local Authority Councillors 2022](https://www.local.gov.uk/sites/default/files/documents/Councillors%27%20Census%202022%20-%20report%20FINAL-210622.pdf)
- [Newcastle City Council – Official councillor attendance record](https://democracy.newcastle.gov.uk/mgAttendance.aspx?UID=11155)
- [Newcastle City Council – Members' Allowances Scheme 2026/27](https://new.newcastle.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2026-04/Part%206%20-%20Members%20Allowances%202026-27.pdf)
- [Newcastle City Council – Major planning applications](https://www.newcastle.gov.uk/services/planning-building-and-development/search-view-and-comment-planning-applications/major)
- [GOV.UK – Time off work for public duties](https://www.gov.uk/time-off-work-public-duties)
- Public statements published on the Castle Ward Councillors Facebook page in April 2026.
