Councillors have clashed over changes to how a council deals with petitions, complaints and questions.

Reform UK leaders at Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough Council say the amendments to the constitution will make the authority 'clearer, more efficient and more accountable to the people'.

But opposition Conservative councillors claim the opposite, saying the changes will reduce transparency and make it more difficult to hold the administration to account.

The changes were debated at the first ordinary full council meeting following Reform's victory in the local elections in May.

One amendment will mean only petitions which receive 1,500 or more signatures will be debated at full council – under the current rules petitions with 200 signatures can trigger a full council debate if they relate to issues affecting just two wards.

Petitions with at least 250 signatures will be reported to full council and the leader petitioner will be given three minutes to speak, but there will be no debate.

And signatures will only be considered 'valid' if they are from people with an address within the borough.

Another change will mean elected members' questions to cabinet members or committee chairs must be submitted at least 10 days before a council meeting – up from 24 hours currently.

But the amount of time at full council meetings dedicated to questions from the public will be increased from 15 to 30 minutes, with a guarantee of written responses to questions if time runs out.

And code of conduct complaints against councillors will now have to pass a 'public interest test'.

Council leader Jonathan Gullis said this would prevent officers' time being swallowed up by 'vexatious or politically-motivated complaints designed to score points rather than serve the public'.

Conservative councillor Mark Holland argued that the change would make it harder for the public and elected members to hold council leaders to account.

He said: "I ask all councillors to consider, why should it be more difficult for the public to petition us or question our leaders? Why should more important decisions be made with less transparency? Why should councillors who represent this council on outside bodies not have to report back to us? And why should it be made harder for councillors to ask questions at meetings?

"It is disappointing to me that the administration's first paper seems to do so many things to protect and privilege the establishment over and above the people."

Cllr Gullis rejected these complaints, and accused the Tories of 'theatrical displays' in their opposition to the amendments.

He said the changes were about 'empowering' citizens to ask questions and present petitions in a variety of ways.

Cllr Gullis said: "There will still be the ability for members of the public to ask questions – we've even doubled the amount of time for those questions to be asked. How is that taking away citizens' rights?

"The idea that councillors can't hold us to account – the last time I checked there's a thing called a scrutiny committee, regulatory committees, there's full council, there's cabinet, there's written questions, there's the leader's statement. The truth is that nobody's democratic rights have been nullified."

A Conservative proposal to set up an advisory working party to review parts of the constitution was rejected, and a majority of councillors agreed to the proposed changes. The monitoring officer will now consult with group leaders on the final wording of the amendments.

Councillors from across the chamber were united in opposition to constitutional changes being imposed by central government, which will mean more planning applications will be determined by officers rather than elected members.

Cllr Gullis offered to send a joint letter to the government from the Reform, Conservative and Labour groups voicing their concerns.