P e o p l e P o w e r m i s s i o n F i n d i n g s f r o ... · localism agenda, unlocking 4he...

PeoplePower

Findings from the Commission

on the Future of Localism

2 People Power

Contents

About the Commission

Foreword

Executive summary

Introduction

What are the sources of community power?

What blocks community power?

Strengthening community power: reimagining localism

Institutions for localism: governance structures

Powers and mechanisms for localism

Relational localism: changing culture and behaviour

Capacity for localism: community infrastructure and participation

Our full evidence and findings

Our call to action

Appendix

3

4

6

11

14

16

17

18

20

22

24

26

42

43

East Cleveland Big Local April 2016 Klondike bike race

3www.locality.org.uk

About theCommissionLocality established the Commission on the Future ofLocalism in 2017, in partnership with Power to Change,to consider how to reinvigorate localism and unlockthe power of community. The ambition behind theLocalism Act is in danger of waning, and thefundamental shift in power from Westminster tocommunities has not yet been achieved.

We find that we need radical action to strengthen ourlocal institutions; devolve tangible power resourcesand control to communities; ensure equality incommunity participation; and deliver change in localgovernment behaviour and practice to enable localinitiatives to thrive.

Our Commissioners:

• Lord Kerslake (Chair) President of the LocalGovernment Association (LGA) and former Headof the Home Civil Service

• Alison Haskins, CEO of Halifax Opportunities Trust

• Joanna Holmes, CEO of Barton Hill Settlement

• Neil Johnson,CEO of Paddington Development Trust

• Lisa Nandy, Member of Parliament for Wigan

• Laura Sandys, former Member of Parliament forSouth Thanet, and Vice President of Civic Voice

• Councillor Sharon Taylor, Leader of StevenageBorough Council

• Professor Jane Wills, University of Exeter, andauthor of ‘Locating Localism: Statecraft, citizenshipand democracy’

What we did – our research methods

Over the past nine months, we have gatheredevidence and ideas from policy-makers, local leaders,organisations and communities across the countrythrough evidence events, focus groups, calls forwritten evidence and survey responses.

Our Commission held three evidence events inLondon, Bristol and Manchester. As well aspresentations from invited witnesses, these events alsoincluded focus groups with participants. The threeevidence events were structured around three themes:reviewing the impact of the Localism Act andCommunity Rights; building community capacity andparticipation; the devolution agenda and localgovernance structures.

A written call for evidence prompted responses from22 organisations. An online survey on CommunityRights was completed by 151 respondents. A full list ofwitnesses and our call for evidence as well as surveyquestions can be found in the full length report online.

About this report:

We present the findings from the Commission in twoparts:

1. The summary of our findings and ourrecommendations.

2. The full body of evidence is available online atwww.locality.org.uk

4 People Power

Foreword

Lord Bob KerslakeChair of the Commission on the Future of Localism

I’m delighted to be introducing this report as Chair ofthe Commission on the Future of Localism.

In recent years, we have seen successive initiatives todecentralise power, increase freedoms andresponsibilities for local government, and enablegreater community action. Indeed, when Eric Picklesfirst became Secretary of State of Communities andLocal Government in 2010 he was clear that his threepriorities were “localism, localism, localism”. And whenDavid Cameron came to visit, he made sure there wasno ambiguity about the department’s commitment.“What do we want?”, the Secretary of State cried?“Localism”, came the orchestrated response from thecivil servants gathered in the lobby to welcome thenew, slightly taken aback, Prime Minister. Havingworked with him, I have no doubt about Eric Pickles’sincerity on this, albeit that it came with a gruellingausterity programme for local government.

Yet seven years on from the passage of the Localism Act,the fundamental shift in power away from Westminsterpromised by the legislation has not been achieved.The subsequent devolution deals of the NorthernPowerhouse have similarly not altered the fact that wecontinue to live in one of the most centralised andgeographically unbalanced countries in Europe. OurCommission set out to understand why and explorewhat is required to inject renewed motivation into thelocalism agenda, unlocking the power of communityto ensure that all local areas can thrive.

Over the past nine months we have been gatheringcase studies, ideas, and recommendations fromcommunity groups, local leaders and policy experts,at evidence events across the country. We have heardabout the enormous impact which can be achieved bypeople working together to change theirneighbourhoods. However, we have also heard aboutthe blockages and barriers to local action whichconstrain the power of community and restrict thepotential of localism.

In order to fundamentally reset the power balancebetween the governing and the governed, we needan approach to localism which looks beyonddevolved decision-making to local government. To thisend, our report highlights the action that is requiredacross four domains of localism: institutions; powers;relationships; and community capacity. Nationalgovernment must show leadership in setting theconditions for localism to flourish. But it is to localleadership that we look with the majority of ourrecommendations – to wield their power to convenelocal partnerships around place, strengthencommunity institutions, and create the environmentwhere local initiatives can thrive.

Thanks are due to those that have given their time aswitnesses to our Commission, participants indiscussion groups, and contributors to our survey andwritten evidence: this has been a rich source fromwhich to build our recommendations and approach.We have been very fortunate to have been steered bya panel of Commissioners who have used theirexpertise, experience and insight to guide theCommission to its recommendations. Our debateshave been both stimulating and challenging, and Ithank them all for their time throughout this process.


Tony ArmstrongChief Executive of Locality

Locality believes in the power of communities, and wehave been championing localism long before it becamefashionable. We established the Commission on theFuture of Localism because we were concerned thatthe welcome ambition and drive behind the LocalismAct were in danger of waning. Having long lobbiedgovernment for greater powers for communities, webelieve the Community Rights introduced through theLocalism Act were a landmark moment. We have beenproviding the advice and support to communities totake up the opportunities of the Act – and have seenthe many successes achieved.

The current devolution agenda, which has rathereclipsed the localism agenda, does not focus onneighbourhoods or communities and risks entrenchingthe disconnection and lack of accountability feltthroughout the rest of the political system. Although westill hear the rhetoric of localism, the job is not yet done.

Throughout this Commission’s work, we have heardfrom communities who are unable to affect the changethey know their neighbourhood needs because ‘realpower resides elsewhere.’ Too often those who advocategreater localism ask politicians to pass down thepower they hold. But this is looking at things the wrongway round. Power doesn’t belong to decision-makersto ‘give away’: we need a localism agenda whichmakes the case that power starts with people. It lies inour communities. The task of the political system andour local leaders is to harness this power throughongoing relationships, engagement and co-creation.

My thanks go to our Chair and Commissioners whohave guided this work, sharing their knowledge andexpertise, and providing challenge, insight and debateas we have reached our recommendations. We arealso grateful to Power to Change in co-funding andworking in partnership with us throughout this project.And particular thanks to our fantastic Locality policylead, Ruth Breidenbach-Roe, for coordinating the entireprocess, drawing out the key themes and supportingthe Commissioners to develop this excellent report.

Vidhya AlakesonChief Executive of Power to Change

Power to Change is delighted to support the Commissionon the Future of Localism. We firmly believe that manyof the most significant problems we face as a countryfrom stark economic inequalities to the long termsustainability of public services cannot be exclusivelyaddressed in Whitehall or in the city regions. Theyrequire power to be pushed down to the local level,unleashing the creativity and expertise of communities.

Every day through the community businesses wesupport, we see local people coming together toaddress local concerns, whether that is the loss of alocal service, the need for more affordable homes orthe isolation experienced by older people. What theseexamples demonstrate is that in many cases localpeople are best placed to know what will work toimprove their neighbourhood and their lives and therole of government and funders such as ourselves is toenable them to realise their ambition and put theirentrepreneurial spirit to work.

It is urgent that all levels of government, especiallylocal authorities, embrace the need to put people inthe driving seat and work with communities asgenuine partners in making lasting local change. Thereport of the Commission is a great next step for thisagenda and we look forward to championing thoselocal authorities who choose to lead and comeforward to implement the valuable recommendationsof the report.

6 People Power

Executive

summaryThe Commission on the Future of Localism

was established to consider how to

reinvigorate the localism agenda. We find

that the ‘fundamental shift of power’

promised by the Localism Act 2011 has not

yet been achieved. To unlock the power of

community, we need radical action that

strengthens our local institutions; devolves

tangible power, resources and control;

ensures equality in community participation;

and delivers the culture change required to

enable local initiatives to thrive.


In the wake of the vote to leave the European Union,policy-makers and commentators now speak of our‘left-behind’ communities. But these divides have beengrowing and widening for years. They are the product,in part, of political and economic centralisation and along-term failure to address our profound democraticdeficit. Entrenched geographical health inequalities,with a stark North South divide.1 Educational opportunitytied to parental income, pushing up house prices inneighbourhoods with good schools.2 Withdrawal offinance from disadvantaged communities, with our bigbanks secure in the City deemed ‘too big to fail’.3 Anelectoral system that only feels like it counts if you livein a marginal seat 4, with political alienation mostprevalent among the young and the poor5.

As Britain seeks to forge a new futureafter the EU referendum vote, ourCommission believes that greaterlocalism must be at the forefront ofour national debate.

Strengthening localism offers the potential to tackledisadvantage, rebalance our economy, and revitalisedemocracy. Taking part in local action can strengthenfeelings of community cohesion, generate a greatersense of pride and purpose, and improve wellbeing.6Localism in public service design and delivery canensure that services are equipped to address localneeds and harness local assets, and make sure publicprocurement spend is reinvested in the localcommunity.7 Giving places the means to strengthentheir local economies and rebalance economicgrowth away from London and the South East is notonly good for local areas but also supportsproductivity across the nation as a whole.8

There is growing political consensus on the need todecentralise. It is clear that the scale and complexityof our social challenges is so great, they are unlikely tobe effectively addressed from Westminster. But whilesuccessive pieces of legislation and various programmeshave sought to achieve this, our Commission finds thatwe have not yet secured a radical rebalancing ofpower to people.

Localism must be about giving voice, choice andcontrol to communities who are seldom heard by ourpolitical and economic institutions. Localism shouldenable local solutions through partnership andcollaboration around place, and provide the conditionsfor social action to thrive. Localism is about more thanlocal governance structures or decentralisingdecision-making. It is about the connections andfeelings of belonging that unite people within theircommunities. It is about how people perceive theirown power and ability to make change in their localarea alongside their neighbours.

1 A baby boy born in London and the South East, on average, will live threeyears longer than his peer born in the North East. Public Health England. (2017) ‘Using local health data to address healthinequalities.’ PHE. Available at:https://publichealthmatters.blog.gov.uk/2017/10/12/using-local-health-data-to-address-health-inequalities/ 2 Gibbons, S, Machin, S and Silva, O. (2012) ‘Valuing school quality usingboundary discontinuities.’ Centre for the Economics of Education. Availableat: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/45239/ 3 King, I. (2017) ‘Some banks are still too big to fail, Bank of England Governoradmits.’ Sky News [online]. Available at: https://news.sky.com/story/bank-of-england-governor-ending-too-big-to-fail-not-complete-11059507 4 Select Committee on Political and Constitutional Reform. (2012) ‘Voterengagement in the UK – Political and Constitutional Reform.’ House ofCommons. Available at:https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/cmselect/cmpolcon/232/23205.htm 5 Flinders, M. (2014) ‘Low voter turnout is clearly a problem, but a muchgreater worry is the growing inequality of that turnout.’ LSE British Politics andPolicy [online]. Available at: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/look-beneath-the-vote/

6 McKinnon, E and Green, K. (2015) ‘Community Organisers – inspiring peopleto build a bigger, stronger society.’ Cabinet Office [online]. Available at:https://coanalysis.blog.gov.uk/2015/08/11/community-organisers-inspiring-people-to-build-a-bigger-stronger-society/ 7 Locality. (2017). ‘Powerful Communities, Strong Economies.’ Locality.Available at: http://locality.org.uk/resources/powerful-communities-strong-economies-report/ 8 OECD. (2012). ‘Promoting Growth in All Regions: Lessons from across theOECD.’ OECD [online]. Available at:https://www.oecd.org/site/govrdpc/49995986.pdf

8 People Power

Powerful Communities

Fig 1. What are the sources of community power?

However, our Commission has also heard about afundamental imbalance of power that is preventingthis power of community from coming to life andrestricting collective agency: top-down decisionsleaving community groups and local councils unable

to make the change they know their neighbourhoodneeds; a lack of trust and risk aversion from publicbodies, dampening community energy; a lack ofcontrol and access to local resources, limiting thescope of local action.

Community governance

Health andwellbeing

Equality inparticipation

and voice

People’s ideas,creativity, skills and

local knowledge

Economic power

Connectednessand belonging

Spaces to betogether

We need to completely reframe howwe think about power.

When we think about power we tend to look upwards –towards Westminster-based institutions and electedpoliticians. Those who wish to see greater localismoften ask politicians to give it away and push powerdownwards. But this is looking at things the wrong wayround. Instead, we need to start with the power ofcommunity. The task of our political system should beto support this, harness it, and reflect it in our nationaldebate.

Our Commission has heard evidence about whatmakes a powerful community. While differentcommunities build and experience power in differentways, there are common sources. We heard how thepower of any community lies with its people, theircollective ideas, innovation, creativity and localknowledge, as well as their sense of belonging,connectedness and shared identity. We need to bringthis into political life much more effectively via arenewed effort to foster localism in future.


Strengthening community power requires action in four key domains of localism

Institutions for localism: healthy local governancestructures across the country,integrated within widergovernance.

Powers and mechanismsfor localism:ensuring there are meaningfulpowers, levers and resources forcommunities to take action locally

Relational localism: changing culture and behavioursrequires embracing risk andestablishing trust in devolution tocommunities, local leaders actingas facilitators for communityexpertise, and disruptinghierarchies.

Capacity for localism:ensuring localism is not thepreserve of wealthier communities,or those with the loudest voicesrequires building communitycapacity, supporting communityorganising, communitydevelopment and sustainablespaces for participation.

National government must set the conditions forlocalism to flourish, devolve power and resources tolocal areas and strengthen the capacity of ourcommunity institutions. But we must also changepractices, culture and behaviour within localgovernment. It is crucial that we focus on building

strong relationships between local government, civilsociety, local businesses and people around a sharedinterest in place. Only then will we create the environmentfor local initiatives to thrive and unlock the power ofcommunity.

The future of localism:our recommendationsFostering localism is a marathon, not a sprint. The change that’s requiredcannot be achieved through policy and legislative levers alone.

01

03

02

04

10 People Power

Initiatives to strengthen localism should be subject to six key principles

01 02 03

People are the end goal oflocalism: interventions should bejudged by the impact they haveon people, rather than institutionsalone.

Equality in local participation:not everybody wants toparticipate in the same way, butthere needs to be equality ofconsideration and an equalopportunity to participate.

Dynamic local accountability:accountability must not be basedon consultations and votingalone: it must value ongoingcommunity participation,relationships and local action.

04 05 06

Local leadership is built aroundplace: in whichever form, partypoliticians or community leaders,leadership should be built aroundplace, convening communitypartnership around shared localconcerns.

Localism requires meaningfulpowers and integratedstructures: local powers shouldnot be easily dismissed by ‘higher’tiers of governance, without clearreasons and means of redress.

Economic power must supportcommunity responsibility:communities must have the meansand resources to match powersand responsibilities, and to realisethe potential of localism.


Introduction

For years now, politicians have been

promising to give away power. There has

been growing acceptance that the scale

and complexity of our social challenges are

so great that the centre cannot hope to

address them on their own. Our Commission

has gathered evidence on the outcomes

and impact of recent initiatives to

decentralise, with particular focus on the

Localism Act 2011 and the Cities and Local

Government Devolution Act 2016. We find

that these initiatives have stopped short of

the radical reframing of power we require.

12 People Power

The Localism Act

The Localism Act 2011 was heralded by an ambition to“end the era of top-down government [through a]fundamental shift of power from Westminster topeople.”9 This legislation built on an emergent politicalconsensus for a stronger role for local governmentand to put greater powers in the hands of communities.The General Power of Competence was given to localgovernment, seeking to unlock greater innovation andlocal self-determination. A set of Community Rightswas established, giving communities a framework toprotect and own valued local assets, influence localplanning and development, and run local services.

This legislation was an important staging post on theroad to localism. The Community Rights have enabledcommunities to make real change in theirneighbourhoods. Neighbourhood planning has seenover 2,000 communities, representing approximately12 million people, developing plans for new homes,shops and green spaces in their local area – and oncepassed through local referendum these plans aregiven statutory weighting and must be taken intoaccount by decision makers. The Right to Bid has seeniconic local buildings put into community hands, andhas given communities a route to mobilise against thesale of such assets, knowing there is a formal processto back them up.

But we have also heard how using the CommunityRights remains too dependent on local capacity andresources. A longstanding concern with localism is thatit can actually entrench inequalities, strengthening theposition of those with the resources, time andnetworks, whilst excluding the most marginalisedcommunities. The Ubele Initiative, for example, hasquestioned the ability of the Localism Act tostrengthen Black Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME)community ownership of assets, compounded by alack of research on the equalities dimension in thelocalism agenda.10

The outcomes of the Localism Act also remain tied tothe supportiveness and behaviours of the localauthority. While some local authorities have embracedgreater localism, and the innovation it can unlock, intoo many areas public bodies remain top-down andrisk adverse. Throughout our evidence, we have heardfrom community groups, parishes and town councils,about how community-led initiatives and localdecisions can be trumped from above, because ‘realpower resides elsewhere’.

The devolution agenda

After the Localism Act, came the devolution agenda inEngland – which began with the signing of the GreaterManchester Devolution Deal in November 2014.Devolution represents a massive opportunity toreshape our economy and public services, and, intheory at least, provides greater impetus for localism.

But the assumption that devolution will somehowautomatically trickle down to people andneighbourhoods through these new arrangements ismisguided. Reducing the debate on localism to thequestion of “what powers are devolved?”, while a keypart, misses the fundamental point about localism:people are the end goal, not local government.

Devolution as it currently stands does not secure afundamental shift in power to people. Therepresentativeness of new City-Region mayors andcombined authorities members also shows howdevolution is replicating the gender, race and classimbalances that are so prevalent throughout the restof the political system. All six of the metro mayorselected in May 2017 are men, and their cabinets are94 per cent male.11

While Government is seeking to address the heavybias in our economy towards London and the SouthEast, creating regional industrial strategies throughthe Northern Powerhouse and the Midlands Engine isnot enough. Indeed, growth driven by city regionagglomeration risks exacerbating inequalities withinplaces, even as some differences between regions arelevelled out. We need to open up possibilities for oursmaller cities, towns, suburbs and villages, to havepower over their local economies12, if we are truly torealise the Government’s ambition to ‘create aneconomy that works for everyone.’ 13

9 Cameron, D and Clegg, N. (2010). ‘The Coalition: Our programme forgovernment.’ HM Government. Available at:https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/78977/coalition_programme_for_government.pdf 10 Field, Y. Murray, K. and Chilangwa Farmer, D. (2015). ‘A place to call home:Community asset ownership in the African Diaspora Community.’ The UbeleInitiative and Locality. Available at: http://locality.org.uk/resources/place-call-home-community-asset-ownership-african/

11 Lewis, H. (2017). ‘Power to (half the) people: metro mayors and their teamsare 94 per cent male.’ New Statesman (online). Available at:https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/devolution/2017/05/new-liverpool-metro-mayor-steve-rotherams-top-team-seven-men-no-women 12 Laurence, R. (2016). ‘ Growing the economy from the middle out.’ In Berry C(ed) The Resurrected Right and the Disoriented Left. Sheffield PoliticalEconomy Research Institute. Available at: http://speri.dept.shef.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/SPERI-Paper-27-The-Resurrected-Right-and-Disoriented-Left.pdf 13 May, T. (2016). ‘Theresa May’s conference speech: We can make Britain acountry that works for everyone.’ CCHQPress. Available at:http://press.conservatives.com/post/147947450370/we-can-make-britain-a-country-that-works-for


After the EU Referendum

Britain is now at a crossroads of major political andconstitutional change. The outcome of the EUreferendum provides a clear mandate for rethinkinglocalism. The demand to ‘take back control’ madeduring the campaign, reflected a sense ofpowerlessness of people lacking a stake in theircommunities and futures. Whatever the outcome ofBrexit negotiations, we urgently need to address thelong-term under-investment in our civic and socialinfrastructure, to build institutions and spaces forparticipatory democracy, and to ensure that localorganising has genuine routes to the resourcesrequired to make change. We need a new vision forlocalism which is based on principles of equality anddiversity in participation and voice across the wholeof our country.

We need to radically reframe power:in our political systems; in our publicservices; and in our communities.

Advocates for localism too often fall into a narrativetrap of arguing for power to be ‘handed’ from thecentre ‘downwards’ to communities, inevitably in everdiminishing packages. The consequence of arepresentative democracy is that expression ofdemocratic participation can become largelytransactional. Power is ‘given’ from the electorate toMPs and councillors at elections, and further politicaland policy engagement is too often limited toconsultation, rather than collaboration and conversation.

We need to make the case that power starts withpeople: power doesn’t belong to decision-makers to‘give away’. The task of the political system and ourlocal leaders is to harness this power through ongoingrelationship, engagement and co-creation.

Fig.2. Current expectations of power and democracy

The way in which our public service and welfaresystems work can reinforce a sense of powerlessness.Accessing public services is a key interaction ofeveryday life for many; when the behaviours of publicbodies is to treat people as ‘service users’ withproblems to be ‘managed’ this can undermine feelingsof agency. Delivery at scale can be transactional anddisempowering, with people feeling subject todecisions which are beyond their control. 14 Servicesilos can leave people with multiple needs navigatinga complex world of multiple service bureaucracies.

We need public service systems that recognise thecomplexity of life, and fit services to people, not theother way around; a local approach to commissioningcan enable this holistic approach, generate additionalsocial value, and strengthen local economicresilience.15 Involving people in the decisions abouttheir services and care can have a powerful impacton their own wellbeing, health, sense of autonomy andsocial connectedness. 16

Central to a new vision for localism must be anunderstanding of how poverty and social andeconomic marginalisation intersect with the ability toparticipate and exercise agency and control. Whilstthe drive to organise, campaign and participate existsin all communities, when the pressures that people arefacing mean that they are too busy worrying aboutsurviving to the end of the week, this has a hugeimpact on participation. In this way, people areeffectively excluded from citizenship and powerthrough economic disadvantage.

The hollowing out of community infrastructureexperienced by many communities as a result ofausterity has made it harder to mobilise the localismagenda. Restitching the fabric of our neighbourhoodsrequires strengthening these community institutionsand organisations, as well as recognising the immensepower of informal community activity and connectivity.Ensuring that community organisations and localorganising activity has formal engagement withpolitical power including through strong localgovernance is essential – otherwise it remains possiblefor the powerful to pick and choose who they listen to.

When connectivity of people to power breaks down,the consequences can be devastating. One of themost painful manifestations of this in our times, waswhen Grenfell Tower caught fire in West London lastyear. This tragedy could have been avoided if one ofthe richest boroughs in the country had listened to itspoorest residents.

14 Locality. (2017). ‘Powerful Communities, Strong Economies.’ Locality.Available at: http://locality.org.uk/resources/powerful-communities-strong-economies-report/ 15 ibid 16 See for example New Economics Foundation. (2013). ‘Co-production inmental health: a review.’ Nef. Available at:http://b.3cdn.net/nefoundation/ca0975b7cd88125c3e_ywm6bp3l1.pdf

CentralGovernment

LocalGovernment

People and communities

Power transfers

‘downwards’ Represe

ntativ

e

democracy

14 People Power

Our Commission has heard evidence about whatmakes a community powerful. We have taken theseideas to develop themes which have informed ourunderstanding of how to unleash and strengthencommunity power. Fig 1. highlighted some of the keysources of community power that we have heardabout. This is by no means an exhaustive list – differentcommunities build and experience power in differentways. Rather we seek to explore the aspects ofcommunity power that have emerged through ourevidence and which inform our recommendations.

Spaces for being together, for participation and deliberation: Communities need the spaces and forums to cometogether, socialise and organise. Democracy thriveson spaces for conversation, connection, sharedpurpose, debate and resolving differences.Disagreement, conflicting priorities and concernsarise in all communities: powerful communities havethe means and routes for addressing these throughcollective problem-solving.

Connectedness and belonging: Feeling part of the community where you live canhave a positive impact on your personal wellbeingand health, reducing isolation and tackling loneliness.17While place is only one aspect of identity, anddifferent people experience belonging in differentways, involvement in local social action canstrengthen feelings of community cohesion andgenerate a greater sense of civic pride and purpose.18

One of the most valuable outcomes of communityaction is the feeling of collective power, as well aspersonal agency, that comes with the proof of whatcan be achieved in partnership with neighbours for ashared purpose.19 Connectedness and belongingwithin a community is often associated with ‘socialcapital,’ broadly defined by levels of social trust,participation and association, cohesion and collectiveefficacy.20

17 Public Health England. (2015). ‘Social relationships are key to good health’.PHE. Available at:https://publichealthmatters.blog.gov.uk/2015/12/08/loneliness-and-isolation-social-relationships-are-key-to-good-health/ 18 McKinnon, E and Green, K. (2015) ‘Community Organisers – inspiring peopleto build a bigger, stronger society.’ Cabinet Office [online]. Available at:https://coanalysis.blog.gov.uk/2015/08/11/community-organisers-inspiring-people-to-build-a-bigger-stronger-society/19 Clegg, S. Courpasson, D. and Phillips, N. (2006). ‘Power and Organisations.’London: Sage. 20 Siegler, V. (2016). ‘Social Capital Across the UK: 2011 -2012.’ ONS. Availableat:https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/wellbeing/articles/socialcapitalacrosstheuk/2011to2012#the-role-of-trust-belonging-and-social-connections-in-communities

What are the sourcesof community power? Reinvigorating localism requires a fundamentally different conception of powerwhich puts people and communities at the starting point. Our Commission hasgathered evidence on how we build and organise power within communities. Webelieve that communities are already powerful – often far more than peoplerecognise – but this power can lie latent, untapped, or simply ignored.


People’s ideas, creativity, skills and local knowledge: Community is actively created through socialrelationships between people.21 Their ideas, creativity,skills and ways of supporting each other can bepowerful. Powerful communities recognise theseunique assets, and governance structures are able toharness these for the benefit of people and place.

Equality in participation and voice: Whilst not everyone within a community will want toget involved in community decision-making structures,powerful communities have equality of opportunity toparticipate, addressing barriers of resources andeconomic circumstances, time, and perceivedqualifications. Forums for participation, including localgovernance models, need to be non-hierarchical andenable broad-based participation.

Community governance has meaningful influence: Powerful communities have effective communitygovernance which has formal and meaningfulintegration with other tiers of governance.

Economic power: Having control over economic resources at a locallevel, including through community ownership ofassets and devolved budgets, and having the meansto address local priorities and find community-ledsolutions is critical to community power.

Health and wellbeing: Healthy and happy citizens with access to goodquality services are often better placed forparticipation. Crucially, meaningful participation andlocal engagement should fulfil its capacity to lead togreater health and happiness within communities.

21 Wills, J. (2016). ‘(Re)locating Community in Relationships: Questions for PublicPolicy.’ The Sociological Review [online]. Available at:http://web.a.ebscohost.com.gate3.library.lse.ac.uk/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=1&sid=89b5e1fa-4c60-4e8e-9c72-374ec7b35b91%40sessionmgr4006

16 People Power

What blockscommunity power? Our Commission has heard a breadth of evidence from communityorganisations, neighbourhood forums, local councils and local authorities,around the blockages and frustrations for the expression of community power.

Top-down decision-making:When things are ‘done to’ communities this reinforcesa paternalistic relationship between citizens and thestate. When collective endeavours are scupperedbecause ‘real power’ resides elsewhere at anotherlevel of governance or within the private sector, thisfrustrates community energy and contributes to asense of powerlessness.

Lack of trust and risk aversion:A lack trust and risk aversion on behalf of publicauthorities and political leaders can dampencommunity action.

Narrow participation:When community participation is narrow, this can leadto a dominance of those with the loudest voices andthose that have the confidence, skills, wealth and timeto participate. Even where community governance isled by a small group of passionate and involvedmembers of the community, this still needs to be basedon broad-based participation, communityengagement and active relationships.

Accountability deficit:This can occur in any layer of local governance, whereaccountability is reduced to basic methods of votingand consultations. A lack of a dynamic approach toaccountability, which prioritises participation, ongoingrelationships and co-creation, can reinforce thestatus-quo, block new ideas, and lead to a feeling ofpowerlessness.

Lack of access to data and information: When communities cannot take action or effect thechange they want to, because they lack access tolocal data and information, or lack the capacity togain ownership and understanding of it. When peoplefeel they cannot contribute to local decision-makingbecause they do not have access to information or theperceived knowledge requirements, this limits power.

Lack of control of funding and resources:The ability to get things done, achieve local prioritiesand re-design local services is often constrained bylack of control over resources. In areas of multipledeprivation particularly impacted by cuts to publicspending, this is a significant and compoundingbarrier to the opportunities of localism.


A fundamental rebalancing of power to people andcommunities requires more than tinkering around theedges. Localism needs to be approached as part of acomplex system which requires radical action. Achievingchange in a complex system requires a fundamentalshift in attitudes and behaviours, as well as changes tounderlying structures and mechanisms which drive howthe system operates22. Change is required in relationships,resources, policies, power structures and values.

Like all complex systems, the change that’s requiredcannot be achieved through policy and legislativelevers alone. We have heard how the connectionsbetween the ‘formal’ institutions and powers of localismand the ‘informal’ ingredients of supportive relationshipsand community involvement must be fully aligned if weare to embed localism into our national culture.

Our recommendations are therefore designed tostrike a balance between the changes required to theformal structures and processes of localism, with afundamental recasting of the relationship betweencitizen and state. The majority of our recommendationsare therefore aimed at the behaviour and practices oflocal government and public bodies. It is at this levelthat we can achieve the biggest impact in harnessingthe power of community to address shared challengesand shape local priorities.

Strengthening community powerrequires action in four key domains of localism:

Institutions for localism: healthylocal governance structuresacross the country, integratedwithin wider systems ofgovernance, to ensure thatpower sticks at the local level.

Powers and mechanisms forlocalism: ensuring there aremeaningful powers, levers andresources for communities totake action locally.

Relational localism: changingculture and behaviours requiresembracing risk and establishingtrust in devolution tocommunities, local leadersacting as facilitators forcommunity expertise, anddisrupting hierarchies.

Capacity for localism: ensuringlocalism is not the preserve ofwealthier communities, or thosewith the loudest voices, requiresbuilding community capacity,supporting communityorganising, communitydevelopment and sustainablespaces for participation.

22 Harries, E. Wharton, R. and Abercrombie, R. (2015). ‘Systems Change: Aguide to what it is and how to do it.’ NPC and Lankelly Chase. Available at:http://www.thinknpc.org/publications/systems-change/

Strengtheningcommunity power:reimagining localismWe require action across all four domains of localism: institutions; powers;relationships; and community capacity.

18 People Power

Institutions for localism:governance structures

County and District

Councillors meet at

distances up to 50 miles

away from the residents

they are representing,

they are not residents of

the villages and yet they

have the final say”

Parish Council Clerk

1

Local governance structures arethe institutions which can help toensure that power sticks and ismeaningful at the local level.While the ways that peoplecome together can often beorganic, bottom-up communityinitiatives, there still needs to bethe governance infrastructure inplace to strengthen voice andaccess to decision making andprovide tangible routes forachieving change.

03

04

05

06

02


There are many models of neighbourhoodgovernance: localism is not tidy. What has becomeclear to our Commission is that one size does not fit allwhen it comes to local governance.

We examined common challenges faced by bothdemocratic institutions (such as parish councils) andcommunity-led governance (such as neighbourhoodforums). We found common barriers: lack of fiscalcontrol; decisions blocked from above; andreluctance of other public bodies to embrace theperceived risks of devolution. We also found commoninternal challenges for local governance: lack of newleadership; partisan interests overriding commitmentto place; lack of participation; and inability toeffectively engage the community.

Ensuring that local governance structures can sustainand provide routes for local organising is essential toresetting the power balance between citizen andstate. Vibrant local governance – with meaningfulintegration with other tiers of governance – is essentialin driving forward a devolution agenda which canempower neighbourhood control over the localeconomy, public services and planning.

We found that strengthening the institutions oflocalism requires:

• Extending the powers which can be designated toneighbourhood forums in non-parished areas.Neighbourhood forums should be used as ablueprint for other forms of community controlbeyond neighbourhood planning. They could be avehicle for strengthening an enhanced frameworkof Community Rights, including new powers toshape local public services and priorities on localspending.

• Making it easier in legislation to establish parishcouncils with routes of redress when blocked byprincipal authorities.

• Supportive behaviours from local authorities andpublic bodies and a willingness to embraceperceived ‘risk’ in devolution to neighbourhoods.A commitment to strengthening the capacity ofneighbourhood institutions, supporting them toleverage resources and local assets, and devolvingfiscal controls and budgets alongsideresponsibilities.

• Supporting community ownership of assets:including through Community Asset Transfer (CAT)and strengthening the opportunities of the Right toBid, including creating a genuine ‘Community Rightto Buy.’

We have developed the following six ’principles oflocalism’ from the evidence we have heard aboutcommon challenges in local governance. Whilst ourrecommendations are not prescriptive in terms ofwhich models of local governance should be used,we believe that whether neighbourhood governanceis elected or community-led, it should follow these sixprinciples:

People are the end goal of localism: interventionsshould be judged by the impact they have onpeople, rather than institutions alone.

Equality in local participation: not everybody wantsto participate in the same way, but there needs tobe equality of consideration and an equalopportunity to participate.

Dynamic local accountability: accountability mustnot be based on consultations and voting alone: itmust value ongoing community participation,relationships and local action.

Local leadership is built around place: in whicheverform, party politicians or community leaders,leadership should be built around place, conveningcommunity partnership around shared local concerns.

Localism requires meaningful powers andintegrated structures: local powers should not beeasily dismissed by ‘higher’ tiers of governance,without clear reasons and means of redress.

Economic power must support communityresponsibility: communities must have the meansand resources to match powers and responsibilities,and realise the potential of localism.

01

Powers and mechanismsfor localism2

20 People Power

The legislation tries

unsuccessfully to balance

the needs of the community

against the property rights

of owners and developers

and in so doing fails to give

the community any meaningful

rights or benefits”

Local Authority Officer,

Community Rig

ht to Bid

We can hardly get our

head above the parapet,

never mind being able to

challenge our Council”

Community group,

Right to Challe

nge

Salvation Squad – Robin Woolg

ar photograph

y


A core purpose of our Commissionhas been to explore the currentframework of localism, includingformal mechanisms of communitypower such as the Community Rights.We find that this framework stopsshort of enabling the fundamentalshift in power that is needed.

The success of Community Rights remains too tied toavailability of community resources and local capacity,and is dependent on a wider supportive culture andbehaviours from local authorities. Therefore, while wemake a number of specific recommendations fortightening the legislative framework for localismthrough the existing Community Rights, this standsalongside our other recommendations across all fourdomains of localism.

Strengthening the Community Rights framework inlegislation requires:

• Requirements on Councils to actively publiciseCommunity Rights. Councils need to use a varietyof communication channels to directly promoteCommunity Rights, including targeted activity tounder-represented communities.

• A Community Right to Buy. As operating inScotland, a genuine Community Right to Buy wouldgive communities first right of refusal to purchaseAssets of Community Value (ACV) that come tomarket. It would provide a 12 month period, once anACV comes to market, for communities to mobilise,and secure the funding and local support required.

• Extend Assets of Community Value (ACV) listings.This would mean that assets of community valuewould include not only land and buildings, butother local amenities, such as bus companies andfootball clubs. Disused assets with communitypotential should also be included. ACVs should beprotected from change of use planning applicationswithout requirements to prove that there is noprospect of community use.

• Replace the Right to Challenge with a ‘servicespartnership power’. To reflect a collaborativeapproach to reshaping local public service delivery,parish councils and neighbourhood forums shouldbe able to trigger this power, with statutoryresponsibility on the local authority to begin aprocess for community consultation and co-design.

• Transparency in information available tocommunities.Annual accounting of local spend inpublic procurement, enabling communities tocreate local plans for how public services coulddeliver greater social and economic value to thecommunity.

Relational localism:changing culture andbehaviour

3

There is still a culture of deference

in many of our towns and cities, and

people's expectations of what they

can do and influence is really limited.

Where people have had a positive

experience of being involved in a

project, these expectations shift and I

think this can be catalytic. In other

places where they haven't had this

experience there is still this notion of

what ‘they’ do to ‘us’”

Community group, survey respon

dent

22 People Power


A technocratic localism will onlyachieve so much: localism must tapinto how people relate to and feelconnection with the place where theylive. It must be about changing howpeople feel about participation andengagement with decision-makingprocesses. As Charlotte Alldritt,former Director of Communities andPublic Services at the RSA, said in hercontribution to our evidencehearings: “In order to havelegitimacy, localism must havepeople shaped parameters.”

We need a relational approach to localism whichrequires changing the culture and behaviours ofcommunities, local councils and local authorities.Resetting the relationship between these actorsrequires recognising that people and communities(both in terms of informal activities and communityaction, as well as formalised community organisationsand governance) are equal actors as place-shapersalongside elected local leaders.

For example, we heard from Cllr. Peter Macfadyen,author of Flatpack Democracy and founder ofIndependents for Frome23, about the communityengagement principles of Frome Town Council. Theystart from the premise that the community already hasthe expertise, skills and ideas to develop localsolutions and it is the role of the councillors to seek thisout. They don’t make promises about the things theywill do for people; instead they aim to create a culturewith the community to “stop looking for reasons ‘notto’ and instead ask the question ‘how can we makethis happen?”‘

We found that a relational approach to localismrequires:

• Removing hierarchies in forums of communitydecision-making: The role of local leaders is toharness community expertise and participation. Itis possible to create non-hierarchical spaces forcommunity debate and decision-making, includingthrough independent facilitation.

• A willingness of local authorities to embraceperceived ‘risk’ including through devolution ofbudgets to neighbourhood institutions, and supportfor Community Asset Transfer (CAT). This would helpput local resources and amenities in the hands oflocal people, galvanise community action, andsecure sustainable funding for community institutions.

• Using co-production in the design and delivery ofour public services. Resetting the relationshipbetween public service agencies, providers andservice users through collaboration and co-design.

• Design collaborative approaches to decision-making in partnership with local communityorganisations, including groups representingcommunities of interest: otherwise there is a riskthat these approaches can end up reinforcingdisengagement.

• Communities to reclaim their rights to directaction. Our Commission has heard that whenpeople are used to being told what they ’can andcan’t do’ this stagnates community action. Ultimatelycommunities need to be free from feeling theyrequire ‘permission’ to get things done locally:communities must reclaim their right to ‘just do it.’

23 For more information, see: http://www.flatpackdemocracy.co.uk/thebook/

Capacity for localism:community infrastructureand participation

4

24 People Power


A core challenge that runsthroughout our findings is how toensure that localism is based onbroad participation, involving not justthe ‘loudest voices’. Whilst communityparticipation thrives on activemembers of the community – thosewho are ready and willing to give uptheir time, their experience andexpertise – if this is not supported bybroader community participation andinvolvement, this can skew therepresentativeness of communitydecision-making.

This remains a core risk of any initiatives designed tosupport localism: how to ensure that the capacity isthere to respond to a more vibrant neighbourhoodgovernance landscape? How do we ensure thatcommunity participation is wide reaching and inclusive?

While the exact mechanism varies, it is clear from theevidence we saw that communities require some formof catalyst to support them in participating and beinginvolved. Formal or informal structures, groups,organisations or institutions can play this role, but thisinfrastructure is vital in enabling communities to have avoice.

Strengthening community capacity and participationrequires partnerships between local governmentand community institutions:

• Supporting community organising mechanisms:building the networks and relationships withincommunities to develop community voice andaction.

• Supporting community development and‘informal’ community activity: this can re-engagecommunities who feel powerless and provide theimpetus for further community action. Providing thespace and time for informal discussions on localissues without a pre-agreed agenda can lead toopportunities to develop other courses for localaction.

• Sustainable spaces for participation: localauthorities can support community spaces forparticipation, deliberation and community actionthrough community ownership of assets

• Programmes and resources designed tospecifically enable participation fromunderrepresented minority groups

• Involvement of local organisations in publicservice delivery: building opportunities for co-production that can support community wellbeingand active citizenship.

26 People Power

Our fullevidence

andfindings


The evidence gathered for thisCommission, through expert witnesses,focus groups, written evidence andsurvey responses, is presented hereacross four themes: the Localism Act2011; the devolution agenda; localgovernance structures; and communitycapacity and participation.

We have sought to understand communities’experiences of localism, the successes which havebeen brought about by the Community Rights and thechallenges that remain. We have explored thedevolution agenda, looking particularly at whether itwill deliver greater neighbourhood control. We haveexamined the key local institutions which are requiredto deliver localism and embed participation withinneighbourhoods.

This evidence has been essential in shaping therecommendations presented in the first half of thisreport and has underpinned our calls for actionacross the four domains of localism: institutions;powers; relationships; and community capacity.

The Localism Act 2011“If central government is everywhere, then localdecision-making is nowhere – everything is subject tonational politics, with nothing left to communityleadership”. 1 The Rt. Hon Greg Clark, 2010

The Localism Act 2011 was born from the aspirations ofthe Coalition Agreement to deliver “an unprecedentedredistribution of power and control from the central tothe local, from politicians and the bureaucracy toindividuals, families and neighbourhoods”.2 The Actintroduced a set of rights and powers for communities– the Community Rights – as well as the General Powerof Competence for local government.

The Community Rights: formalising community power?

A core strand of the Localism Act was the introductionof new powers for communities – the CommunityRights, including the Right to Bid, the Right to Challenge,Neighbourhood Planning and the Right to Build. (SeeFig. 3 for more information). These Community Rightsestablished processes and a legislative framework forcommunities wanting to run local services, protectand own valued local assets, and influence localplanning and development decisions.

There have been some powerful examples of how theCommunity Rights have enabled communities to makereal change in their neighbourhoods. We’ve seeniconic local buildings saved from sale or disrepair –such as Grade II listed Pierremont Hall in Broadstairs3and Greenham Control Tower on Greenham Common4– and we’ve seen over 2000 communities involved indeveloping a Neighbourhood Plan.

However, there are also a number of barriers in usingthe Community Rights, which have restricted their takeup. Through the evidence we have gathered, weidentify a number of themes common to all theCommunity Rights: a lack of information, knowledgeand awareness of Community Rights; the communitycapacity and local resources required to take on theopportunities of Community Rights; and local powerimbalances and the importance of local relationshipsbetween the local authority and the community.

1 DCLG. (2010). ‘Decentralisation and the Localism Bill: an essential guide.’ HMGovernment. Available at:https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/5951/1793908.pdf 2 Cameron, D and Clegg, N. (2010). ‘The Coalition: Our programme forgovernment.’ HM Government. Available at:https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/78977/coalition_programme_for_government.pdf3 My Community. (2016). ‘Parish and Town Council multiple asset transfers:lessons and recommendations from two projects.’ My Community. Availableat: http://mycommunity.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/PTC-COMA-Case-Study.pdf 4 My Community. (2015). ‘Greenham Common Control Tower: Buying andrestoring the tower.’ My Community [online]. Available at:https://mycommunity.org.uk/case_study/greenham-common-control-tower-buying-and-restoring-the-tower/

28 People Power

The Right to Challenge: The Community Right to Challenge is a process for community organisations(including parish and town councils) to submit an expression of interest in running a local service on behalfof the public authority. If the authority accepts the expression of interest, they must then run a procurementexercise for that service. This procurement process is an open competition, where other providers includingthose from the private sector can also compete to run the service.

The Right to Challenge currently applies to services run by ‘relevant authorities’ which include: countycouncils; district councils; borough councils; and some fire and rescue authorities. The Right to Challengecan be evoked by ‘relevant bodies’ which include voluntary and community sector organisations and parishand town councils.

The Right to Bid: Communities can register land or buildings in their community as Assets of CommunityValue (ACV) with the local authority. If ever the building and land comes up for sale, the Community Rightto Bid can be evoked. This puts a six month pause, or moratorium, on the sale to allow the community toraise funds to buy it. At the end of the six month period, the owner does not have to sell to the communityand they can sell at whichever price they chose.

Assets can be nominated as ACVs by a community group connected to the area including a parish council,neighbourhood forum, or a community group with at least 21 individuals involved. ACVs can only benominated if they have a social use (such as sport, culture or recreation) or if it has a current impact oncommunity wellbeing. Once listed the ACV stays on the register for up to 5 years.

Neighbourhood Planning: A Neighbourhood Plan is a document that sets out the planning policies within aneighbourhood which have been agreed by the people that live there. It is written by members of thecommunity. Once agreed through local referendum, the Neighbourhood Plan forms part of the statutoryDevelopment Plan for that area and has to be considered in future planning decisions.

Community Right to Build Order: The Community Right to Build Order is usually, but not always, attached tothe Neighbourhood Plan. It provides automatic planning permission once passed through local referendumfor community buildings – for example community centres – as well as for local homes and community-ledhousing. Any profit generated from the development under this Order is reinvested for community benefit.

More information and step-by-step guides to the Community Rights are available from My Community:mycommunity.org.uk

Fig 3. Definitions of the existing Community Rights

Definitions of the existing Community Rights


The Community Right to Bid and Assets of Community Value

Asset of Community Value (ACV) listings have givencommunities the route to mobilise around much lovedlocal buildings and spaces and fight againstunpopular re-development plans, knowing that thereis a formal process to back them up. The Long LiveSouthbank campaign, for example, which successfullylisted the much-used and iconic Southbank Undercroftskate park as an ACV – forcing the council to sit upand take notice of the strength of community feelingand putting a stop to the mooted plans by thelandowners for retail re-development.5

The Community Right to Bid has also been successfullyused to give time for the community to gather thefunds required to buy an ACV when put up for sale,saving important local amenities such as the IvyHouse pub in Nunhead, which was brought with fundsin part raised through community shares. 6

However, there are significant challenges with theRight to Bid legislation, and there is currently nodatabase which tracks how many community buildingslisted as ACVs actually become community ownedonce they come to market.

Crucially, communities do not have a genuine‘Community Right to Buy.’ First refusal is not granted tocommunities, who instead have to compete withcommercial bidders at the point of sale. Raising thecapital required presents the biggest barrier, andraising the funds within the current window of 6months is often not enough time to build communitysupport, set up an incorporated organisationalstructure and governance model, and completeapplication cycles for funders and investors. As the2015 Communities and Local Government Committeeinvestigation into the Community Rights highlighted:“bidding for an Asset of Community Value is acomplicated process requiring time, organisation,effort and resources to put together business plansand find funding”.7

Mobilising within these tight timeframes particularlydisadvantages more deprived or marginalisedcommunities and restricts their ability to take up theopportunities of the Right to Bid. Research from theUbele Initiative in partnership with Locality, forexample, has mapped the erosion, loss and closure ofBAME community spaces, highlighting that governance,time and resource constraints in BAME communitygroups limits their capacity to use the Right to Bid totake ownership of local assets.8 This was also highlightedby the Communities and Local Government Committee,warning that the burdens of the Community Right to Bidhave a particular impact on disadvantaged communities. 9

“It [The Community Right to Bid] does not give any rightto buy so even if communities are able to put in a bid itis still likely to be rejected because a community bid isunlikely to compete successfully with a commercial bid.The legislation tries unsuccessfully to balance theneeds of the community against the property rights ofowners and developers and in so doing fails to give thecommunity any meaningful rights or benefits.” – LocalAuthority Officer, survey respondent

“In reality the asset owners are generally very againstthe listing of their asset, and raising funds in even a sixmonth period is challenging. Many communities waituntil, for example, the pub is under threat of closure tolist the asset, which is too late” – Local AuthorityOfficer, survey respondent

Neighbourhood Planning

Neighbourhood planning has been the most widelyused aspect of the Community Rights. To date, over2000 communities have been involved at some stageof the neighbourhood planning process, representingapproximately 12 million people. It has been used bycommunities wanting to tackle second-homeownership and lack of affordable housing, by usingdata on local housing need to develop HousingNeeds Assessments. Other communities have focusedon how spatial planning can improve access toservices and employment, such as the Heathfield ParkPlan in Wolverhampton10.

For a Neighbourhood Plan to progress, it must bebased on widespread community engagement whichculminates in a referendum, securing democraticlegitimacy. Our survey responses and written evidencehighlighted the success of neighbourhood planning inbuilding a participatory approach to planning andlocal decision-making, bringing a larger section of thecommunity into decisions around planning.

5 See: https://mycommunity.org.uk/case_study/long-live-southbank-community-rights-used-to-campaign-to-save-skatepark/ 6 See: https://mycommunity.org.uk/case_study/the-ivy-house-pub-the-first-community-owned-pub/ 7 Communities and Local Government Committee (2015). ‘Sixth Report ofSession 2014-15: Community Rights.’ House of Commons.https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/cmselect/cmcomloc/262/262.pdf

8 Field, Y. Murray, K. and Chilangwa Farmer, D. (2015). ‘A place to call home:Community asset ownership in the African Diaspora Community.’ The UbeleInitiative and Locality. Available at: http://locality.org.uk/resources/place-call-home-community-asset-ownership-african/9 Communities and Local Government Committee (2015). ‘Sixth Report ofSession 2014-15: Community Rights.’ House of Commons.https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/cmselect/cmcomloc/262/262.pdf10 See: https://mycommunity.org.uk/case_study/futurehoods-heathfield-park-wolverhampton/

30 People Power

As guidance produced by the Eden Project oncommunity engagement in neighbourhood planningstates, “in order to get more people to engage withplanning we need to make the process meaningful totheir lives and the lives of their families.” 11 To achievecommunity support, neighbourhood planning groupsmust think creatively about how they engage all partsof the community.

For example, Trull neighbourhood planning group inSomerset, held a community raffle – for which theentry requirement was a completed questionnaireabout the local area. Abram neighbourhood planninggroup in Wigan has used the popular video game‘Minecraft’ to get year 5 students at local schools, aswell as their parents, involved in thinking about whattheir neighbourhood plan should look like.12 LawrenceWeston neighbourhood planning group in Bristoltrained local people in community research to knockon over 1000 people’s doors to talk to them aboutwhat they thought their local neighbourhood needs. 13

Respondents to our survey pointed to the benefitsneighbourhood planning can bring in developing asense of shared identity and collective action, bymobilising around attachments to place. Otherrespondents pointed to the neighbourhood planningprocess being a tool to encourage communities to seethe value in new development:

“In my parish an initial survey showed most residentspreferring minimal new housing. Three years later a NP[Neighbourhood Plan] that planned for nearly 300 newhouses (well above District demand for the village)received 92% support on a 42% turnout.” – Parishcouncil clerk, survey respondent

These cases are borne out by national statistics whichdemonstrate that across a sample of 39Neighbourhood Plans which address housing, thehousing allocation within these was 11% more than inthe Local Plan.14 An analysis of the first 50Neighbourhood Plans to be made also demonstrateda near unanimous concern for affordable andsustainable housing, alongside interest in community-led housing initiatives.15 This demonstrates that despiteconcerns about being used as a tool for ‘NIMBYs,’neighbourhood planning has opened up routes forneighbourhoods to be pro-active about localdevelopment challenges to meet local housing needs.

However, two key issues emerged in our evidencearound the take up of neighbourhood planning. First,was an emphasis on the types of technical skills andexperience required to develop Neighbourhood Plans,and the resources, volunteer time and networksneeded to pursue them successfully. This makes thenational support programme for communities aroundneighbourhood planning, including the provision oftechnical skills free of charge, particularly important.

Evidence points to the predominant picture ofneighbourhood planning being more prevalent inmiddle class areas16, notwithstanding the examples ofneighbourhood planning achieving great success inareas of multiple deprivation. The underrepresentationof disadvantaged areas in neighbourhood planning,also shows how neighbourhood planning should besurrounded by tools and resources which seek toinvolve populations less likely to engage – such asareas with highly transient populations or lowhomeownership.

“[Neighbourhood Planning] pre-supposes a politicalidentity, appetite, desire, time and resilience; few placeshave all that from the get-go.” – VCSE supportorganisation, survey respondent.

The second key issue is a recurring theme throughoutour evidence of communities feeling that planning andlocal development is still largely led by the localauthority, despite neighbourhood planning powers.Locality’s work supporting communities to developneighbourhood plans has also shown poor practicefrom local authorities including: misinformation;statements that Neighbourhood Plans will not betaken into account in making planning decisions; anddelaying or failing to deal with applications for thedesignation of neighbourhood areas. Modifications atexamination stage of the Neighbourhood Plan, forexample, can also include changes which entirely alterthe overall objectives of the Neighbourhood Plan. Thiscan frustrate and undermine community efforts,passion and motivation.

“Some progress on Neighbourhood Planning, but theideas and passions to change and improve things isundermined by planning issues and control from thecentre.” – Community group, survey respondent

11 The Eden Project. (2015). ‘Neighbourhood planning community consultation.’My Community. Available at: https://mycommunity.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Neighbourhood-planning-community-consultation-final.pdf 12 Ibid 13 Ibid 14 DCLG. (2016). ‘Neighbourhood Planning: progress on housing delivery.’DCLG. Available at: http://6 mycommunity.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/161013-made-neighbourhood-plan-housing-delivery_Oct2016.pdf 15 Field, M. and Layard, A. (2017) ‘Locating community-led housing withinneighbourhood plans as a response to 10 England’s housing needs’, PublicMoney and Management, 37(2): 105-112. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09540962.2016.1266157

16 Parker, G. and Salter, K. (2016) ‘Five years of Neighbourhood Planning. Areview of take-up and distribution’, Town and 8 Country Planning, 85(5): 181-188. Available at: http://centaur.reading.ac.uk/65602/


The Right to Challenge

The Right to Challenge, amongst all the CommunityRights, stands out as having had little or no impact,with very few examples of the Right being used.

The process of submitting an Expression of Interest(EOI) to initiate the Right to Challenge can beconsidered antagonistic and damaging to therelationship between the community group and thepublic authority. Written evidence received from theNational Association of Local Councils (NALC)described how in the experiences of their members,the Right to Challenge can actually replicate andexacerbate tensions between local councils andprincipal authorities.

“We intended to make use of the CRTC [CommunityRight to Challenge] in order to take over the running ofthat service. When I phoned to ask for the name of theofficer responsible, my enquiry was met with laughter(literally). I was told that there was no officer and thatthey had not been anticipating any challenge.” –Community organisation, survey respondent.

Respondents highlighted that where there is asupportive council which promotes and valuesbottom-up community activity and communityinvolvement in public service design and delivery, theRight to Challenge is an unnecessary and unsuitableprocess. However, where the council is unsupportive,the Right to Challenge is not sufficient to overcomethese hurdles. Community groups referred to a ‘cultureof denial’ in their local authority in the way they paylip-service to community delivery and involvement inpublic service delivery; and others pointed to aresistance to change and a reluctance to ‘let go’ intheir local authorities.

“Local authorities, with some minor exceptions, have notmade the process easy, so local communities/localcouncils are reluctant to spend resources in puttingtogether a bid. Furthermore, few are actually aware ofwhat it entails i.e. you are, in effect, tendering. Mostlocal councils preferred to enter into direct negotiationswith the local authority to take over the service.” –Warwickshire Association of Local Councils (WALC),written evidence

In addition, the procurement process triggered by asuccessful EOI is open to all potential providers,including those from the private sector. This hascaused concern about ‘privatisation by the back door’– as one survey respondent put it: “No-one wants touse it lest the bad guys win the resulting tenderprocess.” The Right to Challenge has had no impact inaddressing the trend towards scale and outsourcing tothe private sector, and has proved an inappropriateroute for greater collaboration between local authoritiesand communities to support better service design.

Conclusions from our evidence on Community Rights

Community Rights are not yet universally known andunderstood by communities, local councils and localgovernment alike. Written evidence and surveyrespondents highlighted that for Community Rights tohave a transformational impact, access to greaterknowledge, information and awareness is crucial.

“The truth is that most communities are not even awareof the possibilities that exist, let alone possessing of themeans, leadership and community spirit at the locallevel to carry them out.” – NALC, written evidence

This lack of awareness of the Community Rights wasprevalent across our survey. It was most stark in theRight to Challenge. Over a quarter of respondentshighlighted either a lack of examples of the Right toChallenge being used, or that they had not heard ofthe Right at all. This is reflected in the high proportionof respondents (66%) reporting that the Right toChallenge had been either ‘moderately unsuccessful’or having ‘no impact.’ (For full survey results, pleasesee Appendix).

The importance of community capacity to make useof Community Rights, including the resources andtime to develop and harness local skills and networks,was a key theme of our evidence.

The Localism Act was introduced at a time of publicsector cuts, which has put immense pressure on thehealth and capacity of local civil society, not tomention local government. Alongside this, the BigSociety agenda which shaped much of the CoalitionGovernment’s communities policy development wasnot tied to a programme of significant investment forcapacity building commensurate with the scale of thechallenge.

In creating a ‘menu of options’ for communitiesthrough the Localism Act, the Coalition Governmentmoved away from area-based initiatives aroundneighbourhood renewal focusing on areas of multipledeprivation. The Coalition Government’s approach tolocalism has been based on the creatingopportunities for all communities – to ‘let 1000 flowersbloom’ – rather than targeted initiatives. However, aconsequence of this hands-off approach is thecreation of inequalities of participation in theCommunity Rights framework across communities.

32 People Power

The importance of local context: behaviours andsupport from local authorities. Our Commission hasheard how the success of Community Rights is oftendependent on the broader culture of the localauthority and their support for community-led activity.

We heard many examples in our survey, writtenevidence, and evidence events, of community-leddecisions made as part of the Community Rightsframework being stymied by another level ofgovernance. For example, Neighbourhood Plansbeing blocked by the planning authority or ACVsbeing rejected by the council without means ofredress. The balance between commercial sector andcommunities’ interests is also a core challenge: forexample, a process of appeal for landowners exists toappeal an ACV listing, but not for the community. Thiscreates huge frustrations for communities, anddampens motivation, enthusiasm and passion.

The possibilities of localism extend far beyond theframework of Community Rights, and stem from awillingness of local authorities to embrace anddevelop community-led approaches. We have heardthat a proactive and positive local governmentattitude to community-led approaches, for example inpublic service delivery or community asset ownership,is far more important than the Right to Bid or Right toChallenge in itself.

Kirklees Council, for example, have demonstratedvisionary local public-sector leadership through theirCommunity Asset Transfer (CAT) strategy, includingfreehold transfers, revenue support and a loan offerfor groups taking on assets, 17 which will also save thecouncil an estimated £1 million.18 Another example isBristol City Council who are developing theirprocurement strategy to reflect the importance ofsustaining economic resilience and communityorganisations, to ensure that hyper-local economiesretain spending and build community prosperity.19Local authorities that have embraced theopportunities of the Social Value Act 2012, have beenable to deliver added social value in public servicedelivery through community-led approaches andleveraging the resources and expertise of civil societyinto commissioning.20

Amending the Community Rightsframework:

We recommend a genuine Community Right to Buyto replace the Right to Bid. Even wider take up of theCommunity Right to Bid could be achieved throughthe adoption of a genuine Community Right to Buymodel – with a first right of refusal for communitiesinterested in acquiring land of community value. InScotland, the equivalent legislation on registration ofcommunity interests in land allows for the communitygroup to have first right of refusal in purchasing thelisted asset – referred to as the Community Right toBuy.21 They have eight months to raise the funds for thepurchase and an independent valuation is done toensure that the owner receives a fair price at ‘marketvalue.’

We recommend that a new Community Right to Buywould include a moratorium period of twelve months.Instead of the current six months, communities wouldhave up to one year to mobilise to purchase ACVs.This extension could be accompanied by newrequirements on prospective bidders to demonstratereasonable progress towards fundraising the capitalrequired as well as evidence which demonstratesserious intent. This would not overburden communitygroups, who will have evidence they can draw uponfrom community consultations and fundingapplications. This would also then provide reassuranceto the landowner that there is a high likelihood that abid will be submitted within the extended timeframe.

Under the Community Right to Buy, the definition ofAssets of Community Value (ACV) would beextended to include: not only land and buildings, butother local amenities, such as bus companies andfootball clubs. Disused assets with communitypotential should also be included. ACVs should beprotected from change of use planning applicationswithout requirements to prove that there is noprospect of community use.

We recommend that the Right to Challenge bereplaced with a ‘services partnership power.’ Thiswould reflect a partnership approach to reshapinglocal public service delivery, rather than theoppositional stance of the Right to Challenge. Thiswould allow parish councils and neighbourhoodforums to trigger the ‘services partnership power’ overa local service, and there would be responsibility onthe local authority to begin a process for a jointservice review panel with local providers, localorganisations, service users and commissioners. Therewould be a set period of community consultation andco-design, with a further potential trigger for a fullprocurement exercise as a result of this.

17 Kirklees Council. (2017). ‘Community Asset Transfer Policy.’ Kirklees Council.Available at: http://www.kirklees.gov.uk/beta/community-assets/pdf/asset-transfer-policy.pdf18 http://www.examiner.co.uk/news/west-yorkshire-news/how-council-taxpayers-kirklees-saved-13929040 19 Locality. (2017). ‘Powerful Communities, Strong Economies.’ Locality.Available at: http://locality.org.uk/resources/powerful-communities-strong-economies-report/ 20 SEUK. (2016). ‘Procuring for Good: How the Social Value Act is being usedby local authorities.’ SEUK. Available at:https://www.socialenterprise.org.uk/Handlers/Download.ashx?IDMF=e3c5b57a-929b-4d99-933d-b2317376d8cd

21 The Scottish Government. (2016). ‘Community Right to Buy: Guidance forApplications made on or after 15 April 2016.’ The Scottish Government.Available at: http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0049/00497288.pdf


The Localism Act and the GeneralPower of Competence

The General Power of Competence introducedthrough the Localism Act gives local government “thepower to do anything that individuals generally maydo.” Prior to this, local government was only able toact within their specific statutory powers. Thelegislation was designed to allow councils toundertake innovative activity and was intended to bean enabling framework for local authorities. 22 Itrepresented a significant shift in the decentralisationof power and indeed brought the UK’s localgovernment legislation more closely in line with manyof our European neighbours.23 It covers all levels oflocal government; however, parish councils have tofulfil eligibility criteria, including having two-thirds ofmembers elected and training course requirements forthe parish clerk.

A key frustration for parish and town councilsexpressed throughout our evidence has been thatdespite the permissive nature of the General Power ofCompetence, principal authorities are still able toblock locally-led decisions. One rural local council inLincolnshire, for example, outlined their frustration atnot being able to shape how tourism could have amore positive impact on their local economy: “Withthe current system, County and District Councillorsmeet at distances up to 50 miles away from theresidents they are representing, they are not residentsof the villages and yet have the final say.”

We heard evidence from Councillor Peter MacFadyenof Frome Town Council, author of Flatpack Democracyand founder of Independents for Frome, that whilethey have developed a transformative approach toparticipatory decision-making in their town, localdecisions can still be trumped from above. As PeterMacFadyen described, the key problem with thelocalism agenda is that the definition of what is ‘local’is often wrong – with ‘local’ seeming to stick at theprincipal authority level. Whereas in reality, it tends tobe at the more hyper-local level where attachments toplace are at their most resonant, and wherecommunity action can be most powerful.

Written evidence from parish and town councils alsohighlighted that when there is greater devolution tolocal areas, this can often be driven by a cuts agendafrom above which is not accompanied by thepartnership and support required to design effectivelocal solutions. NALC outline this trend in theirevidence highlighting how greater responsibilities onfirst tier councils come with top-down conditions fromprincipal authorities, rather than a productivedialogue: “Usually it is that the service will stop or thebuilding or open space will be sold off and possiblydeveloped if the local council does not step in.”

Whilst the General Power of Competence has offereda framework to enable the wider culture changeneeded for localism, the challenge remains instrengthening governance capacity at a local levelwhich is integrated into other layers of governance, inorder to provide tangible tools to realise theopportunities of localism.

Fiscal devolution to localgovernment: an unresolved tension

Fiscal devolution – the powers to raise and spendmoney at a local level – still lags significantly behinddecentralisation policy in the U.K. The Communitiesand Local Government Committee have found, forexample, that the proportion of tax set at a subnational level in the U.K. is only approximately 2.5% ofGDP, compared with, for example, 15.9% in Sweden,10.9% in Germany, and 5.8% in France.24 They arguethat without fiscal devolution “local authorities will beagencies of central Government, focused in largemeasure on the requirements set by the funder, centralGovernment, and acting within spending constraintsset by Whitehall.” 25 A key theme from our writtenevidence has been the frustrations from all layers oflocal government, in not having the financial controlsto address local priorities.

Local authorities are required to meet a huge numberof statutory demands determined by nationallegislation, including core services such as children incare and home and residential care for the elderlyand disabled. A 2011 DCLG review into these statutoryrequirements compiled a list of 1339 statutory dutieson local authorities, governed by central governmentdepartments.26 Yet the spending powers to matchthese responsibilities have not yet caught up.

22 DCLG. (2011). ‘Localism Bill: summary impact assessment.’ DCLG. Availableat:https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/6036/1829702.pdf 23 Sandford, M. (2016). ‘Briefing Paper: the General Power of Competence.’House of Commons Library. Available at:http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN05687/SN05687.pdf

24 Communities and Local Government Committee. (2014). ‘First report ofSession 2014-15: Devolution in England: the case for local government.’ Houseof Commons. Available at:https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/cmselect/cmcomloc/503/503.pdf 25 ibid 26 DCLG. (2011). ‘Review of local government statutory duties: summary ofresponses.’ DCLG. Available at:https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/review-of-local-government-statutory-duties-summary-of-responses—2

34 People Power

A key objective of the ‘devolution revolution’ agendaspearheaded by George Osborne, was to make localgovernment financially ‘self-sufficient’ by 2020,primarily through business rates retention, andphasing out of the centrally funded Revenue SupportGrant. However, the 2017 General Election saw theaxing of the Local Government Finance Bill, anddelays to the original timescales. This delay, whilstadding great uncertainties for local authorities, mustalso be an opportunity to address the potentialinequities that could be mainstreamed into the localgovernment finance system. There is a fear that areasof greater deprivation, which have higher pressureson local services and have a weaker local businesstax-base to generate income from, will lose out fromthe new system.

The debate over business rates retention shows thatwe need to be mindful of a new fiscal settlement thatreinforces existing inequalities. However, as ProfessorTony Travers notes, “Britain has the most centralisedtax-setting arrangements of any major democracy ...Indeed the degree of centralisation suggests thatBritain’s national politicians have little confidence thatour democracy can work effectively other than whenin the hands of grandees in Westminster andWhitehall.”27 So with civic leaders increasingly callingfor greater tax raising powers, we have anopportunity to redesign the tax system from thebottom-up - so that it starts from the perspective ofsupporting local flourishing rather than sustaining thepriorities of the Treasury.

The devolutionagendaThe devolution agenda over the last four years hasbeen primarily focused on the creation of combinedauthorities, with ‘devolution deals’ being reached inGreater Manchester, Liverpool City Region, Cornwall,Sheffield City Region, Tees Valley, West of England, theWest Midlands, North of Tyne and London.

In setting out the process for devolution deals, centralgovernment emphasised the ‘bottom up’ nature of thedevolution process: local areas were invited to jointogether to design devolution settlements and makeproposals to the Treasury. Yet, despite this, manypowers were considered ‘off the menu’ and the processof approving and amending potential devolutiondeals lacked transparency.28 In addition, centralgovernment preference for a metro-mayoral modelhas failed to reflect the needs and requirements ofdifferent places, and the range of governancestructures which might be more suitable. Indeed, insome areas, citizens had actually voted againsthaving an elected mayor when they had been askedto vote on it a few years previously. Centrally imposedmodels, without other fundamental democratic shifts inlocal participatory models, can reinforce the impressionthat devolution is just ‘another layer of politicians.’

The core objective of our Commission’s scrutiny ofdevolution deals has been to consider their capacityin terms of strengthening local accountability,community participation, and enabling greaterneighbourhood control.

Devolution is at an early stage, but there is a need totake action now to ensure it can be transformative,with more dynamic accountability structures, and agovernance model which places greater emphasis onthe powers and resources which can be held at alocal level. Without this focus, devolution riskswidening the gulf between citizens and politicians.

“The devolution of decision making and managing publicservices to lower levels of institutions and organisationsneeds to be distinguished from the processes needed toenable communities and neighbourhoods which areimpacted by those decisions to be fully involved in theprocess leading up to the decisions.” Eileen Conn,Peckham Vison, written evidence

27 Travers, T. (2015). ‘A hyper-centralised anomaly: why the UK must embracetax devolution.’ In D. Srblin. Tax for our Times. The Fabians. Available at:http://www.fabians.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Tax-for-our-Times-July-2015.pdf

28 NAO. (2017.) ‘Progress in setting up combined authorities.’ NAO. Availableat: https://www.nao.org.uk/report/progress-in-setting-up-combined-authorities/


Accountability and local participation

Scrutiny through the integration of tiers of governanceis an essential part of the accountability mechanismsof new combined authority structures. However, this ishighly dependent on the ability of local councillors toprovide this function. The National Audit Office (NAO)have identified the capacity of councillors to provideoversight and scrutiny of combined authorities as akey risk. 29 The Cities and Local Devolution Act 2016requires the establishment of scrutiny committeeswithin combined authorities, however councillors fulfilthis role in addition to their existing responsibilities,which the NAO finds has “implications for their overallability to function.” 30

This is also a theme which has emerged through ourCommission’s evidence. One local authority officer, forexample, outlined their concern that a metro-mayoralgovernance structure intended to increase accountability,will in reality diminish the role of local councillors by‘scaling-up’ focus on accountability to a less local level.We also heard oral evidence from Ed Cox, Director ofIPPR North, who called for the establishment of localpublic accounts committees, at local authority andcombined authority level, which could provide anopen and transparent process for scrutinising valuefor money and effectiveness of place-based spending.

Devolution needs to be accompanied by a broaderand more dynamic understanding of accountability,which incorporates citizen participation andinvolvement. Devolution to neighbourhoods inpartnership with local leaders, civil society andcommunity institutions, would help to strengthencommunity engagement across devolution deal areas.

We require a more dynamic understanding of whataccountability means in the context of devolution.

Devolution needs to be about more than localiseddecision-making structures, it needs to strengthen theability of communities to be involved in the earlystages of decision-making and in shaping policy.Ultimately, the devolution agenda to date lacks thisfocus on neighbourhood participation and communityengagement. Instead of arguing for ‘onwarddevolution’ as part of the existing framework ofdecentralisation policy, we need to be making a clearcase for powers to start at the neighbourhood level.

The local economy

As Coops UK note in their written evidence to thisCommission: “To have a truly inclusive economyeveryone needs to enjoy economic agency andopportunity, including people in more disadvantagedcommunities. A significant motivation for both localismand devolution is the belief that such inclusivity is morelikely if political economies become more locallyorientated.”

Devolution has the potential, in theory at least, torebalance our national economy, and give peoplemore of a stake in, and control over, their localeconomies. However, a predominant focus ofgovernment’s devolution agenda to date has been todrive economic growth nationally, and strengthenregional economies.31 The focus of this has beenprimarily through new investment packages for CityRegions, and the role of devolution in strengtheninglocal economies beyond city centres in our towns andvillages, has so far been overlooked in the devolutionagenda.

This disconnection between City Regions and localdecision-making and control over the local economywas prevalent throughout our evidence events. Aneighbourhood forum in Birkenhead, for example,explained how they felt ”within the shadow ofLiverpool” in the Liverpool City Region. Despite havingan ambitious community-led plan for developing thelocal economy, they are concerned that all newinvestment and resources will be focused on the city.We also heard oral evidence from Steve Conway fromCollyhurst Big Local, about the importance ofconnecting their community economic plan into theGreater Manchester Combined Authority priorities:“We cannot encourage people to be involved if wecan’t influence the long term plan for the area”.

It is essential that the focus on city growth does notside line the potential to develop more dynamic localeconomies; without this, devolution risks embeddinginequities in economic development.32

“Devolution deals appear to be at a regional scale and ofno relevance here. There is a risk that the term ‘localism’can be taken to mean ‘regional authorities’, and becomeanother box-ticking exercise.” – Communityorganisation, written evidence

29 NAO. (2017.) ‘Progress in setting up combined authorities.’ NAO. Availableat: https://www.nao.org.uk/report/progress-in-setting-up-combined-authorities/ 30 NAO. (2017.) ‘Progress in setting up combined authorities.’ NAO. Availableat: https://www.nao.org.uk/report/progress-in-setting-up-combined-authorities/

31 HM Treasury. (2015). ‘Chancellor unveils ‘devolution revolution.’ Available at:https://www.gov.uk/government/news/chancellor-unveils-devolution-revolution 32 Berry, C. (2016). ‘The Resurrected Right and the Disoriented Left.’ Availableat: http://speri.dept.shef.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/SPERI-Paper-27-The-Resurrected-Right-and-Disoriented-Left.pdf

36 People Power

Devolution should be an opportunity for community-led solutions to shape the local economy.

Tools such as community economic developmentplans, for example, bring residents, local businesses,civil society and the public sector together todetermine priorities for local economic change33. Procurement of local organisations in public servicedelivery can also be a powerful agent forstrengthening the local economy34 and devolutionshould provide an opportunity for enabling greaterwhole-place thinking in public services, including howprocurement and commissioning spend can be usedto improve the local economy.

The role for civil society

Engagement with civil society organisations isessential to ensure devolution can grow localdemocracy, strengthen local economies, and supportpublic service transformation.

Written evidence from Cornwall County Council, forexample, advocates a place-based approach tocitizen engagement. They highlight how the combinedauthority level can seem distant and irrelevant;devolution should provide an opportunity to haveconversations on a local level about how devolutioncan benefit people, and civil society is a key facilitatorfor this.

However, research from NCVO has shown that civilsociety engagement in devolution to date has beenweak. In a survey of 249 voluntary and communitysector organisations, 84% said their organisation hasnot contributed in any way to the development ordelivery of devolution plans in their area. The mostcommon reason cited by respondents for notengaging in the devolution process was a lack ofawareness (45%). This was followed by a lack ofengagement by local government (40%) and a lack oftime and resources (27%).35

Despite this overall picture, we have also heardpositive examples of civil society involvement in newdevolved structures. The VCSE Reference Group forGreater Manchester, for example, has recently signeda memorandum of understanding with the Mayor ofGreater Manchester. This makes commitments to co-designing policy, with representation of the ReferenceGroup on key boards within the Combined Authority,and a review of community development and assetbased approaches in Manchester. Warren EscadaleCEO of Voluntary Sector North West, who gaveevidence to our Commission, highlighted that whilst itcould be argued that this is a ‘technocratic approachto civil society involvement’, without these formalmechanisms it is difficult to achieve the wider culturechange needed.

Building the scrutiny capacity of civil society and localinstitutions is also essential to strengtheningaccountability. Ed Cox of IPPR North highlighted howlocal think tanks are able to use local data andinformation, provide research based on localisedanalysis, and strengthen scrutiny of local issues.

Civil society has an essential role to play in makingsure that devolution works for people and communities.

Local community organisations play a vital role insupporting community engagement, public servicetransformation and local economic development.Devolution deals should include tangible commitmentsto co-design with local civil society organisations –including in public service commissioning and localeconomic strategies.

33 For more information, please see: https://mycommunity.org.uk/take-action/community-economic-development/ 34 Locality. (2017). ‘Powerful Communities, Strong Economies.’ Locality.Available at: http://locality.org.uk/resources/powerful-communities-strong-economies-report/ 35 NCVO. (2017). ‘Local needs, local voices: building devolution from theground up.’ NCVO. Available at: https://www.ncvo.org.uk/about-us/media-centre/press-releases/1760-ncvo-no-further-devo-deals-without-local-charities-involvement


Local governancestructuresLocal governance structures are the institutions whichcan help to ensure that power ‘sticks’ and ismeaningful at the local level. Whilst organising ispossible everywhere, when it is stymied by ‘higher’bodies saying no, this reinforces a sense ofpowerlessness. Ensuring that local governancestructures can sustain and provide routes for localorganising is therefore essential in resetting the powerbalance between citizen and state. While the waysthat people come together are often organic, therestill needs to be the governance infrastructure inplace to strengthen voice and access to decision-making and provide tangible routes for achievingchange.

All communities should have access to the institutionswhich support local democracy and provide vehiclesfor community action.

Strengthening neighbourhood governance isessential in the context of the devolution agenda

Without meaningful institutions for localism at aneighbourhood level, devolution risks perpetuatingpower imbalances and an uneven economic model,and misses opportunities to transform local servicesand local economies.

Parish and town councils

Parish and town councils, with statutory powers andthe ability to raise a precept, can manage localamenities, services and assets and mobilisecommunity activities. They also often reflectrecognised boundaries which directly connect withcommunity identity. They are less common in urbanareas, although there are some excellent examples ofurban parishes being established, such as Queen’sPark in West London. In some unitary authorities, suchas Cornwall, local councils provide the key unit oflocal governance, and are the key structure for localdevolution and local service delivery.

However, we have also heard evidence from localcouncils who are unable to impact change at theirlocal level, because they lack the required fiscalcapacity or else the statutory powers lie withinanother layer of governance. For parish councilswithout the General Power of Competence, theirability to enhance community control is also lessened.We have heard how this can lead to a perception oflocal councils as ineffective or redundant units ofgovernance within the community, and can be abarrier to greater participation from the community,dampening local democratic potential.

Strengthening the capacity of parish councils –including the resources that they can leverage – is keyto ensuring a vibrant local governance frameworkwhich can carry the opportunities of localism. Wehave seen supportive behaviours of principleauthorities in this regard. Broadland District Council,for example, are developing a strategy to supporttheir parish councils to maximise the impact of theCommunity Infrastructure Levy (CIL) funding whichthey are entitled to, including support for creatingsustainable local projects and community enterprisethrough this funding.

The question of the relevance of party politics in localgovernance has also been a key theme of discussionthroughout this Commission. We have heard fromadvocates of removing party politics from localgovernance. Councillor Peter MacFadyen, for example,has reflected how removing party politics from thelocal system can unlock ‘creative unity’ and can helpreframe local leadership around facilitation ofcommunity expertise. One of our Commissioners, NeilJohnston CEO of Paddington Development Trust, alsoreflects on how the success in establishing Queen’sPark Parish Council was in uniting members aroundcivic responsibility to place, rather than party politics.However, in our evidence events, it was also discussedthat local decisions around how resources are spent arealmost always ‘political’ in their prioritisation of need.

Above all, we have heard how embeddingparticipatory democracy and communitydevelopment in local governance is vitally important:deliberative, participatory, and place-based localdemocracy can unlock creativity, unity and communityenergy and harness the skills and tools for citizens tolead change in their local area.

Case study of Frome Town Council

The principles of engagement deployed by FromeTown Council are that it is the community that has theexpertise, skills and ideas, and it is the role ofcouncillors to seek this out. Frome used communitypanels for decisions on different things – going wherepeople are, into more informal settings, having properconsultations in accessible venues that people go toand feel comfortable. They also make use ofparticipatory budgeting tools to have conversationswith the community and make joint decisions abouthow local budgets are spent.

They also use professional facilitators for engagement –this is crucial to ensuring that all people are heard, notjust those with the loudest voices. They wanted tocreate a new approach to getting things done locally,where they stop looking for reasons ‘not to’ and insteadask the question ‘how can we make this happen.’

38 People Power

Neighbourhood forums

Neighbourhood forums are governance structureswhich have been introduced to enable areas thatdon’t have parish or town councils to pursue aNeighbourhood Plan. A neighbourhood forum can beset up by 21 resident members and is ‘designated’ bythe principal authority, establishing local powers overplanning and land use.

Respondents to our survey and written evidencehighlight the potential of this governance model,beyond neighbourhood planning. There is appetitefrom existing neighbourhood forums to continueworking in their communities post neighbourhoodplanning referendum and Neighbourhood Plan, so asnot to waste the community energy and participationthat has been developed around planning. Thisprocess has huge potential for local democracy andin establishing a governance structure forneighbourhood planning in non-parished areas.

“Yes communities become fatigued but it is also a wasteto let that capacity and all groups have achieved fizzleaway once a plan is adopted. We need to think aboutwhat else we can do at a neighbourhood level.” –Neighbourhood planning researcher, surveyrespondent

“Referenda [should] be used to enlist more communityempowerment. By way of example, budget matters,healthcare provisions, access (or lack thereof) to basicservices.” – Parish Councillor, survey respondent

The neighbourhood forum model should beextended by devolving other powers to designatedforums, building on and strengthening existingCommunity Rights.

There should be scope for increasing powers whichdesignated forums could take on around spendingand service delivery, following negotiations with thelocal authority. The process for designation wouldneed to include robust scrutiny, and assurancesaround community engagement and accountability.

Our Place and Community Budgets

Our Place and Neighbourhood Community Budgetswere programmes established alongside the LocalismAct to devolve pooled public service budgets to aneighbourhood level to encourage collaboration andco-design between public service providers andcommunity organisations and service users. TheDepartment for Communities and Local Governmentdescribed the programme as “a fundamental part ofthe government’s approach to localism”, which wouldsupport communities “to design and deliver localservices that focus on local priorities and reducecosts.”36

However, whilst working well in areas with strongexisting community organisations, evaluation of someNeighbourhood Community Budgets found that a lackof civic infrastructure and community voice impededsome programmes37. The evaluation of the Our Placeprogramme found that the programme did notgenerate truly pooled budgets, rather a patchwork ofexisting funding was levered from multiple sources. Italso found that the continuation of the workdeveloped under Our Place, whilst still operating, isprecarious and reliant on grant funding. Key barriersduring the programme were the reluctance of politicalleaders and statutory agencies to embrace theradical change necessary. 38

Dr. David Sweeting, an expert witness to ourCommission, has highlighted three key objectives thatunderpin local governance: to strengthen citizenparticipation; bolster accountability; and improveneighbourhood services and conditions. His researchhighlighted common challenges across all models ofneighbourhood governance:

• The capacity that is established in neighbourhoodinstitutions, including resources

• The preparedness and willingness of other servicesto work with neighbourhood models of governance

• Citizen involvement: pressures on time can result ininequalities and skew the representativeness ofneighbourhood institutions

• Equity concerns: different levels of support andprovision within and between neighbourhoods.

36 DCLG. (2013). £4.3 million boost to put communities in control’ PressRelease [online]. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/43-million-boost-to-put-communities-in-control 37 Wills, J. (2016). ‘Locating Localism’. Available at:https://policypress.co.uk/locating-localism 38 Lee, B. (2016). ‘Evaluating Our Place.’ My Community. Available at:https://mycommunity.org.uk/resources/__trashed/


Community capacity and participationA core challenge for localism is in ensuring that it isbased on broad participation, involving not just the‘loudest voices,’ but all members of the localcommunity. While community participation thrives onactive members of the community – those who areready and willing to give up their time, theirexperience and expertise – if this is not supported bybroader community participation and involvement,this can skew the representativeness of communitydecision-making.

The level of community capacity and strength of localinfrastructure to support community action and localorganising is also a key challenge for localism. Weneed to ensure that all local areas are able torespond to the opportunities of localism, bystrengthening community institutions and providingforums for community participation.

What are the drivers of, and barriersto, community participation?

There is a wealth of studies that have sought tounderstand the root drivers and factors involved incommunity participation. The ‘Pathways throughParticipation’ project – funded by Big Lottery anddelivered by NCVO, Involve and Institute forVolunteering Research - for example, summarises howparticipation is determined by motivations, resourcesand opportunities. Motivations include identity, values,beliefs and how connected people feel to the placewhere they live. Resources might be practicalresources (time, money, access to transport), but alsoinclude felt resources, such as confidence and a senseof efficacy, and social resources, such as networksand local relationships. Opportunities for participationrefers to the shape of local institutions and politics -how effective and open are local groups,organisations, community spaces and events?39

Recent research as part of Local Trust’s ‘EmpoweredCommunities 2020’ project, has also highlighted howbarriers to getting involved in community activitiesinclude a lack of confidence and feelings ofdespondency, as well as lack of time due to workingor caring responsibilities. Worry about money, payingbills and living in poverty is also a key constraint togetting involved in your local community.40 Whenpeople are focused on surviving through the week,this limits their likelihood of getting involved in localactivity; as one participant at one of our evidenceevents put: “My community wouldn’t even think ofgrasping any power from anywhere, [they’re] too busywith living”.

Collyhurst Big Local – addressing barriers toparticipation

We heard from Steve Conway at Collyhurst Big Localabout their approach to addressing social andeconomic barriers to participation. They established apartnership with Gateway Debt Advice and MoneyEducation Centre to support local people with debt,welfare and housing issues. They recognised that ifpeople are worried about money and housingsecurity, they are not necessarily in the ‘right place’ tobe getting involved in community-led initiatives.

Building ‘community confidence.’

At our evidence events, there was discussion abouthow to build the ‘community confidence’ required toembed localism into the culture of our neighbourhoods.One of our expert witnesses, Charlotte Alldritt, formerDirector of Public Services and Communities at theRSA, emphasised that in order to build participation inlocalism, it is essential to first engage people bydeveloping their sense that they are able to changethings. Developing personal agency around makingchange within a neighbourhood can also build asense of capacity for being involved in wider change,and can build civic and democratic capital.

“People engage and participate in their community whenthey know how to, when they get support, when thefacilitation gives feedback and motivates. Generallywithout this the ownership and passion can diminishand the state once more takes control as they have allthe resources and time to manage the agendas. Weinvest millions in economic development but virtuallynothing in the development of social capital.” –Community group, survey respondent.

39 Involve, NCVO, IVR. Pathways to Participation [online]. Available at:https://www.involve.org.uk/programmes/pathways/

40 Local Trust. (2017). Empowered Communities 2020. [online]. Available at:http://localtrust.org.uk/assets/images/assets/uploads/IVAR_EC2020_Issues_Report_FINAL_210917.pdf

40 People Power

Community engagement: a spectrum ofparticipation

We have heard throughout our evidence howparticipation and community involvement should beviewed as a spectrum: anyone should be able to beas involved as they want to be. However, theopportunities for ‘transformational engagement’ mustbe built and embedded.

Community engagement can range fromtransactional engagement, which might include broaddissemination of information, and awareness ofopportunities to engage further. For example, localballots and referenda might play a key part inproviding a ‘democratic stamp’ on local decisions.However, this should be accompanied by widercommunity engagement and development work toensure that there is broader scope for shapingdecisions. At the more ‘transformational’ side of thespectrum, this involves integration of the communityinto decision making and problem solving.

The role of local organisations

Community organisations play an essential role insupporting capacity for localism though communitydevelopment, community organising, localengagement, and providing the spaces and forumswhich can provide a catalyst for local action.

Local organisations also provide routes for connectinglocal governance structures and public bodies withcommunities.

Strengthening the capacity of local organisations isessential to ensure equal opportunities forcommunities to be able to mobilise around theopportunities of localism. At our first evidence event,Kunle Olulode, Director at Voice for Change,emphasised the need to strengthen the capacity ofBAME led organisations, and to ensure BAMErepresentation in community leadership. For example,in the context of gentrification in inner city areas,strengthening BAME groups, including throughcommunity asset ownership, can help to give localpeople the tools and capacity to mobilise aroundcommunity-led regeneration.

Knowle West Media Centre, Bristol - using digitaltechnology for community participation

Knowle West Media Centre (KWMC) has been basedin Knowle West, Bristol for 22 years. They usetraditional and digital media and data to find creativeways of getting the community involved in local issues– including food production and health and wellbeing.They focus on developing digital literacy, skills andtraining, and business and enterprise development.They work particularly with young people and thoseat risk of exclusion and least likely to participate indecision-making and city life.

Their approach is that “everyone is an expert” andsolutions to local problems can be found in thecommunity. They aim to create spaces where a rangeof stakeholders in the community can haveconversations without hierarchy. A core aim is thatinvolvement in projects builds an improved sense ofagency and self-determination felt by participants.

‘Junior Digital Producers’ at KWMC

The ‘Junior Digital Producers’ (JDPs) are local youngpeople wanting to develop creative skills and industryexperience. They created a visual online platform todisplay community-generated data as a communityengagement tool – highlighting prevalent local issues,and generating community conversations about howthe local area is changing.

By making data more accessible, the JDPs aimed tocreate a single place where members of thecommunity could both input and access informationabout their community, but without using pie charts orspreadsheets to visualize this information. In order tomake the collection and visualization of thisinformation engaging, they decided to createinteractive games and use animated infographics tocollect, display and explore the data. From the lastthree programmes of this kind 88% of Junior DigitalProducers progressed into employment or self-employment.


Devolving budgets

Devolving budgets to communities is also a vitalenabler of local change. The Big Local programme,for example, funded by Big Lottery and managed byLocal Trust, has demonstrated the impact of thisapproach. As Big Lottery have highlighted in theirwritten evidence, this programme: “puts residentsthemselves in charge of spending funding to improvetheir community, from introducing training andemployment schemes, to tackling anti-socialbehaviour, creating new community facilities, andproviding more activities for young people.” As MattLeach, CEO of Local Trust, highlighted at one of ourevidence roundtables, one of the key impacts ofdevolving budgets to communities is that you start tosee change in local power negotiation – withcommunities more confident in what they are able to do.

Growing the possibilities from‘informal’ community action

A further key opportunity for building communityparticipation is in linking perceived informalcommunity activities – for example litter picking andknitting groups – into formal community institutionsand local decision-making. These community activitiesand spaces are where people talk to each other, andare invested in being part of the community. Capturingthese informal units of organising is essential inensuring that local decision-making and participationhas the broadest possible reach in the community.

Southwark Council – Community Action Networks

We received written evidence from CommunitySouthwark, about Southwark Council’s support forcommunity action in the borough. They currently fundCommunity Southwark to work with local groups toprovide infrastructure support for local action,including: volunteering support; brokering localnetworks around local issues and campaigns; andcommunity development within underrepresentedcommunities. They have created ‘Community ActionNetworks’ which provide the space, opportunity andtime for local people to come together to participate ininformal discussions on issues that concern them locally.

Community Southwark highlight that this “is asignificant step in the right direction, and suchresources need to be continually evolving to identifyand support the very diverse activities that localactive citizens undertake (on an entirely voluntarybasis); it is the tip of a very large iceberg which willrequire greater coordinated action with our publicsector institutions to ensure that ‘the door is open’ forgreater joint-action with local people.”

42 People Power

We need a new power partnershipbetween local government and localpeople to unlock the potential oflocalism.

Community leaders can embed localism andparticipation in the culture of our neighbourhoods by:

• Supporting community development and ‘informal’community activity: to re-engage communities whofeel powerless and provide the impetus for furthercommunity action.

• Removing hierarchies in forums of communitydecision-making: recognising the role of localleaders to harness community expertise andparticipation.

• Community organisations have an essential role toplay in embedding localism: • Using their own participatory governance

structures and community accountabilitymechanisms;

• Using community organising mechanisms,building the networks and relationships withincommunities to develop community voice andaction;

• Using community development activities andnuturing community action;

• Supporting the local economy through hostingand incubating local enterprise, and localeconomic activity which prioritises theknowledge, experience and involvement oflocal residents.

Local government and other local public bodies canstrengthen community institutions, including parishcouncils, community organisations andneighbourhood forums, by:

• Embracing perceived ‘risk’ through devolution ofbudgets to neighbourhoods

• Adopting community asset transfer (CAT) policiesto put local resources and amenities in the handsof local people, galvanise community action, andsecure sustainable funding for communityinstitutions.

Local government and other local public bodies cansupport localism in our public services and economy by:

• Prioritising social value in public procurement;strengthening the local economy by keepingmoney spent on public services in the local area;using co-production in the design and delivery ofpublic services;

• Embedding community control and involvementwithin local economic strategies and local plans,supporting neighbourhood planning andcommunity economic development as strategiesled by local people.

Ultimately both people and local government shouldnot need to wait for ‘permission from above’ to getthings done in their neighbourhoods.

Many of the community groups and local councils wemet through our evidence events had a ‘just do it’mentality. The process of navigating barriers andblockages from ‘higher powers’ can be frustrating. Butthe spirit of direct collective local action remainspowerful: communities must claim it.

We need national government toshow leadership in setting theconditions for localism to flourish.

We require legislative change to strengthen theframework of localism:

• Strengthening local powers, including a genuine‘Community Right to Buy’ to take ownership ofvalued local assets and a ‘services partnershippower’ to embed community involvement in localservices;

• Strengthening local governance by making iteasier to establish parish councils and extendingthe powers designated to neighbourhood forumsin non-parished areas.

Embedding localism within the devolution agenda:

• The devolution agenda currently lacks a coherentneighbourhood dimension. New and existingdevolution arrangements should be held toaccount by whether they enhance neighbourhoodcontrol and strengthen the power of community.

Our call to action Our Commission seeks to inject new life into the localism agenda. Action acrossthe four domains of localism identified by our Commission – institutions, powers,relationships and community capacity – is required to harness the power ofcommunity and create the environment for localism to thrive.

43 People Power

A copy of the questions are below

1. First name

2. Last name

3. Organisation name (if applicable)

4. Type of organisation

5. Description of organisation

6. Experience of Community Rights

7. In your experience, how successful has theCommunity Right to Bid been in supportingcommunities to take on assets of community value?[multipicklist – very successful, successful,moderately successful, moderately unsuccessful,no impact]

8. Can you provide further detail to your answer?

9. In your experience, how successful has theCommunity Right to Challenge been in supportingcommunities to take on assets of community value?[multipicklist – very successful, successful,moderately successful, moderately unsuccessful,no impact]


11. How successful has Neighbourhood Planning andCommunity Right to Build been in ensuring thatdevelopment and planning is community-led?[multipicklist – very successful, successful,moderately successful, moderately unsuccessful,no impact]


13. Do you have recommendations for how the currentCommunity Rights could be strengthened oramended, including what new rights or powersshould be available for local communities?

14.Are there any other comments you wish to raise orissues you think would be of interest to theCommission?

APPENDIX: Call for evidenceand survey on Community Rights Our call for evidence and full questions can be viewed here:http://locality.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/Where-next-for-Localism-Consultation-document.pdf

As part of our evidence for this Commission, we issued a survey on CommunityRights between March and May 2017. This was completed by 151 respondents (44VCSEs, 10 VCSE support groups, 31 from local government, and 66 individuals).


Right to Bid

In your experience, how successful has the CommunityRight to Bid been in supporting communities to takeon assets of community value? [multipicklist – verysuccessful, successful, moderately successful,moderately unsuccessful, no impact]

• Completed by: 103 respondents.

Right to Challenge

In your experience, how successful has the CommunityRight to Challenge been in supporting communities totake on assets of community value?

• Completed by: 103 respondents.

Neighbourhood Planningand Right to Build

How successful has Neighbourhood Planning andCommunity Right to Build been in ensuring thatdevelopment and planning is community-led?[multipicklist – very successful, successful, moderatelysuccessful, moderately unsuccessful, no impact]

• Completed by 111 respondents.

28

39

11

43

3

Headline findings on the use of theCommunity Rights

● Very successful● Moderately successful● No impact

● Successful● Moderately unsuccessful

28

39

11

43

3



37

25

13

55




AcknowledgementsWe are very grateful to everyone that provided written evidence, completed our survey, attended ourevidence events, and engaged with us throughout this process. Particular thanks go to those who attendedour evidence events as expert witnesses, including:

Charlotte Alldritt, Director of Public Services and Communities at the RSA Dr David Sweeting, Senior Lecturer in Urban Studies at Bristol University Penny Evans,Assistant Director at Knowle West Media Centre Cllr. Peter Macfadyen, author of Flatpack Democracy and founder of Independents for FromeEd Cox, Director at IPPR NorthDr Jenny Rouse,Associate Director at Centre for Local Economic StrategiesWarren Escadale, CEO at Voluntary Sector North WestProfessor Gus JohnSteve Conway, Collyhurst Big Local

About LocalityLocality supports local community organisations to unlock thepower in their community to build a fairer society. Our network of550 community organisations transforms lives by giving local peoplea purpose, a good place to live and good health. Locality supportscommunity organisations with specialist advice, peer-learning,resources, and campaigning to create better operating conditions.

About Power to ChangePower to Change is an independent trust thatstrengthens community businesses across England.We received our endowment from Big Lottery Fundin 2015.

At a time when many parts of the UK face cuts,neglect and social problems, we are helping localpeople come together to take control, and makesure their local areas survive and stay vibrant.

No one understands a community better than thepeople who live there. In some areas, people arealready coming together to solve problems forthemselves, and we support them as they runbusinesses which help their whole community andrecycles money back into the local area. Communitybusinesses revive local assets, protect the servicespeople rely on, and address local needs.

www.powertochange.org.uk

Believe in thepower ofcommunityShare this report and help usachieve true people power

Locality central office,33 Corsham Street, London N1 6DR1 0345 458 8336 0 [email protected]

Locality is the trading name of Locality (UK) a company limited by guarantee, registered in England no. 2787912 and a registered charity no. 1036460. ©Locality January 2018

Find us on: "!'

www.locality.org.uk

Date post:	16-Aug-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

P e o p l e P o w e r m i s s i o n F i n d i n g s f r o ... · localism agenda, unlocking 4he...

Documents