Agenda item

“What action can the Council take to promote the well-being of rural communities in Huntingdonshire?”

Councillor L M Simpson, Deputy Leader of the Council invited Councillor K M Baker, the Council's representative on the Local Government Association's Rural Commission to open a debate entitled "What action can the Council take to promote the well-being of rural communities in Huntingdonshire?"

Councillor Baker reminded Members that Huntingdonshire remained a predominantly rural District with over 80,000 people living outside the market towns.  In terms of the well-being of those residents, Councillor Baker referred to the difficulties experienced by those who lived in villages and the countryside, experiencing poor access to services, such as transport, shops, post offices and to facilities such as leisure centres, cinemas and broadband access.  To redress the shortfall, Councillor Baker challenged his colleagues to work closely with partners and to exert influence and pressure to seek additional infrastructure provision.  He also drew attention to the recent publication of a draft "Cambridgeshire Rural Strategy" by Cambridgeshire Together which had identified six priorities for action and invited Members to come forward with ideas to respond to and promote the well-being of the rural communities. 

Councillor P L E Bucknell questioned whether the Council's planning policies were helping or hindering the provision of local services and he referred to the example of the difficulties in establishing a local shop in Wistow.  Councillor P G Mitchell drew attention to the problems of anti-social behaviour in villages and the potential impact that improved facilities might have in resolving these difficulties especially if Section 106 Agreement receipts could be made more flexible to assist smaller rural settlements.  Councillor R J West commended the publication of the draft rural strategy for Cambridgeshire and in particular highlighted the importance of youth provision and rural public transport.  These comments were endorsed by Councillor M G Baker who suggested that the lack of transport to access services was the greatest form of rural deprivation.  He mentioned the contribution made to the lives of those living west of the A1 by the Nene & Ouse Community Transport Scheme and the role that the Council had in continuing to support community transport.  Councillor Baker also suggested that the District Council might consider contributing some funding to shops and post offices if this would prevent their closure in villages and in this light drew attention to the efforts made by residents in Catworth to retain the post office in that village.

In terms of affordable housing, Councillor M G  Baker questioned the wisdom of the "Right to Buy" policy given the consequences this had had in reducing the public housing stock and particularly welcomed the opportunities presented by the policy on ‘rural exception sites’ which he considered essential to provide social housing in more rural locations.  Although highlighting youth provision as an issue, Councillor Baker accepted that this would be difficult to resolve in rural areas given the requirement to arrange transport to facilities in the towns and the need for adult supervision.

Councillor Mrs B E Boddington referred to the opportunities offered by ‘rural exception sites’ in villages, applauded the effort that had been made to retain a post office in Eltisley and suggested particularly that ways needed to be found to improve transport services.

Councillor R G Tuplin referred to public support for a campaign to retain a post office in The Giddings which had ultimately been unsuccessful.  He contended that the public had been disillusioned by the response but he was now hopeful that the shop would remain in the village which served a vital rural service

Having regard to the comments made by Councillors M G Baker and West in relation to youth provision, Councillor K J Churchill, Executive Councillor for Housing and Public Health encouraged both councillors to contact the Council's Sports and Active Lifestyle Team who organised a programme of activities for young people in rural areas, including school holiday roadshows, specific sports courses and after school sessions.  Mention also was made of the DASH project funding for which had been obtained for rural locations.

Councillor P A Swales considered it essential to provide affordable homes for people to be able to continue to live in villages and with this in mind he referred to the Council's planning policies and questioned their ability to be sufficiently flexible to prioritise ‘rural exception sites’ and promote village facilities such as the recent application for a shop in Pidley which had been refused by the Development Management Panel. 

In terms of the rural economy and the effect of isolation issues on business growth, Councillor A Hansard, Executive Councillor for Resources and Policy pointed out that it was vital to identify premises where small businesses could operate, to improve access to broadband and to continue to lobby for investment in transport and improvements to the A14 to maximise opportunities for new and existing business growth.  In terms of planning policy, Councillor Hansard also pointed out the opportunities that existed to re-use existing farm buildings.  He encouraged Members to continue to support their local post offices and rural outlets given the effect the success of the businesses could have on local supply chains.  He further argued that business enterprise was essential to boost the footfall in the market towns and increase and promote the range of leisure, shops and tourism facilities available.  Lastly, Councillor Hansard drew attention to the benefits offered to the rural communities by Paxton Pits and the Great Fen and the opportunity to link businesses to both facilities as training establishments. 

Following previous comments, Councillor T V Rogers, Executive Councillor for Finance informed Members that the Council tended to direct capital grants to schemes in smaller villages given that it was unlikely that these would benefit from Section 106 funding.  He urged County Council colleagues to examine transport issues as County policies, in his view, were not working adequately.  Councillor Rogers referred to the availability of rural rate relief for post offices, small shops, petrol stations and public houses and described, in brief, the qualifying criteria for potential claimants.  He urged Members to consider their rural settlements and to promote the opportunities available for small businesses to take advantage of rate and hardship relief. 

In welcoming the information which had been presented in debate thus far, Councillor P J Downes pointed out that there were inequalities between the villages, some being relatively affluent whilst others struggled and some benefiting from a community spirit and volunteers working  in a variety of ways to improve life in the community.  He was of the view that there might be opportunities to identify best practice and disseminate this to those communities in greater need.  Councillor Downes recognised that funding was an issue and questioned whether the new community infrastructure levy might be used to transfer benefits received via Section 106 Agreements to rural communities.  He further endorsed the view that the County Council should look more closely at the provision of rural transport and thanked his colleague Councillors for their useful contributions to the debate.

Referring to Councillor Hansard's address, Councillor Mrs M Banerjee also identified the importance of economic development and tourism for the District and the potential offered by the opportunity to diversify the use of farm buildings.  However, she also was concerned at the inflexibility, on occasions, of planning policy to bring improvements to assist the rural economy. 

Councillor J A Gray, Executive Councillor for the Environment and IT reported that British Telecom had announced that Huntingdon, St. Ives and Yaxley would soon benefit from superfast broadband, and that in future this would be available to 66% of District residents.  Whilst "cold spots" would still exist, Councillor Gray was hopeful that further discussions with BT would result in greater investment in the District.  Mention also was made of projects elsewhere and the actions of a Parish Council in Rutland District which had, under its wellbeing powers, raised funding to improve broadband connections in the village.  Councillor Gray urged his colleagues to encourage their respective parish councils to engage with best practice to deliver improvements which would assist rural communities.  In endorsing the comments made by Councillors in respect of transport and housing, Councillor Gray also referred to the issue of fuel property whereby communities such as Kimbolton did not have access to the natural gas network and had to rely on increasingly costly oil as domestic fuel. 

Councillor P D Reeve considered that the lack of late night transport hampered employment opportunities for residents of Ramsey.  Furthermore he suggested that support for small business was vital and congratulated the Council for establishing Neighbourhood Forums which could give communities the opportunity to raise their concerns with appropriate agencies.  He also commended the work of the Neighbourhood Management Board and was hopeful that all such initiatives would be able to put work positively together to the benefit of Ramsey.

Whilst pleased to support the retention of existing and new shops, public houses and post offices in villages, Councillor P M D Godfrey reminded the Council of the question of sustainability and also queried the flexibility of the planning policy if such ventures were to be encouraged in future.

In endorsing the general thrust of the debate, Councillor M F Shellens pointed out the effect on individuals of living in isolated villages and referred to his personal experience of a resident who had difficulty in travelling for appointments to local hospitals.

Having regard to the series of transport issues raised, Councillor D B Dew, Executive Councillor for Planning Strategy and Transport indicated his support for the number of transport initiatives which operated locally, suggested that planning policies adopted locally were largely controlled by national guidance and that ‘rural exception sites’ were made available if it could be demonstrated that there was a proven local housing need.  Regarding the potential to use funding arising from Section 106 Agreements, Councillor Dew reminded the Council that such funds needed to relate to the development from which they had originally derived and that he was hopeful that the new community infrastructure levy might widen the criteria under which such funds might be used.

In closing, Councillor I C Bates, Leader of the Council thanked Councillor K M Baker and those who had contributed to an interesting debate.  Furthermore he underlined the opportunities that existed to assist rural villages including grant aid for community schemes and the possibilities offered by ‘rural exception sites’. He praised the community spirit which existed in villages and suggested that Parish Councils could facilitate smaller initiatives which might generate self-help, neighbourliness and energise community ethos still further.