To invite the Deputy Leader and Executive Councillor with responsibility for Localism, Councillor N J Guyatt to open the debate.
Minutes:
The Chairman reminded Members of the decision by the Council to suspend Council Procedure Rule 11 (Rules of Debate) to enable headline debates and “White Paper” proposals to be discussed by Members in an open manner. The Council, therefore,
RESOLVED
that Council Procedure Rule 11 (Rules of Debate) be suspended for the duration of the discussion on Minute No. 69 during which time the Common Law Rules of Debate be observed by Members and applied by the Chairman.
At the invitation of the Chairman, the Deputy Executive Leader and Executive Councillor with responsibility for localism, Councillor N J Guyatt welcomed County Councillor L W McGuire and all representatives of Town and Parish Councils to the meeting. Councillor Guyatt was pleased to invite Mr I Dewar, Chief Executive of the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Association of Local Councils to open the debate on “What Will Localism Mean to our Parish Council”.
Mr Dewar explained the role of the Association in offering guidance and support to Town and Parish Councils. In his view, whilst the Localism Act would present a serious challenge to the Sector, in reality the Act had only formalised what Parish Councils may already have been doing for many years. Referring specifically to the Act, Mr Dewar mentioned the “community right to bid” for local assets of community value and the “community right to challenge”. However, he was concerned at the limited detail available on the new rights and powers for communities and commented that the Act was short in the explanation of terminology and the definition of terms. Mr Dewar questioned whether a local council could deliver services in a sustainable or cost-effective way. He also expressed concern at the suggested “community right to build” and whilst accepting that this power could give a local community the opportunity to deliver affordable housing, questioned how this could be achieved in a sustainable way.
Mr Dewar also expressed interest in how the general power of competence would develop. He reported that he had given presentations on the Act to a number of Parishes, several of which had not expressed any interest in further development whilst others had wished to see increased employment and housing opportunities but found it difficult to understand how this could be achieved. He looked forward to the assistance that the local planning authority might offer in this connection.
Mr Dewar indicated his disappointment at the proposed changes to the Standards regime and was unclear whether the intentions of the Act in this respect would be of any benefit to the parish sector or indeed any other tier of local government.
At present, Mr Dewar reported that he was looking at the various issues arising from the Act with a group of Councils in Cambridgeshire to decide how best Councils could organise themselves. It was his intention to record the outcome of this work to assist other Councils in the future. The Group was considering the expectations of their communities, the capacity of Parish Councils to undertake new functions, sustainability and infrastructure issues.
However, Mr Dewar reiterated his concerns that the Act and governance process needed to be clearer. He urged all parties to be open to the opportunities which may be presented by the Act, to look forward to improved consultation, the development of partnerships and the establishment of a robust Charter which would enable all tiers of Government to work together in a more cost-effective way. To achieve all these objectives, Mr Dewer concluded by stating that he looked towards the District Council for its assistance.
Councillor Mrs L Craig, Chairman of Houghton and Wyton Parish Council was invited to address the Council. Councillor Mrs Craig acknowledged that it was in the interests of all tiers of Government to work together and that she was frustrated that a promised meeting arrangement and neighbourhood planning tool kit was not yet in place for this purpose. Councillor Mrs Craig described the Parish of Houghton and Wyton and the facilities available in the village and was hopeful that the Act would assist the Parish Council in maintaining the village and its surrounding countryside. Lastly, Councillor Mrs Craig questioned from where funding could be sourced to enable the Parish Council to implement aspects of the Act.
The Chairman of Buckden Parish Council, Councillor T F Hayward was invited to address the Council. Councillor Hayward also enquired as to the progress of the neighbourhood tool kit which had been promised to parish councils at a meeting on a proposed Town and Parish Charter in January. He considered that this partnership could present the opportunity for all tiers of Government to work together on regional strategies such as the A14 and other road infrastructure concerns in the area. He was anxious that the village boundary in Buckden would be maintained and that the Parish Council would not have to argue its case again. Councillor Hayward advised Members that his Parish Council was unsure how to respond to the challenges of the Act, how it would impact on the Parish Council’s budget and how the Parish Council could attract individuals in the community to serve on the Council to take on these additional responsibilities. He added that it was difficult to attract sufficient Parish Councillors as it was without the new responsibilities suggested by the Act and that he was aware that the political parties found it just as difficult to encourage people to stand for the District and County Councils. He expressed concern at the abilities of the Parish Council to meet its new responsibilities and any additional new powers which may be devolved to it. He also referred to the influence of community groups and questioned whether these groups could override the authority of the Parish Council. He was also concerned at the cost of holding referenda and the underlying issues raised in an article by George Jones and George Stewart which appeared in the first edition of the publication “Local Council Review”.
In his capacity as Councillor for Huntingdon Town Council, Councillor A MacKender-Lawrence addressed the meeting. Although making it clear that the views he presented were not those of the Town Council, he referred to the return of the Town Council to offices in the Market Square in Huntingdon and the opportunity this offered to residents of the town to take ownership of the Market Place and High Street and to engage with the community to re-develop areas in the town under the Bid Process. As an illustration, Councillor MacKender-Lawrence made reference to a recent exchange visit to Gubbio in Italy where he had observed how the local authority worked in partnership with the town it represented.
He acknowledged that it might be difficult to effect a change in culture and interest in the town but considered that the first step should be to ask the community how it wished to develop its ideas. In terms of shared services and notwithstanding the excellent work of the District Council’s Grounds Maintenance Team, Councillor MacKender-Lawrence could foresee that it was in the interests of the Town Council to take responsibility for the maintenance and use of play areas. With the Town Council now occupying Huntingdon Town Hall, Councillor MacKender Lawrence considered that there was also an opportunity to deliver leisure and tourism and in particular suggested that the Town Hall could host a tourist information point. This work could be undertaken in conjunction with Huntingdon Town Partnership as it was the objective of both organisations to increase footfall in the town centre. Above all, it was his desire to take whatever opportunities presented to increase the number of visitors to Huntingdon.
In response to comments about dual-hatted Councillors, Councillor S J Criswell, Chairman of Somersham Parish Council and District and County Councillor considered that membership of two or three tiers of local council gave a Member a broader view and a more comprehensive understanding of local government and avoided the danger of a Councillor working in isolation. Whilst the different tiers of authority could assume changed roles under localism it might not be easy to meet the aspirations of communities. He considered that, whilst it was essential to grasp the principles of localism, there were parish councils who had already been active in many areas regardless of the new ideas contained in the Act.
Brief mention was made of a proposed new approach to the neighbourhood forums which might involve the opportunity to recommend expenditure on local needs. Councillor Criswell also pointed out the advantages presented by the “Shape My Place” Initiative. He accepted that further work required to be undertaken but urged the District, in partnership with the County, to have the vision to maximise the opportunities presented by localism and to offer help and guidance to parish councils in this regard.
Councillor M G Baker suggested that whilst he had listened with great interest to the speakers thus far, he was concerned that the Councils in Parishes he represented would become disillusioned as local communities would not be granted powers to address issues as they might have envisaged - for example to resist the location of traveller sites. On a similar theme, Councillor P J Downes, Leader of the Liberal Democrat Group accepted that, in principle, the Act appeared to suggest that decisions locally could be made by those directly affected but, in practice, it was difficult to see how this could be implemented. It was difficult to envisage how local government finance could be devolved to the smaller councils. He also expressed concern at the difficulty in attracting individuals to serve as parish Councillors and in deciding why this appeared to be the case and indicated that he would like to see localism being used to generate participation in local decision making. Councillor Downes also was anxious about the relationship which might develop between community groups and democratically elected Councils given that sporadic groups could promote issues that were not acceptable. Whilst Councillor Downes had concerns and accepted that it would be a challenge, he indicated that he desperately wanted the principles of localism to be a success.
Councillor P D Reeve expressed his pleasure at the attendance of local councils at the meeting suggesting that the role of the Parish Councillor was under-appreciated but critical to the success of local government. He added that the idea of localism was partly irrelevant given the number of Councils who had already been working locally on similar issues for a long time.
The National Planning Policy Framework and the Localism Act had, in the view of Councillor Reeve, offered so much but delivered little. He was concerned at the cost of implementing neighbourhood plans, the inability of local councils to stop unacceptable development or activities, considered that the District Council had a role in assisting Parish Councils and urged Councils not to lose heart as the impact of localism unfolded.
Whilst promising much, Councillor D B Dew expressed his disappointment at what localism could usefully bring to local government. He also considered that it was imperative to clarify what District and Parish Councils could achieve given the inclusiveness currently of arrangements in the planning process which involved Parish Councils in consultation on development proposals and the joint working evident in meetings of the Traffic Management AJCs.
On the same theme, the Executive Leader, Councillor J D Ablewhite suggested that the District Council had embraced localism before it had been proposed given its involvement with local community groups and Town and Parish Councils. His main concern, however, was how to manage the aspirations of the Parish Councils given the varying levels of precepts and how to encourage people to get involved in working for their Parish. In closing, Councillor Ablewhite undertook to ensure that the District Council would endeavour to improve its communications with Parish Councils.
Councillor R J West urged the Council to have patience with the principles of localism as he believed it needed time to nurture and grow. He too recognised the difficulties which lay ahead for Parish Councils given the absence of funding and the paucity of skilled volunteers.
Having commended the contribution by Councillor MacKender-Lawrence, Councillor C R Hyams expressed disappointment that local communities would continue only to be consultees especially in the planning process and that the powers which had been promised had not been forthcoming. Councillor R B Howe also acknowledged the challenges presented by localism and suggested that whilst there were opportunities for neighbourhoods or parishes to co-exist, for efficiency reasons, this might result in the loss of a village or community identity.
As Mayor of St. Neots, Councillor B S Chapman suggested that dual or triple hatted Councillors often were stronger and better informed and he believed that such individuals enriched the Town Council. He also considered that volunteer groups benefited all Councils and drew attention to the outcome of discussions with Town Councils on the provision of CCTV in the District as an indication of what could be achieved. He also referred to a series of other examples where St. Neots were working in partnership with community groups.
Councillor Mrs M Banerjee encouraged all tiers of local government to work together and underlined the importance of consultation and Councillor M F Shellens added his concerns to those previously expressed regarding the number of people who wished to come forward to volunteer to help the community in which they lived, the risk of disillusionment and the need to manage expectations.
It was the view of Councillor I C Bates that a thriving community would find a way to achieve what it required regardless of localism and it would be difficult to devolve further functions or funding given the need for the District Council to be accountable for both.
County Councillor L W McGuire responded to the debate by reminding the Council that each tier of Government was responsible for specific functions and that each should work together to enhance community engagement. He too had difficulty in understanding what was meant by localism and he considered that this had been practiced locally for some time, referring specifically to the decision of the County Council to devolve certain highway related matters to Parish Councils and the “Making Assets Count” Project. Councillor McGuire confirmed that whilst the County Council was meeting regularly with CPALC there continued to be difficulty in understanding what was truly meant by “localism”.
In closing the debate, Councillor Guyatt thanked all the speakers who had contributed to the meeting. He invited all Parish Councils to respond to the consultation being led by the Overview and Scrutiny Panel and underlined the importance, in his view, of issues, being dealt with at the appropriate level locally. Whereupon, at 8.50pm, it was
RESOLVED
that the meeting stand adjourned to allow Town and Parish Council representatives to leave the Civic Suite.
Upon resumption at 8.55pm.
Actions:60 minutes