Localism Bill

Memorandum submitted by The Waterways Project (L 65)

This paper sets out the response to the Localism Bill from The Waterways Project , a new independently funded project exploring opportunities for social enterprise and community asset development on the canals and waterways of Britain.

It proposes that, in addition to the new ‘community rights’ set out in the Bill, the government should consider the inclusion of an additional ‘community right to manage’ in order to support the delivery of its decentralisation and localism agenda.

Our response has been informed by our experience of working with local community organisations in a number of locations who would like to engage more formally with the new waterways charity currently under development.

It is also informed by consideration of current proposals to externalise a range of environmental assets including those currently managed by the Forestry Commission.

1. A ‘community right to manage’ – the missing link in delivering localism?

The Waterways Project welcomes the new community rights set out in the Bill.

The new community rights to ‘challenge’, ‘buy’ and ‘build’ alongside the proposals for neighbourhood plans and the announcement today of a new ‘community right to reclaim land’ provide exciting new opportunities for communities to become more self reliant and make significant contributions to the ability to develop strong, asset based networks.

However we believe that the process of decentralisation would be further supported by an additional new ‘community right’:

A Community Right to Manage would enable communities to propose new management arrangements for environmental assets (or functions) held or delivered by government - or indeed leased or transferred by government to private or charitable institutions.

Britain’s waterways are only one of many environmental assets being ‘externalised’ by the coalition government. However transferring ownership and management to the charitable sector, whilst effective at shrinking the state, does little in itself to meet their decentralising ambitions. Indeed it risks simply outsourcing the previous centralising tendencies of the state, creating a new generation of ‘big beasts’ within the charitable sector.

Of course more ‘localist’ approaches, enabling communities to own or manage aspects of a national asset, risk fragmentation and variable quality of delivery. There are also valid concerns that communities do not have the capacity, the resources or the desire to take on the myriad new roles expected of them by government. These concerns are heightened by the pace and scale of the externalisation currently underway.

A new ‘community right to manage’ could provide a mechanism for moving from ‘central’ to ‘local’ leadership, without fragmenting ownership or compromising robust governance.

Where a community comes forward with a proposal to manage an asset, such as a canal or woodland, it would have the right to enter into negotiation with the asset holder.

It would need to be able to demonstrate that it had the skills and capacity to meet all relevant legal requirements as well as standards for management set out by the asset holder. Furthermore it would have to show that it was able to effectively manage and enhance the asset whilst delivering social, economic and environmental benefits to the local community. These negotiations would form the basis for a ‘licence to manage’ with a formal agreement leasing the assets over a number of years.

There would be an expectation that the arrangement would deliver cost savings to the asset holder. Where significant financial benefits would arise from the lease e.g. from trading activity, energy generation etc., it would be reasonable for the asset holder to negotiate a revenue sharing arrangement with the community.

At the Waterways Project we believe that such a ‘presumption in favour’ of community-led management would effectively facilitate a process of true localism. It could provide local communities with access to the resources they need to combat poverty and improve the quality of their environment, whilst ensuring robust governance and protection for nationally significant assets.

2. How would a ‘community right to manage’ work in practice?

The Waterways Project was set up specifically in response to the proposal to move Britain’s waterways into charitable ownership. The example below comes from our experience in undertaking the project – however we believe the principle would be applicable to a range of other environmental assets and may be more widely applicable beyond the environmental field.

We know from our local mapping work of waterways in East London, Monmouthshire & Brecon and the Calder Valley, and our knowledge of other canalside communities, that there are a host of enterprising community organisations and social enterprises located in close proximity to the waterways. Many of these know they could extend their activities, involve more people, create new jobs and attract new funding if they had better access to the land and properties associated with the canal.

If a consortium of local groups came forward with a proposal to manage the assets associated with a stretch of the canal (land buildings etc) it would have the right to enter into negotiation with the new charity. It would have to demonstrate that it had the skills and capacity to meet the standards for management set by the charity including any sites with particular value or sensitivity e.g. for heritage or environmental reasons.

This is unlikely that such community-led proposals would seek to deliver the core business of the new waterways charity, such as maintaining the navigation or primary functions of the canal. However a consortium of local organisations could very well be capable of managing the ‘non-navigation’ aspects of the asset to deliver enhanced biodiversity, economic regeneration, and social benefits to the local community.

Negotiations between the community and the new charity would form the basis of a ‘licence to manage’: a formal agreement leasing the assets over a number of years.

There would be an expectation that the arrangement would deliver cost savings to the new charity. Where significant financial benefits would arise from the lease e.g. from trading activity, energy generation etc., the new charity could expect to negotiate a revenue sharing arrangement.

If for any reason the delivery by the local consortium failed to meet the agreed standards the new charity would have the right to withdraw the lease and bring the asset back under direct management.

We believe such an approach would open the asset base out to the innovation and energy of local communities and enable the canal network to become a leading international example of community-led sustainable development infrastructure.

We hope that you will consider whether such a ‘right to manage’ might be incorporated into the current Bill or supported by subsequent legislation.

February 2011