Localism

Memorandum from RICS (LOCO 105)

The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) welcomes the opportunity to submit its response to the Communities and Local Government Committee’s call for evidence for its Localism Inquiry. RICS is currently engaged in a number of initiatives which seek to support effective policy development and standards-setting with regard to the emerging localist context.

This includes running a series of local authority workshops in partnership with the Planning Officers Society and the Local Government Association, to gauge views of local authority senior planners, RICS members and portfolio holders for planning on the best practice ways to maintain the momentum of their local planning functions and development sectors in the current period.

RICS is also in the process of establishing an independent cross sector Commission to examine ways to equip communities to access the planning process and potentially be involved in community asset acquisition and service delivery – all aspects of emerging localist policies. This Commission will report back with recommendations in early 2011.

About RICS

RICS is the leading organisation of its kind in the world for professionals in property, construction, land and related environmental issues. As an independent and chartered organisation, RICS regulates and maintains the professional standards of over 91,000 qualified members (FRICS, MRICS and AssocRICS) and over 50,000 trainee and student members. It regulates and promotes the work of these property professionals throughout 146 countries and is governed by a Royal Charter approved by Parliament which requires it to act in the public interest.

RICS members are involved in every aspect of the built environment, including planning and development, managing public and private sector assets, advising major urban and rural land owners, planning and delivering infrastructure projects and strategic land promotion and investment.

Overall comments

· The outsourcing of some local authority services to local delivery bodies can work effectively and promote cost efficiencies, provided that the structure, governance, objectives and the relationship between the provider and the local authority is well defined. However, any outsourced services would need to attain high standards given general public satisfaction with local service provision.

· There are specific measures included in existing legislation which could deliver certain aspects of the Government’s localist agenda. RICS urges policy makers to examine the potential usefulness of measures in existing legislation before proposing new items in the forthcoming Decentralisation and Localism Bill.

· In the same vein, beyond local authorities there are existing local governance structures and community apparatus which need to be involved in whatever local service delivery models are developed. These range from town and parish councils to local strategic partnerships, rural community councils and resident associations. An important aspect for any bodies delivering local services is the availability of funding, whether this comes directly from central government or through wider grant giving bodies. The continued availability of funds from these diverse sources will have a direct impact on the services being provided.

· Whitehall has a key role in encouraging and promoting the necessary culture change among the local government and third sectors, by giving a narrative of emerging policy and outlining realistic expectations of what the key local actors might deliver.

· RICS, along with other professional bodies, has an important role in the ‘Big Society’ – specifically by issuing guidance and disseminating good practice to ensure that local authorities and communities are equipped to play their part fully in the decentralisation of public service provision. An example is the current RICS Public Sector Asset Management Guidelines [1] , which are supported by Government and sector bodies and which are being refreshed in 2011 to reflect the changing emphasis on localism.

· RICS urges that training and resourcing local authority staff is prioritised to support the development of efficient, collaborative and innovative new models of service delivery being discussed.

· A number of best practice examples exist (such as the case study outlined in this document) which need to be highlighted and promoted to enable other decentralised and cost effective service delivery models to emerge.

General views:

1. Existing measures

A number of the existing measures from the Sustainable Communities Act 2007 have not been put into full effect. The Act contained provisions to enable all stakeholders in an area to provide their spending and resources information which would be incorporated into a local spending report to be reviewed regularly. By doing this the reports provided a map of overall local public service spending in an area, allowing strategic decisions to be taken for that area.

However, this initiative was perhaps overshadowed by the Total Place programme of area-based budgeting. It should be emphasised that the Total Place initiative is still in pilot phase, and while the results from this appear to be favourable there seems to be no real reason to neglect to increase the use of local spending reports.

RICS would urge that measures within the Sustainable Communities Act 2007 such as this example could be good existing tools for local authorities. They could be simple to adopt and use as part of the drive to decentralise services, but would require recognition from the Government as part of the suite of policies which sit alongside the forthcoming Decentralisation and Localism Bill as a crucial tool for neighbourhood planning and delivery.

2. Genuine devolution of local measures and services

Following the passing of the Sustainable Communities Act 2007, Communities and Local Government managed the pooled budget initiative by issuing a call for interest from local areas to participate. However, a criticism may be that not enough was known or understood about the detail of this programme at a local level, which resulted in a low take-up of the project.

In light of this the role of central government departments should not be to provide detailed criteria for local initiatives. Local initiatives should instead be delivered and overseen by local or above local actors – which may include local authorities and/or other local actors [2]

3. The role of Whitehall

There needs to be wholesale culture change across the local government and third sectors to encourage local bodies and groups to proactively focus on delivering local services and cooperate with their neighbouring partners [3] . The duty to co-operate potentially to be included in the forthcoming legislation will not be a panacea.

While for a number of initiatives local actors may be looking to central government for answers to deliver local services, central government departments should act as enablers for new delivery models. Whitehall departments have a key role in providing a clear policy narrative of where responsibility for local services will increasingly lie, and to outline realistic expectations of what the local authorities and third sector might be able to deliver.

Whitehall departments should also be collating and referring enquirers to best practice case studies where services have been or are being delivered outside the traditional model. RICS is also keen to help here, drawing on our members’ experience.

4. Resourcing, capacity and skills

Any proposed structural changes require well-trained local authority staff who have the confidence to make strategic decisions and build good working relationships with partner bodies. Additionally there needs to be sufficient well-trained staff employed to ensure that the quality of public services does not suffer. RICS is particularly aware of the need to ensure that local planning authorities are staffed and skilled adequately to support the momentum of the development and construction sectors, which are a crucial driver of economic growth (construction spending has a positive multiplier effect of 2.84). RICS has explored this issue in a number of research papers in recent years [4] .

5. Case study:

Practical lessons from the case study

(i) Importance of an effective management team

The Trust inherited a proactive and passionate multidisciplinary team transferred from Torbay Council when it was established, enabling management and planning to be enhanced by corporate memory and local expertise from day one.

(ii) The relationship and involvement from the local authority

The trust was a result of a shared vision held by council members and officers and local people. Once established, local authority involvement was given through a councilor representing Torbay Council on the Board of Trustees.

The partnership working between the local authority and the Trust was intrinsic to the success of the initiative, as good working relationships and mutual trust between the two bodies meant that there was shared understanding and buy-in of the overall vision, with associated financial underwriting from the Council. Regardless of the local political environment, the Trust was left to manage and deliver its public services, in accordance with an agreed management plan, but without interference.

(iii) Support from across the community

The recognition of the worthiness of the Trust’s work from local community leaders and catalysts substantially contributed to the Trust’s success.

The Trust was established because of a growing recognition from local people, along with the Council, that Torbay’s green infrastructure and natural surroundings were intrinsic to the success of the town – as a major attraction for tourists – but this was not reflected in the local authority budgeting, which by necessity had to prioritise other essential services such as health and social services.

Thereafter local ownership and buy-in to recognise, promote and contribute to the Trust’s work has been maintained through a proactive Board of Trustees representing the local community including a local head teacher, a representative from a local media outlet and some business owners.

Delivery is achieved in a variety of ways, but, most importantly, through Education. A dedicated team within the Trust operates from four centres across Torbay to provide courses for people of all ages, but especially children, mainly through schools. In the past year over 7000 school children have taken part in courses held by the Trust.

(iv) Financing

The Torbay Coast & Countryside Trust was set up with no assets of its own. Instead it relies on the local authority partner to be a banker of last resort to underwrite its activity, which brings necessary financial scrutiny for the Council. If this model had not been followed the Trust would have had to take ownership of the assets to back its working overdraft and banking requirements.

Although the Trust did not receive an endowment when it was set up it is a registered corporate charity and therefore can access funding streams which were unavailable to the local authority. Using this business model it was able to deliver its services with a ratio of £4 raised from other sources (funding awards, grants and legacies) per £1 grant support from Torbay Council.

(v) Independence

Independence from the local authority is seen by the Chair of Trustees as critical to the success of its work, as it enables the Trust to plan its long-term activity with no reference to any changing local politics, and strictly according to a viable business plan. The Trustees must not be afraid to say no to offers of new projects to be involved in which, while meeting a local need, may not be financially viable, or compatible with its objectives.

Beyond the involvement of the council representative on the Board of Trustees, other senior ‘champions’ functioning as link people within the local authority are highly valued. In the case of the Trust it has good day-to-day working relationships with the Council’s Heads of Department which helps in the Trust’s planning and decision making.

(vi) Oversight and scrutiny

In this case, the Trust is predominantly judged according to its delivery of effective public services. Aside from the general ongoing scrutiny of its finances from the local authority in its role as a banker of last resort, the different projects the Trust runs are scrutinised by grant givers when they make decisions on granting funding to the Trust.

If the Trust was failing to meet its high service delivery standards, on the one hand it would not be given new funding projects from grant givers, and on the other the local authority at any point could choose not to underwrite the Trust’s overdraft and could take back its assets, ceasing the activities of the Trust.