Written evidence submitted by James Derounian
(LOCO 107)
PERSONAL BACKGROUND
I am a Principal Lecturer and National Teaching Fellow
based at the University of Gloucestershire, with over thirty years
experience related to rural community development practice, action
research and teaching. I was England's first Rural Development
Programme Officer (in Northumberland), and undertake work with
the Carnegie UK Trust, New Economics Foundation, ACRE and others.
I am a core member of the Faith in Affordable Housing partnership
that published online resources showing how churches can use assets
for affordable homes, and has just appointed a housing enabler
to progress this work.
QUESTIONS SET
BY THE
CLG COMMITTEE
The extent to which decentralisation leads to
more effective public service delivery
I would - in particular - look at the role and potential
of English Local (Parish & Town) councils in terms of decentralised
public service delivery. There are some 8,000 - 10,000 of these
most-local authorities spread across urban & rural England
(including parts of major cities like Birmingham). They have powers
(eg the "Power of Wellbeing") to deliver services in
pursuit of community betterment and sustainability. Local councils
came into being in 1894 - and have therefore far outlived most
other agencies on the scene today!
They also have precepting (local tax) capabilities,
with which to initiate, support and extend service delivery for
their constituents. Furthermore local councils may own assets,
such as community centres and village halls that can be used for
public service delivery. Take as one example the small market
town of Winchcombe (Gloucestershire, population 5,000+); the council
operates the Abbeyfields Centre on a former junior school
site. The centre offers a "one stop shop"/multi-use
facility: including pre-school playgroup, police office, Town
council HQ, community meeting space etc.
Decentralisation can respond to local aspirations
and concerns (for services) articulated via thousands of DIY Parish
Plans and appraisals completed by communities from around
the country. You may like to look at my work from as long ago
as 1996 (with Phil Allies & Malcolm Moseley: "Parish
appraisals - a spur to local action?" Town Planning Review,
Vol 67 no 3 pp 309-329) which demonstrated that local wishes "most
readily carried into effect tended to be those whose implementation
lay largely in local hands". This is also reinforced by my
2005 "Analysis of Oxfordshire Parish Plans":
http://portal.oxfordshire.gov.uk/content/publicnet/council_services/community_living/our_work_with_communities/community_planning/Analysis_of_OxfordshireParishPlans.pdf
The role of local government in a decentralised
model of local public service delivery, and should localism extend
to other local agents
As already stated Parish & Town Councils are
physically closest to the people they serve, democratically accountable
via the ballot box and can harness local knowledge in order to
tailor services to local needs, desires and circumstances. I would
be inclined to focus, initially, on transfer of principal authority
powers and services to local councils - a delegation within
the public sector; dependent on its success localism could be
extended to other local agents.
To enable local councils to meet their potential
in delivering localised public services I would move rapidly to
award these councils with a Power of General Competence,
whereby they can do anything - to benefit their community - that
is not illegal.
The action which will be necessary on the part
of Whitehall departments to achieve effective decentralised public
service delivery
A simple mechanism by which to "achieve effective
decentralised public service delivery" would be to "pilot"
Big Society initiatives such as the "Community Right to Build"
CRB in 3 or 4 local authority areas; so that the workability of
service delivery - in this case community-granted planning permission
and development of affordable homes and local services - could
be trialled, on a limited basis, reviewed and refined (before
potentially making it more widely available).
It is therefore a form of limited risk/risk management.
October 2010
| 
