8 Empowering communities
204. The Big Society and Localism are important
features of the Government's agenda as it seeks to decentralise
power and give communities a greater say and responsibility in
decision making and in addressing the challenges they face. The
CRC's 2010 State of the Countryside Report makes it clear that
rural people are in a strong position to respond positively to
this agenda. Data gathered by the CRC shows that people in rural
areas are more likely than their urban counterparts to feel that
they strongly belong to their neighbourhood. They are more likely
to report that they have been involved in local decisions and
are more likely to volunteer than those in urban areason
average nearly 30% of rural residents reported that they had given
unpaid voluntary help at least monthly over 2009-10.[289]
205. In the Rural Statement the Government describes
rural communities as the embodiment of its vision for the Big
Society:
[Rural communities] have a strong tradition of local
people identifying their own needs and addressing these through
their own locally-led action. We are keen to build on this tradition
and have introduced a range of new initiatives and funding mechanisms
to support communities in taking control of their own futures.[290]
Community rights
206. When the Localism Act became law in April
2012 it introduced a range of 'Community Rights' intended to empower
communities. They include:
- Neighbourhood Planningallows
communities to agree a plan that will help them get the type of
development they want for their area;
- Community Right
to Buildaims to make it easier
for communities to deliver small scale projects such as housing
and amenities;
- Community Right to Bidgives community
groups a fairer chance to acquire community buildings, facilities
and land that are important to them; and
- Community Right to Challengeenables
communities to express an interest in taking over a local authority-run
service where they believe they can do so differently and better.
207. These rights are still in their infancy
but, to a large extent, communities have exercised their functions
in one way or another since long before this new piece of legislation
was introduced. The completion of over 4,000 Community-Led Plans
in rural areas over the last few years demonstrates that rural
communities have an appetite for shaping their future. Before
Right to Bid and the Asset Transfer Programme,[291]
rural areas were already home to an estimated £3 billion
of community assets including more than 10,000 village halls,
90% of which are charities run by local volunteers, and more than
300 community-run shops.[292]
208. The Government's Community Rights have put
more power in the hands of communities and this is something we
applaud. However, the measures created by the Government may not
always be the most appropriate means for a community to achieve
its objective or the cheapest.[293]
Given the expense involved in taking up some of the rights it
is crucial that communities are given impartial advice, but ACRE
contend that this is "very far from the position the Government
is currently adopting".[294]
ACRE also consider that the impetus for the use of the rights
must be rooted in the community not imposed upon it:
The local planning system can provide alternatives
for the Community Rights to Build, Bid and Neighbourhood Planning
if appropriate planning policies are in place. [...] Communities
are somewhat confused about why they should exercise the Rights
rather than use variations of current practice that are far less
bureaucratic and costly.
[...] It is of concern to us that significant investment
is being specifically tied to the use of the Rights and this is
biasing decisions that communities and local authorities are making
on the ground.[295]
Research undertaken by the Yorkshire and Humber Rural
Network found considerable interest in Community Rights, "but
often community organisations lacked sufficient understanding
to know how they could be utilised or held misconceptions about
what they could deliver. Although advice and support services
have been set up with DCLG funding, many groups remained unaware
that these existed".[296]
209. To date, of the new rights, communities
have shown strongest interest in take up of Neighbourhood Planning
and Community Right to Bid with little interest in the Right to
Challenge.[297] This
perhaps reflects the riskier nature of the Community Right to
Challenge. As Mike Perry told us:
The main risk to the Community Right to Challenge
is if a community challenges a local authority that is providing
a service. The challenge leads to a tender process and anyone
can bid for it. A community may go for it and end up with a service
provider that provides a far worse service. That is the risk.
The community initiating it does not mean that the community necessarily
gets the opportunity to take it on.[298]
210. ACRE warn that while "community groups
using volunteers can often generate sustainability of a service
that could not be achieved through professional contractorsthe
increasing professionalism that may be needed if services are
delivered under formal contract may alienate the very volunteers
that are required to generate viability."[299]
Rather than proceed with a formal Right to Challenge, ACRE argue
that it may be better to revert instead to the "traditional
small scale grant aid for local initiatives and save money on
the service as well as saving the cost of a formal tendering process."[300]
211. The new Community Rights
are welcome additional tools to allow communities to shape their
future development. However, giving communities these rights does
not mean that it will be appropriate in all cases for communities
to exercise them to achieve the desired outcome. The Government
should promote the new powers it has created but it must not push
communities into using them unnecessarily, particularly if the
outcomes can be better achieved using existing tools. Some of
the new rights are costly to implement and are not without risks.
It is crucial that communities receive impartial advice and the
Government must do better to ensure this is the case.
Retaining services
212. Social enterprise and community ownership
approaches deliver benefits to rural communities, both in terms
of ensuring the continuationor initiationof important
local services and of building the social capital that underpins
resilient communities.[301]
Yet, the Plunkett Foundation maintain that clear policy interventions
are needed to retain services within rural communities through
social enterprise and that they are currently lacking:
We would like to see a commitment to retaining shops,
pubs and vital services in rural areas. [...] We would like to
see the planning system provide greater support for that. Change
of use has been an issue. People have applied for and received
change of use, despite their community wanting to take over and
run a service.[302]
Evidence from the Plunkett Foundation demonstrates
how resilient community-run enterprises can beof the 314
community-run shops that have opened in the last 20 years, 301
are still open today. A report looking at performance of community
shops in 2012 shows that, in an environment that has seen stalling
growth, average gross sales are up by 13% and net profit of all
community shops increased by 22.8%. At least 200 communities are
considering setting up a community-owned shop.[303]
213. Planning issues can be a barrier to setting
up a community business. 60% of community shops exist in new premises
or alternative premises to the former shop. Mike Perry told us
that the planning issues "are not just related to: 'Can we
can take over that shop or not?' It is: 'If we cannot, where else
can we put it?'".[304]
We believe these are circumstances where the Community Right to
Build scheme has the potential to help communities. Community
Right to Build (CRtB) is a means of creating permission to build
where it would otherwise not be forthcoming and, unlike a neighbourhood
plan, it is binding on the local authority.[305]
The Government have primarily marketed the CRtB as a means of
providing affordable housing but that is by no means its only
benefit. As Rt Hon Grant Shapps, then Housing Minister, wrote
in a letter to the Guardian about the CRtB:
Community groups will now be able to take the lead
in delivering the new homes, shops and facilities they really
wantand without a separate application for planning permission,
as long as the proposals meet certain criteria and there is community
backing in a local referendum. These legislative changes are being
backed with cashwith a portion of the affordable homes
programme set aside to fund community-led development.[306]
The CRtB has the potential to enable communities
to build amenities either directly or from building houses for
sale at a profit to generate funding for community projects.
214. The Government is not doing
enough to promote the benefits of community ownership and the
role community-owned enterprises, social enterprises and co-operatives
can have in growing the rural economyespecially in our
more isolated communities. A firm endorsement of this type of
enterprise in policy and planning guidance will have a positive
impact on the attitudes of public bodies, particularly local planning
authorities and LEPs. Such an approach is consistent with the
Government's stated objectives of promoting action driven by civil
society rather than reliant on the public sector. As part of an
increased emphasis on the benefits of community ownership, the
Government must do more to promote the Community Right to Build
scheme as a means to help communities build or retain amenities
such as village shops.
RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME FOR ENGLAND
215. The Rural Development Programme for England
(RDPE) is a seven-year funding programme that from 2014 will concentrate
on six broad 'priorities' and more detailed 'focus areas' (sub-priorities).
The broad priorities are:
- fostering knowledge transfer
and innovation;
- enhancing competitiveness of all types of agriculture
and the sustainable management of forests;
- promoting food chain organisation, including
processing and marketing, and risk management;
- restoring, preserving and enhancing ecosystems;
- promoting resource efficiency and the transition
to a low carbon economy; and
- promoting social inclusion, poverty reduction
and economic development in rural areas.[307]
From 2014 Member States will have to spend at least
5% of their rural development funding on LEADER. The Leader Approach
(which previously formed axis 4 of the 2007-13 RDPE) is designed
to enable a 'bottom up' community involvement in rural development.
With funding for national programmes being squeezed, this European
funding has become a major resource for rural communities. However,
Mike Perry considered that under the previous round of the RDPE
the Leader programme had ceased to be fit for purpose. He suggested
that as the details of the new RDPE are being drawn up policy
makers need to make sure that the next generation of Leader "actually
fits the needs of communities today, as opposed to communities
10 years ago."[308]
Mr Perry gave the example that virtually none of the communities
that have saved their shops and pubs have received any funding
support through Leader.
216. The current Rural Development Programme
ends this year and there is concern that the next Programme might
not be fully in place until 2015. Professor Shucksmith told us:
one of things that has stopped Leader being effective
as it could have been is that, with every new EU funding programming
period, there is a hiatus; all the staff are lost; the Local Action
Groups are disbanded. There is a tremendous loss of capacity,
know-how, impetus and momentum.[309]
217. Professor Shucksmith suggested that the
Government should provide minimum funding to keep Local Action
Groups going during the period between Programmes. We are pleased
that the Government have recognised concerns over the future of
Local Action Groups during the potential transition period between
Rural Development Programmes and made available up to £3million
to allow them to retain capacity and expertise.
During development of the new Rural Development Programme Defra
should explore how Leader can be used better to help those communities
looking to retain services that are under threat. However, no
amount of support will make a local shop, pub or other service
viable if communities do not use them.
COLLECTIVE ACTION
218. People in rural areas typically need to
spend 10-20% more on everyday requirements than those in urban
areas.[310] The more
remote the area, the greater the extra expense.[311]
Rural communities are also constrained from using the internet
as a means of exercising choice in price due to limitations in
the availability of broadband. In its report on Price and Choice
in Remote Communities,[312]
the Office of Fair Trading suggested that rural communities can
be empowered through collective action, be it through establishing
buying groups or setting up co-operativeswe have already
mentioned the benefits that such action can bring in reducing
energy bills. The OFT found that communities interested in acting
collectively were often "intimidated by the upfront paperwork,
financing and organisation commitments."[313]
In their view, accessible, straight forward advice on what is
involved, where to find examples of good practice, and how to
seek professional advice if necessary, would help many communities
overcome their inhibitions.[314]
We recommend the RCPU put in place a programme to support communities
wishing to come together to realise the benefits that collective
action can bring.
Unequal capacity
219. The Government is promoting new powers to
enable communities to help shape their future, however the Carnegie
Trust warn, "passing power and responsibility to local communities
without the necessary resources risks creating a 'two-speed' rural
economy".[315]
A study of the 433 applications for neighbourhood plans shows
only a tenth of these have been made in the 20% most deprived
local authorities and that three times as many plans have been
approved in the least deprived 20% than in the most deprived.
We have already said that neighbourhood planning is not necessarily
appropriate for every community however the disparity between
the number of most and least deprived communities who have submitted
an application is worrying.
220. Inequality exists between and within rural
communities. As we discussed earlier, areas of affluence can mask
pockets of deprivation. Efforts to empower communities can risk
exacerbating these inequalities as, on the one hand, communities
with capacity, funding and expertise can progress while others
lacking those attributes do not, and on the other, internal power
relations within communities can mean that elites capture most
of the benefits. This concerns us because rural communities that
lack capacity and support may become impoverished and lose services
and infrastructure as well as contribute less to the rural economy.
221. Constraints on government spending mean
that the voluntary organisations and local development networks
that could mitigate against the unequal capacity of communities
are themselves facing cuts in funding and reductions in charitable
donations. Councillor Begy told us the voluntary sector was "vital,
it is the last sector I would cut ... we would not survive in
rural areas without the official third sector and the unofficial
third sector you tend to get in really rural areas."[316]
For Professor Shucksmith it was clear that,
unless there is capacity building at community level,
inequalities will grow between rural areas. While support can
come from foundations, universities and others, it is not clear
who else might provide capacity-building on the scale required
and in a systematic way apart from government, whose enabling
and fostering role is crucial.[317]
222. As take-up of neighbourhood
plans demonstrates there is a risk that if the state passes power
and responsibility to local communities some will rise to the
challenge but some will not. Inequality within rural areas may
increase as a result. We welcome funding from Government to help
communities get initiatives off the ground but funding must also
be directed at professional community support organisations. Without
the encouragement, hands-on support and resources of such organisations,
many communities may miss out on the opportunity to have a say
in their future.
289 Commission for Rural Communities, State of the
Countryside Report, 2010 Back
290
Defra, Rural Statement, September 2012 Back
291
Asset transfer refers to the shift in management and/or ownership
of buildings or land usually from public bodies (most commonly
local authorities) to communities (usually to local community
and voluntary groups). Back
292
ResPublica, The Rural Big Society; Ev 90 [Plunkett Foundation] Back
293
The DCLG estimates that the average cost of drawing up a neighbourhood
plan is between £17,000 and £63,000. The cost to community
groups of bringing forward a community right to build scheme is
estimated at approximately £40,000 (Source: Impact Assessment) Back
294
Ev w34 [ACRE] Back
295
Ev w34 [ACRE] Back
296
Rural Services Network online, The Localism Act in practice, 7
April 2013 Back
297
As of 15 March, 430 communities have taken the first formal step
in the process of producing a neighbourhood plan by applying to
formally designate their neighbourhood planning area and at least
252 assets of community value have been listed in England assets
have been listed, source HC Deb, 19 March 2013, Col 624W Back
298
Q 395 Back
299
Ev w34 [ACRE] Back
300
Ev w34 [ACRE] Back
301
Ev w7 [Quantera Ltd] Back
302
Q 392 Back
303
Plunkett Foundation, A better form of business 2013: Community-owned
village shops, May 2013 Back
304
Q 394 Back
305
www.ruralise.co.uk, The Community Right to Build is Dead?, March
14, 2012 Back
306
The Guardian, Society: Letters, 23 February 2013 Back
307
European Commission, CAP Reform-an explanation of the main elements,
26 June 2013 Back
308
Q 403 Back
309
Q 403 Back
310
Joseph Rowntree Foundation press release, Country life: tougher
to make ends meet Back
311
Ibid. Back
312
Office of Fair Trading, Price and choice in remote communities,
June 2012 Back
313
Office of Fair Trading, Price and choice in remote communities,
June 2012 Back
314
Ev w2 [OFT] Back
315
Carnegie Trust Report, Future Directions in Rural Development,
2012 Back
316
Q 323 Back
317
Ev 128 [Professor Mark Shucksmith] Back
|