House of Commons - Rural Communities - Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee

Rural Communities - Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee Contents

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 areas—on 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 Planning—allows communities to agree a plan that will help them get the type of development they want for their area;
Community Right to Build—aims to make it easier for communities to deliver small scale projects such as housing and amenities;
Community Right to Bid—gives community groups a fairer chance to acquire community buildings, facilities and land that are important to them; and
Community Right to Challenge—enables 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 contractors—the 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 continuation—or initiation—of 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 be—of 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 want—and 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 cash—with 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 economy—especially 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-operatives—we 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