Working Together to Support Local Communities

Introduction

This report provides a summary of issues considered at the Local Council event, hosted by Hampshire County Council’s Department for Economy Transport and Environment (ETE), on 25th May 2012. The report and appendices provide a range of information for parish and town councils in relation to ETE functions, including key contacts and links to web pages. Actions set out in this report are now being progressed and a further update will be provided in early September 2012.

Background

The event brought together over a hundred local council representatives from across Hampshire to consider how best to work with the County Council’s Economy, Transport and Environment Department (ETE). The programme (see Appendix 1) considered the wide range of services provided by the Department, the impact those services have on local communities, and how local councils could become more involved in shaping the design and delivery of services to best meet local needs. Whilst acknowledging the mutual constraints facing both local councils and the County Council, Hampshire County Council (HCC) officers and local council representatives discussed how they might work more effectively together to help build local capacity and improve the quality and responsiveness of local services.

Following an opening address by the County Council’s Deputy Leader, Councillor Mel Kendal, who described the event as “localism in action”, representatives from over 60 local councils listened to Steven Lugg, Chief Executive of the Hampshire Association of Local Council, speak about the success of the Parish Lengthsman pilot schemes. Mary Mitchell of the Good Neighbour Support Serviceaddressed delegates about the value of voluntary car schemes to local communities. There were also presentations on ‘Developing the Local Economy’by Hazel Simmonds, HCC’s Interim Assistant Director for Economic Development, and from Clare Turner of Hopkins Recycling Limited on the subject of waste and community recycling. Slides from the presentations can be viewed at

Councillor Kendal reaffirmed ETE’s commitment to work with local councils to help shape its future services. With this in mind, he invited local councils to view the Department’s Engagement Schedule published on the Council’s website (see The schedule lists the Department’s key strategies and services and indicates how people can get involved to inform forthcoming reviews and commissioning plans. It also lists officer contact details.

Delegates participated in a series of breakout sessions, covering six different topics. Key points from those discussions, and additional points received through the delegate feedback forms are set out below:

1 The Parish Role in Promoting Prosperity

Two discussion sessions were held on this subject and facilitated by Hazel Simmonds (HCC) and Jo Dixon from Community Action Hampshire. Sixteen delegates attended the first session and twenty attended the second session – the majority of whom were local town or parish councillors.

Hazel Simmonds summarised ETE’s economic development prioritieswhich are to helpreduce barriers to sustainable growth, enable local businesses to thrive and to maximise regeneration in Hampshire. Attention was drawn to the fact that over recent years there had been a significant reduction in funding for economic development via Regional Development Agencies, which no longer exist, and county councils. This, coupled with the on-going disaggregation of funding steams, via new mechanisms such as Local Enterprise Partnerships,makes it increasingly important for all tiers of local government to work effectively with private sectors partners to secure economic prosperity. Hazel Simmonds spoke about important contribution local councilscan make in keeping the local economy buoyant. She circulated a note with suggestions about possible actions local councils could take – see Appendix 2a – including grants to not-for-profit making organisations and, where they are eligible to use the General Power of Competence, information about issuing grants to other local businesses. Appendix 2c sets out the eligibility criteria for using the General Power of Competence. Since the event, the Economic Development team has produced an additional note to address questions raised about Local Enterprise Partnerships, the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) and the Local Business Rate Retention Scheme- see Appendix 2b.

Discussionson promoting prosperity were centred around the following three questions:

  • What is the importance of village and town shops and how can their future be secured?
  • Whose responsibility should it be to apply for funding for local projects?
  • Economic development – an opportunity or a threat?

Village and Town Shops:

Local councillors expressed concern about the increasing amount of chain stores replacing independent shops in local high streets. Whilst the loss of diversity was of generally greeted with concern, it was noted that occasionally it could have positive spin offs. For example the Crown Inn in Bishops Waltham, which had fallen into disrepair, has recently been fully refurbished following planning permission being granted to Sainsbury’s on a nearby site. Local councils discussed how they might seek influence the business sector within their areas, and considered a number of successful initiatives implemented in various parts of the country. For example, delegates heard how Hythe Town Council, aware of local desire for a new coffee shop, had contacted Costa Coffee and highlighted to them the potential benefits Costa Coffee could gain from opening a shop in Hythe. Town councillors in Ludlow (Shropshire) had wanted to highlight the negative impact empty or unkempt propertieslocated in the centre of the town, had on the area. Therefore, in partnership with the district council planners, they invited the relevant landlords to accompany them on a tour of the town centre and see for themselves the impact the state of their properties were having on the town centre.

Delegates raised the issue of planning regulations in relation to shop signage, both in terms of what can or cannot be used, the location of signs,and questioned who was responsible for grantingpermissions to display signs.

Action:HCC’s Economic Development team to provide clarification, via HALC, about regulations for shop signage, to better enable local councils to explore what opportunities might exist to better promote local shops.

There was general agreement more should be done to encourage residents to support local shops, for example through better promotion of shop activities and stock available. It was suggested that councils may to review Mary Portas’ recent report and the Government’s response, see suggestions are listed in Appendix 2a

Delegates shared information about a range of innovative initiatives being implemented to help support community facilities, such as shops in pubsand village halls; mobile post office services; local councils taking out loans to buy and then rent out local shops; and work with district councils to minimise car parking charges. A number of specific examples were noted including: Penton Mewsey’s community shop which operates from an out-house of the local pub; Martin village community shop which operates from a side-room of its village hall; and Buriton village post office service, which operates twice a week inside the local church;. Delegates also noted that Hartley Wintney Parish Council is working with local retailers to persuade its local district council to modify local car parking charges.

Bidding for Funds

It was noted that all projects need support that is as broad as possible and to secure active engagement from a variety of people and organisations. Projects that are regarded as solely the responsibilityof the local council are less likely to succeed. It was noted that Hythe and Dibden Parish Council has had some success by identifying the organisations that share similar aims and then facilitating discussions between them through a range of informal meetings.

Hazel Simmonds warned local councils about the tight timescales which are often involved when bidding for Government funds. She recommended they try to become ‘project ready’ ie to have prepared outline plans ready to develop as and when funding opportunities arise. It was noted that Community Led Plans can be very helpful in identifying needs and mobilising action. Delegates were remind that that Community Action Hampshireis able to local councils with further information about the benefits of community led planning. Consideration was also given to the importance of seeking match funding or funding in kind, for example where volunteer time is taken into account. The County Council’s Executive Member for Economy and Rural Affairs indicated he would look for arrangements, such as match funding, when considering how to allocate County Council rural grants.

Delegates discussed how local councils could become better aware of what funding opportunities exist and requested that HCC could provide more advice and guidance on how prepare bids. Hazel Simmonds recommended local councils regularly review the County Council’s Economic Development web pages where information about future funding opportunities will be published

Action: ETE to sponsor a HALC led workshopfor local councils on how to prepare bids.

Economic development - an opportunity or a threat?

Whilst there was widespread agreement amongst delegates about the need to support the economy, the question of whether economic development was regarded as a threat or an opportunity was less clear cut. Local councils gave a mixture of examples that illustrated how economic development could, at times, appear to threaten the interests of local communities. In contrast, other examples had led to positive outcomes. The general consensus was that the more local councils can become engaged in working with business to help shape economic development in their area, theeasier it would be to minimise the risks and maximise the opportunities.

It was agreed that local councils should seek to become more commercial and work with businesses wherever possible. For example, developing close working relations with retailers, local Chambers of Commerce and making use of the Hampshire Business Directory produced by the County Council’s Economic Development Team (see

Local councils highlighted the need for faster broadband in rural areas. Some questioned why the installation of high speed broadband was not better co-ordinated with road works. (Note, since the event HCC has signed a voluntary agreement with contractors and utility companies, including BT Openreach, to ensure better co-ordination and further minimise disruption when carrying is being carried out on the county’s highways). HCC explained that all English county councils are awaiting Government authorisation to proceed with appointing a commercial implementation partner. In the meantime HCC is continuing to campaign for faster broadband, particularly in rural areas where there is often very slow connection speeds. In order to make its bidding process more competitive and encourage commercial companies to invest in the county’s network infrastructure it is seeking, through its online campaign, to demonstrate high local demand for faster broadband and it was agreed local councils should do all they can to support this.

Action: Local Councils to encourage their residents and businesses to register support for faster broadband via or by phoning 0845 603 5638

The importance of affordable housing to the wider sustainability of local communities was considered. It was suggested that local councilsmight wish to contact Community Action Hampshire’s Housing Enablerswho act as an interface between parishes and affordable housing developers. (see contact details below).

Delegates briefly discussed the Community Right to Bid, a new right contained with the Localism Act (2011). This aims to gives local groups the opportunity to safeguard important local assets such as pubs, post offices or libraries against change of use. It enables groups to add local assets to a ‘list of assets of community value’, which will be kept by the local planning authority. This means that if an owner ever decides to sell, there will be a moratorium period before the premises goes onto the open market to give community groups a chance to raise the capital to bid for the asset. It was suggested that, if local councils wanted more information on the right they should contact Steven Lugg at HALC.

The importance of tourism to local economic development was also noted. Hampshire has a higher heritage ranking than any other county in the South East and it was agreed that both the County Council and local councils should continue to do what they can to support this important sector.

2 Local Action to Minimise, Reuse and Recycle Waste

Just over twenty delegates took part in the discussions on waste management which were facilitated by Adrian Lee, the County Council’s Acting Head of Waste, and Clare Turner from Hopkins Recycling Limited, the company that currently runs Hampshire’s Household Waste Recycling Centres (HWRCs). Adrian Lee confirmed that the County Council is carrying out a wide-ranging review of the HWRCs to ensure the County Council continues to meetlocal recycling and waste management in an efficient and effective way and taking account of financial pressures and limited land available for waste management sites. The review will include a number of trials, with amendments to current operation of HWRCs, and subsequent consultation exercises to which local councils be encouraged to respond. The outcome of the review will help inform the specification of the next HWRC contract which will commence in January 2015. Details of the consultations will be listed in ETE’s engagement schedule and notices circulated to parishes via HALC.

Delegates discussed the services provided by existing HWRCs. Some expressed concern that HWRCs such as those at Eastleigh and Havant were not easilyaccessible to local residents. The County Council is committed to addressing these problems within the next three years. The County Council also noted concerns expressed about the limited services in Hart district, which in turn puts increased pressure on the HWRC at Farnborough, often resulting in long queues. Adrian Lee explained that HCC seeks to work effectively with each local planning authority to address waste management needs and for those needs to be adequately reflected in Local Plans and inform future Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) charging schedules. Where service gaps are identified, HCC will work with the local district or borough council to try and secure sites for the provision of future HWRCs and / or other local waste facilities, such as bottle and textile banks. It was noted that securing land for a new HWRC is often difficult. However, Major Development Areas often result in land being released for new waste facilities, for example, developers involved in the West of WaterloovilleMDA, have released land for a new HWRC which will come into operation from December 2012.

Delegates considered the use of other waste management facilities and how communities might make better use of existing facilities. For example, there was a suggestion that local councils could approach the Good Neighbour Support Service to see whether volunteers would be available to help residents that are unable to take their own waste to HWRCs or assist if they cannot afford to pay for specialised kerbside collections. It was also suggested that more skips and recycling banks in locations such as supermarket car parks would be helpful. The role of parish lengthsman was also raised. It was noted that some parishes may have lengthsmen or volunteers involved in litter picking and, if so, councils should check to ensure that litter is being disposed of in a responsible way.

The expansion of community composting was also discussed as a valuable facility that could help residents who live in areas where there is limited space. However, delegates heard that such schemes require considerable support in terms of a person to lead the scheme, act as a point of contact, and organise general maintenance and monitoring of recycling behaviour. It was noted that general financial constraints often make alternative waste management solutions or the extension of existing facilities difficult to establish and maintain without voluntary support or grant aid.

Delegates considered reasons why residents often found it difficult to comply with waste management good practice. The amount of packaging on products was recognised as adding to the problem. Whilst there is little that local councils can do to influence this matter, delegates noted that HCC works with organisations such as the Waste & Resources Action Programme (WRAP) which supports producers to minimise packaging. It was also noted the information communicated to residents, particularly through labelling, is often confusing and inconsistent.

Overall, community engagement was recognised as the key to improving recycling and responsible waste management but in order to engage residents there was a need to make waste management as simple as possible. HCC highlighted the need for an appropriate balance whereby the system is sufficiently simple as to encourage people to co-operate but effective enough to protect the value of recyclable goods. This point was made in relation to what extent residents should be required to segregate recyclables, with delegates noting the more complex the system, the harder it is to encourage people to co-operate. There was general recognition of need to engage residents and wherever possible and involve them in activities such as Recycling Week. It was thought that more effort should be made to influence young people.