Police and Crime Panels Briefing

Police and Crime Commissioners Briefing

Future of Local Audit

Chairman’s January Update

CIL good practice advice note

Covering letter

DCN neighbourhood planning response

DCN response to the CIL Regulations

DCN Briefing on the Health and Social Care Bill 2011

DCN Government Housing Strategy Brief

Health and wellbeing survey summary

DCN Priorities Survey

LEP Survey report

DCN Planning Survey Report

• The reduced length of the legislation has resulted in some legislative gaps there is a concern that these will be clarified through the courts at a cost to councils and delay to processes.
• Further clarity is needed around five year land supply.
• There needs to be consideration given to transitional arrangements to ensure councils have time to develop their core strategies.

DCN response

DCN covering letter

To develop the response the DCN held a planning event. The slides of the event are available as well as a full report.

Presentation

Report

• We welcome the longer term commitment to New Homes Bonus
• We have suggested that the methodologies for the calculation of baselines and shares of growth incentives should be different
• We have suggested that green energy growth should be rewarded per kilowatt generated
• We are clear that all the increase in yield should be returned to local government
• We have recommended that priority be should be given to rewards for ‘intervention growth’, with any ‘safety net’  being secondary
• Any ‘pooling’ must be must be voluntary and should require no permission from other tiers!

DCN Response

DCN Covering Letter

DCN Universal Credit Delivery Model 2011

• We are concerned the governments plan to implement the scheme by 2013 is overly ambitious.
• we are worried that the protection of pensions and  other vulnerable groups will disproportionatly impact working age claiments and run the risk of creating parellel schemes increasing the complexity.
• The new scheme poses a serious financial risk to districts nationa wide – a risk which has previously been shared with central government.

• DCN Response
• DCN Covering Letter

The District Councils’ Network is making its voice heard by being responsive to government on issues which are important to our communities and by providing constructive comment. As part of the Local Government Group we are building strong links to other national organisations.

We are working to maximise the impact of the network by focussing on key priorities. In late 2011/early 2012 these will include the resource review, planning reforms, the localism bill, health reforms, welfare reforms and public service reforms. Ultimately, together these reforms will change the nature of local government, so we need to be involved in shaping how they will impact.

We believe districts are uniquely placed to voice the needs of our communities, and we will be working hard to establish districts place at the forefront of these changes.

Download our autumn leaflet to find out more about our plans for this autumn/winter and how you can get involved.

Growth is the Coalition Government’s top priority. Announcing the four new Enterprise Zones on 28th July 2011 the Prime Minister, David Cameron, said: ‘I am determined that we should drive growth in every town, city and community in the country.’.

• How are district councils, who are at the coalface, making this happen?
• Have they been able to forge growth in recession hit Britain?

Here Cllr Neil Clarke, the Chairman of the 178 strong District Councils’ Network and Leader of Rushcliffe Borough Council, sets out how Districts are helping to grow UK Plc .

The 201 districts across England cover a huge swathe of our country. We are the strategic planning and housing authorities, roles which powerfully support districts as the lead for economic development in our areas.

We understand that prosperity is fundamental to the quality of life. Attracting inward investment, renewing and regenerating run down areas, creating vibrant town centres with good day and night time economies and creating diverse employment opportunities, are everyday business for us. It’s what we’re about.

• Whilst Government can help to create the right conditions for growth, we make it happen.
• Let me take you on a tour across UK Plc to see how we’re doing this.

At Fenland District Council the award winning £50m Nene Waterfront regeneration scheme in Wisbech has transformed 20 acres of derelict and dangerous land that had lain dormant for 20 years into a thriving new development.

New jobs, a business and conference centre alongside a Foyer scheme (housing with job support) for young people, and 128 leisure craft berths on a disused quayside were delivered. The land-mark 3-storey Boathouse (shown right) overlooking the river provides a high quality office environment for 37 knowledge-based businesses and a 100 of the 200 new jobs.

Driven by the core funding partners, Fenland District Council, the East of England Development Agency, English Partnerships and the European Regeneration Development Fund, together they put in more than £13.5m to cover the cost of acquiring the land, do remedial works and infrastructure improvements. The 5 year scheme has weathered the economic recession, although the 300+ housing development has slowed.

But how do these big developments get off the ground? What do Districts bring to the table?
Districts are planning and housing authorities and we’ll be spearheading the new planning regime, in which Government has centrally placed a presumption in favour of growth.

Let’s me take you to the south coast where Shepway District Council has just issued its planning blueprint. A new Folkestone racecourse, improvements to Folkestone, Hythe and New Romney town centres, new homes and a school at Westenhanger, new community green space in Seabrook, a new school in Shorncliffe plus 350 new and more efficient homes a year are the headline proposals in its Local Development Framework, and which will guide the planning of the district for the next 20 years.

But will it be delivered?

Shepway District Council have a track record for delivery. Take a look at the Coastal Park. Dating from 1784, in 2000 it was sadly neglected and overgrown. Shepway DC took it in hand and raised funds for the £1.4m makeover. This is development which provides a quality public realm – its Wild Zone is home to the largest free children’s adventure play area in the south east.

Despite the tough economic times, Folkestone has seen a momentum for growth increase its retail offer through the development of a Creative Quarter, including the opening of the Performing Arts and Business Centre in the Spring of 2009, a high quality mixed-use development at Folkestone Harbour and Seafront, the arrival of the High Speed One service in December 2009, so now St Pancras is only 50 minutes away, the revitalisation of green spaces, new beaches, upgraded streets and improved community facilities. All this has been possible as a result of Shepway District Council working with other public, private, charitable and community sectors.

Let me take you to the picturesque Chilterns, with the M40 and A40 offering growth opportunities. Wycombe District Council tackled falling footfall in its largest settlement, High Wycombe, a town with a proud heritage as a traditional English market town.

Eden, High Wycombe, a shopping and entertainment complex, attracts over 350,000 visitors per week and is one of the top 30 largest UK shopping centres. 107 shops, a bowling alley, a cinema and a library, with parking for 1600 cars, the complex also includes a new bus station and 48 residential apartments. Operating since 2008, the £350m investment was delivered by a public and private sector consortium.

Many of our districts are places where people like living, as they offer a wonderful environment with good access to facilities. Tackling the housing shortage in districts which have high demand and rising house prices is a constant challenge for these councils, as is creating new jobs for local people. Warwick District Council have just signed a 10-year joint venture with Waterloo Housing Group which will deliver 1200 new affordable homes, with a local end to end supply chain beyond the traditional local construction apprenticeships, and includes local advisory services.

East Staffs Borough Council is tackling the problem of a town centre with a changing industrial heart and pre-1919 terraced homes. The tough economic climate has presented real challenges, but the Council’s Growth Point programme, aimed at kick starting economic growth through new jobs and housing, has seen its partner Trent & Dove Housing buck the trend and exceed its targets for building new homes over the 3 year period of the recession.  This included the refurbishment of 26 existing homes in Burton town centre and the opening of the £3.5m Charrington House, a new affordable housing development that has rejuvenated a gateway into Burton and provided 34 ‘city living’ apartments, with state-of-the-art sound-proofed windows, high-tech solar panels which power lighting in communal areas and generate electricity.

Nearby in the historic cathedral city of Lichfield, a public private collaboration between Bromford Carinthia Housing, the Homes and Community Agency, S. Harrison Developments and Lichfield District Council has managed to beat the worst of the recession, delivering 83 new affordable homes, 400+ car park, a hotel and a retail business. The total inward investment of £15m saw a start on site in March 2011, with a finish date of Winter 2012.

Let me take you to the north west, to the ancient settlement dating back to 1086, to Preston, England’s newest city.
With a population of 131,900, Preston is growing, and the city’s driving vision is to be the 3rd city of the North West, after Manchester and Liverpool, with the progression of major projects including the £700m Tithebarn scheme. And it’s not just about shops – it is wholesale city centre regeneration, offering a cosmopolitan city-working/city-living with new shops, homes, offices, revitalised markets and a new bus station.

I could take you to many other districts and show you examples of innovation and initiative which create the wealth our country needs. With our unremitting focus on place, and being close to our people, we work with them to bring about the growth that UK Plc badly needs, and make our districts great places to live.

Find out more about the work of district councils nationwide by reading our case studies - a rich source of over 300 case studies on a variety of topics.

The thoughts of those of us who escaped the recent town centre troubles were with our colleagues who had to activate their civil contingency plans to bring order back to the streets.

With the prime minister, David Cameron, promising to ‘turn around’ 120,000 problem families know to disrupt neighbourhoods, as well as a renewed focus on encouraging responsiblity and ‘moral’ behaviour, we need to shout loud and clear about what works – and why.

For districts, building community spirit and pride is a centrifugal force. We have a long track record in leading on community safety since Parliament placed a duty on us to do so in the early 1990s, and we have run services which are key to this agenda.

Many of us have ‘Saturday nights sports projects’, such as those organised by East Lindsey DC. The idea of sporting activity generating a real sense of belonging and community spirit is married to making it available when boredom might kick in, because ‘there’s nothing to do’. Using our leisure resources to reduce anti-social behavour is obvious.

Sevenoaks DC’s Power Project is also typical of programmes run by district councils, which aim to give young people more control over their own lives by introducing them to new things and getting them to try them out. Young people are referred because they pose a risk of committing offences, and bespoke plans are shaped by partners.

And, while ‘war is declared on gangs’ and ‘fight backs’ are urged at the same time as calls for harsh sentencing mount, councils such as Harlow DC have been running a ‘community payback scheme’ in which offenders do unpaid work. Clearing graffiti and helping decorate public buildings can help to reconnect those who feel offending is acceptable.

We know there is no magic want or quick-fix, but we mustn’t let others lose sight of what works, and why.

Nina Dawes is Chief Executive of Lichfied District Council and a member of the District Councils’ Network.

Issue 1 Steve Atkinsons update

We are looking for an ethusuastic new team member with excellent administrative skills.

This is a part time position up to 15hrs a week. See below for the full job description and person specification.  

Job description and person specification

Look out for us on page 25 in the MJ People

www.themj.co.uk

The MJ is a leading information, intelligence and news resource for anyone who needs to know about the UK’s local authorities. It is published by Hemming Group Ltd, a family owned and privately run company with more than 100 years experience of publishing and event organising for local government.

Subscribers are chief executives, senior managers, elected officials and private sector executives working for, or with, local authorities throughout the UK.

Dear Secretary of State,

Planning for traveller sites

As the District Councils’ Network, we welcome the opportunity to comment on this consultation but are disappointed in the proposals which we feel will not meet even the modest objectives the Coalition Government has set itself.

The District Councils’ Network is a Special Interest Group of the Local Government Group. It is a single voice for districts to central government and national organisations. It represents over 175 district councils.

The Government’s overarching policy objectives are fair and effective provision of authorised sites for travellers to facilitate the traditional and nomadic way of life of these groups whilst respecting the interests of the settled community. The consultation fails to achieve a satisfactory balance.

Although experience varies across districts, a high proportion of travellers are now not nomadic and they seek settled bases to enable access to educational and medical facilities. Indeed, many travellers submit these needs as justification for the establishment of traveller sites in planning proposals. To perpetuate the myth that all travellers remain nomadic, and hence require positive discrimination in planning terms will do nothing to reduce the tensions that exist between the traveller and the settled communities. The Government needs to improve the evidence base of the proposals. Whilst applauding the desire to have a light touch policy with the focus on locally driven needs assessments and the move away from a prescriptive top down approach, we will see when looking at the detailed objectives it sets out that it fails to address this. We welcome the approach of consolidating and streamlining guidance, but the guidance given – we would suggest the minimum necessary, has to achieve the right balance.

The proposed light touch policy in detail involves:

Enabling local authorities to make their own assessment of need
The main difference from the current approach is that there will no longer be a set way of assessing the need for pitches, with Councils being allowed to decide the methodology and to “get their own evidence based targets for the provision of pitches and plots”. A stronger linkage with the approach taken in other forms of housing is necessary. In practice, this will make no difference to the inequitable distribution of traveller sites.

Enabling local planning authorities to set their own targets
The comments about the RSS and the ‘Top Down Targets’ are misdirected. Although experience varies across regions, in some regions the targets were properly generated from a local evidence base. If LAs are to create their own ‘robust evidence base’ and consequently targets, the resultant figure will be the same as that created through the sound Regional Spatial Strategies. It is the undemocratic regional planning process that is discredited, not the evidence base. It is sensible to plan for a five year supply and there is support for the alignment of the approach with other forms of housing development.

Encouraging local planning authorities to plan for sites over a reasonable timescale
The guidance (and consultation question) does not engage with this objective. Is the Government addressing local authority or market failure? Is the solution a market or intervention led process? If the latter, more than changes to the regulatory (planning system) will be needed to show progress in this Parliament. Given that the lack of provision is in at least part due to market failure, the implementation timescales are much too short. Our evidence suggests that Districts who have actively promoted sites have struggled to deliver them because the market has been unwilling to respond.

Protecting the Green Belt from development
The statement that traveller sites are inappropriate development in the Green Belt in the draft PPS is welcomed, but the DCN remains concerned that travellers will continue to gain planning permissions for sites in the Green Belt using the very special circumstances argument, as now. The PPS does not give sufficient comfort to local planning authorities that the Green Belt will be protected from such inappropriate development in the future in practice. Notwithstanding this the draft document focuses more on the Green Belt to the disadvantage of the remainder of the open countryside and locally identified ‘green’ areas in which there should also be a presumption against new gypsy and traveller sites as there is with new housing. This is very important in ensuring a level playing field with housing.

Encouraging local planning authorities, working collaboratively, to develop fair and effective strategies
Local Authorities should be encouraged to use the existing evidence base rather than ‘re-invent the wheel’ with more studies. In our view, not enough is known about the ‘Duty to cooperate’ process, and what will count as constructive engagement, to understand whether this will offer a successful solution. District councils will not want their plan making delayed with protracted negotiations. The draft PPS should be more flexible to allow plan making to reflect local circumstances, allowing a plan to be found sound where a council has planned a level of provision that is deliverable and appropriate to local circumstances. We believe consultation with traveller communities will reduce tensions.

Promoting more private provision (though not suitable for all)
In aligning planning policy with other forms of housing brings the two into competition. In normal circumstances land owners would promote their sites for housing and not for travellers. While in theory traveller sites need the same access to services as general housing, they will not be able to compete on land values unless there is some fairly hefty and sustained intervention from the public purse and acquisition is forced via equally expensive compulsory means. Many housing sites come from a strategic housing land viability assessment which is usually site owners promoting their own locations, it is fanciful to imply that there would be a rush of sites (that would also be suitable for housing) being promoted as traveller sites. If councils seek to promote these sites themselves they are highly likely to be undeliverable because of the need for huge public subsidy and large scale community opposition. The prospect for delivering sites through S106 agreements associated with larger developments should be explored.

Reducing the number of unauthorised developments
Given that the other provision failed to meet the objectives, the prospect of further unauthorised developments (we would prefer the term unlawful) is inevitable. The remedy – improved enforcement provision in the Localism Bill, is not yet legislation or enacted through the inevitable orders which will follow and in some instances (stop notices) render the councils liable for compensation. The emphasis on temporary permission merely provides for a long term enforcement headache. There may be particular local circumstances where temporary consents are appropriate, but they can hardly form the basis of a major part of policy.

Ensuring the development plan has fair, realistic and inclusive policies
It is difficult to disagree with this as an objective, but in terms of fairness this must be apparent equally to the settled community, realism needs resources and inclusion requires a proactive approach to consultation which will need time to build up the trust and confidence in the system and policies.

Increasing the number of traveller sites, to address under provision etc
The 5-year housing land supply is fine where there is an economic force promoting the conveyor belt of delivery although this has slowed down in the current economic climate. Simply to impose the performance target will not achieve meaningful delivery without unlocking the financial and community obstacles first. Additionally, what basis would there be to assess deliverability given the potential lack of owners promoting sites? Either there would be a rash of ghost sites being promoted (no real prospect of delivery just put in to make the numbers up) or authorities would be destined to fail and therefore unable to defend unauthorised sites. Assuming that land already in public ownership would be suitable, supported and sufficient to accommodate demand has not been proven.

Reducing tensions between the settled and traveller communities
Elements of the settled community have often expressed dissatisfaction about the way travellers are regarded as a special case in planning legislation, and that they are allowed to reside where the settled community cannot. The draft PPS does nothing to overcome this inequality as it risks the approval of sites beyond established settlements in the open countryside, without requiring the establishment of any local connections. The establishment of rural exception sites for affordable homes requires a local need to be established. If local connections cannot be a requirement for the establishment of traveller sites, policies allowing rural exception sites for travellers cannot be equitable. Good consultation is the key to reducing tensions. A good easy to read leaflet for travellers based on the final version of this policy statement would be helpful.

Enabling provision so travellers can access education, health, welfare and employment
There is an inherent contradiction in the Government’s approach. To achieve this implies suitable locations were next to or within existing settlements in effect an alignment of planning policies. If the Government is right that the demand is from essentially nomadic travellers, many may not want to be in close proximity with other forms of housing. Existing communities do not always welcome members of the travelling community though experience varies. Some districts believe that accepting a respectful separation on the basis of an incompatibility of life styles would be a more realistic aspiration and would take them out of competition with other housing development and therefore aid delivery, but would mean this objective could not be met and may bring it into conflict with protecting the open countryside. It may be this objective is only really deliverable as part of major settlement expansions.

As Secretary of State, you have written to local councils to warn us over the risks of unauthorised development over Bank Holidays – specifically mentioned land owned by travellers. “It is wrong that a small minority of planning cheats can play the system in this way, leaving councils with months, and sometimes years, of hassle to get rid of developments that shouldn’t be there.

Unauthorised developments have also created tensions between travellers and the settled population. We want to redress that balance and put fairness back into communities.”

Measured against that objective, which crystallises what the Government should be aiming for, the proposed approach manifestly fails.

I hope you have found our response to be not only useful but informed by the experience of many districts. We noted your answer at the LGA Conference that it was important that our views should be heard in the consultation process. In order to take it forward, DCLG should engage with districts and other local authorities in round table sessions to discuss these issues and come up with a realistic and deliverable policy. We would be very happy to participate in these sessions. It is important to work through the final version of this guidance with the Localism Bill – there was an amendment recently for local authorities to review traveller needs every five years.

A copy of our detailed response is appended which, together with this letter, is copied to Paul Williams. To discuss the District Councils’ Network response please contact emma.tucker@local.gov.uk or on 0207 664 3049.

Yours sincerely,
Gillian Brown
Planning Lead
District Councils’ Network

Find out more:

• Dowload the Universal Credit briefing note that details the current situation and where we are in negotiations
• Download a summary of responses from district councils nationwide
• Download the Welfare reform bill questions we asked district councils nationwide.

In summary, the main changes being proposed by government are:

• Councils will no longer administer and, the presumption is, deliver housing benefit.
• Universal Credit will be administered nationally and delivered through Job Centre Plus and other central government portals.
• Council tax benefit will become the full responsibility of local authorities, through locally determined schemes, with all the associated risk.
• Universal Credit will be applied for online or over the phone, the government believes only 20% of applicants will need any face to face interaction.

The recent survey we carried out with nearly 60% of district councils nationwide contradicts this. It shows that currently the percentage of recipients of housing benefit that need face to face interactions ranges between 20-80%, depending on local circumstances.

On behalf of district councils nationwide, the District Councils’ Network is lobbying and campaigning on this issue as, although we are not the only part of local government affected, it will disproportionably impact on us and our customers.

We have been asked to give evidence, on behalf of the Local Government Group, to the Select Committee that is looking at these changes. To find out more, or give us your views email:

• Lead member for the District Councils’ Network is Cllr Peter Fleming cllr.fleming@sevenoaks.gov.uk
• Lead officer for the District Councils’ Network is Allen Graham agraham@rushcliffe.gov.uk

Alternatively contact:

• Lead officer for the LGG is Paul Raynes paul.raynes@local.gov.uk

The conference was a great success. The stand was visited by a number of high profile ministers including the Rt Hon Eric Pickles, and the Rt Hon Greg Clark, Minister for Decentralisation.

Hundreds of case studies were picked up by agencies, councils and government departments. We also started tweeting at the conference, which saw hits on our new website increase, and attendance at our stand and meetings go up.

Thanks again for submitting a case study and for helping us to raise the profile of the work of district councils nationwide.

Follow us on Twitter We’re now on Twitter. Follow us at http://twitter.com/districtcouncil

Do you get our e-news We’ll be issuing an e-newsletter with all of the news from the conference, including our new chairman and what’s coming up during 2011. If you don’t already receive our e-newsletters, email emma.tucker@local.gov.uk to sign up.