PeoplePower

Findings from the Commission

on the Future of Localism:

Summary Report

2 People Power

Contents

About the Commission

Foreword

Executive summary

Introduction

What are the sources of community power?

What blocks community power?

Strengthening community power: reimagining localism

Institutions for localism: governance structures

Powers and mechanisms for localism

Relational localism: changing culture and behaviour

Capacity for localism: community infrastructure and participation

Our call to action

3

4

6

11

14

16

17

18

20

22

24

26

East Cleveland Big Local April 2016 Klondike bike race

3www.locality.org.uk

About theCommissionLocality established the Commission on the Future ofLocalism in 2017, in partnership with Power to Change,to consider how to reinvigorate localism and unlockthe power of community. The ambition behind theLocalism Act is in danger of waning, and thefundamental shift in power from Westminster tocommunities has not yet been achieved.

We find that we need radical action to strengthen ourlocal institutions; devolve tangible power resourcesand control to communities; ensure equality incommunity participation; and deliver change in localgovernment behaviour and practice to enable localinitiatives to thrive.

Our Commissioners:

• Lord Kerslake (Chair) President of the LocalGovernment Association (LGA) and former Headof the Home Civil Service

• Alison Haskins, CEO of Halifax Opportunities Trust

• Joanna Holmes, CEO of Barton Hill Settlement

• Neil Johnson, CEO of Paddington Development Trust

• Lisa Nandy, Member of Parliament for Wigan

• Laura Sandys, former Member of Parliament forSouth Thanet, and Vice President of Civic Voice

• Councillor Sharon Taylor, Leader of StevenageBorough Council

• Professor Jane Wills, University of Exeter, andauthor of ‘Locating Localism: Statecraft, citizenshipand democracy’

What we did – our research methods

Over the past nine months, we have gatheredevidence and ideas from policy-makers, local leaders,organisations and communities across the countrythrough evidence events, focus groups, calls forwritten evidence and survey responses.

Our Commission held three evidence events inLondon, Bristol and Manchester. As well aspresentations from invited witnesses, these events alsoincluded focus groups with participants. The threeevidence events were structured around three themes:reviewing the impact of the Localism Act andCommunity Rights; building community capacity andparticipation; the devolution agenda and localgovernance structures.

A written call for evidence prompted responses from22 organisations. An online survey on CommunityRights was completed by 151 respondents. A full list ofwitnesses and our call for evidence as well as surveyquestions can be found in the full length report online.

About this report:

We present the findings from the Commission in twoparts:

1. The summary of our findings and ourrecommendations – this report.

2. The full body of evidence is available online atwww.locality.org.uk

4 People Power

Foreword

Lord Bob KerslakeChair of the Commission on the Future of Localism

I’m delighted to be introducing this report as Chair ofthe Commission on the Future of Localism.

In recent years, we have seen successive initiatives todecentralise power, increase freedoms andresponsibilities for local government, and enablegreater community action. Indeed, when Eric Picklesfirst became Secretary of State of Communities andLocal Government in 2010 he was clear that his threepriorities were “localism, localism, localism”. And whenDavid Cameron came to visit, he made sure there wasno ambiguity about the department’s commitment.“What do we want?”, the Secretary of State cried?“Localism”, came the orchestrated response from thecivil servants gathered in the lobby to welcome thenew, slightly taken aback, Prime Minister. Havingworked with him, I have no doubt about Eric Pickles’sincerity on this, albeit that it came with a gruellingausterity programme for local government.

Yet seven years on from the passage of the Localism Act,the fundamental shift in power away from Westminsterpromised by the legislation has not been achieved.The subsequent devolution deals of the NorthernPowerhouse have similarly not altered the fact that wecontinue to live in one of the most centralised andgeographically unbalanced countries in Europe. OurCommission set out to understand why and explorewhat is required to inject renewed motivation into thelocalism agenda, unlocking the power of communityto ensure that all local areas can thrive.

Over the past nine months we have been gatheringcase studies, ideas, and recommendations fromcommunity groups, local leaders and policy experts,at evidence events across the country. We have heardabout the enormous impact which can be achieved bypeople working together to change theirneighbourhoods. However, we have also heard aboutthe blockages and barriers to local action whichconstrain the power of community and restrict thepotential of localism.

In order to fundamentally reset the power balancebetween the governing and the governed, we needan approach to localism which looks beyonddevolved decision-making to local government. To thisend, our report highlights the action that is requiredacross four domains of localism: institutions; powers;relationships; and community capacity. Nationalgovernment must show leadership in setting theconditions for localism to flourish. But it is to localleadership that we look with the majority of ourrecommendations – to wield their power to convenelocal partnerships around place, strengthencommunity institutions, and create the environmentwhere local initiatives can thrive.

Thanks are due to those that have given their time aswitnesses to our Commission, participants indiscussion groups, and contributors to our survey andwritten evidence: this has been a rich source fromwhich to build our recommendations and approach.We have been very fortunate to have been steered bya panel of Commissioners who have used theirexpertise, experience and insight to guide theCommission to its recommendations. Our debateshave been both stimulating and challenging, and Ithank them all for their time throughout this process.

5www.locality.org.uk

Tony ArmstrongChief Executive of Locality

Locality believes in the power of communities, and wehave been championing localism long before it becamefashionable. We established the Commission on theFuture of Localism because we were concerned thatthe welcome ambition and drive behind the LocalismAct were in danger of waning. Having long lobbiedgovernment for greater powers for communities, webelieve the Community Rights introduced through theLocalism Act were a landmark moment. We have beenproviding the advice and support to communities totake up the opportunities of the Act – and have seenthe many successes achieved.

The current devolution agenda, which has rathereclipsed the localism agenda, does not focus onneighbourhoods or communities and risks entrenchingthe disconnection and lack of accountability feltthroughout the rest of the political system. Although westill hear the rhetoric of localism, the job is not yet done.

Throughout this Commission’s work, we have heardfrom communities who are unable to affect the changethey know their neighbourhood needs because ‘realpower resides elsewhere.’ Too often those who advocategreater localism ask politicians to pass down thepower they hold. But this is looking at things the wrongway round. Power doesn’t belong to decision-makersto ‘give away’: we need a localism agenda whichmakes the case that power starts with people. It lies inour communities. The task of the political system andour local leaders is to harness this power throughongoing relationships, engagement and co-creation.

My thanks go to our Chair and Commissioners whohave guided this work, sharing their knowledge andexpertise, and providing challenge, insight and debateas we have reached our recommendations. We arealso grateful to Power to Change in co-funding andworking in partnership with us throughout this project.And particular thanks to our fantastic Locality policylead, Ruth Breidenbach-Roe, for coordinating the entireprocess, drawing out the key themes and supportingthe Commissioners to develop this excellent report.

Vidhya AlakesonChief Executive of Power to Change

Power to Change is delighted to support the Commissionon the Future of Localism. We firmly believe that manyof the most significant problems we face as a countryfrom stark economic inequalities to the long termsustainability of public services cannot be exclusivelyaddressed in Whitehall or in the city regions. Theyrequire power to be pushed down to the local level,unleashing the creativity and expertise of communities.

Every day through the community businesses wesupport, we see local people coming together toaddress local concerns, whether that is the loss of alocal service, the need for more affordable homes orthe isolation experienced by older people. What theseexamples demonstrate is that in many cases localpeople are best placed to know what will work toimprove their neighbourhood and their lives and therole of government and funders such as ourselves is toenable them to realise their ambition and put theirentrepreneurial spirit to work.

It is urgent that all levels of government, especiallylocal authorities, embrace the need to put people inthe driving seat and work with communities asgenuine partners in making lasting local change. Thereport of the Commission is a great next step for thisagenda and we look forward to championing thoselocal authorities who choose to lead and comeforward to implement the valuable recommendationsof the report.

6 People Power

Executive

summaryThe Commission on the Future of Localism

was established to consider how to

reinvigorate the localism agenda. We find

that the ‘fundamental shift of power’

promised by the Localism Act 2011 has not

yet been achieved. To unlock the power of

community, we need radical action that

strengthens our local institutions; devolves

tangible power, resources and control;

ensures equality in community participation;

and delivers the culture change required to

enable local initiatives to thrive.

7www.locality.org.uk

In the wake of the vote to leave the European Union,policy-makers and commentators now speak of our‘left-behind’ communities. But these divides have beengrowing and widening for years. They are the product,in part, of political and economic centralisation and along-term failure to address our profound democraticdeficit. Entrenched geographical health inequalities,with a stark North South divide.1 Educational opportunitytied to parental income, pushing up house prices inneighbourhoods with good schools.2 Withdrawal offinance from disadvantaged communities, with our bigbanks secure in the City deemed ‘too big to fail’.3 Anelectoral system that only feels like it counts if you livein a marginal seat 4, with political alienation mostprevalent among the young and the poor5.

As Britain seeks to forge a new futureafter the EU referendum vote, ourCommission believes that greaterlocalism must be at the forefront ofour national debate.

Strengthening localism offers the potential to tackledisadvantage, rebalance our economy, and revitalisedemocracy. Taking part in local action can strengthenfeelings of community cohesion, generate a greatersense of pride and purpose, and improve wellbeing.6Localism in public service design and delivery canensure that services are equipped to address localneeds and harness local assets, and make sure publicprocurement spend is reinvested in the localcommunity.7 Giving places the means to strengthentheir local economies and rebalance economicgrowth away from London and the South East is notonly good for local areas but also supportsproductivity across the nation as a whole.8

There is growing political consensus on the need todecentralise. It is clear that the scale and complexityof our social challenges is so great, they are unlikely tobe effectively addressed from Westminster. But whilesuccessive pieces of legislation and various programmeshave sought to achieve this, our Commission finds thatwe have not yet secured a radical rebalancing ofpower to people.

Localism must be about giving voice, choice andcontrol to communities who are seldom heard by ourpolitical and economic institutions. Localism shouldenable local solutions through partnership andcollaboration around place, and provide the conditionsfor social action to thrive. Localism is about more thanlocal governance structures or decentralisingdecision-making. It is about the connections andfeelings of belonging that unite people within theircommunities. It is about how people perceive theirown power and ability to make change in their localarea alongside their neighbours.

1 A baby boy born in London and the South East, on average, will live threeyears longer than his peer born in the North East. Public Health England. (2017) ‘Using local health data to address healthinequalities.’ PHE. Available at:https://publichealthmatters.blog.gov.uk/2017/10/12/using-local-health-data-to-address-health-inequalities/ 2 Gibbons, S, Machin, S and Silva, O. (2012) ‘Valuing school quality usingboundary discontinuities.’ Centre for the Economics of Education. Availableat: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/45239/ 3 King, I. (2017) ‘Some banks are still too big to fail, Bank of England Governoradmits.’ Sky News [online]. Available at: https://news.sky.com/story/bank-of-england-governor-ending-too-big-to-fail-not-complete-11059507 4 Select Committee on Political and Constitutional Reform. (2012) ‘Voterengagement in the UK – Political and Constitutional Reform.’ House ofCommons. Available at:https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/cmselect/cmpolcon/232/23205.htm 5 Flinders, M. (2014) ‘Low voter turnout is clearly a problem, but a muchgreater worry is the growing inequality of that turnout.’ LSE British Politics andPolicy [online]. Available at: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/look-beneath-the-vote/

6 McKinnon, E and Green, K. (2015) ‘Community Organisers – inspiring peopleto build a bigger, stronger society.’ Cabinet Office [online]. Available at:https://coanalysis.blog.gov.uk/2015/08/11/community-organisers-inspiring-people-to-build-a-bigger-stronger-society/ 7 Locality. (2017). ‘Powerful Communities, Strong Economies.’ Locality.Available at: http://locality.org.uk/resources/powerful-communities-strong-economies-report/ 8 OECD. (2012). ‘Promoting Growth in All Regions: Lessons from across theOECD.’ OECD [online]. Available at:https://www.oecd.org/site/govrdpc/49995986.pdf

8 People Power

Powerful Communities

Fig 1. What are the sources of community power?

However, our Commission has also heard about afundamental imbalance of power that is preventingthis power of community from coming to life andrestricting collective agency: top-down decisionsleaving community groups and local councils unable

to make the change they know their neighbourhoodneeds; a lack of trust and risk aversion from publicbodies, dampening community energy; a lack ofcontrol and access to local resources, limiting thescope of local action.

Community governance

Health andwellbeing

Equality inparticipation

and voice

People’s ideas,creativity, skills and

local knowledge

Economic power

Connectednessand belonging

Spaces to betogether

We need to completely reframe howwe think about power.

When we think about power we tend to look upwards –towards Westminster-based institutions and electedpoliticians. Those who wish to see greater localismoften ask politicians to give it away and push powerdownwards. But this is looking at things the wrong wayround. Instead, we need to start with the power ofcommunity. The task of our political system should beto support this, harness it, and reflect it in our nationaldebate.

Our Commission has heard evidence about whatmakes a powerful community. While differentcommunities build and experience power in differentways, there are common sources. We heard how thepower of any community lies with its people, theircollective ideas, innovation, creativity and localknowledge, as well as their sense of belonging,connectedness and shared identity. We need to bringthis into political life much more effectively via arenewed effort to foster localism in future.

9www.locality.org.uk

Strengthening community power requires action in four key domains of localism

Institutions for localism: healthy local governancestructures across the country,integrated within widergovernance.

Powers and mechanismsfor localism:ensuring there are meaningfulpowers, levers and resources forcommunities to take action locally

Relational localism: changing culture and behavioursrequires embracing risk andestablishing trust in devolution tocommunities, local leaders actingas facilitators for communityexpertise, and disruptinghierarchies.

Capacity for localism:ensuring localism is not thepreserve of wealthier communities,or those with the loudest voicesrequires building communitycapacity, supporting communityorganising, communitydevelopment and sustainablespaces for participation.

National government must set the conditions forlocalism to flourish, devolve power and resources tolocal areas and strengthen the capacity of ourcommunity institutions. But we must also changepractices, culture and behaviour within localgovernment. It is crucial that we focus on building

strong relationships between local government, civilsociety, local businesses and people around a sharedinterest in place. Only then will we create the environmentfor local initiatives to thrive and unlock the power ofcommunity.

The future of localism:our recommendationsFostering localism is a marathon, not a sprint. The change that’s requiredcannot be achieved through policy and legislative levers alone.

01

03

02

04

10 People Power

Initiatives to strengthen localism should be subject to six key principles

01 02 03

People are the end goal oflocalism: interventions should bejudged by the impact they haveon people, rather than institutionsalone.

Equality in local participation:not everybody wants toparticipate in the same way, butthere needs to be equality ofconsideration and an equalopportunity to participate.

Dynamic local accountability:accountability must not be basedon consultations and votingalone: it must value ongoingcommunity participation,relationships and local action.

04 05 06

Local leadership is built aroundplace: in whichever form, partypoliticians or community leaders,leadership should be built aroundplace, convening communitypartnership around shared localconcerns.

Localism requires meaningfulpowers and integratedstructures: local powers shouldnot be easily dismissed by ‘higher’tiers of governance, without clearreasons and means of redress.

Economic power must supportcommunity responsibility:communities must have the meansand resources to match powersand responsibilities, and to realisethe potential of localism.

11www.locality.org.uk

Introduction

For years now, politicians have been

promising to give away power. There has

been growing acceptance that the scale

and complexity of our social challenges are

so great that the centre cannot hope to

address them on their own. Our Commission

has gathered evidence on the outcomes

and impact of recent initiatives to

decentralise, with particular focus on the

Localism Act 2011 and the Cities and Local

Government Devolution Act 2016. We find

that these initiatives have stopped short of

the radical reframing of power we require.

12 People Power

The Localism Act

The Localism Act 2011 was heralded by an ambition to“end the era of top-down government [through a]fundamental shift of power from Westminster topeople.”9 This legislation built on an emergent politicalconsensus for a stronger role for local governmentand to put greater powers in the hands of communities.The General Power of Competence was given to localgovernment, seeking to unlock greater innovation andlocal self-determination. A set of Community Rightswas established, giving communities a framework toprotect and own valued local assets, influence localplanning and development, and run local services.

This legislation was an important staging post on theroad to localism. The Community Rights have enabledcommunities to make real change in theirneighbourhoods. Neighbourhood planning has seenover 2,000 communities, representing approximately12 million people, developing plans for new homes,shops and green spaces in their local area – and oncepassed through local referendum these plans aregiven statutory weighting and must be taken intoaccount by decision makers. The Right to Bid has seeniconic local buildings put into community hands, andhas given communities a route to mobilise against thesale of such assets, knowing there is a formal processto back them up.

But we have also heard how using the CommunityRights remains too dependent on local capacity andresources. A longstanding concern with localism is thatit can actually entrench inequalities, strengthening theposition of those with the resources, time andnetworks, whilst excluding the most marginalisedcommunities. The Ubele Initiative, for example, hasquestioned the ability of the Localism Act tostrengthen Black Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME)community ownership of assets, compounded by alack of research on the equalities dimension in thelocalism agenda.10

The outcomes of the Localism Act also remain tied tothe supportiveness and behaviours of the localauthority. While some local authorities have embracedgreater localism, and the innovation it can unlock, intoo many areas public bodies remain top-down andrisk adverse. Throughout our evidence, we have heardfrom community groups, parishes and town councils,about how community-led initiatives and localdecisions can be trumped from above, because ‘realpower resides elsewhere’.

The devolution agenda

After the Localism Act, came the devolution agenda inEngland – which began with the signing of the GreaterManchester Devolution Deal in November 2014.Devolution represents a massive opportunity toreshape our economy and public services, and, intheory at least, provides greater impetus for localism.

But the assumption that devolution will somehowautomatically trickle down to people andneighbourhoods through these new arrangements ismisguided. Reducing the debate on localism to thequestion of “what powers are devolved?”, while a keypart, misses the fundamental point about localism:people are the end goal, not local government.

Devolution as it currently stands does not secure afundamental shift in power to people. Therepresentativeness of new City-Region mayors andcombined authorities members also shows howdevolution is replicating the gender, race and classimbalances that are so prevalent throughout the restof the political system. All six of the metro mayorselected in May 2017 are men, and their cabinets are94 per cent male.11

While Government is seeking to address the heavybias in our economy towards London and the SouthEast, creating regional industrial strategies throughthe Northern Powerhouse and the Midlands Engine isnot enough. Indeed, growth driven by city regionagglomeration risks exacerbating inequalities withinplaces, even as some differences between regions arelevelled out. We need to open up possibilities for oursmaller cities, towns, suburbs and villages, to havepower over their local economies12, if we are truly torealise the Government’s ambition to ‘create aneconomy that works for everyone.’ 13

9 Cameron, D and Clegg, N. (2010). ‘The Coalition: Our programme forgovernment.’ HM Government. Available at:https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/78977/coalition_programme_for_government.pdf 10 Field, Y. Murray, K. and Chilangwa Farmer, D. (2015). ‘A place to call home:Community asset ownership in the African Diaspora Community.’ The UbeleInitiative and Locality. Available at: http://locality.org.uk/resources/place-call-home-community-asset-ownership-african/

11 Lewis, H. (2017). ‘Power to (half the) people: metro mayors and their teamsare 94 per cent male.’ New Statesman (online). Available at:https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/devolution/2017/05/new-liverpool-metro-mayor-steve-rotherams-top-team-seven-men-no-women 12 Laurence, R. (2016). ‘ Growing the economy from the middle out.’ In Berry C(ed) The Resurrected Right and the Disoriented Left. Sheffield PoliticalEconomy Research Institute. Available at: http://speri.dept.shef.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/SPERI-Paper-27-The-Resurrected-Right-and-Disoriented-Left.pdf 13 May, T. (2016). ‘Theresa May’s conference speech: We can make Britain acountry that works for everyone.’ CCHQPress. Available at:http://press.conservatives.com/post/147947450370/we-can-make-britain-a-country-that-works-for

13www.locality.org.uk

After the EU Referendum

Britain is now at a crossroads of major political andconstitutional change. The outcome of the EUreferendum provides a clear mandate for rethinkinglocalism. The demand to ‘take back control’ madeduring the campaign, reflected a sense ofpowerlessness of people lacking a stake in theircommunities and futures. Whatever the outcome ofBrexit negotiations, we urgently need to address thelong-term under-investment in our civic and socialinfrastructure, to build institutions and spaces forparticipatory democracy, and to ensure that localorganising has genuine routes to the resourcesrequired to make change. We need a new vision forlocalism which is based on principles of equality anddiversity in participation and voice across the wholeof our country.

We need to radically reframe power:in our political systems; in our publicservices; and in our communities.

Advocates for localism too often fall into a narrativetrap of arguing for power to be ‘handed’ from thecentre ‘downwards’ to communities, inevitably in everdiminishing packages. The consequence of arepresentative democracy is that expression ofdemocratic participation can become largelytransactional. Power is ‘given’ from the electorate toMPs and councillors at elections, and further politicaland policy engagement is too often limited toconsultation, rather than collaboration and conversation.

We need to make the case that power starts withpeople: power doesn’t belong to decision-makers to‘give away’. The task of the political system and ourlocal leaders is to harness this power through ongoingrelationship, engagement and co-creation.

Fig.2. Current expectations of power and democracy

The way in which our public service and welfaresystems work can reinforce a sense of powerlessness.Accessing public services is a key interaction ofeveryday life for many; when the behaviours of publicbodies is to treat people as ‘service users’ withproblems to be ‘managed’ this can undermine feelingsof agency. Delivery at scale can be transactional anddisempowering, with people feeling subject todecisions which are beyond their control. 14 Servicesilos can leave people with multiple needs navigatinga complex world of multiple service bureaucracies.

We need public service systems that recognise thecomplexity of life, and fit services to people, not theother way around; a local approach to commissioningcan enable this holistic approach, generate additionalsocial value, and strengthen local economicresilience.15 Involving people in the decisions abouttheir services and care can have a powerful impacton their own wellbeing, health, sense of autonomy andsocial connectedness. 16

Central to a new vision for localism must be anunderstanding of how poverty and social andeconomic marginalisation intersect with the ability toparticipate and exercise agency and control. Whilstthe drive to organise, campaign and participate existsin all communities, when the pressures that people arefacing mean that they are too busy worrying aboutsurviving to the end of the week, this has a hugeimpact on participation. In this way, people areeffectively excluded from citizenship and powerthrough economic disadvantage.

The hollowing out of community infrastructureexperienced by many communities as a result ofausterity has made it harder to mobilise the localismagenda. Restitching the fabric of our neighbourhoodsrequires strengthening these community institutionsand organisations, as well as recognising the immensepower of informal community activity and connectivity.Ensuring that community organisations and localorganising activity has formal engagement withpolitical power including through strong localgovernance is essential – otherwise it remains possiblefor the powerful to pick and choose who they listen to.

When connectivity of people to power breaks down,the consequences can be devastating. One of themost painful manifestations of this in our times, waswhen Grenfell Tower caught fire in West London lastyear. This tragedy could have been avoided if one ofthe richest boroughs in the country had listened to itspoorest residents.

14 Locality. (2017). ‘Powerful Communities, Strong Economies.’ Locality.Available at: http://locality.org.uk/resources/powerful-communities-strong-economies-report/ 15 ibid 16 See for example New Economics Foundation. (2013). ‘Co-production inmental health: a review.’ Nef. Available at:http://b.3cdn.net/nefoundation/ca0975b7cd88125c3e_ywm6bp3l1.pdf

CentralGovernment

LocalGovernment

People and communities

Power transfers

‘downwards’ Represe

ntativ

e

democracy

14 People Power

Our Commission has heard evidence about whatmakes a community powerful. We have taken theseideas to develop themes which have informed ourunderstanding of how to unleash and strengthencommunity power. Fig 1. highlighted some of the keysources of community power that we have heardabout. This is by no means an exhaustive list – differentcommunities build and experience power in differentways. Rather we seek to explore the aspects ofcommunity power that have emerged through ourevidence and which inform our recommendations.

Spaces for being together, for participation and deliberation: Communities need the spaces and forums to cometogether, socialise and organise. Democracy thriveson spaces for conversation, connection, sharedpurpose, debate and resolving differences.Disagreement, conflicting priorities and concernsarise in all communities: powerful communities havethe means and routes for addressing these throughcollective problem-solving.

Connectedness and belonging: Feeling part of the community where you live canhave a positive impact on your personal wellbeingand health, reducing isolation and tackling loneliness.17While place is only one aspect of identity, anddifferent people experience belonging in differentways, involvement in local social action canstrengthen feelings of community cohesion andgenerate a greater sense of civic pride and purpose.18

One of the most valuable outcomes of communityaction is the feeling of collective power, as well aspersonal agency, that comes with the proof of whatcan be achieved in partnership with neighbours for ashared purpose.19 Connectedness and belongingwithin a community is often associated with ‘socialcapital,’ broadly defined by levels of social trust,participation and association, cohesion and collectiveefficacy.20

17 Public Health England. (2015). ‘Social relationships are key to good health’.PHE. Available at:https://publichealthmatters.blog.gov.uk/2015/12/08/loneliness-and-isolation-social-relationships-are-key-to-good-health/ 18 McKinnon, E and Green, K. (2015) ‘Community Organisers – inspiring peopleto build a bigger, stronger society.’ Cabinet Office [online]. Available at:https://coanalysis.blog.gov.uk/2015/08/11/community-organisers-inspiring-people-to-build-a-bigger-stronger-society/19 Clegg, S. Courpasson, D. and Phillips, N. (2006). ‘Power and Organisations.’London: Sage. 20 Siegler, V. (2016). ‘Social Capital Across the UK: 2011 -2012.’ ONS. Availableat:https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/wellbeing/articles/socialcapitalacrosstheuk/2011to2012#the-role-of-trust-belonging-and-social-connections-in-communities

What are the sourcesof community power? Reinvigorating localism requires a fundamentally different conception of powerwhich puts people and communities at the starting point. Our Commission hasgathered evidence on how we build and organise power within communities. Webelieve that communities are already powerful – often far more than peoplerecognise – but this power can lie latent, untapped, or simply ignored.

15www.locality.org.uk

People’s ideas, creativity, skills and local knowledge: Community is actively created through socialrelationships between people.21 Their ideas, creativity,skills and ways of supporting each other can bepowerful. Powerful communities recognise theseunique assets, and governance structures are able toharness these for the benefit of people and place.

Equality in participation and voice: Whilst not everyone within a community will want toget involved in community decision-making structures,powerful communities have equality of opportunity toparticipate, addressing barriers of resources andeconomic circumstances, time, and perceivedqualifications. Forums for participation, including localgovernance models, need to be non-hierarchical andenable broad-based participation.

Community governance has meaningful influence: Powerful communities have effective communitygovernance which has formal and meaningfulintegration with other tiers of governance.

Economic power: Having control over economic resources at a locallevel, including through community ownership ofassets and devolved budgets, and having the meansto address local priorities and find community-ledsolutions is critical to community power.

Health and wellbeing: Healthy and happy citizens with access to goodquality services are often better placed forparticipation. Crucially, meaningful participation andlocal engagement should fulfil its capacity to lead togreater health and happiness within communities.

21 Wills, J. (2016). ‘(Re)locating Community in Relationships: Questions for PublicPolicy.’ The Sociological Review [online]. Available at:http://web.a.ebscohost.com.gate3.library.lse.ac.uk/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=1&sid=89b5e1fa-4c60-4e8e-9c72-374ec7b35b91%40sessionmgr4006

16 People Power

What blockscommunity power? Our Commission has heard a breadth of evidence from communityorganisations, neighbourhood forums, local councils and local authorities,around the blockages and frustrations for the expression of community power.

Top-down decision-making:When things are ‘done to’ communities this reinforcesa paternalistic relationship between citizens and thestate. When collective endeavours are scupperedbecause ‘real power’ resides elsewhere at anotherlevel of governance or within the private sector, thisfrustrates community energy and contributes to asense of powerlessness.

Lack of trust and risk aversion:A lack trust and risk aversion on behalf of publicauthorities and political leaders can dampencommunity action.

Narrow participation:When community participation is narrow, this can leadto a dominance of those with the loudest voices andthose that have the confidence, skills, wealth and timeto participate. Even where community governance isled by a small group of passionate and involvedmembers of the community, this still needs to be basedon broad-based participation, communityengagement and active relationships.

Accountability deficit:This can occur in any layer of local governance, whereaccountability is reduced to basic methods of votingand consultations. A lack of a dynamic approach toaccountability, which prioritises participation, ongoingrelationships and co-creation, can reinforce thestatus-quo, block new ideas, and lead to a feeling ofpowerlessness.

Lack of access to data and information: When communities cannot take action or effect thechange they want to, because they lack access tolocal data and information, or lack the capacity togain ownership and understanding of it. When peoplefeel they cannot contribute to local decision-makingbecause they do not have access to information or theperceived knowledge requirements, this limits power.

Lack of control of funding and resources:The ability to get things done, achieve local prioritiesand re-design local services is often constrained bylack of control over resources. In areas of multipledeprivation particularly impacted by cuts to publicspending, this is a significant and compoundingbarrier to the opportunities of localism.

17www.locality.org.uk

A fundamental rebalancing of power to people andcommunities requires more than tinkering around theedges. Localism needs to be approached as part of acomplex system which requires radical action. Achievingchange in a complex system requires a fundamentalshift in attitudes and behaviours, as well as changes tounderlying structures and mechanisms which drive howthe system operates22. Change is required in relationships,resources, policies, power structures and values.

Like all complex systems, the change that’s requiredcannot be achieved through policy and legislativelevers alone. We have heard how the connectionsbetween the ‘formal’ institutions and powers of localismand the ‘informal’ ingredients of supportive relationshipsand community involvement must be fully aligned if weare to embed localism into our national culture.

Our recommendations are therefore designed tostrike a balance between the changes required to theformal structures and processes of localism, with afundamental recasting of the relationship betweencitizen and state. The majority of our recommendationsare therefore aimed at the behaviour and practices oflocal government and public bodies. It is at this levelthat we can achieve the biggest impact in harnessingthe power of community to address shared challengesand shape local priorities.

Strengthening community powerrequires action in four key domains of localism:

Institutions for localism: healthylocal governance structuresacross the country, integratedwithin wider systems ofgovernance, to ensure thatpower sticks at the local level.

Powers and mechanisms forlocalism: ensuring there aremeaningful powers, levers andresources for communities totake action locally.

Relational localism: changingculture and behaviours requiresembracing risk and establishingtrust in devolution tocommunities, local leadersacting as facilitators forcommunity expertise, anddisrupting hierarchies.

Capacity for localism: ensuringlocalism is not the preserve ofwealthier communities, or thosewith the loudest voices, requiresbuilding community capacity,supporting communityorganising, communitydevelopment and sustainablespaces for participation.

22 Harries, E. Wharton, R. and Abercrombie, R. (2015). ‘Systems Change: Aguide to what it is and how to do it.’ NPC and Lankelly Chase. Available at:http://www.thinknpc.org/publications/systems-change/

Strengtheningcommunity power:reimagining localismWe require action across all four domains of localism: institutions; powers;relationships; and community capacity.

18 People Power

Institutions for localism:governance structures

County and District

Councillors meet at

distances up to 50 miles

away from the residents

they are representing,

they are not residents of

the villages and yet they

have the final say”

Parish Council Clerk

1

Local governance structures arethe institutions which can help toensure that power sticks and ismeaningful at the local level.While the ways that peoplecome together can often beorganic, bottom-up communityinitiatives, there still needs to bethe governance infrastructure inplace to strengthen voice andaccess to decision making andprovide tangible routes forachieving change.

03

04

05

06

02

19www.locality.org.uk

There are many models of neighbourhoodgovernance: localism is not tidy. What has becomeclear to our Commission is that one size does not fit allwhen it comes to local governance.

We examined common challenges faced by bothdemocratic institutions (such as parish councils) andcommunity-led governance (such as neighbourhoodforums). We found common barriers: lack of fiscalcontrol; decisions blocked from above; andreluctance of other public bodies to embrace theperceived risks of devolution. We also found commoninternal challenges for local governance: lack of newleadership; partisan interests overriding commitmentto place; lack of participation; and inability toeffectively engage the community.

Ensuring that local governance structures can sustainand provide routes for local organising is essential toresetting the power balance between citizen andstate. Vibrant local governance – with meaningfulintegration with other tiers of governance – is essentialin driving forward a devolution agenda which canempower neighbourhood control over the localeconomy, public services and planning.

We found that strengthening the institutions oflocalism requires:

• Extending the powers which can be designated toneighbourhood forums in non-parished areas.Neighbourhood forums should be used as ablueprint for other forms of community controlbeyond neighbourhood planning. They could be avehicle for strengthening an enhanced frameworkof Community Rights, including new powers toshape local public services and priorities on localspending.

• Making it easier in legislation to establish parishcouncils with routes of redress when blocked byprincipal authorities.

• Supportive behaviours from local authorities andpublic bodies and a willingness to embraceperceived ‘risk’ in devolution to neighbourhoods.A commitment to strengthening the capacity ofneighbourhood institutions, supporting them toleverage resources and local assets, and devolvingfiscal controls and budgets alongsideresponsibilities.

• Supporting community ownership of assets:including through Community Asset Transfer (CAT)and strengthening the opportunities of the Right toBid, including creating a genuine ‘Community Rightto Buy.’

We have developed the following six ’principles oflocalism’ from the evidence we have heard aboutcommon challenges in local governance. Whilst ourrecommendations are not prescriptive in terms ofwhich models of local governance should be used,we believe that whether neighbourhood governanceis elected or community-led, it should follow these sixprinciples:

People are the end goal of localism: interventionsshould be judged by the impact they have onpeople, rather than institutions alone.

Equality in local participation: not everybody wantsto participate in the same way, but there needs tobe equality of consideration and an equalopportunity to participate.

Dynamic local accountability: accountability mustnot be based on consultations and voting alone: itmust value ongoing community participation,relationships and local action.

Local leadership is built around place: in whicheverform, party politicians or community leaders,leadership should be built around place, conveningcommunity partnership around shared local concerns.

Localism requires meaningful powers andintegrated structures: local powers should not beeasily dismissed by ‘higher’ tiers of governance,without clear reasons and means of redress.

Economic power must support communityresponsibility: communities must have the meansand resources to match powers and responsibilities,and realise the potential of localism.

01

Powers and mechanismsfor localism2

20 People Power

The legislation tries

unsuccessfully to balance

the needs of the community

against the property rights

of owners and developers

and in so doing fails to give

the community any meaningful

rights or benefits”

Local Authority Officer,

Community Rig

ht to Bid

We can hardly get our

head above the parapet,

never mind being able to

challenge our Council”

Community group,

Right to Challe

nge

Salvation Squad – Robin Woolgar

photography

21www.locality.org.uk

A core purpose of our Commissionhas been to explore the currentframework of localism, includingformal mechanisms of communitypower such as the Community Rights.We find that this framework stopsshort of enabling the fundamentalshift in power that is needed.

The success of Community Rights remains too tied toavailability of community resources and local capacity,and is dependent on a wider supportive culture andbehaviours from local authorities. Therefore, while wemake a number of specific recommendations fortightening the legislative framework for localismthrough the existing Community Rights, this standsalongside our other recommendations across all fourdomains of localism.

Strengthening the Community Rights framework inlegislation requires:

• Requirements on Councils to actively publiciseCommunity Rights. Councils need to use a varietyof communication channels to directly promoteCommunity Rights, including targeted activity tounder-represented communities.

• A Community Right to Buy. As operating inScotland, a genuine Community Right to Buy wouldgive communities first right of refusal to purchaseAssets of Community Value (ACV) that come tomarket. It would provide a 12 month period, once anACV comes to market, for communities to mobilise,and secure the funding and local support required.

• Extend Assets of Community Value (ACV) listings.This would mean that assets of community valuewould include not only land and buildings, butother local amenities, such as bus companies andfootball clubs. Disused assets with communitypotential should also be included. ACVs should beprotected from change of use planning applicationswithout requirements to prove that there is noprospect of community use.

• Replace the Right to Challenge with a ‘servicespartnership power’. To reflect a collaborativeapproach to reshaping local public service delivery,parish councils and neighbourhood forums shouldbe able to trigger this power, with statutoryresponsibility on the local authority to begin aprocess for community consultation and co-design.

• Transparency in information available tocommunities. Annual accounting of local spend inpublic procurement, enabling communities tocreate local plans for how public services coulddeliver greater social and economic value to thecommunity.

Relational localism:changing culture andbehaviour

3

There is still a culture of deference

in many of our towns and cities, and

people's expectations of what they

can do and influence is really limited.

Where people have had a positive

experience of being involved in a

project, these expectations shift and I

think this can be catalytic. In other

places where they haven't had this

experience there is still this notion of

what ‘they’ do to ‘us’”

Community group, survey respon

dent

22 People Power

23www.locality.org.uk

A technocratic localism will onlyachieve so much: localism must tapinto how people relate to and feelconnection with the place where theylive. It must be about changing howpeople feel about participation andengagement with decision-makingprocesses. As Charlotte Alldritt,former Director of Communities andPublic Services at the RSA, said in hercontribution to our evidencehearings: “In order to havelegitimacy, localism must havepeople shaped parameters.”

We need a relational approach to localism whichrequires changing the culture and behaviours ofcommunities, local councils and local authorities.Resetting the relationship between these actorsrequires recognising that people and communities(both in terms of informal activities and communityaction, as well as formalised community organisationsand governance) are equal actors as place-shapersalongside elected local leaders.

For example, we heard from Cllr. Peter Macfadyen,author of Flatpack Democracy and founder ofIndependents for Frome23, about the communityengagement principles of Frome Town Council. Theystart from the premise that the community already hasthe expertise, skills and ideas to develop localsolutions and it is the role of the councillors to seek thisout. They don’t make promises about the things theywill do for people; instead they aim to create a culturewith the community to “stop looking for reasons ‘notto’ and instead ask the question ‘how can we makethis happen?”‘

We found that a relational approach to localismrequires:

• Removing hierarchies in forums of communitydecision-making: The role of local leaders is toharness community expertise and participation. Itis possible to create non-hierarchical spaces forcommunity debate and decision-making, includingthrough independent facilitation.

• A willingness of local authorities to embraceperceived ‘risk’ including through devolution ofbudgets to neighbourhood institutions, and supportfor Community Asset Transfer (CAT). This would helpput local resources and amenities in the hands oflocal people, galvanise community action, andsecure sustainable funding for community institutions.

• Using co-production in the design and delivery ofour public services. Resetting the relationshipbetween public service agencies, providers andservice users through collaboration and co-design.

• Design collaborative approaches to decision-making in partnership with local communityorganisations, including groups representingcommunities of interest: otherwise there is a riskthat these approaches can end up reinforcingdisengagement.

• Communities to reclaim their rights to directaction. Our Commission has heard that whenpeople are used to being told what they ’can andcan’t do’ this stagnates community action. Ultimatelycommunities need to be free from feeling theyrequire ‘permission’ to get things done locally:communities must reclaim their right to ‘just do it.’

23 For more information, see: http://www.flatpackdemocracy.co.uk/thebook/

Capacity for localism:community infrastructureand participation

4

24 People Power

25www.locality.org.uk

A core challenge that runsthroughout our findings is how toensure that localism is based onbroad participation, involving not justthe ‘loudest voices’. Whilst communityparticipation thrives on activemembers of the community – thosewho are ready and willing to give uptheir time, their experience andexpertise – if this is not supported bybroader community participation andinvolvement, this can skew therepresentativeness of communitydecision-making.

This remains a core risk of any initiatives designed tosupport localism: how to ensure that the capacity isthere to respond to a more vibrant neighbourhoodgovernance landscape? How do we ensure thatcommunity participation is wide reaching and inclusive?

While the exact mechanism varies, it is clear from theevidence we saw that communities require some formof catalyst to support them in participating and beinginvolved. Formal or informal structures, groups,organisations or institutions can play this role, but thisinfrastructure is vital in enabling communities to have avoice.

Strengthening community capacity and participationrequires partnerships between local governmentand community institutions:

• Supporting community organising mechanisms:building the networks and relationships withincommunities to develop community voice andaction.

• Supporting community development and‘informal’ community activity: this can re-engagecommunities who feel powerless and provide theimpetus for further community action. Providing thespace and time for informal discussions on localissues without a pre-agreed agenda can lead toopportunities to develop other courses for localaction.

• Sustainable spaces for participation: localauthorities can support community spaces forparticipation, deliberation and community actionthrough community ownership of assets

• Programmes and resources designed tospecifically enable participation fromunderrepresented minority groups

• Involvement of local organisations in publicservice delivery: building opportunities for co-production that can support community wellbeingand active citizenship.

26 People Power

We need a new power partnershipbetween local government and localpeople to unlock the potential oflocalism.

Community leaders can embed localism andparticipation in the culture of our neighbourhoods by:

• Supporting community development and ‘informal’community activity: to re-engage communities whofeel powerless and provide the impetus for furthercommunity action.

• Removing hierarchies in forums of communitydecision-making: recognising the role of localleaders to harness community expertise andparticipation.

• Community organisations have an essential role toplay in embedding localism: • Using their own participatory governance

structures and community accountabilitymechanisms;

• Using community organising mechanisms,building the networks and relationships withincommunities to develop community voice andaction;

• Using community development activities andnuturing community action;

• Supporting the local economy through hostingand incubating local enterprise, and localeconomic activity which prioritises theknowledge, experience and involvement oflocal residents.

Local government and other local public bodies canstrengthen community institutions, including parishcouncils, community organisations andneighbourhood forums, by:

• Embracing perceived ‘risk’ through devolution ofbudgets to neighbourhoods

• Adopting community asset transfer (CAT) policiesto put local resources and amenities in the handsof local people, galvanise community action, andsecure sustainable funding for communityinstitutions.

Local government and other local public bodies cansupport localism in our public services and economy by:

• Prioritising social value in public procurement;strengthening the local economy by keepingmoney spent on public services in the local area;using co-production in the design and delivery ofpublic services;

• Embedding community control and involvementwithin local economic strategies and local plans,supporting neighbourhood planning andcommunity economic development as strategiesled by local people.

Ultimately both people and local government shouldnot need to wait for ‘permission from above’ to getthings done in their neighbourhoods.

Many of the community groups and local councils wemet through our evidence events had a ‘just do it’mentality. The process of navigating barriers andblockages from ‘higher powers’ can be frustrating. Butthe spirit of direct collective local action remainspowerful: communities must claim it.

We need national government toshow leadership in setting theconditions for localism to flourish.

We require legislative change to strengthen theframework of localism:

• Strengthening local powers, including a genuine‘Community Right to Buy’ to take ownership ofvalued local assets and a ‘services partnershippower’ to embed community involvement in localservices;

• Strengthening local governance by making iteasier to establish parish councils and extendingthe powers designated to neighbourhood forumsin non-parished areas.

Embedding localism within the devolution agenda:

• The devolution agenda currently lacks a coherentneighbourhood dimension. New and existingdevolution arrangements should be held toaccount by whether they enhance neighbourhoodcontrol and strengthen the power of community.

Our call to action Our Commission seeks to inject new life into the localism agenda. Action acrossthe four domains of localism identified by our Commission – institutions, powers,relationships and community capacity – is required to harness the power ofcommunity and create the environment for localism to thrive.

27www.locality.org.uk

The Right to Challenge: The Community Right to Challenge is a process for community organisations(including parish and town councils) to submit an expression of interest in running a local service on behalfof the public authority. If the authority accepts the expression of interest, they must then run a procurementexercise for that service. This procurement process is an open competition, where other providers includingthose from the private sector can also compete to run the service.

The Right to Challenge currently applies to services run by ‘relevant authorities’ which include: countycouncils; district councils; borough councils; some fire and rescue authorities. The Right to Challenge can beevoked by ‘relevant bodies’ which include voluntary and community sector organisations and parish andtown councils.

The Right to Bid: Communities can register land or buildings in their community as Assets of CommunityValue (ACV) with the local authority. If ever the building and land comes up for sale, the Community Rightto Bid can be evoked. This puts a six month pause, or moratorium, on the sale to allow the community toraise funds to buy it. At the end of the six month period, the owner does not have to sell to the communityand they can sell at whichever price they chose.

Assets can be nominated as ACVs by a community group connected to the area including a parish council,neighbourhood forum, or a community group with at least 21 individuals involved. ACVs can only benominated if they have a social use (such as sport, culture or recreation) or if it has a current impact oncommunity wellbeing. Once listed the ACV stays on the register for up to 5 years.

Neighbourhood Planning: A Neighbourhood Plan is a document that sets out the planning policies within aneighbourhood which have been agreed by the people that live there. It is written by members of thecommunity. Once agreed through local referendum, the Neighbourhood Plan forms part of the statutoryDevelopment Plan for that area and has to be considered in future planning decisions.

Community Right to Build Order: The Community Right to Build Order is usually, but not always, attached tothe Neighbourhood Plan. It provides automatic planning permission once passed through local referendumfor community buildings – for example community centres – as well as for local homes and community-ledhousing. Any profit generated from the development under this Order is reinvested for community benefit.

More information and step-by-step guides to the Community Rights are available from My Community:mycommunity.org.uk

Definitions of the existing Community Rights

AcknowledgementsWe are very grateful to everyone that provided written evidence, completed our survey, attended ourevidence events, and engaged with us throughout this process. Particular thanks go to those who attendedour evidence events as expert witnesses, including:

Charlotte Alldritt, Director of Public Services and Communities at the RSA Dr David Sweeting, Senior Lecturer in Urban Studies at Bristol University Penny Evans, Assistant Director at Knowle West Media Centre Cllr. Peter Macfadyen, author of Flatpack Democracy and founder of Independents for FromeEd Cox, Director at IPPR NorthDr Jenny Rouse, Associate Director at Centre for Local Economic StrategiesWarren Escadale, CEO at Voluntary Sector North WestProfessor Gus JohnSteve Conway, Collyhurst Big Local

About LocalityLocality supports local community organisations to unlock thepower in their community to build a fairer society. Our network of550 community organisations transforms lives by giving local peoplea purpose, a good place to live and good health. Locality supportscommunity organisations with specialist advice, peer-learning,resources, and campaigning to create better operating conditions.

About Power to ChangePower to Change is an independent trust thatstrengthens community businesses across England.We received our endowment from Big Lottery Fundin 2015.

At a time when many parts of the UK face cuts,neglect and social problems, we are helping localpeople come together to take control, and makesure their local areas survive and stay vibrant.

No one understands a community better than thepeople who live there. In some areas, people arealready coming together to solve problems forthemselves, and we support them as they runbusinesses which help their whole community andrecycles money back into the local area. Communitybusinesses revive local assets, protect the servicespeople rely on, and address local needs.

www.powertochange.org.uk

Believe in thepower ofcommunityShare this report and help usachieve true people power

Locality central office,33 Corsham Street, London N1 6DR1 0345 458 8336 0 info@locality.org.uk

Locality is the trading name of Locality (UK) a company limited by guarantee, registered in England no. 2787912 and a registered charity no. 1036460. ©Locality January 2018

Find us on: "!'

www.locality.org.uk