The village plans have all been prepared (bar Dunsop ...€¦ · Web viewHousing: Lack of affordable housing (8/13) Lack of starter homes (5/13) Lack of houses for the elderly (5/13)

LOCAL CONTEXT TESTING OF RRDF PRIORITIES FOR THE NORTH WEST

Rural InnovationCheshire Rural Community CouncilVoluntary Action Cumbria

MARCH 2006

Local Context Testing of RRDF PrioritiesConnectivity between Parish Plans, Policy & Delivery

Section One: Introduction and Overview

Rural Innovation has been commissioned by Government Office for the North West (and partners) to carry out an ‘action research’ project to test the ‘relevance’ of the six priorities expressed within the Regional Rural Delivery Framework with the region’s rural communities. In so doing the project seeks to assess whether the emerging RRDF priorities effectively match issues and aspirations articulated at community level via a ‘parish planning’ process, and to better understand the ease with which delivery agents can account for and respond to community needs in relation to their activity against the RRDF priorities.

The results of this local context testing are to be used to validate the headline rural priorities; mainstream best practice and encourage joined up delivery at the local level across all six RRDF headline rural priorities.

The Rural Innovation project team brought together community development professionals, a former Local Authority forward planner, and senior rural analysts with direct experience of the creation and management of Local Strategic Partnerships, preparation of Community Strategies and the current rural development policy context1. Community engagement was carried out in partnership with the local Rural Community Councils, leveraging existing relationships with the communities and building on current activity.

Throughout the process, a Client Group containing representatives of the Rural Practitioners Steering Group supported the Project Team; the Client Group provided a valuable ‘reality testing’ and peer review resource, so contributing to the final outcome.

This report represents the final output of the project; it has been put together following completion of an iterative methodology designed to address the key tasks as set out in the original brief, this has comprised:

A desktop review of 12 Parish Plans, the Issues Paper developed with the community of Dunsop Bridge as part of the Master Planning process, and additional collations of Parish Plan actions provided by Voluntary Action Cumbria in order to assess common themes across the community plans and ‘map’ them against the RRDF priorities

A review of the community engagement at Dunsop Bridge used to develop the ‘Issues Paper’, analysis of the methodology and outcomes, leading to development of a protocol for engagement with two more ‘sample’ communities

Engagement with two sample communities (Saughall & Shotwick Park in Cheshire, and Culgaith in Cumbria) in order to test their interpretation of the relevance of RRDF priorities

Analysis of the outcomes of community engagement, analysis with team members and subsequent peer review with community development professionals, forward planners and service deliverers

The report confirms the over-arching relevance of region’s rural priorities to its local communities and their alignment with issues articulated through a community planning (i.e. Parish Plan) process. It also highlights the material influence of local conditions, and recognises the different emphasis placed by communities on issues, dependent upon the specific circumstances of locality. The report goes on to consider the ease with which delivery agents (and related policy makers) can account for and respond to community needs, and develops conclusions around the potential lack of connectivity between policy development

1 A summary of the Project Team and their relevant experience is provided within the technical appendix

2


and delivery planning at regional and sub-regional level, and issues and related actions articulated via community planning.

Section Two of the report sets out the outcomes from a comparative review of the 13 Parish / Community Plans, assesses the commonality of issues across the sample plans and draws conclusions around emerging themes of interest to policy makers and delivery planners.

Section Three assesses the ‘relevance’ of the RRDF priorities to the region’s rural communities, based on desktop analysis of the 13 ‘parish plans’ and the direct engagement with sample communities in Cheshire, Cumbria and Lancashire.

Section Four of the report develops analysis and thinking around the ability of delivery agents and related policy makers to account for and respond to community needs expressed through a ‘parish planning’ process, and offers conclusions around the risk of a lack of connectivity within the current environment.

Section Five seeks to collate and concisely summarise the conclusions of each part of the report.

The report is supported by a Technical Appendix which includes: the original project brief details of the Rural Innovation Project Team an analysis of the community engagement process and Dunsop Bridge by

Alison McLean Outcome papers from the Parish Plans analysis and the community

engagement process at Saughall and Culgaith including analysis of their progress against Parish Plans Actions, key ‘pathways’ and their route to influence / engage with their relevant Local Development Framework and Local Area Agreement

The Rural Innovation project team would like to thank all those who supported the project, especially the communities of Saughall & Shotwick Park, Culgaith and Dunsop Bridge; our colleagues in the Rural Community Councils of Cheshire and Cumbria, the Chair of the NW Rural Affairs Forum, the Government Office Client Group and those professionals that participated in the peer review process.

Section Two: Comparative Review of Parish Plans

2.1 IntroductionThe sample set of Community Plans was provided by the Client Group, based upon the recommendations of the three Rural Community Councils. It comprised 13 rural settlements, hosting a population of 28,0212; the scale of the parishes ranges from Dunsop Bridge in the Forest of Bowland AONB with a population of 163 to Freckleton in the designated green belt area between Preston and Lytham with a population of 6,045. The set included parishes in four of the region’s five sub-regions (Merseyside is not represented), from metropolitan and urban fringe (Offerton Estate, Askan & Ireleth), through ‘affluent commuter belt’ (Saughall & Shotwick Park) to remote, upland and ‘sparse’ areas (Tiverton & Tilstone Fetheral, Culgaith, Aslton Moor, Dunsop Bridge).

Parish Date of Plan Publication

Population Census 2001

Tiverton & Tilstone Fearnell (Ch3)

2005 483

Cranage (Ch) October 2003 13002 2001 Census3 Cheshire

3


Offerton Estate (Grtr Man) June 2005 3758Acton Eddleston & Henhull (Ch)

March 2005 453

Saughall & Shotwick Park (Ch)

Autumn 2004 3150

Culgaith (Cumbria) 2004 596Plumbland (Cumbria) 2004 390Alston Moor (Cumbria) March 2003 2200Askan & Ireleth (Cumbria) March 2003 3430Dunsop Bridge (Lancs) August 2005 (Issues) 163Whittle-le-Woods (Lancs) Mid 2004 4553Silverdale (Lancs) Autumn 2003 1500Freckleton (Lancs) June 2005 6045

4


In addition to the sample set of Parish Plans provided, the Project Team was also able to consider a collation of Parish Plans for Eden District prepared by Voluntary Action Cumbria. The parish plans for the 13 communities have all been prepared (bar Dunsop Bridge) under the former Countryside Agency format between 2003 and 2005. Each has a slightly different focus deriving from the response from the individual communities. For the desktop comparative analysis, each plan was reviewed and a summary prepared of the key issues raised within them4. This has then been further summarised into a table that maps the range of issues across the 13 communities5. This mapping is based upon analysis of comments made within the Parish Plans, and seeks to demonstrate where there is commonality and variance of issues across the region. In order to aid analysis, communities are grouped within sub-regions and issues within ‘priority’ headings.

2.2 Priority Issues from Parish PlansThe common priorities and their key related action areas are set out below; the ‘scores’ in brackets (5/13) show the number of communities that included this issue / comment within their plan. The commentary provided is based upon both the desktop analysis and subsequent ‘testing’ of this analysis via community engagement.

The graph included below supports the analysis, and compares both the % of the total population and the % of the plans against the most common actions articulated by communities in their plans.

Housing: Lack of affordable housing (8/13) Lack of starter homes (5/13) Lack of houses for the elderly (5/13) Maintain the original characteristics of the village (3/15)

Affordable housing is highlighted as an issue for 62% (8) of the parishes accounting for 51% (14,257) of the sample population. Another parish (Askan & Ireleth, 3,430 pop’n) identified issues with the range of available housing; a lack of housing provision for the elderly.

It is interesting to note that all the parishes characterised as sparse, remote or within protected / designated landscape areas ‘i.e. AONB / green belt’ identified access to affordable housing as an issue, whilst those ‘urban fringe’ settlements

4 Parish Plan Issues – Notes 5 Parish Plan Summary Comparative Analysis

5

0102030405060708090

Affo

rdab

leH

ousi

ng

Lack

of s

hop

/po

st o

ffice

Mor

ew

orks

pace

Faci

litie

s fo

ryo

ung

peop

le

Insu

ffici

ent o

ffst

reet

par

king

Red

uce

Traf

ficS

peed

s

Freq

uenc

y of

Bus

Ser

vice

s

Ref

urbi

shm

ent

of P

aris

h H

all

Vill

age

Env

ironm

enta

lIm

prov

emen

ts

Incr

ease

dpa

rtici

patio

n

0102030405060708090

% Pop'n % Plans


did not. This potentially raises questions around the impact of current spatial planning policy and focus of development in urban areas.

Business / Enterprise: Lack of local shop / post office (6/13) Demand for more business and retail units (6/13) Need to develop the use of, and add value to, local produce (2/13) Need for improved access to jobs & training (4/13) Need for greater access to IT skills and broadband connectivity (3/13)

Just under half of the parishes were concerned about the lack of a village shop or post office (i.e. those that did not have access to such a facility); evidence from the community engagement process confirmed that at local level, these facilities are interpreted as having both an economic and social role. These included large urban fringe (Offerton Estate, 3,758 popn / Askan & Ireleth, 3,430 popn) settlements as well as small (Acton Edleston & Henhull, 453 / Culgaith, 596) more remote settlements. The issue therefore seems to be about access to ‘local’ facilities and is not restricted to remote communities.

Demand for increased local provision of workspace / business activity also came from small remote communities as well as larger settlements in more ‘accessible areas’. Interestingly in that case demand was evident in accessible communities within the ‘green belt’ zones of ‘sub-regional’ economic centres of Chester and Preston / Lytham, rather than from settlements close to the larger commercial centres of Manchester and Barrow in Furness.

Issues around improved access to skills and training were articulated by the isolated smaller communities (Culgaith, Alston Moor, Plumland, Dunsop Bridge) but also from the two larger, perhaps more economically disadvantaged settlements of Offerton Estate and Askan & Ireleth.

There appears to have been limited recognition of agriculture as an economic driver from any but the most ‘remote / upland’ of communities (Alston Moor and Dunsop Bridge). This apparent ‘disconnect’ between the Parish Planning groups and the farming community was tested and to an extent confirmed during the community engagement piece (see below).

Young People: Lack of access to public transport (3/13) Need to increase the availability of local community / leisure facilities (7/13) No organised social activities (5/13) Evidence of anti-social behaviour (5/13)

There appears to be no discernable dominant spatial influence or pattern around issues affecting / related to young people. The lack of availability of local facilities was highlighted in both the small remote parishes (Culgaith, Tilverton & Tilstone Fearnall, Dunsop Bridge) and the larger more ‘accessible’ communities (Freckleton and Askan & Ireleth). Concern over incidence of ‘anti-social behaviour’ is evident amongst the more ‘urban fringe’ communities; Offerton, Saughall & Shotwick Park, Askan & Ireleth, Whittle-le-Woods and Freckleton), whilst less obvious amongst the smaller, remote and upland parishes. Engagement with communities during the ‘local testing’ highlighted that the ‘young’ were often identified as a ‘socially excluded’ group; difficulties in getting them engaged, and the consequent impact on community cohesion was clearly a concern.

Transport: More frequent bus services required (6/13) Need an improvement in the provision of information about, and standards of,

public transport (3/13) Need a car sharing scheme (3/13)

6


Seek re-opening of local train station (3/13) Insufficient car parking facilities (9/13) Reduction in speed limits through village sought (8/13) Improvement in street lighting required (4/13)

Issues around public transport are common across the three ‘shire’ sub-regions, but appear to be more concentrated in Cumbria. Interestingly the most common theme (8 parishes and 79% / 22,090 head of population) relates to insufficient provision of car parking facilities; this has environmental as well as ‘community infrastructure’ implications, and is of concern to all four Lancashire parishes. The reduction of speed limits through villages was also of particular concern to a range of settlements, including all of those in Cheshire, and all but Dunsop Bridge in Lancashire.

Interestingly, when issues such as car parking and traffic management were considered against the RRDF Priorities during the community engagement piece, they were consistently articulated as being environmental in focus, relating to their impact on the quality of place rather than wider economic or infrastructural issues.

Community Facilities / Activities: Need for more social / leisure facilities (6/13) Refurbishment of the village / parish hall required (7/13) Not enough activities / organised clubs (4/13)

The importance of local and community ‘owned’ social, leisure and community facilities is clear from this section. 11 of the 13 communities were concerned about either social / leisure facilities or the need to refurbish their parish hall. Those concerned about their parish / village hall included the very small and remote (Dunsop Bridge), the larger more ‘accessible’ (Saughall & Shotwick Park) and the urban fringe (Offerton Estate),

Concern around the condition and ‘usability’ of facilities was not simply related to the fabric of a building, but was strongly articulated during the consultation piece as being around their role in developing and maintaining social capital, so supporting and promoting ‘community cohesion. Limited access to facilities is also clearly a factor in the increasing challenge experienced by some communities to engage residents and a range of age groups in activities.

Safe & Secure Community: Footpaths / pavements require better maintenance (5/13) More gritting of roads required (2/13) Incidence of crime throughout parish (4/13)

Concern over parish infrastructure and crime is most evident in the larger and urban fringe communities; those seven parishes that recorded these issues as concerns account for 72% / 20,302 of the sample population. Three of the four parishes that recorded concern over crime were also concerned about anti-social behaviour by young people. It would be interesting to understand whether the levels of offending were any higher in these communities than the rest of the sample, or whether this is more a case of perception articulated by the constituency engaged in the Parish Planning process.

Village Environment: More recycling schemes required (5/13) Upset at litter and dog fouling (7/13) Trees, verges and community ‘green spaces’ should be better maintained

(7/13)

All the sample communities expressed interest in improving and caring for the environment of their settlement, although the majority of the communities

7


concerned over the maintenance of their ‘green spaces’ might be characterised as ‘urban fringe’. Interestingly, the Parish Planning process appears to have led to a focus on the environment within and immediately adjacent to the settlement, rather than to the wider landscape.

Communication: Lack of knowledge about parish facilities / events (6/13) Insufficient public notice boards (5/13) Parish information not mentioned in publications (3/13)

Concerns around communication predominantly relate to exchange and sharing of information within the village rather than beyond, and often to connections between the Parish Council or Parish Planning group, and the remainder of the village. It seems evident that some community ‘champions’ see the need to improve communication and so engagement with a wider constituency within the village. This concern was articulated within the community engagement piece; interestingly it appears that it is often in the area of improved communication that the local groups have made most progress.

2.3 Conclusions from Comparative Analysis

The analysis of the sample set of plans has led to the emergence of a number of conclusions on matters not directly related to RRDF priorities, but which it is hoped may be useful to inform consideration of the future role of Parish / Community Planning. These are as follows:

There appears to be some variance between issues articulated as important to the more remote, sparse and upland parishes and those situated in ‘accessible’ and urban fringe locations

There also appears to be an interesting correlation between issues identified within the larger and perhaps more socio-economically disadvantaged communities and those experienced by residents of the smaller, more remote and ‘sparse’ settlements

There is appears to be a very clear focus on ‘place’ as opposed to ‘issue’ within Parish Plans prepared for a single community; evidence submitted during peer review by the Rural Community Councils points to a reduced focus on place, and wider consideration of issues, services and rurality when community / ‘parish’ planning is carried out in groups or clusters of parishes

There is a clear impact and influence from specific local conditions on issues articulated within Parish Plans, as such generic delivery solutions or interventions, even at sub-regional level, may not be entirely appropriate

Section Three: Relevance of the RRDF Priorities to Rural Communities in the North West

The commentary and conclusions set out below are based on a three stage process; firstly the Project Team carried out a mapping exercise, assessing the ‘fit’ of the six Regional Rural Priorities against issues articulated in the sample set of 13 Parish Plans. This analysis was informed by lessons learned during the extensive community engagement process with residents and stakeholders in Dunsop Bridge during development of the Issues Paper6.

In order to test these assumptions, and assess the relevance of the RRDF Priorities at with local people, two community engagement sessions were held,

6 Part of the Master Planning a Sustainable Rural Community project for Lancashire Rural Delivery Pathfinder

8


one in Saughall & Shotwick Park (Cheshire) and one in Culgaith (Cumbria). These sessions used a methodology derived from the review of the Dunsop Bridge process, and were facilitated by the local Rural Community Council led by officers with existing relationships with the community.

Following the sessions with each community, the outcomes were considered and tested in a peer review process.

The results of this three-stage ‘mapping’ exercise are fascinating, and demonstrated some clear differences between initial consultants analysis and final conclusions. Both communities were generally supportive of the RRDF priorities and recognised their relevance to local issues articulated with their Parish Plans. Their ‘mapping conclusions’ were occasionally varied substantively from the Project Team’s initial analysis however; for example an issue around insufficient off street parking that the consultant team had interpreted to be around partially around economic functionality was expressed by the community as being about environmental impact on the village.

RRDF Priority One: Maximising Economic Potential 8 parishes recorded issues with a direct economic connection (either jobs, skills or demand for more business space / activity) accounting for 50% (14,170 head) of the sample population. Parishes that did not make any reference to economic issues include the larger Lancashire ‘urban fringe / commuter’ settlements of Freckleton and Whittle le Woods, and the Cheshire ‘green belt / edge of town’ settlements of Cranage, Saughull & Shotwick Park and Acton Edleston & Henhull.

All the ‘sparse’ or more remote parishes identified economic issues, as did the more economic ‘disadvantaged’ of Offerton Estate and Askan & Ireleth.

Interestingly, the test communities also interpreted issues around access to transport services and even in one instance to Post Office counter services as ‘economic’ and so relevant to Priority One.

RRDF Priority Two: Supporting Sustainable Farming and FoodOnly two of the thirteen parishes made reference to agriculture as a priority within their Action Plans; Alston Moor and Dunsop Bridge. These settlements are both in an AONB, both ‘isolated’ in geographical and access terms, and both have a strong connection with their surrounding landscape.

The remainder of the 13 parishes, accounting for 81% (22,823) of the sample population, make no reference to agriculture within their priority issues. This apparent lack of affinity / engagement between Parish Planning groups and the wider, more dispersed farming community was tested with the two sample communities, and also discussed in depth with Rural Community Council and Local Authority community development workers. It did appear from this consultation that there is an element of dis-connection between those elements of the community involved with development of the Parish Plan and the wider farming community. In some instances, i.e. damage to verges and nuisance of waste black plastic, the farming community was actually the ‘problem’.

When questioned further, both sample communities acknowledged that their plans did not sufficiently engage with the wider rural community ‘outwith’ the village, and were perhaps focused on ‘place’ rather than issues.

Both communities also expressed an interest in their surrounding rural hinterland, and the contribution of the farming businesses to the landscape; it appears probable however that Parish Planning is not likely to be an effective route for policy makers to engage with the farming community, or by which it seeks articulate issues and make itself heard.

9


RRDF Priority Three: Ensuring Access to Affordable HousingAffordable housing is highlighted as an issue by 62% (8) of the parishes accounting for 51% (14,257) of the sample population. Another parish (Askan & Ireleth, 3,430 pop’n) identified issues with the range of available housing; a lack of housing provision for the elderly.

It is interesting to note that all those parishes characterised as sparse, remote or within protected / designated landscape areas (AONB / green belt) identified access to affordable housing as an issue, whilst those settlements that did not are all situated much closer to towns or larger conurbations, viz: Cranage – links to South Manchester Offerton Estate – edge of Stockport Acton Edleton & Henhull – edge of Nantwich Askan & Ireleth – edge of Barrow in Furness – area of relatively low housing

costs Whittle le Woods – edge of Chorley & Leyland (focus of much new housing

provision in Lancashire)

The range of importance attached to housing by the various communities appears consistent with the impact of current spatial planning policy, levels of housing supply and market demand characteristics.

The importance of housing issues remained high in both of villages where community engagement was carried out, however the experience of both communities in their attempts to secure action to address housing issues had been highly frustrating, and to date, ineffectual. The reason for this was cited as their inability to influence key stakeholders; housing associations, local authorities and land-owners and the limited weight given by any of these parties to the views and aspirations of the community (or sections of it). These findings, and their implication for policy makers and service delivery planners are further considered in Section Four below.

RRDF Priority Four: Ensuring Fair Access to ServicesAccess to services, whether in the form of local shops, community facilities (such as village halls), local opportunities for leisure and activity, or public transport is identified as an important issue in the Action Plans of all 13 communities. It is interesting to note however, the range of issues which can be included within an ‘access to services’ theme; and important to understand that issues are likely to be highly specific to each and every locality. A ‘one size fits all’ approach to intervention to address issues articulated at community level therefore seems unlikely to be appropriate.

Lack of local shop / post office: 6 communities – 10,020 population Lack of access to public transport / more frequent bus services required: 6

communities – 10,952 (three common with lack of local shop / post office) Need to increase the availability of local community / facilities (youth and

general): 11 communities – 26,675 population Need to refurbish the village or parish hall: 7 communities – 10,803 population

RRDF Priority Five: Empowering Rural Communities and Addressing Social ExclusionThis Priority provoked the most discussion and challenges with the sample communities, and best defined the gap in interpretation between the ‘policy analyst’ and the ‘community’.

Both the communities engaged in detail felt that Priority Five as defined by its headline statement ‘empowering rural communities and addressing social exclusion’ did not fully address the fundamental challenges they were experiencing to the ‘social sustainability’ of their community. Both communities expressed real concern about the way in which their villages now functioned and

10


the reduction in what might be best described as ‘social capital’ – people unwilling to get involved, resistance to investing in public spaces and community facilities, dis-engagement and limited participation with community activity. The communities felt strongly that this trend, due perhaps to the impact of socio-economic, demographic and cultural change on rural areas, increasingly generated issues that were not addressed by commitments around ‘empowering communities’ or ‘addressing social exclusion’, but instead related to ‘community cohesion’.

It is important to note that neither of the communities had the benefit of access to detailed information on Outcomes nor Actions proposed for this priority within the RRDF Delivery Compendium (this document was not available at the time of the community engagement process). When considered in more detail, and with the benefit of a wider explanation of the intent behind Priority Five, both communities agreed that in the sense that empowerment and actions to address social exclusion can be related to both community facilities, community activity and economic exclusion, Priority Five was directly aligned with issues articulated in their action plans. Based on this context, all but one (Cranage) of the Parish Plans identified issues in their Action Plans within the ‘scope’ of Priority Five.

Wider issues that might relate to addressing social exclusion such as health inequalities, benefit take up, or say improving the quality of housing stock do not seem to have been addressed by the Parish Plans. It appears instead that the characteristics of social sustainability, or ‘social capital’ are hugely important to many at community level; a point that appears to be increasingly recognised by national politicians.

How important a driver should the development of social capital be for regional policy makers? Can policy set at regional level focus on intervention to improve ‘social capital’ at individual community level, or should it instead focus on investment in the more ‘tangible’ elements of sustainability i.e. housing provision, accessibility to work and services, related physical infrastructure, structure of local democracy etc?

RRDF Priority Six: Enhancing the Value of our Rural Environmental Inheritance7 communities accounting for 14,865 head of population identified issues directly relating to the environment within their settlement. Most of these could be characterised as ‘urban fringe’ in some sense. None of the sample Parish Plans identified issues relating to the wider environment, or sustainable use of it. Given the ‘place specific’ nature of these plans, this is perhaps not surprising. The greater understanding of the background to issues included in Action Plans gained from the Community Engagement piece proved that in fact all of the sample Plans included a significant focus on the ‘quality of village environment’; issues such as car parking, speeding, traffic management and maintenance of street lighting were interpreted locally as having an environmental focus, and therefore were mapped against Priority Six.

There appears to be a common thread of Parish Planning groups focusing on the environment within their village, and placing considerable importance upon it; whilst little consideration is given to the role of the community in maintaining or protecting the wider landscape that surrounds the villag.

3.1 Conclusions from Mapping the Relevance of RRDF Priorities to rural Communities

The three-stage approach adopted to mapping RRDF priorities against issues articulate within Parish Plans has proven very informative. It has conclusively demonstrated the locality of issues identified within Parish Plans, and that the motivation and background to each issue may be very different than appears from ‘remote’ analysis.

11


The graph below summarises the ‘mapping’ of the fit of RRDF Priorities against issues and aspirations of communities; it combines the outcomes of the Project Team’s ‘remote’ analysis, and the views expressed by communities during the engagement piece.

The graph demonstrates that in essence the RRDF priorities strongly align with, and match issues articulated at community level; although perhaps not surprisingly, not all six regional rural priorities are universally applicable. The matters of most importance to local communities appear to be materially influenced by local circumstance and context.

In order to consider the evidence gathered in more detail, the Project Team tested its initial conclusions with both the Client Team, and a wider group of community development practitioners including representatives from the regions Rural Community Councils. Based on those discussions, the key thematic conclusions relating to the fit and relevance of RRDF Priorities to the region’s rural communities are as follows:

The six RRDF priorities appear to be directly relevant to the regions rural communities, and can be recognised as aligning with issues of importance raised locally, but:

Issues highlighted within Parish Plans are specific to that community, and are based upon the experience and views of those involved in the Parish Planning process. The root cause of the issue can vary significantly from the ‘headline’ action, so much so that it might relate to an entirely different thematic priority

Issues most commonly articulated through Parish Plans relate to access to services (in their widest sense), community cohesion (social capital) and empowerment, and the improvement of the ‘environment’ (in so far as it impacts on quality of life) within the settlement – Priorities Four, Five and Six

Issues identified by communities which relate to RRDF priorities Five & Six tend to be very locally specific, and focus on the functionality, social and physical assets of the settlement rather than on wider ‘policy based’ issues; this points towards the need for closer working at community level between delivery agents with an interest in ‘community cohesion’, the communities role in shaping their own space / future, and ‘environmental investment’. It may also require a new approach to the ‘locality’ from Environmental organisations, and a willingness to engage at settlement, rather than ‘area’ level

12

020406080

100120

Max

imis

ing

Eco

nom

icP

oten

tial

Sus

tain

able

Farm

ing

&Fo

od

Affo

rdab

leR

ural

Hou

sing

Fair

Acc

ess

to S

ervi

ces

Em

pow

erin

g&

Soc

ial

Exc

lusi

on

Env

ironm

enta

lIn

herit

ance

020406080100120

% Pop'n % Plans


Local concerns appear to be most directly compatible with views expressed at regional level around access to services, housing and economic objectives

There is appears to be an apparent ‘disconnect’ between the residents (or at least those involved in the Parish Planning process) of many rural settlements and their wider farming community – Parish Plans may not be a viable route for farming communities to articulate issues of concern and delivery aspirations

There is appears to be a slightly different interpretation around issues and their importance related to ‘community empowerment’ and ‘tackling social exclusion’ at regional and community level

Concerns were expressed at community level that issues around ‘community cohesion’ and ‘social capital’ are not effectively addressed, or seen to be addressed, by the headline statements of the six RRDF Priorities

13


Section Four – Connectivity between Community Planning, Policy Development and Delivery Planning

4.1 Introduction and Context

The objectives of this project are two fold; firstly to test the relevance of the region’s evidence based rural priorities as defined within the Regional Rural Delivery Framework, and secondly to better understand the ease with which delivery agents can account for and respond to community needs in relation to their activity against the RRDF priorities. This second objective was articulated within the Project brief by the defined task:

‘to consider whether a structure exists that allows delivery agents and policy makers to account for, and respond to the issues and aspirations articulated at community level (via ‘Parish Planning’) in relation to the RRDF’

This is a complex question, and one that requires consideration of both the emerging processes of regional rural policy development and service delivery planning, in addition to analysis of the impact of Community Planning activity on policy and delivery at local, district, sub-regional and regional level. It was agreed by all parties at the outset that to provide a completely robust and evidence based answer to this question for the region would require a commitment of time and resource (human and financial) beyond the scope and scale of this 12-week project.

In order to help develop an answer to this question, the Project Team have researched and consulted with Community Development professionals, LSP officers, local service deliverers and Local Authority Forward Planners, around what have become described as ‘Pathways of Influence’. We define this ‘pathways’ as the route which a Parish, (or facilitators / brokers working for a Parish), must negotiate to advance issues articulated in Parish Plans through the region’s policy and delivery structures, in order to secure delivery and meet the communities objectives?

We have also considered the ‘flip side of this coin’; the policy makers view point. Does the current system of ‘pathways’ provide, or even ensure, that views of communities articulated via Parish Planning are incorporated within Community Strategies and Local Development Frameworks, or ensure that ‘local issues’ are made available to policy makers and service planners for consideration within sub-regional and regional frameworks and strategies?

The Project Team’s thoughts and emerging views are set out in the section below; they should be considered a ‘thought piece’ rather than formal, evidence-based conclusions. The analysis leads to what might be considered as an emerging challenge to the Rural Practitioners Steering Group and Rural Board over what appears, to the Project Team at least, a potential mis-alignment between the ‘pathways’ for local issues that policy makers and service planners, increasingly influenced by the drive for improved and overt consultation with communities, need to allow them access to local issues – and the reality of communities ability to articulate their local issues and needs in a manner that can directly engage with, let alone influence policy and consequent service delivery.

4.2 The ‘Local’ Level – Community Planning (Parish Plans) as a route to Service Delivery

Increasingly over the past few years, local people have been involved in shaping the future of their communities through drawing together a parish plan or market town action plan.

14


The Countryside Agency’s report ‘Planning for Vital Communities’ (2004) describes a Parish Plan as:

A statement of how a community sees itself developing over the next few years: It reflects the views of all sections of the community It identifies which features of the place or settlement that people value It identifies local problems and opportunities It spells out how residents want the community to develop in the future It prepares a plan of action to achieve this visionThis statement clearly envisages both process and output; the process has been proven to be beneficial in terms of improving cohesion and engagement in the community (and so generating social capital). It was clearly intended also to generate outputs, to lead to the implementation of actions so achieving the defined vision.

Experience from the North West region shows that Parish Plans have been effective in stimulating action at community level and at some levels, enabling communities to influence other bodies to act in a way that addresses issues identified in the plans

It is possible to map these ‘pathways’ to delivery and influencing policy against actions set out in any community (parish) plan, and the Project Team has done this in relation to the two parishes where the community engagement element of the local context testing was carried out. These pathways appear to be of varying ‘length’ (near or far) and can be usefully divided into policy and delivery pathways.

Some pathways are nearer to the community and therefore clearer than others. In these cases the parish is likely to own or control a direct link to the delivery/policy body and will have at least some chance of directing their delivery processes.

Examples from the sample set of Parish Plans reviewed for this research include:

Educate residents re dog fouling, on street parking, community activities Procure litter and street cleaning Maintain parish footpath network and village green area Secure alternate location for threatened Sub Post Office In other cases not only is the ‘pathway’ difficult to identify (i.e. what decisions affect the issue), but it can be difficult to negotiate; due for example to a complex set of partnership arrangements, or complicated and lengthy decision-making processes. In this sense, the ‘pathway’ is further from the community. Examples from the Parish Plans reviewed include:

Secure input from a youth worker Increase regular police presence Establish village as a priority location of affordable housing Secure improved bus services Reduce travel by private car

Although there has not yet been any comprehensive research on progress with Parish Plan actions, conversations with the sample parishes as part of this project demonstrate at least some progress (depending on the degree of community agreement and engagement), where actions are ‘owned locally’; but that issues dependent on action by other agencies have proven much harder to progress, and in some cases have stalled altogether.

15


We therefore conclude that Parish Plans are only likley to direclty bring about actions and delivery at very local level; for instance where things can be done by volunteers, where the Parish Council can reaslitically provide resources , or via small (often non ‘public sector’) grant Pots.

16

Local

Evidence to Inform

Area

District

PCT Services


Where action to address issues relies upon decisions taken even at an area based level (i.e. by a Primary Care Trust), the ability of the Parish Plan to influence and secure delivery appears to wane, and it’s role becomes one of informing service providers that choose to take notice and seek out communities views. Even in this scenario, PCTs and Area Policing Units are far more likely to go direct to a local community and ask their specific questions, rather than research the Parish Plan and use this to inform say a needs analysis.

As decisions necessary are taken further and further away from parish level, so the ability of a community to positively inform wanes, and their views become part, more often than with a low weighting, of a more complex set of factors.

This is of course hugely frustrating for communities; especially as at the same time local communities are increasingly being asked to respond to individual and bespoke consultations from a variety of regional and sub-regional organisations. This combination of the increase in consultations and the lack of clarity about how to effect the changes that the community have identified through the Parish Planning process may only increase this sense of frustration, and could potentially undermine the entire consultation process.

17

Regional

InfluenceDelivery

County

Bus Shelter

Affordable Housing

Bus Routing

Recycling Facilities

District

Area

Local

PCT Services

Evidence to Inform


Policy makers should perhaps consider how to address this growing sense of ‘consultation fatigue’ from communities. Might a specific community planning tool play a role in future consultation? If so, should it be ‘settlement’, area or thematically based?

4. 3 Bottom Up – Parish Plans as a function of Policy

So given these emerging conclusions on the limited ability of issues articulated through Community Planning to influence local delivery, is it realistic to expect that Parish Plans can really influence policy at regional, sub-regional or even local level? The emerging conclusions from this analysis are that they are unlikely to do so.

This is potentially problematic for policy makers, as the ‘direction of travel’ of the ‘localism’ agenda, the intent embodied in MRD principles to be customer focused and to provide a voice to the lowest possible level of locality, to support communities in securing greater influence on decisions that affect them (an outcome in many Local Area Agreements) assumes some viable ‘pathway’ for communities to articulate their views and for policy makers to access them. In rural areas, this ‘pathway’ has been considered to be the Parish Plan (and other comparable genre such as Village Design Statements etc).

Many local people as well as public policy professionals recognise the need to make strong links between parish plans and community strategies, but existing mechanisms for doing this are not always clear.

Clearly, the focus of Parish Plans to date has been to comment on the functionality of a place itself, rather than on the needs and service demands of residents (many of which are likely to be met in nearby towns or cities), that are the concerns of wider Community Strategies. Parish Plans have to date not been designed to gauge attitudes to the wider countryside for example, or issues around accessibility to higher education or specialised health care. This does not necessarily mean that these issues are not important to people living in rural areas, only that they are not relevant to that specific place. It does mean however that although existing Parish Plans might be used to inform district and county level service delivery plans, even if they could do consistently and effectively, they are unlikely to cover all the policy issues included Community Strategies. To do so, other methods of community engagement, particularly with communities of interest, would be required.

District and County level community strategies, as commonly held visions for local areas and expressions of local priorities are clearly here to stay. The role of Local Strategic Partnerships has been strengthened by the introduction of Local Area Agreements, and the government has recently been making some strong statements about its intention to devolve more decision making power to the local level.

The one ‘pathway of influence’ that is perhaps clearer than others is that which Parish Plans can have on the local land use planning process. There is a long history of Parish Councils being actively involved in the development and implementation of local (land use) plans. The emergence of Local Development Frameworks (LDF’s) over the next 3 years, provides a direct opportunity for local communities to exert influence over decisions in relation to land-use in their area. The fact that both Parish Plans and LDFs are essentially spatially focused creates the conditions for clear linkages. That said, the capacity for a community to be actively engaged in the LDF process is likely to depend on its level of access to brokering or advocate resources as much as on the good intentions of the planning authorities to engage them.

18


To complete this ‘hierarchy of strategies’, regional level frameworks – particularly the Regional Spatial Strategy (and sub-sets of the Regional Transport and Housing Strategies), the Regional Economic Strategy and of course the Regional Rural Delivery Framework – reflect both government policy and evidence based sub-regional priorities. They seek to put in place overarching frameworks, to provide coherence, driving down clear priorities for intervention, whilst allowing sub-regional and local flexibility. There is however a substantial distance to travel from regional to parish level. Where Parish Plans identify issues that require input at regional level to bring about solutions (e.g. the provision of more affordable housing, or RDA investment in infrastructure) any local influencing strategy is going to have to be well planned, persistent and multi-faceted (creating alliances with others as well as using direct paths of influence – e.g. local politicians) to have any chance of success. Capacity and resources will clearly be an issue.

Now is the right time to be considering the next steps in terms of the role of community planning at the most local level. David Miliband made clear in his recent speech to the LGA, Government’s intention to achieve ‘sustainable communities’ by driving down decision making to the most appropriate level.

‘Devolution is a deal. It is conditional on local government taking on new powers from central government, but then sharing power with citizens, neighbourhoods and the third sector, not hoarding it’7 Local Area Agreements and Local Development Frameworks (as the land-use expression of the Community Strategies) are set to change service delivery and policy mechanisms at district and county level. The role and form of future community level planning must therefore be considered in the context these emerging drivers of policy and process.

4.4 ‘Pathways of Influence’

In order to assess the ability for local issues articulated through Parish Planning to connect with policy makers and service planners, the Project Team has attempted to ‘map’ ‘pathways of influence’ for local issues articulated via parish plans. Such a ‘route map’ from parish level can be usefully divided into spatial planning (through the Local Development Framework mechanisms) and thematic (through the Community Strategy and Local Area Agreement mechanisms).

Local Development Frameworks

Looking first at spatial planning; the diagram below represents the anticipated pathways for issues and intelligence from Parish Plans into a Local Development Framework (which is of course an ‘enabling’ document to support the delivery of thematic issues from Community Strategies); the blue annotations represent the emerging conclusions of the current position, based upon our analysis and consultations.

7 David Miliband; 21 February 200619


Will need to work with LPA and go through formal 3 stage consultation / sustainability appraisal – new sort of Parish

No direct or causal link currently; RCC’s to collate and lobby (?)

Parish Plans should be –part of this evidence base BUT current versions are often considered to be insufficiently robust to be used as evidence – they would not stand scrutiny at

No direct link currently in place; push or pull ?

CALC / RCC

PARISH PLAN (S)

HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PLAN

POLICY

LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORKADOPTED

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL POLICIES

CORE STRATEGY DOCUMENTConsultation & Community Engagement

Issues & Options

DISTRICT COMMUNITY STRATEGYLOCAL STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIP

Consultation

SUBMISSION S of S

EVIDENCE BASE

SPGsELIGIBLE PARISH PLANS

REGIONAL SPATIAL SRATEGY

Official link to LSP for many Parishes, but reported as focused on Quality Parish Status due to funding. Not considered a viable route to LSP by sample Parishes

20


The emerging conclusion drawn from this analysis is that the ‘pathway’ for local issues articulated via Parish Plans into a Local Development Framework is likley to be complex, rather long-winded, and in most instances potentially fairly inpregnable. For ’Parish Plans’ to be effectively and consistently incorporated within the LDF process as currently defined would we believe require: A common approach from planning authorities to the validity of Parish Plans as

an expression of community views & issues within Statements of Community Involvement

Support to this position from ODPM and the RTPI A prescribed and common format & process for ‘community planning’ (Parish

Plan / VDS etc) An effective brokerage function between communities and the LSP A common and affordable process to renew / refresh existing plans

We question whether the will, and certainly the resource is likely to be available to make this happen. There is also a risk that any fundamental change to the current Parish Planning process based on uniformity and eligibility would prejudice its ability to build capacity and develop social capital.

Rather, we conclude that the most pragmatic scenario, assuming that issues articulated via Parish Plans are deemed as valid and useful local evidence, is to work towards a situation where information can be collected from existing plans, collated and ‘tested’ by an intelligent intermediary, then accepted by Planners as part of the local ‘evidence base’.

The weight given to such evidence will of course depend on the local context – Parish Plan evidence is likely to carry more weight in say a ‘rural 808’ district than in a ‘significant rural’ district.

Parishes would, and of course should, also feed into an LDF consultation process as individuals or collectively (through clusters or groups of parishes) and can be expected to help ‘manage’ development that directly effects them through the production of Village Design Statements; perhaps even via the creation of an ‘eligible’ Parish Plan to act as a Supplementary Planning Documents for larger, or more ‘sensitive’9 settlements.

Community Strategies and Local Area Agreements

Turning now to policy around services; consider the theoretical ‘pathway’ for issues articulated within Parish Plans into Community Strategies and Local Area Agreements. The diagram represents expected ‘pathways’, the blue annotations represent conclusions relating to the current position, based upon analysis, consultation and peer review.

Whilst the potential route from Parish Plan to LAA via the LSP and Community Strategy appears relatively direct; there appears to be little clarity about the formality of any relationship between local communities and LSPs, and in particular any sense of mutual accountability. This problem is of course magnified when one considers the number of individual parishes in each district, let alone at county level, and the need for intelligent and properly resourced facilitation.

Whilst in theory a route exists for Parish Plans & communities to influence (i.e. send views and issues that will affect decisions) Community Strategy and LAA priorities, outcomes and targets in practice this rarely, and is not likely to happen – rather they are influenced by higher level targets and performance plans.

8 District level rural / urban definition9 In this sense ‘sensitive’ might mean where there is risk of high landscape impact, clear issues of social exclusion or acute housing accessibility issues

21


Parish Plans (especially if they have been collated and thematically summarised) may be used as ‘evidence’ to support and validate outcome and targeting decisions, as has been seen in Cumbria, but appears to be more a case of ‘uploading’ evidence to support and inform decisions, rather than engaging with local issues at an early stage in order to be ‘influenced’.

22


Cumbria Strategic Partnership has mapped actions from the County’s Parish Plans against LAA Outcomes with a view to sourcing baseline information – is this influencing or simply informing?

This process exists in theory – it is rarely, and will not often be followed as a means of

influencing priorities, outcomes and targets.

CALC / RCC (?)

PARISH PLAN / COMMUNITY INPUT

LINK TO REGIONAL & SUB-REGIONAL PRIORITIES

LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORKS

ADOPTED MARCH 2008

LDF CORE STRATEGY DOCUMENTConsultation & Community

EngagementIssues & Options May to Sept 2005

Proposals Jan 2006

DISTRICT COMMUNITY STRATEGYLOCAL STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIP

COUNTY COMMUNITY STRATEGYLOCAL AREA AGREEMENT

REGIONAL SPATIAL SRATEGY

Cumbria Youth Alliance have researched Parish Plans as a ‘resource’ to gather evidence to support the Children’s Block outcomes and targets – is this Parish Plans influencing or simply

23

4.5 Helping Communities to secure Action Locally and Influence Widely

The emerging conclusions of this research, analysis and peer review are that it is unlikely that local communities, whether working independently or as clusters, have either the capacity or resources to exert any material influence on policy development and service delivery (e.g. against RRDF priorities) via Parish Planning, except over those issues that they can affect directly themselves.

Such local activity has proven to be hugely important in generating ‘social capital’ and so building sustainable communities. As such it deserves the investment of both support and advice, devolved to a very local level.

However, it appears that for local issues articulated through Parish Plans to directly influence policy set at a higher level and so direct service delivery, improved ‘connectivity’ will be required.

This conclusion is illustrated by considering a complex issue, such as delivering affordable housing in rural communities. This extract from the supporting presentation shows how at local level (orange) there are a number of ‘jigsaw’ pieces required to secure delivery.

The engagement of the Parish is critical; in terms of completing a Local Housing Needs Survey and if nothing else from positive co-operation in the planning process. Equally, delivery will not be achieved, regardless of the demands of the Parish, if the need for affordable rural housing is not expressed as a priority in the relevant Community Strategy, and the parish identified as a sustainable location in the Local Development Framework. Finally, regardless of policy, strategy and community will, if there is no developer and operator there will be no housing.

/tt/file_convert/5fffbb6534014912a1486faf/document.doc24

In order for a scheme to be successfully delivered locally, all these pieces must align, and so fit together. The ability of a rural Parish to positively influence even those issues most local, as has been demonstrated by a number of cases within the region, is likely to be severely limited. It is also worth considering the implications around potential tensions from delivering a local housing scheme between different RRDF priorities (and their related champions / delivery agents). The provision of a limited number of new housing units in order to address an identified will of course secure action against Priority Three, and perhaps where the community has been effectively involved in the process, against Priority Five. It is possible however that the same development may have a slightly prejudicial impact to some of the objectives of Priority Six and pose additional problems for Priority Four! These issues may be sufficient to form a very real constraint on delivery, if not prevent it completely.

Where tensions between priorities are likely to develop, it will clearly be to the advantage of all parties to engage at an early stage, and where possible to develop an integrated approach. An example of this is the involvement of the Planning Authority, AONB, Housing Association, landowner and community at the very earliest stage of developing a proposal to meet housing needs identified in Dunsop Bridge.

The local context is not the end of the story however; more pieces are required to complete the jigsaw. The Local Development Framework is influenced by both regional (Regional

Spatial Strategy) and national (PPS3 etc) policy The Community Strategy is influenced by regional priorities and themes

(Regional Economic, Housing and Transport Strategies), and The Registered Social Landlord will be substantively influenced by the Housing

Corporation’s current Delivery Plan

Whilst the Parish is a key piece of the jigsaw at local level, to successfully secure new housing units, and so delivering against its aspirations for affordable rural housing to meet identified local need relies upon a much wider set of circumstances. For such policy, inevitably developed at regional and national level to be able to take account of local needs and aspirations, inevitably relies upon the connectivity discussed above.

To deliver this connectivity, it appears likely that both those ‘pushing’ issues up from the local level, and those seeking to ‘pull’ them from sub-regional, regional or national level will need some form of ‘guide’. Politicians have traditionally fulfilled this role and this is likely to continue to be an important channel of influence for local people. There might is also however be a key role for brokering and networking organisations to play, but this of course relies upon resources being available.

In addition to any ‘guide’ it appears probable that clear and accountable linkages with district and county level policy and delivery frameworks – not only Community Strategies and the Local Development Frameworks, but beyond, will need to be developed if such connectivity is to be achieved.

4.6 Implications for Policy Makers

So does all this really matter? Clearly the inability to influence service delivery, and to secure action against identified priorities through Parish Plans experienced is frustrating for communities, especially if the Parish Planning process has been promoted to them on the back of this objective. Should this be an issue of concern for regional policy makers? We believe so, and for a number of reasons:


Local community planning has demonstrated substantive value as a means of generating and maintaining social capital; it appears highly likely that many of the region’s communities that have not yet engaged in the process would secure real benefit from so doing – so providing a route to address RRDF priorities around empowerment and social exclusion

There is an increasing requirement for policymakers to consult locally; the willingness of communities to engage in the process, again and again, is likely to be prejudiced by the frustrations experienced by many following completion of Parish Plans

All signs are that expectations from national policy makers relating to the role of local community level planning are likely to increase, with a renewed political commitment to involve people more in the decisions that affect their lives. The emerging challenge from this analysis is that the current structures and cultural approaches may fail to deliver this connectivity.


Section Five Overall Conclusions

5.1 This work has been able to confirm the over-arching relevance of the region’s rural priorities to its local communities, and their alignment with issues consistently articulated through the local community planning (i.e. Parish Plan) process. In essence the six RRDF priorities strongly align with, and match issues articulated at community level, although perhaps not surprisingly, not all six regional rural priorities are universally applicable.

5.2 Engagement with communities as part of the Local Context Testing piece has identified the material impact of local conditions on key issues, and highlighted the different emphasis placed by communities on these issues, dependent upon the specific circumstances of locality. It appears clear that it may be dangerous for policy makers (or their consultants) to make ‘remote’ assumptions on local issues of importance, and their source. It is also apparent that local communities may interpret statements and objectives set at regional and sub-regional level differently than policy makers may have intended.

5. 3 There appears to be a very clear focus on ‘place’ as opposed to ‘issues’ within Parish Plans prepared for a single community; evidence submitted during peer review by the three Rural Community Councils points to a reduced focus on place, and wider consideration of issues, services and rurality when community / ‘parish’ planning is carried out in groups or clusters of parishes. This raises interesting possibilities when considering how community planning might contribute to ‘policy led consultation’.

5. 4 Issues most commonly articulated through Parish Plans relate to access to services (in their widest sense), community cohesion (social capital) and empowerment, and the improvement of the ‘environment’ (in so far as it impacts on quality of life) within the settlement – Priorities Four, Five and Six

Communities involved in the Local Context Testing piece expressed real concern about the way in which their villages now functioned, leading to an erosion of ‘social capital’ – people unwilling to get involved, resistance to investing in public spaces and community facilities, dis-engagement and limited participation with community activity. These communities felt strongly that this trend, due perhaps to the impact of socio-economic, demographic and cultural change on rural areas, increasingly generated issues that were not addressed by commitments around ‘empowering communities’ or ‘addressing social exclusion’, but instead related to issues around ‘community cohesion’.

5.5 Local community planning has demonstrated substantive value as a means of generating and maintaining social capital; it appears highly likely that many of the region’s communities that have not yet engaged in the process would secure real benefit from so doing – so providing a route to address RRDF priorities around empowerment and social exclusion. However, there appears to limited evidence of ‘connectivity’ between local issues articulated via the Parish Planning process, policy makers and service deliverers. The potential exists for an increasing ‘mis-alignment’ between the requirement for increased community involvement in policy development and service and the existing ‘enabling’ structure and capacity in the region.

If this gap is to be addressed, policy makers may need to consider the future role of community planning for the region; should it be about building capacity and so social capital, about providing ‘local intelligence’ and consultation resource to aid policy makers, or perhaps even part of developing a fully devolved service structure? Are such roles compatible? If so, what sort of enabling / facilitative resource might be required?


Such a review would allow the Regional Board and Practitioners Steering Group to agree and define the role of local community planning in delivering against RRDF priorities, understand resource implications and so clarify the purpose of impending and future investment.

Rural InnovationMarch 2006

TECHNICAL APPENDICES

ONE – PROJECT BRIEF

INTEGRATED LOCAL CONTEXT TESTING OF THE NORTH WEST REGIONAL RURAL DELIVERY FRAMEWORK

INTRODUCTION

This tender brief outlines a discrete block of work that Government Office for the North West (GONW) and key partners wish to be completed in respect to the development of the North West Regional Rural Delivery Framework (RRDF).

GONW Reference

All correspondence and submissions should carry the following title and reference: Title: Integrated Local Context Testing of the North West Regional Rural

Delivery Framework; Reference: PNW/3874/7/13/10

Objectives

The immediate outcome from the project will be the testing of the RRDF priorities at the community level – both in terms of relevance to, and impact on, the community itself and the ease with which delivery agents can account for and respond to community needs in relation to their activity against the RRDF priorities.

The results of the testing will be used to validate the headline rural priorities; mainstream best practice and encourage joined up delivery at the local level across all six RRDF headline rural priorities.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION

Background

In July 2004, the Government announced Rural Strategy 2004 (RS2004). An important component of RS2004, which includes the outcome of Defra’s Modernising Rural Delivery Review, is that Government Offices have been asked to lead the development of an RRDF in each region.

The RRDF for the NW will help provide a framework to allow decision-making to be devolved to regional and local levels. The RRDF seeks the:

articulation of clear priorities for rural delivery in the region, set within the national policy context but reflecting regional, sub-regional and local needs and opportunities;

simplification of the way services are delivered to customers through improved working between delivery organisations;

securing of greater coherence between rural policy and other regional strategies and delivery plans;


better alignment of regional policy and delivery with local priorities and actions.

In June 2005 Government Office North West (GONW) submitted to Defra, on behalf of regional partners and stakeholders, an updated Project Plan. The plan fleshed out the RRDF for the region with the aim of having in place by April 2006 a fully effective RRDF founded on evidence-based rural priorities and underpinned by an agreed delivery plan that reflects regional, sub-regional and local needs and opportunities. The Rural Practitioners Steering Group (RPSG) undertook much of the RRDF development work under the strategic guidance of the NW Rural Board (NWRB). The NW RRDF is founded on achieving a vision of:

“A rural North West that is economically prosperous, socially inclusive and environmentally sustainable.”

This will be achieved via action on the six identified headline rural priorities for the NW (summarised below). Further detail is available in Annex A.

• Maximising the economic potential of the region’s rural areas• Sustainable farming and food production Access to affordable housing• Improving access to affordable rural housing• Fair access to services to rural communities• Empowering rural communities and addressing rural social exclusion• Enhancing the value of our rural environmental inheritance

Development of the RRDF headline rural priorities has been based upon an analysis of the NW rural evidence base. The evidence base and the emerging priorities have primarily been developed by the RPSG membership, with a limited level of additional engagement with partners on stakeholders e.g. the NW Rural Affairs Forum. A fuller period of engagement and consultation is planned for the end of the year.

Project Description

Now that the vision and ambition for the RRDF is becoming clearer, the NWRB has asked the RPSG to give further consideration as to how the priorities (individually and collectively) will play out in particular places and impact on the people within rural communities. The learning from this consideration would then be mainstreamed in to future RRDF activity and help to counter balance any perceptions of top down direction.

It is recognised that there is a wealth of experience in the region, and elsewhere, in delivery organisations evaluating the impact of their policies, strategies and programmes at various geographical levels. Apart from the rare exception, such as Dunsop Bridge (part of the Lancashire rural pathfinder project), there are few studies that examine the combined effect of a number of partner activities. The point of this project is to test out the interaction of partner policies, strategies and programmes at the community level and their ability to deliver against the individual and collective RRDF priorities.

The RPSG has decided that the best way to achieve the request is to test out the RRDF priorities at the community level i.e. the parish level - both in terms of relevance to, and impact on, the community itself and the ease with which delivery agents can account for and respond to community needs in relation to their activity against the RRDF priorities. The project will look at the ability and relevance of the RRDF priorities to:

To be relevant at the community level; Meet locally identified needs;


Influence local delivery activity; Influence policies, strategies and programmes that impact on the local

community;

The results of the testing will be used to validate the headline rural priorities; mainstream best practice and encourage joined up delivery at the local level across all six headline rural priorities. This will ensure that the RRDF is in a stronger position to achieve its vision.

The project itself has five inter-linked parts: Part A - An analysis of 12 completed community plans from across the region in relation to the links (or not) to the issues identified under the 6 RRDF priorities. Copies of the plans will be provided to the successful tenderer. Annex B details the identified localities.

Part B - An analysis of the Dunsop Bridge activity in Lancashire and a recommendation on the detailed methodology for local testing elsewhere in the region. The methodology is likely to involve examining the relevance of the RRDF priorities to that “place”, the inter-relationships between the relevant priorities and how joined-up delivery solutions against the priorities should be developed & taken forward within that place. The methodology will be tested in Part D.

It is envisaged that Parts A & B will be completed very early within the project.

Part C – Work with Lancashire County Council, the rural pathfinder steering group and the Dunsop Bridge community to ensure that the lessons emerging from the Dunsop Bridge implementation phase are embedded in to the work of the wider rural pathfinder and the work of the 5 thematic groups (access to services, enterprise, environment, housing and transport). It will be important that the experience contributes directly to the pathfinder blockages and gaps work on rural service delivery. It is envisaged that this activity will occur throughout the project, but that outputs from this activity will also inform Part B and Part D.

Part D – Based on the output from part B, the successful tenderer will facilitate the testing of the methodology and evaluate the results of the on the ground local testing of the 6 RRDF priorities in the Annex C localities.

Part E - A report to the project steering group on Parts A to D, with recommendations for future RRDF activity to ensure maximum added value at the community level.

Source Material

A non exhaustive list of key source material in relation to this project includes:

Rural Strategy 2004 www.defra.gov.uk/rural/default.htm

NW Regional Rural Delivery FrameworkState of the Rural North Westwww.gonw.gov.uk

Lancashire Rural Pathfinder (and Dunsop Bridge)www.lancashire.gov.uk/environment/ruralpathfinder/index.asp

Parish Plan/Vital Villageswww.ruralcommunities.gov.uk


http://www.ruralcommunities.gov.uk/

http://www.lancashire.gov.uk/environment/ruralpathfinder/index.asp

http://www.gonw.gov.uk/

http://www.defra.gov.uk/rural/default.htm

Together we can - people and governmentwww.homeoffice.gov.uk

Outputs

The outputs will be: Part A - An analysis, with conclusions and recommendations of 12

completed community “place” plans from across the region in relation to the links (or not) to the issues identified under the 6 RRDF priorities.

Part B - An analysis of the Dunsop Bridge activity in Lancashire and a recommendation on the detailed methodology for local testing elsewhere in the region that will be tested in localities in Part D.

Part C – An analysis of the success or not of incorporating Dunsop Bridge learning in to the wider activity of the rural pathfinder and the work of the 5 thematic groups.

Part D - An analysis of the on the ground local testing of the 6 RRDF priorities in 2 NW localities.

Part E - A report to the project steering group with recommendations for future RRDF activity.

CONTRACT MANAGEMENT

Lead GONW Officer

Martin Wood (Head of Rural Partnerships Team; Environment, Resilience and Rural Group) will lead the project on a day to day basis. Contact details are Tel: 0161 952 4133, e-mail: [email protected]/gov.uk.

He will be supported by a small project steering group drawn from the GONW Rural Partnerships Team, the North West Rural Community Council, the Lancashire Rural Pathfinder, Cheshire County Council and Cumbria County Council. Additional support will be drawn in from the specific communities involved.

The GONW Rural Director (Neil Cumberlidge) will champion the project.

Progress Reports and Final Report

In order to keep the project moving the successful bidder will be expected to attend a number of progress meetings with the project steering group (each a maximum of 2 hours). The bid should build in at least 6 meetings at GONW Manchester – this includes a project inception meeting and end of project meeting.

You will be required to present the draft final report to the project steering group circa 10 days before the project completion deadline.

The project steering group will offer amendments to the draft final report and the successful bidder will then deliver by the completion deadline a final report to the Government Office for the North West in the form of 10 hard copies and an electronic Word format copy. The final report will need to include a separate executive summary of no more than 5 sides of A4.

The project steering group will once satisfied that the final report has been completed to the specification required, sign off the report and authorise final payment.

Timetable


http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/

The project will formally operate from December 2005 to end March 2006.

The successful bidder will be expected to attend a project initiation meeting with the project steering group the week beginning the 5th December 2005 at GONW, Manchester.

The deadline for the completion of this project will be close on Monday 27th March 2006.

Critical issues

The successful bidder will be expected to regularly consult and work with the project steering group and will liaise with the central point of contact at GONW who will project manage this initiative.

The successful bidder will be expected to travel throughout the NW and in particular be prepared to visit and facilitate activity in Dunsop Bridge and the two localities in Cheshire and Cumbria.

All intellectual property will reside with Government Office for the North West, as will all dissemination rights.

Submitting a specification and price for undertaking this work

All bids must provide the following: - The bid must not exceed 5 (five) sides of standard A4 paper and the

appendices must not exceed 10 (ten) sides of standard A4 paper. Consequently the maximum length of the document will not exceed 15 (fifteen) sides of standard A4 paper.

The submission must include 4 hard copy originals and a single digital file (on CD or floppy disk) in Microsoft Word format.

The tender must specify what steps and activities will be undertaken by the bidder to achieve the project requirements and the process that will be used to fully engage the project steering group and the selected test communities.

The tender must show a full timetable of events leading to the conclusion of the project. The tender must give a timeline for the project and show milestones/gates at the critical points.

The bid must specify time and resources against activity undertaken and have detailed day rates attached to the delivery of each activity.

The naming of people that will undertake this work on behalf of the successful bidder and evidence of experience and suitability.

A firm price for this work should be provided on the attached schedule of the price document.

Please note that payment terms cannot cover “up front” payments and payment will be made against a bone-fide claim on completion of the project.

Given that much of this work will involve working with communities and delivery agents themselves in the test localities, it is envisaged that a release of money will be made upon receipt of evidence demonstrating completion of Parts A & B and progress against Parts C & D. You should factor this in to your submission.

Assessment Criteria

The assessment criteria upon which the tenders will be evaluated are as follows:

Depth and breadth of understanding the brief;


Clear methodology and activities to fulfil the tender brief, with detailed timeline and milestones/outputs description;

Degree of creativity and extent of the identified added value; Knowledge of Rural Strategy 2004, a detailed understanding of the NW

Regional Rural Delivery Framework and a sound understanding of the Lancashire Rural Pathfinder and the Dunsop Bridge work.

Previous experience in conducting research in this field at a local, sub-regional, regional and national level;

Ability to deliver tangible results and report on time; Value for money and affordability.

The assessment will be undertaken by representatives of the project steering group.

[Etc. Etc. – JACQUI TO SEE WHAT EXTRA IS NEEDED]


Headline RRDF Rural PrioritiesAnnex A

P1. Maximising the economic potential of the region’s rural areas – this will include:1.1 ensuring that more accessible rural areas continue to perform well;1.2 optimising the economic contribution of market towns and their

associated hinterlands;1.3 addressing the economic under-performance of lagging rural areas;

ensuring that rural business and skills needs are met.

P2. Supporting sustainable farming and food – this will include:2.1 promoting a prosperous farming and food sector that

contributes to the environmental and social well being of the region;

2.2 maximising the benefits of CAP reform;2.3 developing a more effective and efficient food chain;2.4 ensuring effective management of the farmed environment;2.5 developing linkages between the food chain and health issues;

investing in the sector skills required.

P3. Improving access to affordable rural housing – this will include:3.1 delivering a better balance between affordable housing supply

and demand (identified need) to ensure that people have the opportunity and choice of a decent home and place to live;

3.2 integrating planning, housing, service provision and economic development to ensure effective and co-ordinated delivery of clear targets for affordable housing.

P4. Ensuring fair access to services for rural communities – this will include:4.1 providing accessible and quality public services that meet the

needs of rural residents;4.2 better targeting to meet the needs of those with limited

access/mobility and income, particularly the young and elderly;4.3 striking a fair balance between taking the service to the

community and the community to the service.

P5. Empowering rural communities and addressing rural social exclusion – this will include:51. improving the capacity of the voluntary and community sector

to represent and address the needs of local communities;5.2 tackling worklessness, low/insecure incomes and other aspects

of rural disadvantage;5.3 supporting social enterprise;5.4 enhancing the capacity of rural communities to work together

to shape their own future.

P6. Enhancing the value of our rural environmental inheritance – this will include:6.1 effective environmental management and prudent use of air,

soil and water resources, taking account of the implications of climate change;

6.2 conservation and enhancement of the landscape, biodiversity and natural/cultural heritage;


6.3 maximising the contribution that the rural environment can make to the economic and social well being of the region;

6.4 making the countryside more accessible and inclusive for urban and rural communities.


Annex BAnalysis of up to 12 completed community plans

Parish Planning Rurality (as per national definition)

Community Planning Type?Parish Planning, Village Design statement, Other

Detail

CHESHIREActon Edleston & Henhull

Less Sparse Village Parish Plan Population: 453Parish Plan Adopted 2005.Combining three smaller hamlets within Crewe and Nantwich Borough, but next to Nantwich Town. Agriculture still has a strong role.

Tiverton and Tilston Fearnal

Less Sparse Village / Less Sparse Hamlet

Parish Plan Population: 483Parish Plan adopted March 2005. Combining two small hamlets within Chester District. Deep rural and located in a high quality rural landscape. Traditional agricultural backbone but now changing.

Cranage Less Sparse Village / Less Sparse Hamlet

Vital Villages Report and Action Plan

Population: 1,300Report and action plan published October 2003.Parish lies in mid Cheshire, in the district of Congleton Borough between Holmes Chapel and Knutsford. Essentially rural and characterised by open fields, managed hedgerows and wooded areas. Some agriculture remains concentrated in cattle and dairy with diversification to office and leisure based businesses.

CUMBRIAAlston Sparse Town / Sparse

HamletParish Plan Population: 2,200

Parish Plan finalised March 2003.Isolated community comprising three small hamlets on boarder of Cumbria, Durham and Northumberland, situated 20 miles from a larger town offering full facilities. Set within


North Pennines AONB. Agricultural backbone declining with tourism and small business providing more employment.

Plumbland Sparse Village Parish Plan Population: 390Parish Plan finalised 2004.Combining four ancient manors within Allerdale borough situated between Cockermouth and Aspatria. Parish is ribbon like with no clear geographic centre. Agricultural and quarrying influence declining.

Askam & Ireleth Less Sparse Town / Less Sparse Village

Parish Plan Population: 3,430Parish Plan finalised March 2003.Situated in the southwest corner of Cumbria in Borough of Barrow in Furness. Comprising two hamlets in a rural setting with panoramic views of surrounding countryside. Dormitory feeder for employment centres of Barrow and Ulverston.

LANCASHIRESilverdale Less Sparse Town / Less

Sparse Village / Less Sparse Hamlet

Parish Plan Population: 1,500Parish Plan finalised October 2003.Situated between Lancaster and Kendal within Arnside and Silverdale AONB. Peaceful countryside location with views over Morecambe Bay. Tourism and residential homes provide employment.

Freckleton Less Sparse Urban / Less Sparse Town / Less Sparse Village

Parish Plan Population: 6,045Parish Plan finalised 2005.Lies on River Ribble between Preston and Lytham within Fylde Borough. The village is surrounded by a designated green belt. Agriculture is not dominant but still has a presence with several working dairy farms.

Whittle le Woods Less Sparse Urban / Less Sparse Town / Less Sparse Village

Parish Plan Population: 4,553Parish Plan adopted 2004.Situated 2 miles North of Chorley on River


Lostock. The West of parish comprises urban core of Chorley Borough with East made up of green belt. Is a linear settlement with farmland, mainly grazing. Tertiary sectors provide employment with high levels of residents working within the parish.

G. MANCHESTEROfferton Less Sparse Urban Parish Plan Population: 3,758

Parish Plan adopted June 2005.Situated within the Borough of Stockport, 2 miles East of the centre, the parish is predominantly residential with high levels of green space within and surrounding the estate. Housing consists of 1960’s/70’s constructed estates, mainly rented from council or social landlords.

Shevington Less Sparse Town / Less Sparse Hamlet

Parish Plan to be submitted by December 2005.

Population: 12,500Parish Plan to be adopted in December 2005.Comprises four distinct communities: Shevington Moor, Shevington Vale, Appley Bridge and Crooke, all falling within Wigan Borough Council. Rural area with farms, mines and quarries; commuter village for Manchester and Liverpool.

TBC


Annex COn the ground local testing of the 6 RRDF priorities

Place Rurality (as per national definition)

Community Planning Experience? Parish Planning, Village Design statement, Other

Brief description of parish

CHESHIRESaughall and Shotwick Park

Less Sparse Town / Less Sparse Hamlet

Parish Plan Population: 3,150Parish Plan adopted July 2004.Comprises 3 hamlets: Great, Little Saughall and Shotwick Park lying 5 miles Northwest of Chester and contained within the Chester City District. Green belt surrounds the villages with open farm land on all sides.

CUMBRIACulgaith Sparse

VillageParish Plan Population: 596

Parish Plan adopted 2004.Comprises 4 hamlets: Culgaith, Skirwith, Blencarn and Kirkland situated 5 miles East of Penrith. Isolated and rurally located within North Pennine AONB. Agriculture plays a strong role with farming providing the majority of employment within the parish.

LANCASHIREDunsop Bridge Less Sparse

Village / Less Sparse Hamlet

Report and Action Plan

Population: 163Parish Plan adopted 2005.Combining 2 small hamlets of Dunsop Bridge and Whitewell contained within Ribble Valley Borough and situated within the Forest of Bowland AONB. The landscape is of high value and actively managed for agriculture, conservation and water supply management. Parish has a strong identity and working community; also serves as a commuter village for East Lancashire.


RURAL INNOVATION PROJECT TEAM

Rob will act as Project Director, and will be responsible for delivery and project management, primary analysis and development of recommendations; he will carry out a critical review of project outputs, and ensure that the requirements of the brief are fully met.

Rob Hindle is founder and practice principal of Rural Innovation and has extensive experience in rural policy, sub-regional and regional delivery structures and organisation, and the development of both evidence base, and evidence based delivery plans, prior to and since Haskins and Rural Strategy 2004. Rob is currently leading the Master Planning a Sustainable Rural Community initiative at Dunsop Bridge and has worked with the Lancashire Delivery Pathfinder since its inception in October 2004 (he was responsible for drafting of both the March and September 2005 Business Plans and developing the detailed Action Plan).

In addition, Rob has extensive knowledge of Rural Strategy 2004 and a detailed understanding of the NW Regional Rural Delivery Framework built on his work for Lancashire Rural Development Board (Scoping Study and Strategic Context) and the development of a sub-regional rural evidence base report, the State of Rural Lancashire.

Rob will be supported by Alison McLean; Alison has twenty years experience in community and economic development, particularly in a rural setting, and is currently a board member of the Countryside Agency. Her recent career achievements include the establishment of the West Midlands Rural Regeneration Zone governance and support structures, and negotiating the Community Strategy for Herefordshire, which provided a model for central government guidance on both LSPs and Community Strategies.

The work with communities will be led in Cheshire by Vivien Ellis of Cheshire Community Council (www.cheshirecc.org.uk), and in Cumbria by Lorrainne Smyth and Anna Scamans (www.ruralcumbria.org.uk)

EXPERIENCE AND RELEVANT CONTRACTS

Rural Innovation is a specialist rural development consultancy, embedded within the rural development context of the North West (and increasingly beyond), with 15 years experience of rurality.

The Rural Innovation team is deeply engaged with the emerging Regional Rural Delivery Framework process, and are working with Rural Delivery Pathfinders in the North West, Yorkshire and Humberside and West Midlans. Just this month, the Rural Strategy team in Government Office for Yorkshire and the Humber has commissioned Rural Innovation to support their ten RDF Task Groups in mapping rural priorities, and subjecting current activity for each activity to a critical review against the principles of Modernising Rural Delivery.

Elsewhere, the team has also had the opportunity to work with leading rural development professionals and local authorities through a commission for the Local Government Association (LGA), IDeA, Defra and the Countryside Agency, to


work with the eight councils awarded Beacon status for the ‘Supporting the Rural Economy’ theme. The project was an examination of the role of Local Authorities in facilitating rural development and regeneration, and required a detailed assessment and analysis of local delivery and development activity across rural Britain. The project report has since been published by IDeA, and forms the basis of their Rural Facilitation Toolkit; it was also used as evidence to inform the LGA’s input and recommendations to the Modernising Rural Delivery consultations with Defra (following Lord Haskins report), and the preparation of Defra’s Rural Strategy 2004. This work was followed by a Scoping Study for the West Yorkshire Rural Partnership, which considered their role within the regional Investment Planning process, and the form, role, activity and target outcomes for a sub-regional rural development partnership. Earlier in 2005, Rural Innovation acted as external editor and contributing copywriter for the Commission for Rural Communities 2005 State of the Countryside Report, a project that required in depth analysis of a wide range of data sets and substantial peer review.

Experience Table – Relevant Current & Former Contracts

Client Date Project

Cheshire & Warrington Rural Partnership Current

A critical review of current rural development activity and organisation, together with recommendations for key priorities and regional alignment in order to improve sub-regional rural capacity.

GOYH (Yorkshire Rural Community Council & Humber & Wolds Rural Community Council)

CurrentFacilitation services to support the development of sub-regional business cases for Defra’s Rural Social and Community Programme

Government Office for Yorkshire and the Humber

Current

‘Agenda for Action’ facilitation of Task & Finish Groups work to development final action plans for the Regional Rural Delivery Framework; advisor to RDF Working Group

NW Rural Affairs Forum 2005Prepare response to the Consultation Draft of the North West Regional Economic Strategy

Invest in Cumbria 2005 Defra family Public Sector Relocation; special advisor

Lancashire Rural Delivery Pathfinder

2004 - 2005

Project management, facilitation, research and technical support to the Task Group and Thematic working groups

Duchy of Lancaster / Lancashire Rural Delivery Pathfinder

Current Master Planning for a Sustainable Rural Community, Dunsop Bridge

Humber Rural Delivery Pathfinder 2005

Sub-regional evidence base, research and technical support to the Pathfinder board

Cumbria Rural Enterprise Agency 2005 Evaluation of NWDA Rural Planning

Facilitation ServiceCommission for Rural Communities 2005

External editor and technical consultant to the 2005 State of the Countryside Report

Lancashire Rural Development Board 2005

Scoping study to define strategic direction; compilation of State of Rural Lancashire sub-regional evidence base

Duchy of Lancaster 2005 Master planning for a rural enterprise park

West Yorkshire Rural 2004 Scoping study to define sub-regional rural


Client Date Project

Partnership investment agenda and representations to sub-regional investment planning

Local Government Association / IDeA 2004

Research study with 8 Supporting the Rural Economy theme Beacon Councils to analyse and capture best practice in local authorities facilitating rural development

North West Development Agency/ Lancashire Rural Partnership

2003Strategic programme design; sub-regional roll-out of Lancashire Rural Futures and funding application to Lancashire Rural Recovery Action Plan

North West Development Agency/ Lancashire Rural Development Programme

2003 Mid term evaluation of Lancashire Rural Futures

North West Development Agency/ Lancashire Rural Partnership

2003Research and comparable assessment of rural development activity in east and west Lancashire

DUNSOP BRIDGE – MASTER PLANNING A SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITY

REVIEW -

1. Background and purpose of the review

In 2005 Rural Innovation was commissioned by the Duchy of Lancaster (and supported by the Lancashire Rural Delivery Pathfinder) to work with the local community of Dunsop Bridge in the Forest of Bowland to develop a ‘road map’ for the future development of the parish. The initial driver for undertaking this work was the fact that the futures of a number of key (Duchy owned) sites in the village, were under consideration. The opportunity this presented is described in the Dunsop Bridge Issues paper (August 2005).

“Rather than adopt a ‘building’ led appraisal process, the Community and landowners, (Duchy of Lancaster), supported and encouraged by the Lancashire Rural Delivery Pathfinder, has recognised the opportunity for an innovative approach to master planning in order to provide not just the context for redevelopment / re-use of the subject sites, but a ‘road map’ toward a fully ‘sustainable rural community’ in accordance with the vision set out in the Government’s Rural White Paper 2000 and affirmed in the Rural Strategy 2004.

A ‘sustainable rural community’ should integrate and balance social, economic and environmental issues, and provide the context for a viable, working and thriving community It should offer a diversity of housing provision, access to work and services (both public and private), and welcome visitors whilst respecting and enhancing its environmental setting.”

The process for the ‘master planning’ is clearly laid out in the project description:

The baseline information, consisting of an extensive search and analysis of social, economic and environmental information, was used to underpin a substantive consultation with local people and other key stakeholders “to understand their views of the place, its opportunities, issues and challenges, and their agenda / aspirations”. An ‘issues paper’, which puts together the information from the baseline study and the consultation, draws out the key challenges and develops a vision for the future viability of Dunsop Bridge as a sustainable community. At the time of this review the ‘Issues Paper’ has been circulated widely for comment and


BASELINE ISSUES VISIONING MASTER

the project is moving on to the ‘visioning’ stage and beginning to look at the solutions to the issues identified in the first two stages.

The purpose of this brief review is to examine the process so far and to draw out initial lessons learnt, in particular what has worked well, what should be built on and what could be used to inform activity in other rural areas, in the North West or elsewhere.


Local Context Testing of RRDF Priorities An Action Research Project

DUNSOP BRIDGE – MASTER PLANNING A SUSTAINABLE RURAL COMMUNITY REVIEW FINDINGS – FEBRUARY 2006

DESCRIPTION OF DUNSOP BRIDGE EXPERIENCE

LESSONS LEARNT APPLICABILITY TO OTHER AREAS

OBJECTIVES Objectives brought together a master planning approach (spatially specific) with wider regional rural priorities (economic, social and environmental). Key objective is to build a plan with maximum community involvement that puts in place a ‘road map towards a fully sustainable community’.

Duchy involvement is driven by the need to make decisions about future of key sites in the parish and recognition that these decisions would have significant impact on the future (economic and social) viability of the community.

Decision makers were signed up to the project objectives and the process from the inception of the project.

There is a clear expectation that the outcomes will be used to influence the decisions of landowner and others – particularly planning authorities and service providers. Crucially this gave the community the confidence to get involved.

The involvement of a single (substantial) landowner gives confidence to the community that their views will influence decisions. This will not necessarily be the case in other areas.

Also consultations for RRDF purposes will include more emphasis on policy issues that are not so spatially specific – e.g. provision of health and other services in larger centres of population.

However, the involvement of key decision makers (especially planners and key service providers) early on in parish level consultation /engagement process coupled with transparency about how the information gained will be used are keys to success.

The ‘paths of influence’ need to be spelt out to the community at the beginning of the process so that expectations for affecting change are realistic.

CONTEXT Very small community – 67 households/163 population with a high proportion (42%) of people living and working in the parish (figure influenced by high numbers employed at Inn at Whitehall).

The methodology for engaging the community has taken account of this context. It has had good engagement with the ‘core’ group and has used the networks these people have to reach

The larger the population, the more unlikely it is that the ‘core’ group is in touch with the variety of views in the community.

44


Community engagement - Strong ‘core’ of people very involved and able to network effectively. Others not so involved.

Dunsop Bridge is part of an AONB

out to other community members.

The project could aim to engage a high percentage of households in the process, given the small size of the community.

The live/work nature of the community and its setting (AONB) makes the integration of environmental, social and economic issues very ‘natural’ for community members.

Size may also affect how useful established networks are to reach out into the wider community.

Current levels of community engagement are known to vary widely between different communities and cannot be relied on to be a strong as in Dunsop Bridge.

Communities with lower levels of economic activity (‘dormitory) villages, will look to other places for jobs/training etc. They will be concerned about their local environment and as with urban dwellers many will be visitors to the wider countryside.

BASELINE INFORAMATION

Used existing information to provide statistical baseline.

Much information is extracted from the Census, which is rather out of date, so the analysis was played back to the community to pick up any significant changes.

County research resources were brought in to help with the capture of data.

The statistical baseline gave a good evidence base on which to assess the views collected in the consultation phase of the project.

Combination of statistical analysis (quantitative) and qualitative information (from community consultation) provide good evidence based for assessing policy and delivery decisions.

Small area statistics and the new urban/rural definitions will provide more opportunity to examine the differences between different rural communities. This information is an essential part of rural proofing both local and regional policies and delivery mechanisms.

CONSULTATION/ENGAGEMENT PROCESS

Identification of key stakeholders developed with community (parish council) and Pathfinder Task Group.

A combination of techniques for gathering views provided a wide and deep consultation

The methodology for community consultation/engagement needs to be adapted depending on the objectives,

45


Devised consultation process that combined group sessions (particularly meeting existing groups) and one to one sessions.

Spoke to all businesses (including farms) and school, Parish Council, Mothers and Tots, Village Hall Ctte and individual residents (approx 50% residents consulted in one way or another).

Reviewed consultation to identify those under-represented (older, younger and short-term residents) and conducted (8) telephone interviews to fill gaps.

Validation of results (issues paper was circulated widely within the community and discussed in an open session – about 30 participants)

Core Group/Parish Council Other existing groups Businesses – one to one One to one phone interviews with

those more difficult to ‘hear’

Validation process – did not receive much response from general population (although positive feedback at the group session).

Issues paper is long - Could have tried other techniques to elicit response – bullet points (leaflet and poster size)?

Engagement in the next stage could focus on trying to reach some of the 50% of households not yet involved.

How far people were constrained by suspicion of motivation of landlord (that he would only do what is best commercially for the estate) for involving the community in the decision making process is unclear.

context and resources available. However, there are some key elements in the Dunsop Bridge experience that can inform future work.

Identify key stakeholders Conduct a baseline analysis of

existing information Use a variety of techniques to reach

different parts of the community – particularly those more difficult to ‘hear’.

Build in a process for validating results.

Be aware that people are much more likely to become involved in practical/concrete issues rather than abstract concepts of sustainable communities, social and economic viability.

Parish Planning takes a similar approach in some cases.

RESOURCES Independent consultant working with the community over an extended period. (12 mths?).

Local people involved in leading the themed groups looking at solutions to the issues.

Independence of the facilitator is an important factor in building trust in the process (?*)

Partnership with other professionals (e.g. Research officers) brought in additional help.

Face to face interviews are very resource intensive and should be focussed on reaching those who would not otherwise engage or who are particularly key

46


stakeholders.

The capacity of local people to help resource the process will vary – but can always be drawn on to some extent.

Building engagement take longer (more resources) than fast consultations (designed to test the water).

RESULTS SO FAR *Increased involvement of local people in village affairs and influence over decisions which will affect the future of the community.

Increased networking between ‘professionals’ (planners, service providers). This has been an unexpected benefit of the work.

Integration of economic, social and environmental should lead to solutions that have a sustainable approach built into them (yet to be seen)

Differences of view may become sharper with the solutions are discussed – particularly when trying to reach a consensus on the use of the sites.

Communities that are working together in this integrated way are likely to grab the attention of public bodies, including funders.(Dunsop Bridge is now a priority for a Housing needs survey).

Some of the elements of a ‘sustainable community’ are specific to each rural community - e.g. housing, community cohesion and participation. Others will be either wholly or partly dependent on activity/service delivery in other communities (usually larger towns and settlements) – e.g. jobs, training, health and other public services.

Mapping the ‘paths of influence’ as part of the ‘solutions’ stage could help both the local community (to decide where to concentrate its effort) and policy/delivery professionals (to see where changes need to be made to meet locally identified needs).

*to be checked back with Chair of Parish Council

CONCLUSIONS – KEY POINTS

Appropriate techniques for community consultation/engagement will vary depending on the objectives, context and resources available. The objectives and expected outcomes from the process need to be clearly articulated to build community confidence in the process.

47


The early involvement of key ‘professionals’ – including local planners and service deliverers - helps to build commitment to act on the results of the community engagement and strengthens partnership working at a local (delivery) level.

The combination of a baseline study with a substantive consultation process give a robust combination of qualitative and quantitative data to arrive at the key issues for the community.

The process of validating the results with the community not only tests out the outcomes from the study but helps to build community engagement.

The integration of environmental, economic and social may be more of an issue for policy makers/service deliverers (who by the nature of their jobs are focussed on one policy/service aspect of rural life) than for rural communities – especially live/work communities surrounded by high value countryside as in Dunsop Bridge.

People are likely to be more interested in the proposals for action that arise from the next stage of the involvement process.

Many communities are not used to being asked their opinions, or to be involved in decision making. It takes time to build confidence that they have any power either to make things happen themselves or to influence others.

Communities are unlikely to differentiate between different drivers for community consultation/engagement. Communities need to be encouraged to build a clear picture of a ‘sustainable future’ for their community and then helped to either act themselves and to influence others. Public agencies interested in (or required to) consult or engage local communities need to use/build on existing community based engagement activity/mechanisms rather than invent new.

Mapping the ‘paths of influence’ would be a useful next step to run alongside the more site -specific master planning for the village itself and could provide a model for taking forward the RRDF priorities (see paper on policy pathways attached).

48


RRDF Priorities Fit with Parish Plan Priorities

Tiverton & Cranage

Offerton Estate

Acton Edleton & Sughall & Culgaith

Plumlan

d Alston M

oor

Askan & Ireleth

Dunsop Bridge

Whittle

le

Silverdale Freckleton

Maximising Economic Potential (improved access to skills) x x x x x x

Maximising Economic Potential (economic underperformance) x x x x x

Supporting sustainable farming and food x x

Ensuring access to affordable rural housing x x x x x x x x

Ensuring fair access to services for rural communities x x x x x x x x x x x x x

Empowering rural communities and addressing rural social exclusion(in terms of community facilities and ‘activity’)

x x x x x x x x x x x x

Enhancing the value of our rural environmental inheritance(in terms of improving the environment in and immediately around the village)

x x x x x x x x x x

49