Community based localism is challenging but worth it

It is just wrong to assume that the only assets and the only activities that matter in any community are those under the control of a local authority or the wider public sector. Unfortunately, anecdotal evidence from several places seeking to implement ‘neighbourhood community budgets’ is that this is the starting and all too often the finishing point. This misguided mindset is a huge missed opportunity and represents the worst in institutionalised local government – although thankfully, there are ‘a few’ examples of more enlightened approaches.

When considering the resources available in a neighbourhood, it is essential to include voluntary and community groups, and local businesses as well as the public sector. Of course physical assets are important – but in truth, they are nowhere near as important as human capital.

‘Neighbourhood community budgets’ should provide an opportunity to focus on strategies that enhance and nurture the human capital/capacity of local communities. This requires the public sector – politicians, managers and professionals – to be willing to let go and empower communities and their own local community organisations. This initiative, like any other community regeneration programme, should never be a ‘top-down’ exercise. It has to be owned and anchored in the local neighbourhood and its community – or, more likely, communities.

We have an opportunity to build new political and service models based on place and neighbourhoods under the banner of ‘neighbourhood community budgets’, or localism, or co-operative councils, or whatever. Frankly, the label doesn’t matter much – but the behaviours of the key stakeholders and outcomes do.

Councils and their public sector partners, both politically and professionally, have to accept that there are a range of sources of representation, and, equally, a range of means of addressing needs and achieving social, economic and environmental goals.

Local government, elected councillors and mayors have an electoral mandate and legitimacy that others do not. However, they have to exercise this on behalf of the whole community and through their leadership of place. They can and should share their power, collaborate with others, cede authority and allow themselves to be influenced by those with a legitimate claim to some representative authority. School governors, community groups, many voluntary and community organisations, faith groups and others undoubtedly have such a role. The wise and effective local authority will seek to work with such groups as will a truly community-focused councillor. They will also listen and respond to local businesses.

New forms of local neighbourhood based governance are going to be needed to respond to the localism agenda. Thus, there is a major and significant role for parish, town and community councils, and there really does need to be more of the latter established – as is happening in Westminster and elsewhere. However, there will also need to be fora which are accountable and involve groups such as school governors, the local voluntary and community sector (VCS), businesses and faith groups. It is very unlikely that there can or should be a single model for these fora. Rather, they should be the product of local decisions to meet local requirements.

It will often be desirable for such fora to have the authority to take decisions on behalf of their communities and neighbourhoods – which implies some robustness in their governance arrangements. Local authorities and others can then delegate and devolve finance, commissioning and service delivery accordingly. Parish, town and community councils, of course, are already well placed and have the necessary legal competencies for much greater devolution to them than most principal local authorities have hitherto been prepared to exercise.

Communities and local groups can take over local public assets where this is in their interests – but note that this should not be an excuse for the public sector to ‘dump’ poor quality provision and liabilities onto communities and the VCS. Rather, they should work with local people to commission, deliver and where necessary procure services. In this way, they should be given the power and right to secure bespoke local outcomes from larger public service contracted and ‘in house’ services.

In a period of austerity, greater neighbourhood-based localism must not be an opportunity for local authorities and others to seek to transfer and/or hide cuts. Rather, there must be a re-distribution between neighbourhood and investment in capacity building. There will always be a key strategic role for local government, and some services and activities will always have to be on scale larger than a neighbourhood. That said, where community-based localism is possible, it should always be pursued. However hard to achieve, the prize will always be worth the effort.