Andrew Booton, Chairman, Stourport & Cheltenham Civic Societies
While many of us were getting stuck into our Christmas shopping, the Government published its English Devolution white paper. English devolution has been a political anomaly for some years as Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales have had devolved powers for at least 14 years. The civic movement is not party political but we operate in the political environment so I thought it would be useful to assess the white paper’s implications for us.
Observations
The first observation is that not many people seem to be talking about it. When I researched it for a presentation to the West Midlands Amenity Societies Association (WMASA), I could find only 2 useful academic links although, slightly annoyingly, The Guardian ran an article by Polly Toynbee the following Monday! Links are at the end of this piece.
Secondly, it’s not about devolution. There is no proposal for fiscal devolution and nothing for England as a whole. This is simply local government reorganisation – and reorganisation not reform. It is written from a manager’s (officer/civil service) perspective not the clients’ (citizens’), which works on the false premise that decision making is concentrated in Whitehall. It sets out the intention to form unitary authorities and remove 2 tier councils on the way to covering the country with ‘Strategic Authorities’ (elected mayoralties).
Strategic Authorities are envisaged with populations of 1.5m plus. On housing and planning, Spatial Development Strategies will be mandated, ‘mayoral levies’ will replace s106/CIL provisions to deliver infrastructure and they will be able to call in planning applications. On environment and climate change, they will control retrofit funding, leading local nature recovery strategies and facilitate Great British Energy local power plans. On transport, they will coordinate the road network (have the authors heard of the Network Management Duty?), manage nationalisation of buses and work on Great British Railways network integration.
Unitary authorities will serve populations of about 500,000. The Government “will ‘look at’ the case for strengthening communities with greater rights to be involved in their local issues.” Civic pride gets a mention to address decline of neighbourhoods and high streets. BIDs will be strengthened, powers will be introduced to take over vacant residential premises (that will require very sensitive consideration), High Street Rental Auctions will press on and Right to Buy will replace Right to Bid.
What are the implications for Local Government?
Contrary to the Government’s stated aims, accountability and responsibility, already often problematic, will move further upwards and away from residents and centralise decision making further from the area of interest. The push to amalgamate district and county councils, then the push to form unitary authorities will inevitably take up a huge amount of effort, taking the focus away from front line outputs and towards decades of perpetual reorganisation, pushing delegation to middle and junior level officers while senior officers and councillors struggle with a continuous complex change programme.
The main effort of county councils is education and social care. The main effort of district/borough councils is planning and environment. But where will that effort be focussed after reorganisation? It’s likely to be the big spender of social care at the expense of planning and the other functions that local people need for their day to day lives.
Finance remains the key issue. The Institute for Government says efficiency savings from merged functions is likely to be limited and any savings are likely to be offset the costs of reorganisation and long-term change programmes. No mention is made of spiralling costs, including huge public sector pension liabilities and adult social care costs.
And what about the abilities of those entrusted with managing this change across the whole country at the same time. Do we have the quality of councillors? What about the quality of officers and the terms and conditions that help to retain them and reduce churn? The paper says “Public services need integration and reform” yet this is not addressed.
Finally, the paper majors on the success of elected mayors but they are concentrated in large urban conurbations. That model will not translate easily to the more rural areas that cover the rest (and most of) the country.
What are the implications for the civic movement?
The right to buy instead of just right to bid, acknowledgement of the desire to improve options for deteriorating high streets and potential to reuse empty premises seem like good news, subject to greater detail. But this cannot compensate for decision making, access and representation moving further away from the people, not closer to them. That will not improve trust in politics.
Similarly, centralisation of functions will dilute local knowledge and appreciation, particularly for the likes of conservation officers, planning officers and heritage management. The penchant for more remote working and working from home is likely to rely on more desktop analysis instead of well-walked knowledge and understanding of local areas.
So what?
In the absence of informed debate, we need to play a leading part in the national conversation. Unlike green papers, white papers are not consultative so the civic movement needs to help make the changes work. Actions could include:
- Strengthening our regional and county networks to help share problems and good practice, and to strengthen local voices. West Midlands Amenity Societies Association (WMASA), Yorkshire and Humberside Association of Civic Societies (YHACS) and the London Forum of Amenity and Civic Societies (LFACS) are the only surviving regional bodies for Civic Voice so more regional groups to fill the gaps would be beneficial. Similarly, forming county groups would help address local issues.
- Creating a mechanism to feed information between these groups and into the national level conversation, ideally rebuilding the very useful All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) for Civic Societies to ensure messages are passed effectively into Westminster.
- Reviewing and refining the role of Civic Voice and how it can have the maximum impact. Fresh eyes at the top of the organisation should help with that aspiration.
- Establishing an advisory group to lead on this subject. Membership might include former council officers who have been involved with the creation of unitary or mayoral authorities, strategic level planners, people with an interest in government systems, especially planning (rural not just urban), conservation, heritage management and the environment.
- Forging partnerships with other organisations such as the Local Government Association (LGA), the Royal Town Planning Institute (RTPI) and the Joint Committee of the National Amenity Societies (JCNAS) to encourage joint problem solving and mutual support as we all come to terms with evolving threats and opportunities.
In conclusion, the ongoing trend of centralising functions and decision-making processes risks alienating local communities and eroding trust in politics. While initiatives like the right to buy and improving high street options offer some positive developments, they do not fully address the challenges of representation and local knowledge. For a truly effective civic movement, it is essential that we lead informed debates and ensure our voices are not just heard, but actively considered in the reorganisation process.
By fostering cooperation among county civic society groups and leveraging the influence of Civic Voice, we can better represent the unique needs of local networks and advocate for policies that respect their distinct characteristics. As we navigate these changes, it is crucial to develop local policies that empower communities and support sustainable development, ensuring that rural areas are not overlooked in favour of urban-centric strategies. Only through active engagement and persistent advocacy can we hope to achieve a balanced approach that respects the diversity and heritage of our regions.
Note: This paper was based on discussions and inputs from Bewdley, Kidderminster and Stourport Civic Societies in Worcestershire, to whom I am grateful for proof reading and additional commentary.
Further Reading
Nine things we learned from the English devolution white paper | Institute for Government – Institute for Government.