Action for Market Towns comments on the Communities and Local Government (CLG) Third Sector Review
Action for Market Towns and the Third Sector
Action for Market Towns (AMT) is unique as it is the only national organisation responsible for supporting the regeneration of the country’s 1,600 or so market towns through the voluntary and community action of third sector market town partnerships (MTPs) and similar groups.
AMT is a membership organisation dedicated to promoting the vitality and viability of small towns through an integrated approach. This is achieved by:
* Providing services and advice for market town partnerships through membership;
* Facilitating co-operation and mutual support between market towns through regional networks;
* Serving as an authoritative voice for all market towns at a national level;
* Being an effectively run organisation.
Most of AMT’s 400 members are independent, local voluntary MTPs that bring together third sector, business and public sector interests to develop and implement local action plans aimed at regenerating their communities and tackling rural disadvantage.
AMT runs five regional networks on behalf of strategic partners and participating towns and has strong links with the remaining three English regions. It is governed by a Board of regeneration specialists and elected regional member representatives from around the country.
Q1. How effectively do we implement Compact principles?
Action for Market Towns welcomes the proposals made by CLG in section 4.1 of the discussion paper to improve the ways the Department works with the third sector. In particular, the proposals to establish a Third Sector Partnership Review Board and to proof CLG policies and programmes in relation to the Compact, are welcomed as genuinely constructive and innovative.
As acknowledged in the CLG Consultation Team comments on the accompanying CLG website Discussion Forum, there is a need to consider ‘how the strategy will deal with the difference of approach needed in rural and urban areas’. In response to this -and from the perspective of an organisation focusing on relatively small communities at the inter-face between what is defined as rural and urban- AMT would also suggest that policies are similarly ‘rural-proofed’ through involvement of the Commission for Rural Communities and strategic rural partners such as ACRE and AMT itself.
Likewise, the focus and responsibility for small and rural communities between CLG and Defra is not transparent from outside of government and AMT believes that clearer cross-departmental linkages need to be apparent in order to assist in rural proofing.
Q2. In what other ways could we help to improve the effectiveness
of engagement with the third sector at the:
i) regional and sub-regional levels
AMT has recently has set-out the ways it believes that community-based organisations can currently influence sub-regional and regional strategy in its recent Policy into Practice Paper, Changing Opinions. This is also the focus of ongoing research that AMT is undertaking in conjunction with the Carnegie UK Trust.
(The Policy into Practice Paper, Changing Opinions, can be viewed at Changing Opinions ).
Beyond working within these current systems, AMT would be keen to explore with CLG and its strategic partners how structures might be re-aligned to give an integrated focus on both ‘rural’ and on ‘communities’. This should ideally link and provide an opportunity for analysis and discussion that is theme-based (e.g. economic regeneration); geographic (i.e. sub-regional, regional and national); and rurally focused at all levels. This might include a review of the role of regional rural affairs forums; RDA-backed sub-regional, economic partnerships with a strong rural focus or their rural sub-groups; and sub-regional and regional market towns forums. Such discussions should be considered against the background of the Secretary of State, Ruth Kelly’s, announcement earlier this year to create Communities England as a new housing and regeneration agency for England.
ii) local level
The proposals on ‘place-shaping’ in section 4.2 of the discussion paper are welcomed by AMT as potentially being be very relevant to planning the future sustainable development of market towns. In particular, AMT supports the proposals to define local authority improvement priorities that include community empowerment. By working with the Audit Commission to develop Comprehensive Area Assessments to judge the effectiveness of partnership working, CLG would be creating an incentive for third sector organisations to be effectively engaged. It is important that such assessment methods are suitably ‘fine grained’ to apply to over 1,200 towns in England with a population of less than 10,000.
AMT strongly supports an integrated third sector focused on ‘place’. To fulfil this potential though, the proposals need to show a greater understanding of existing partnership arrangements in small and rural towns.
What the proposals do not currently recognize is that in many market towns, broad-based partnerships already exist and have a track record in local community consultation and planning. Furthermore, these partnerships both work alongside -and include representatives from- locally elected town councils and operate on a meaningful scale across readily identifiable communities. The details and context for these existing arrangements are set out in AMT’s recently prepared draft position statement on community leadership in market towns (This can be viewed at: Community Led Resources ).
AMT believes that there is scope to build on this existing practice by developing new models that formally link quality town councils and activity-based town partnerships to fulfil the role of both Local Strategic Partnership (LSP) ‘feeder groups’ and small, local development companies. Not only will this serve the interests of rural areas but such a model could be transferable to larger urban communities in-line with the neighbourhoods agenda presented in the Local Government White Paper.
These views to increase the strategic influence of MTPs and development trusts by working closely with town councils, are reflected in the Charter for Rural Communities published in June 2007 by Carnegie Commission for Rural Community Development:
“In spite of the introduction of community planning across the UK and Ireland, and the existence of an extensive repertoire of techniques and skills for encouraging public participation, we have great concerns about the extent to which local community views are reflected in the strategic planning processes led by local authorities and other agencies.
There is a need to alter the power dynamic and to strengthen the capacity of the local community to shape these processes and outcomes……
We have seen good examples of where a local parish or community council or a Market Town Partnership has developed sophisticated community action plans involving extensive public participation and where the plan has in turn influenced the local authority.”
AMT is currently developing a new national support programme for MTPS as part of the Big Lottery Fund BASIS Programme’s support for the third sector. This programme will involve training and support for MTP development and it will be important to promote models of good practice of third sector engagement in local sustainable development in close conjunction with CLG.
Case Studies The following mini case studies serve to illustrate the current situation and potential for town partnerships structures to evolve. The two examples show that broad-based partnerships involving the third sector in market towns can function in different ways to successfully fulfill the role of both LSP ‘feeder groups’ and small, local development companies.Currently, however, there is a lack of clarity about such partnership options in other towns and a lack of developmental support or guidance on their relationship with LSPs and wider strategic partnerships. Case Study of West MidlandsPartnerships In the West Midlands, the regional development agency, Advantage West Midlands has supported Staffordshire University in providing free consultation and advice on succession strategies for many of the region’s existing town partnerships. Within this, it is possible to identify a range of different development strategies and these are epitomised by two successful partnerships: Pershore Market Town Partnership: Wychavon District Council employs a town partnership co-ordinator and bankrolls its activities. However, the Pershore Market Town Partnership has its own identity and inclusive board of stakeholders and is successful in involving the wider community, drawing down funds and implementing regeneration projects. Importantly, and along with neighbouring towns, the Partnership forms the district’s Local Strategic Partnership structure and so is well placed to achieve strategic influence. The Partnership has helped facilitate the creation of community-owned assets by other organisations and authorities. Ledbury and Area Development Trust: An independent development trust was |
Q3. Would your organisation wish to be considered to become a strategic partner?
Yes, AMT would wish to be considered as a strategic partner and has submitted a proposal with this response.
Q4. Do you agree with our focus on community anchors?
Yes, AMT welcomes the focus on community anchors and already has good examples within its membership. However, in relation to market towns, AMT believes that it is important to be aware of the existing context and the opportunities for town councils and partnerships to work cooperatively to fulfill the anchor role. The initial application of the Quirk Review, for example, has already showed some inconsistency in the way town councils are treated and are therefore able to work with town partnerships to secure the transfer of community assets: Towns councils are not eligible to have assets transferred to or from as part of the initial demonstration programme.
In some senses, town councils might be considered as ‘hybrid’ organisations, sharing some of the characteristics of both local authorities and community and voluntary sector organisations. Where they meet the criteria of quality councils, and/or are engaged with active town partnerships, they might be considered as contributing to the fulfillment of the anchor role. AMT supports the approach taken by the CRC and ACRE that in a rural context, community anchors are often a partnership; with either the town council, a market town partnership or a development trust having leading roles. Equally, AMT accepts that in many market towns, this anchor role is not yet being fully fulfilled. What is important in applying the community anchor concept to small towns, is that it does not preclude a leading role for town councils in a suitable partnership approach.
As in response to question 2, AMT proposes that there is scope to develop new models that formally link quality town councils and activity-based town partnerships to fulfil the role of both LSP ‘feeder groups’ and small, local development companies. This would position such partnerships as true community anchors in market towns.
Q5. Are there good models of regional and sub-regional bodies, local authorities, or LSPs working strategically to support community anchor organisations in conjunction with the local third sector?
Market Town Partnerships are themselves good models of how the local third sector can be engaged in an anchor role and linked to strategic bodies. As stated in response to question 2, AMT has recently has set-out the ways it believes that community-based organisations can influence sub-regional and regional strategy in its recent Policy into Practice Paper, Changing Opinions. This is paper includes a number of case studies of good practice such as the one below and which apply to community anchor organisations.
Again, the role of town councils in a partnership needs to be considered and the opportunity they can present to link anchor organisations with primary local authorities, LSPs and other strategic bodies.
Case Studies The following mini case studies illustrate the current situation in different parts of the country and the potential for town partnership structures to evolve and engage collectively with LSPs. Local Strategic Partnership Representation West Devon Local Strategic Partnership: A new forum of town partnerships that has come together in West Devon, is typical of the type of group that AMT’s proposed Strategic Information Service is targeted at. Recognising that it is often difficult to make yourself heard when acting alone, four town partnerships have come together with the support of the Devon Heartlands Community Partnership with the purpose of creating improved strategic communications with local authorities and particularly to liaise with West Devon Local Strategic Partnership by means of a seat on its management board. Devon Heartlands is one of a of number examples of good practice in achieving strategic influence that is highlighted in the first of AMT’s new Policy in to Practice Papers. North Norfolk Community Partnership: As a ‘Local Area Partnership’(LAP) in receipt of funding for a market town healthcheck and coordinator in 2004, North Walsham Area Partnership (NWAP) could not understand how its Market Town Initiative work fitted into the existing structures around it. As such the Partnership felt that it was unable to have an effective strategic voice despite it serving a quarter of the population of North Norfolk District. The Partnership therefore lobbied for its long-term representation on the North Norfolk Community Partnership (NNCP); the Local Strategic Partnership hosted by the District Council. By 2005 this resulted in the Partnership joining the LSP as a representative for both North Walsham and as a champion for the seven other market towns emerging as the hubs of thriving LAPs. Now as, NWAP Co-ordinator Jane Shulver explains, a strong model has developed for representing all of the district’s market towns as part of the LSP: “We no longer have to explain who we are and why!’ says Jane, ‘Each LAP chairperson has a seat on the LSP Board. The best news is that the LSP has committed itself to core funding all seven LAPs for at least the next 2 years. In our case this means £102,000 of core funding and the opportunity to bid for project funding for the town. |
Q6. Are there major gaps in our proposals for improving our strategic
engagement with the third sector?
As already acknowledged by the CLG Consultation Team, and a constant theme throughout this response, AMT reiterates that there is a need to consider ‘how the strategy will deal with the difference of approach needed in rural and urban areas’. At the same time, AMT also welcomes the opportunity for some consistency in the overall approach taken and shared vocabulary, systems and understanding between rural and urban third sector involvement in ‘shaping’ communities.