1 / 18

LOCALISM: A LOCAL AUTHORITY PERSPECTIVE Cllr ROGER BLANEY

LOCALISM: A LOCAL AUTHORITY PERSPECTIVE Cllr ROGER BLANEY Leader, Newark & Sherwood District Council. Newark and Sherwood Area: 65sq m: largest DA in Nottinghamshire Population: 114,800: 2 nd largest BUT fastest growing 9.7% increase in households (2001-11)

grady
Télécharger la présentation

LOCALISM: A LOCAL AUTHORITY PERSPECTIVE Cllr ROGER BLANEY

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. LOCALISM: A LOCAL AUTHORITY PERSPECTIVE Cllr ROGER BLANEY Leader, Newark & Sherwood District Council

  2. Newark and Sherwood Area: 65sq m: largest DA in Nottinghamshire Population: 114,800: 2nd largest BUT fastest growing 9.7% increase in households (2001-11) “A district of three thirds”

  3. Newark and Sherwood Conservative/Independent administration Executive Leader and Cabinet BUT Commitment to Committee-based governance from May 2013

  4. Newark and Sherwood 3 Town Councils 51 Parish Councils 22 Parish Meetings 76 Total

  5. Community Right to Bid • Due to start in July. Now delayed until 12th October • LAs required to draw up and maintain list of “Community Assets”: buildings and land (but not services) • Identified by LA • Nominated by PC or “locally connected” voluntary/community body • Moratorium on sale of “community assets” until community have had: • Opportunity to express interest in buying (6 weeks) • Subsequent opportunity to raise funding for purchase (6 months)

  6. Community Right To Bid • “Right to Bid” NOT “Right to Buy” • Does not force sale • Only applies to freehold sale/leases over 25 years • No right of 1st refusal to PC/community group (as Scotland) • Owner free to sell to any bidder • Protected period of 18 months to dissuade against repeated attempts to block sale

  7. Community Right To Bid • Open to appeal against listing by owner • LAs responsible for paying compensation to owners for “real costs” incurred in going through CRtB process (funded through government’s “New Burdens Assessment”?) But: • Legal/admin costs of handling appeals borne by LA • Liability for commercial losses from unprofitable shops/pubs? • Listing last 5 years. Process repeated “Potential to be expensive, bureaucratic nightmare”

  8. Community Right To Bid • NSDC: Drawing up list of Community Assets – liaise with PCs etc • Concern about resource implications • Ambition of CRtB absolutely right. BUT Beware “Law of Unintended Consequences” • Delay in sale of Community Assets may be counter productive • “A Tale of Two Pubs”

  9. Community Right to Challenge • In place since 27th June • Opportunity for “relevant bodies” to submit “expressions of interest” (EoI) to run LA services • If EoI accepted, LA must run procurement exercise • Can consider social economic and environmental well-being of area in tender selection process: (Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012) NB: Delegation of function NOT of responsibility

  10. Community Right to Challenge • Only includes services which LA currently provides – less relevant to “lean and mean” councils • “Relevant body” does not have to be local - from other parts of the county, even country • “dog eats dog” • Potential to over-ride rigidities of LA boundaries • could help charities serving ‘virtual communities’ (e.g. people with disabilities)

  11. Community Right to Challenge • Duty of Best Value (September 2011) “secure continuous improvement in way functions are exercised, having regard to economy, efficiency and effectiveness” • Same service at lower cost; or • Enhanced service at same cost

  12. CommunityRight to Challenge • Procurement exercise triggered by “relevant body” BUT, thereafter, open to all • Serco? Capita? • Wolves in sheep’s clothing? • “Chicken carcase council”

  13. Community Right to Challenge • EoIs for easier to deliver parts of a service • LA left to provide remainder at higher unit cost (c.f. Royal Mail Universal Service Obligation) - TC’s v PC’s? - Cluster solution? • Note: LA can seek bids for larger or more complex service than EoI proposed

  14. Community Right to Challenge NSDC • Be proactive, not reactive • Engage with “relevant bodies” • Establish clear time-lines for EoI’s • Schedule of services • Specify periods for submission

  15. Community Right to Challenge 2013March – April: Submission of EoI’s March – August: officer assessment and analysis September: recommendation to Cabinet/Committee Oct – Dec: preparation of tender documents and procurement process • Jan – Sept: procurement / OJEU process Oct – Dec: transition management, TUPE contract performance and risk management frameworks • April: go live *Assumes minimum 3 year contract of c£170k (to fall within OJEU)

  16. Community Right to Challenge • Strategic commissioning: - “getting the right things done, in the right way, at the right time, for the right price” • NSDC:- • Considering each priority service in turn • Engaging with providers/potential providers • Commission services to meet the key outcomes for the community

  17. Community Right to Challenge • Strategic Commissioning:- • Initial 4 pilots • Mandatory service • Food Hygiene inspections • Discretionary services • Tourism • Palace Theatre • New Service • Growth Investment Fund

  18. Community Right to Bid and Right to Challenge “ A victory for democracy over bureaucracy” Eric Pickles

More Related