Mrs P.
Posnett CC, Lead Member for Community and Staff Relations, has been invited to
attend for this item.
Minutes:
The Commission
considered a report of the Chief Executive which presented the draft
Communities Strategy: Leicestershire County Council Collaborating with our
Communities – Our Communities Approach for 2022 – 2026 for comment. A
copy of the report marked ‘Agenda Item 9’, is filed with these minutes.
The Chairman
welcomed Mrs Posnett, the Lead Member for Communities, to the meeting for this
item.
In presenting the
report the Assistant Chief Executive confirmed the following:
·
The refreshed Strategy set out the Council’s
planned approach to collaborating with communities. It built on the
existing strategy that had been effective in guiding the Councils work in
recent years to support, strengthen and empower communities, in particular
shaping the Council’s approach through the ongoing pandemic.
· The new Strategy had been aligned with the Strategic Plan, covering the same period, and set out an approach that would aid delivery of that Plan.
· The proposed approach was intended to support communities to achieve their goals through coproduction and collaboration and to help communities build back after the pandemic. The Strategy had also therefore been aligned with the Council’s planned Covid recovery work.
· The Strategy reflected lessons learnt over the last 18 months and took account of feedback from communities, partners and members during that time.
Arising from
discussion, the following points were made:
(i)
Overall members welcomed the Strategy and
supported its proposed approach. Members felt the length of the Strategy
was appropriate and found it easy to follow.
(ii)
Members agreed that the pandemic had taught the
Council and residents a lot about how the Council connected with communities,
and what support it offered. It also showed how communities themselves
could come together without instruction to address issues locally.
Communities had worked very hard during the pandemic and it was important to
recognise this and ensure the Council continued to support that activity as
much as possible.
(iii)
A member commented on the importance of the
priority ‘prevention. As pressure on the Council’s resources continued,
preventing and reducing demand would be critical.
(iv)
A member raised concern that much of what was
set out in the Strategy was similar to the Government’s ‘Big Society’ approach
which did not deliver on the grounds it was impractical. It was
emphasised that the principal behind Big Society was to look at what communities
could do for themselves. However, the Strategy focused on and made clear
what the County Council’s role would be in supporting and engaging with
communities to respond to local needs.
(v)
It was recognised that communities were now
being asked to do things that previously the Council would have
managed/provided, but reduced resources meant this was no longer
possible. A member commented that whist frustrating for many, until the
Council’s fair funding campaign was recognised and taken forward by the Government,
the situation would not improve.
(vi)
A member expressed strong criticism of the
Strategy and the Strategic Plan on the basis that, in their view, unparished
areas and the issues affecting them were not being adequately
represented. It was argued that much information on which the Council
acted was skewed in favour of parished areas despite the fact that 38% of
Leicestershire residents (noting that this percentage differed from that
suggested by another member under consideration of the Strategic Plan), did not
live in a parished area. By way of example, the member highlighted a
recent County wide bus survey undertaken by the Council, the responses to which
had been dominated by parish councils which the member argued distorted the
issues drawn out from that consultation in favour of those affecting
parished areas. Matters affecting unparished areas which were
largely urban, with heavier traffic and with higher employment were different
and the member expressed concern that these would not be adequately captured by
the approach set out in the refreshed Communities Strategy and Strategic Plan,
nor through the Councils consultation processes.
The Assistant Chief
Executive undertook to consider if the balance in references to parish/town
councils compared to other voluntary and community groups was correct, but
commented that it would not be accurate to say unparished areas were not
supported by this Strategy or the Strategic Plan. Members noted that it
had never been the intention that the Council would just work with parish and
town councils on community issues; the Council had always and would continue to
work with a wide range of voluntary and other groups that operated in those
areas. Further consideration would be given to making this clearer.
(vii)
The Commission sought reassurance that the
Council’s consultation processes were full and proper, in particular with
regards to the cross section of those consulted. Members noted that the
Council had an active consultation and engagement group that brought together
officers from different departments, including legal services, to ensure
consultations were undertaken in the right way, had the right capacity to
ensure they would be effective, reached as many people as possible and
specifically targeted those that might be most affected. The Assistant
Chief Executive further confirmed that the Council also undertook significant
engagement outside the formal consultation process to strengthen the breadth of
information it received. The Head of Law also provided reassurance that
the Council was well versed in its statutory responsibilities regarding
consultations and there had been no legal challenge of the processes it had
followed and the consultations it had undertaken.
(viii)
A member challenged how joined up departments
were with the central Community Engagement Team when operational decisions were
taken that might significantly impact an individual community, particularly
given the disappointment and frustration these could generate. The member
referenced as an example a recent decision not to seek funding to support the
extension of a footpath in their area which had caused some frustration
locally. The Assistant Chief Executive undertook to consider how cross
communication around such matters might be improved but commented that the
Outcome Boards established to have oversight of delivery of the Strategic Plan
should help pick up and address such matters in the future.
(ix)
A member asked that consideration be given to
how best to share more information with members, so they were aware of what was
being put out to their communities. As community leaders, it was
highlighted that they too had an important role to play in building
communication links with and signposting their constituents to the support
available.
(x)
A member suggested that there was some confusion
around what services the Rural Community Council (RCC) provided for parish and
town councils and how this compared to the support provided by the LRALC
(Leicestershire and Rutland County Association for Town and Parish
Councils). It was noted that the Council provided grants to the RCC and LRALC
and therefore access to some RCC services was available to all. A member
suggested this did not appear to be well understood and that greater clarity
was needed.
(xi) A member commented that volunteers played a vital role in communities and suggested that the Council could have a more ‘can-do’ approach to support them, noting that there might be risks and insurance implications that needed to be managed.
RESOLVED:
That the comments
now made be considered a part of the consultation on the refreshed Communities
Strategy for 2022 to 2026.
Supporting documents: