Tag Archives: DCLG

West Somerset to become ‘virtual authority’

Posted on by • Posted in District council stuff, Government, public sector • Tagged , , , , , , , • Leave a comment

And so it begins. For those who think elected members should be culled, here’s the answer, just get rid of the council and give it to the private sector!

Copied from Local Government Chronicle online
6 December, 2012 | By Ruth Keeling

Minsters have persuaded a council branded ‘unviable’ not to pursue a merger with neighbours and instead becoming a “virtual authority” commissioning services from other providers.

West Somerset DC has rejected LGA advice to commence a boundary review following a meeting with local government minister Brandon Lewis during which he made it clear he believed the authority should continue as a sovereign democratic body.

According to West Somerset’s account of a meeting held last month between Mr Lewis and the council’s chief executive and leader, the ministers endorsed the LGA view that the authority was “not sustainable” in its current structure but insisted there was “no need to engage with the Boundary Commission on the subject of a merger” as advised by the LGA.

He also warned the authority that it should not expect the local government settlement due later this month to solve the council’s problems, the report states.

Mr Lewis was of the “firm belief that the council should be retained as a democratically elected and accountable unit of local government representing the people of West Somerset”, according to West Somerset papers published on Wednesday, a stance in direct contrast to an LGA report published last month which stated “the council is not viable as a unit of local democracy and governance over the long term”.

‘Virtual authority’

Following Mr Lewis’ advice that West Somerset work closely with neighbours and become a commissioning council, a business case is to be drawn up with neighbours to investigate how the council can commission from “other service providers whom would predominantly, but not exclusively, be neighbouring councils”.

Under the fledgling plan the council of 82 full time employees would reduce its workforce further and “only retain a small nucleus staff to manage the commissioning arrangements once in place”.

The report to full council, due to be debated next week, states the council’s existing lack of capacity will “impact on the council’s ability to move forward with the necessary urgency” and, as a result, £25,000 has been set outside to employ outside expertise.

In setting out the objections to other options, the report notes that a boundary review would be unlikely to be completed before elections in May 2015, as recommended by the LGA, and argues that a large council tax increase was a short term solution which would be unlikely to win the support of the electorate in a referendum.

A business case for the move to commissioning is to be drawn up “as soon as possible” with the council’s own risk assessment making it clear that, if no action is taken, it is “possible” the council will be unable to balance next year’s budget. It also states it is “likely” ministers will identify West Somerset “as a failing authority and put intervention measures in place”.

Shared management arrangements with Taunton Deane BC and Sedgemoor DC were investigated in 2010, after an earlier report also questioned the viability of the council, but the proposals were abandoned in early 2011 partly because the cost savings were minimal. Other shared service ventures were pursued, however.

Ministerial advice

The West Somerset papers, which set out in detail the pros and cons of the options available ahead of a full council meeting to be held next week, also reveal that Mr Lewis’ recent advice contradicted advice given by his predecessor Bob Neill.

At a December 2011 meeting with Bob Neill “the advice given at the time was to seek local support for a council tax increase that was above the national threshold or seek a merger with a neighbouring council through the Boundary Commission”, according to West Somerset.

However, a Department for Communities & Local Government spokesman disputed this suggestion.

“It is wrong to suggest government has changed its views. In December the local government minister [Bob Neill] made no proposals for boundary review, he raised concerns over possible council tax increase specifically that government could not countenance large increases and said it would be supportive of a shared service approach,” the spokesman said.

“The important thing is that West Somerset is looking to ensure that they have a sustainable approach to the financing of their council and should be actively looking at the scope for joint working to make sensible savings.”

The report also said the view of the LGA had “seemingly changed” since its report said a boundary review would be necessary in the long term. A spokesman for the LGA said it stood by the advice given in October based on information available at the time, but that it supported West Somerset in pursuing alternative options following discussions with other parties.

We hope you enjoyed the above article, to get unlimited access to all articles on LGCplus.com you will need to have a paid subscription. Subscribe now to | save yourself £100 off the standard subscription rate.

READERS’ COMMENTS (1)

Roger | 8-Dec-2012 12:36 pm
This council is being led down the garden path by this minister, for reasons I cannot currently fathom.
It may be that he is following the Pickles plan of decide and conquer when it comes to this government’s wish to see local government reduced to no more than a parochial puppet of central government. This would also align with this government’s obsession with everything private. Conning this council into becoming no more than a front for a totally outsourced solution, that can then be touted around as the way forward for all councils, is also a possible goal.
Can somebody please explain to me what the role of the elected member is in an organisation where everything is totally contracted out and therefore offers little or no flexibility without throwing more money at the issue? Every complaint would elicit the same answer, sorry, it’s in the contract. I suppose they would only ever need to turn up for the quarterly performance reviews, followed by the annual contract review.

Peers champion ‘graph of doom’ prediction in Lords debate

Posted on by • Posted in District council stuff, Government, public sector • Tagged , , , , , , , , , • Leave a comment

Copied from Local Government Chronicle
3 December, 2012 | By Keith Cooper

The government’s effort to discredit local government predictions of a looming social care funding crisis have failed to convince Labour and Liberal Democrat members of the House of Lords.

Peers debating the future of social care in the upper chamber this week pointed repeatedly to the now-famous “Barnet Graph of Doom” which shows that council budgets could soon be eaten up entirely by an inexorable increase in adult social care.

Senior civil servants dispatched to the Communities and Local Government had this month dismissed this prediction as overly ‘apocalyptic’ and too ‘pessimistic’.

But Baroness Barker (Lib Dem) told peers it was “understandable that people talk in apocalyptic terms about social care”.

“The Barnet graph of doom says it all. I have to say that the LGA laid it on by doing exactly what I would have done in the circumstances, which is to pick the very worst case.”

Lord Lipsey (Lab) also pointed to the north London borough’s graphic portrayal of the alleged impending social care crisis. “[The Barnet Graph of Doom] shows what the council expects to spend on services and, on another line, what it expects to be allowed to spend in total.

“By 2030, spending on social services alone, the bulk of that on old people, exceeds the total budget,” he added. “Either no bins will be emptied in Barnet…there will be no libraries or parks- no town hall even- or there will be further big cuts for old people.”

Lord Warner (Lab), a member of the Dilnot commission, agreed with Lord Lipsey’s characterisation of social care funding. “This will mean that big cities in particular lose their civic services around arts, leisure, and other things which make for a civilised society as their authorities concentrate on social care and child protection.”

Earle Howe (Con), parlimentary under-secretary of state Department of Health, challenged the “story of cuts” portrayed by his fellow peers.

“We remain firmly of the view that the funding we have provided is enough to allow authorities to maintain access to services and to provide good-quality care. Independent research from the King’s Fund corroborates this.”

“This is not the story of cuts as some critics have made out, and there is only limited evidence of the impact on services or on users.”

Baroness Pitkeathley (Lab) and vice president of Carers UK, who opened the debat sais she found it hard to recognise “the picture of local services” painted by Lord Howe.

Parish councils ‘confused’ by government stance on benefit deals

Posted on by • Posted in District council stuff, Government • Tagged , , , , , , • 3 Comments

Copied from Local Government Chronicle
4 December, 2012 | By Ruth Keeling

District and parish councils have been left disappointed by the government’s decision to make every district negotiate council tax benefit deals with their parishes.

The move goes against the majority of submissions to a government consultation on the funding formula. Ninety-four per cent of respondents backed the creation of an unadjusted tax base which would avoid the need for detailed calculations for every town and parish authority.

Sandra Cowley, head of finance at Stroud DC and council tax lead for the Society of District Council Treasurers, described the decision as “astounding”; Michael Chater OBE, chairman of the National Association of Local Councils, expressed “strong disappointment”.

The government’s consultation response said it had returned to its original proposal because of concerns about the financial burden on districts should they be left covering parish shares of any mismatch between council tax benefit funding and provision.

The government’s apparent disregard for parish councils’ viewpoint comes after communities secretary Eric Pickles described ast month described them as “localism’s magic wand”.

Mr Chater said billing authorities had “a mixed track record of passing down finance to grassroots councils”. The decision to revert to the government’s original proposal to leave the decision to negotiation between billing and local councils would “put a strain on the delivery of localism and potentially weaken the trust local councils have in government”.

“The real risk for some local councils, is that the billing authority pays over no grant and the council tax base is reduced so resulting in an increase in the council tax rate charged for the local council without there being any change in the basic precept,” he added.

Ms Cowley said colleagues were “confused” by the government’s approach.

“I find it astounding after they have gone to all the trouble of running the consultation,” she said. Responses to the government’s consultation showed that 94% thought the unadjusted tax base was the right approach, including 77% of district councils who expressed concern about the complexities of calculating grant shares for a large number of parishes. “With the majority saying this is an issue they have chosen to go with the minority,” Ms Cowley added.

One district treasurer who did not want to be named said: “This is bad news our town and parish councils set their precepts mainly in December and they thought this issue had been resolved. How we liaise with more than 100 parishes at this time of year will be a new challenge.”

The Department for Communities & Local Government’s consultation response said: “16 respondents disagreed with the proposals with billing authorities making up the majority of those disagreeing. The general view was that the proposals would unfairly protect parish councils from the impact of localising council tax support and would put a financial pressure on the billing authority. Some billing authorities suggested this potential financial pressure would be higher where the parish has a precept larger than that of the district council.”

The response also said that taking action on the “basis of an assumption that billing authorities will not pass down funding…is contrary to the spirit of localism” and, as a result, “the government considers that greater weight should be given to the potential for the proposal set out in the council tax base consultation to increase the financial burden on billing authorities”.

Pickles pushed to announce weekly bin collection support

Posted on by • Posted in District council stuff, Government, public sector • Tagged , , , , • Leave a comment

Copied from and Copyright of: Localgov.co.uk
21 November 2012
Thomas Bridge

Delayed announcement of successful bids for the weekly waste collection support scheme are adversely impacting on council budgets, industry experts have warned.

In an open letter to secretary of state for communities and local government, the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) has been urged to announce successful town hall submissions for the weekly collection support scheme (WCSS) at the earliest possible opportunity.

Chief executives from the Chartered Institution of Wastes Management (CIWM), Anaerobic Digestion and Biogas Association (ADBA) and Resource Association (RA), and the director general of the Environmental Services Association (ESA), have argued that postponement of WCSS allocation has led to a hiatus in decision-making and procurement across council waste services.

Equipment and vehicles manufacturers are also reducing capacity and employment as a result of stalled procurement and will be unable to immediately meet future demand, the letter asserts.
‘This is already a green growth sector and, with appropriate government leadership and co-ordination, it is capable of delivering much more in terms of jobs, value, skills and general economic development. We would urge DCLG to acknowledge this contribution and to prioritise the WCSS announcement so that the service improvements that it was designed to support can be put in place,’ the letter states.

your comments

With Eric Pickles there is always an ‘elephant’ in the room – now there are two.
Patrick Newman, ex local government, Stevenage,
Added: Wednesday, 21 November 2012 03:13 PM

Expert criticises Pickles’ employment plans

Posted on by • Posted in District council stuff, Government, public sector • Tagged , , , , , , , • Leave a comment

I’m by no means the sharpest knife in the box when it comes to all the legalities and complexities of local government let alone the employment law. However, as I have already said in a previous post, this headline grabbing, shot from the hip announcement by Eric Pickles, is music to the ears of the legal profession.

Will nobody get a grip of this wind bag and put a muzzle on him, before he does some real and long lasting damage? Come to think of it he probably already has, we just haven’t noticed yet.

A word of caution to any of my councillor colleagues having outside of their chief executive’s office door with an axe in the form of a P45 in hand. Please remember that Pickles has not offered any legal or financial support for this proposed change – if you try it you’re on your own. It’s the classic Eric Pickles way of working – shouting fire in the middle of a crowd and then sitting back and watching the chaos that ensures. When challenged, he’ll tell you that it’s what ‘the people’ wanted.

Copyright Local Government Chronicle
14 November, 2012 | By Ruth Keeling

An employment expert has criticised ministerial proposals to scrap safeguards for key council officers.
Sir Rodney Brooke, a solicitor and former council chief executive who has been involved in several high-profile disciplinary cases, has questioned communities secretary Eric Pickles’ plan to scrap the process by which the dismissal of senior officers is reviewed by an independent expert.
The communities secretary pledged this week to clear this “legal minefield” of protections, which he claimed “took forever” and cost up to £420,000 a go.
The laws introducing the safeguards were laid by Margaret Thatcher’s government amid fears of politically motivated sackings by newly elected Labour councils.
Chief executives, section 151 finance officers and monitoring officers facing disciplinary procedures currently have their cases reviewed by a ‘designated independent person’.
Many commentators agreed the lengthy and expensive investigations meant councils increasingly chose to negotiate settlements with employees.
But Sir Rodney suggested amending the procedures. “A better system would be to give the designated independent person wider powers,” he said.
“If the relationships [between officers and members] have broken down irretrievably there is no point in carrying on with the investigation. Even if you come to the conclusion there is no misconduct, they still have to go. [In this case] the [designated independent person] could negotiate some compromise settlement.”
Sir Rodney said the concerns that led to the creation of the DIP in the 1980s remained. “If you are in a politically volatile job, as you are in local government, safeguards are desirable,” he said.
The Association of Council Secretaries & Solicitors suggested the current arrangements could benefit from a review, but said Mr Pickles’ proposal was “misconceived”.
Others, such as employment consultant Roger Morris who has advised a number of senior officers facing dismissal, defended the current arrangements. He warned that Mr Pickles’ proposal could increase costs if more cases ended in employment tribunals.
Mr Morris argued the DIP process need not be scrapped or reviewed. It was effective in ensuring senior officers in the three key roles were not dismissed without grounds or received a negotiated compensation deal, he said.
“It is important that officials in very exposed public positions can do their job without fear or favour.”
The communities secretary appeared to pre-empt such reasoning by arguing that councillors wishes should be paramount.

“What’s decided in the full democratic council chamber will be what counts,” he said.

“If elected representatives decide a chief executive is for the chop. So be it.”

The Department for Communities & Local Government said the amendment to regulations would take place early in the new year following a short consultation of no more than four weeks.

Earlier, the LGA, Solace, Alace and Acses all adopted varying positions following Mr Pickles announcement.

Pickles calls for more parishes

Posted on by • Posted in District council stuff, Government, South Holland • Tagged , , , , , , • Leave a comment

As if to prove my point regarding Eric Pickles hatred of local government, he’s continuing his campaign to rid the country of local government, be it district, borough, county, or even unitary. I’ve long believed that the campaign to encourage quality parish councils, was part of central government’s ambitions to rid itself of the unruly brat called local government.

Let’s not forget that, unlike district councils and above, parish and town councils have to get all of their cash from local taxpayers via a precept. Also, very few, if any, of those elected to this the lowest level of local democracy, receive allowances. This combination of very limited funding, untrained and un-remunerated members and little in the way of professional staff, means that most of these councils spend their time fretting about very, very local issues, such as the length of the grass on verges or why the streets aren’t being swept more often.

Pickles and co are seeking to distract local people into thinking that they are having a real say in what’s going on locally, because they now have their own parish, or town council. This whilst also starving higher level councils of cash as a way of turning them in to no more than front men for central government policies. Westminster will then be able do what they like, without the inconvenience of being challenged by those in local government.

Given the continued uncertainty that we all suffer when it comes to our income and the cost of living, what chance is there that the people of Spalding would be willing to possibly double the amount of council tax they pay as the Spalding Special Expenses, in order to set up a Spalding Town Council?

Copied from Local Government Chronicle online 31 October, 2012 | By Kaye Wiggins

The Department for Communities & Local Government has set out a range of proposals that aim to make it quicker and easier for local residents to set up parish councils.

Following a call from communities secretary Eric Pickles to “remove red tape” around the creation of parish councils to “give local people a real sense of community control in their areas”, the department has set out a series of ideas that will be open for consultation until January.

In its consultation document, the department said: “We want to tilt the balance in favour of community groups, where there is the demonstrable support of a majority of local people. Where local people express popular support for the creation of a town or parish council, the local authority should work with the community to achieve that.”

The plans set out three possible routes to achieve Mr Pickles’ vision and are summarised below:

Option 1: Changing guidance

Guidance “could strongly encourage authorities to complete the process in less time”

It “could make it clear that the right weight should be given to what is effective and convenient for the local community, separately from for the local authority itself.”

It “could propose that as a matter of good practice, the local authority could carry out a review of a decision not to create a town or parish council if campaigners want one.”

Option 2: Legal change

The number of signatures required to force a council to consider an application for a parish council to be set up could be halved.

The DCLG document notes: “The disadvantage of this option is that lowering the threshold for a petition triggering a community governance review runs the risk that petitions which do not have sufficient community backing will be considered, potentially wasting resources or leading to the creation of a council which is not wanted by the local community.”

The timescale for a “community governance review” – the process by which a parish council would be considered – could be shortened to six months. Alternatively there could be a single limit of nine or 12 months for the whole process, from the receipt of a petition

Councils could be required to publish timescales linked to the electoral cycle, so that if a parish council is approved there would not be a delay caused by the wait for the next election.

Option 3: Neighbourhood forums

A neighbourhood forum could submit an application to trigger a community governance review, rather than having to submit a petition with the required number of signatures.

How transparent is Eric Pickles? – no don’t laugh, I’m serious

Posted on by • Posted in Government • Tagged , , , , • Leave a comment

As soon as I wrote the title, I realised that there are two answers; completely and not at all. Completely, because most of us in local government can see right through him, with all his bluster, BS and almost pathological hatred of local government. Not at all, well, just read on.

Copied from comments on: http://conservativehome.blogs.com/localgovernment/2012/10/your-chance-to-question-eric-pickles.html#IDComment477030847

HowardKnight commented on Your chance to question Eric Pickles – Local Government:

Dear Eric

You are a proponent of transparency. So, could you explain why I still can’t get a response to some FOI requests I made to DCLG in April 2011? It isn’t that lots of research would be required, as the information requested was readily available.

After numerous holding responses, I was forced to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner, who issued a Decision Notice in February 2012 stating “…….the Information Commissioner does not accept that in the circumstances of this case it is by any measure reasonable to have taken such an extended period of time to consider the public interest test. Accordingly he has determined that DCLG has failed to comply with its obligations under FOIA. This is a breach of section 17(3) of FOIA.”

Despite this, the information requested has still not been provided. This month, the Information Commissioner has advised me that DCLG had persistently failed to provide information requested by the IC and that DCLG had been threatened with an Information Notice in order to secure a response.

Does transparency only apply to others? Why is DCLG persistently failing to meet its obligations under the Freedom of Information Act?

This email was sent by IntenseDebate

Chief Planner could be Chief Politician

Posted on by • Posted in District council stuff, Everyday life, Government • Tagged , , , , , , • Leave a comment

I went to East Lindsey District Council near Louth last Friday, to hear Steve Quartermain, the chief planner at DCLG, field questions from elected members about the revised planning system.

As an aside, having spent 38 years in the RAF it still feels wrong to be able to drive on to an RAF station, even a disused one, without being challenged. For those who don’t know, ELDC is based on the old RAF base at Manby and it was easy to spot the guardroom, SHQ, station workshops, the barrack blocks and of course, the sacred parade square, now desecrated with parked cars. I’m pretty sure the vinyl on the floor of the bogs (toilets to you civvies) was the original stuff from RAF days!

Steve Quartermain was on very good form as always and was able to deflect, defend, duck and generally avoid any criticism of his masters in Whitehall. As an example, given David Cameron’s recent conference criticism of the planning system (again), I asked Steve if the government actually accepted that there are over 400,000 unimplemented planning permissions across England and that if they did accept this figure, then why did his political masters keep blaming the planning system for the lack of growth?

His answer was clearly well practiced and before 2007 it would have actually been an accurate one. According to Steve, 400,000 dwellings is what is needed to satisfy about two years of new housing delivery, so councils need to continue to replenish the stock of planning permissions to meet this need year on year. That would be a good answer if we weren’t recession and if our house building industry wasn’t only managing to build just over 100,000 houses a year.

On this current performance, the house building industry is likely to take at least 3, or even 4 years, to use the 400,000+ outstanding planning permissions. Steve Quartermain of course knows this better than anybody. However, being the politically astute planning professional that he is, he threw back the historical building rate figures from when times were good, bolstered by the long term deficit figure of 3 million houses, that no government has ever managed to put a dent in and swiftly moved on to the next question.

I will however give the Chief Planner his due for being consistent on one message to the assembled members – get on with producing your Local Plan. Many of those at the meeting still didn’t seem to get the other message Steve has been giving out since the coalition government rewrote the planning rules. It’s your plan, if you don’t want something to happen, get the evidence and use that to produce your LOCAL planning policies. Conversely, if you do want something to happen, do the same thing for that goal. Too many of the members at the meeting kept basing their questions on wanting the government to produce national policies that either allowed, or prevented something. One even asked about guidance on materials to be used!

These members still don’t seem to understand that this isn’t the way it works anymore and that, apart from where the central government still wishes to impose its wishes on the nation as a whole, the rest of it is up to them.

Local involvement in the NPPF

Posted on by • Posted in District council stuff, Government • Tagged , , , • Leave a comment

This afternoons #NPPF DCLG Select Committee – Practitioner agrees to need for transition
by andrew lainton October 17, 2011

In the second session Cllr Gary Porter – one of the practitioners group 4 – was entertaining. Not the sort of cllr you would want to cross at 11.00pm at the end of an exhausting meeting. He sees everything in very black and white terms and gets angry at other views.

He conceded the need for a transition – not just for putting plans in place but for updating plans to include things like parking standards. He also criticised the 20% rule saying the figure should be set locally.

The committee was rather slack jawed at his bizarre suggestion that local authorities should be able to choose from several competing sets of guidance on matters such as how to set housing targets – how could any plan be found sound by an inspector – or not have the decision challenged in the courts – in that set up.

Blog at WordPress.com. Theme by Onswipe.

Pickles opens mouth without engaging brain again

Posted on by • Posted in Uncategorized • Tagged , , , , , , , , • Leave a comment

I see Eric Pickles has once again decided to jump in to the middle of an issue, without explaining how the situation came about in the first place. Pickles was probably suffering withdrawal symptoms, having not seen his name in a newspaper headline for at least a week, so has decided to criticise local government for something imposed on it by central government.

This week’s issue has the catchy title equality and diversity. Pickles’s predecessors in government, decided that it needed to ensure that everybody and his dog was being given access to local government services, so came up with the E&Q Police. This meant that every time central government’s auditors appeared on the council’s doorstep to inspect one of its services, one of the tick boxes was about E&Q performance. If they didn’t think the council was performing to the required standard in this area, then it didn’t matter how good the service itself was, you still took a hit on equality and diversity.

The problem was, how does a council prove that it is meeting the government imposed E&Q targets, without asking the questions now being criticised by Eric Pickles? So instead of criticising councils for simply trying to meet targets imposed by his predecessors, why doesn’t he just announce that central government will no longer require this information and therefore councils can stop collecting it? Because that wouldn’t get him any newspaper headlines would it. It also seem that Pickles thinks that he isn’t doing his job properly unless he is beating up local government at every opportunity.