Devolution and Towns: a Personal View

What is Place?

Let me come clean here. I am a Fellow of the Institute for Place Management (IPM). I was/am also a champion for our High Street Task Force (HSTF) work on behalf of the Government and the towns and Local Authorities in England. I am therefore very interested in the future of towns. I am now also keenly interested in the devolution agenda especially as it impact on towns.

This policy, as most will know will create, in the first instance, ten new mayoral authorities and the traditional two-tier local government will be superseded. I am also interested in proposals and potential outcomes having been Senior Councillor for a Borough, soon to be within a Combined Authority and in the Mayoral of a new Kent and Medway Authority.

?With my IPM hat on, I am already deeply interested in Place, and now, specifically how it will be defined and managed so that the definition of Place fits with the growth agenda and other regional and national agenda.

My involvement with IPM has been centred around delivering the HSTF and we learned many lessons. A key lesson was that towns and places need partnerships to flourish.

We worked intensively on 149 towns and carried the key messages to countless more. We knew the spread of our remit nationally and locally. It does seem however that as we move on with a new Government, the spread if influence could be broader for Place Management, to reflect residents’ interests and peri-urban areas.

High Streets and beyond

I am now seeking to establish how High Streets and towns could contribute as a part of devolution. There is a demonstrated need for support experts such as those involved in delivering the HSTF from experts in the field of Place Management in the broadest form as offered by the HSTF. Sadly, the ring-fenced Government HSTF has now lapsed.

Much funding to business, whether in thee High Street or elsewhere around towns, has for the last few years been through Local Enterprise Partnerships. This has supported Growth Hubs etc. These have been said to continue, however the reconfiguring of local government to support devolution poses questions.

1.?? Will central Government increase ring-fenced money for town centres?

2.?? Will the KPIs of Mayoral funding include Growth in the towns?

3.?? Will this be under review over the next 4.5 years?

4.?? How far down the tree of governance will devolution progress?

My next question is whether we at IPM, NALC, ATCM and others are looking at the correct geography. Within the Timpson Panel it was asked if the Panel’s outputs could reference towns, not just High Streets. This was, at the time, refused.

There is likely to be a demand for Neighbourhood Plans, so how can towns and town centres define themselves? How will they consult on the plan development and deliver a Plan without a far-more local body to lead and to answer to (accountable body)?

The aggregation of Districts and the Mayoral Authority means the apparent distance has grown between the voter, business, resident, and voluntary organisations. How can these important groups deal meaningfully and interact with these remote bodies?

There are local organisations who will require funding and local decisions. But the physical distance and emotional split is greater between them and the Mayoral or combined authority.

I suggest that there are structures that can raise flagging interest in local democracy. There are towns with active town councils are elected bodies, that see very low turn-out at local elections and many rely on co-opted membership – hardly democratic.

Unfortunately town councils are not in the majority. The town councils that are in place have no more power than the smallest parish council. Similarly, there are Business Improvement Districts (BID) supporting retailers and the town very well because they have a common interest. BIDs are maintained on a fundamentally democratic basis.

In Kent most of the towns have no Town Council nor a BID. There is a democratic deficit at the lowest level, hence a weak link to the Mayoralty. It has been suggested to me that towns could welcome Town Councils because it would allow them to keep a ceremonial mayor. Those towns with a more ceremonious composition (Tenterden for example. Part of the Cinque Port network) make being a councillor a real honour and it takes the lead in many things and could do more. People do feel included. However, Tenterden is a relatively small town of about 10,000 people. Larger towns need more effective vehicles with greater powers.

There must be an explanation of the benefit of a town council to justify the levying of a precept, so it is necessary that a clear plan is laid down by the Government, mayors and LAs.

Towns without town councils should be encouraged (compelled?) to have a town council so that they can fill part of the gap and make devolution more effective. There will be decision makers for leading Neighbourhood Plans in composition and delivery – people will be more engaged. Kent Association of Local Councils recognise this as a key element in representing the People and securing Growth.

Similarly, BIDs are under-represented. There should be no competition between the BID and the Town Council. It would be in everyone’s interest if they were conjoined in a meaningful way, both are elected, but are symbiotic so should work together. We as place managers should be seeking to secure a framework where town councils and BIDs can cleave in their ambitions and actions.

It is my belief that bodies such as IPM should take a lead in describing how Place comes together and develop in this new, suggested image. If we want growth, it must be permissive growth and one that people understand. It is essential that lead organisations like IPM are mentoring, describing and co-ordinating the national, regional and local interface development in the new model of governance.