The Resurgence of Parish Council Powers in England [1st ed.] 9783030451271, 9783030451288

Citation preview

The Resurgence of Parish Council Powers in England Alistair Jones

The Resurgence of Parish Council Powers in England

Alistair Jones

The Resurgence of Parish Council Powers in England

Alistair Jones Department of Politics, People and Place De Montfort University Leicester, UK

ISBN 978-3-030-45127-1    ISBN 978-3-030-45128-8 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-45128-8 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Cover pattern © Melisa Hasan This Palgrave Pivot imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG. The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

To Claire

Acknowledgements

In the writing of this book, there are many people who need to be thanked for their help and support. Top of the list is my wife, Claire. She has had to put up with my rather eclectic approach to research and writing for many years. This book is dedicated to her. There are also many colleagues at De Montfort University, as well as other universities across the UK and Europe, who need to be thanked for their support and contributions. Included here are Colin Copus, Bas Denters, Chris Goldsmith, Steve Griggs, Jan Erling Klausen, Joyce Liddle, Ros Lishman, Jakub Lysek, Steven Parker, Katarzyna Szmigiel-Rawska, Filipe Teles, and David Wilson. Thanks must also be extended to members of the Society of Local Council Clerks and especially to Johnathan Bourne, Linda Roberts, Elisabeth Skinner, and Dominic Stapleton. I would also like to thank all those parish councillors for their valuable input—they are too many to mention. I must also thank the staff at Palgrave, and particularly Oliver Foster, for the support and guidance in completing this book. Finally, and by no means least, there is our dog, Zach. His constant reminders of his needs for attention, for walks and feeding are such that he keeps me in my place. There is a life beyond writing books. As ever, if there are any errors or omissions then the fault lies with me. Alistair

vii

Contents

1 Introduction: What Is a Parish Council?  1 Introduction   1 Historical Development of Parish Councils   3 The ‘Constitutional’ Position   6 The Geographical Spread of Parish Councils   8 Research Methods   9 Conclusion  11 Bibliography  12 2 The Drive for More Cost-Effective Local Government 13 Introduction  13 Bigger Is Better: The Push for Larger Units of Local Government  15 Austerity: The Need to Save Money  19 Localism  21 Conclusion  23 Bibliography  24 3 The Rise of Parish Councils? 27 Introduction  27 Parish Plans  28 Parish Precept  30 Planning  31 Transport  33 Developing Partnerships  34 ix

x 

Contents

Representation  37 Conclusion  39 Bibliography  40 4 An International Comparison 43 Introduction  43 European Charter of Local Self-Government  45 Portugal  47 Poland  50 Jamaica  53 Trinidad and Tobago  55 Germany  56 Denmark  57 Sweden  58 Czech Republic  59 Conclusion  60 Bibliography  61 5 The Issue of Capacity 65 Introduction  65 Capacity to Do What?  66 Capacity Building  69 Community Capacity Building  71 Leadership  76 Conclusion  77 Bibliography  78 6 Conclusion: A Resurgence in Parish Councils? 81 Introduction  81 Closeness to the Community  82 The Constitutional Position Revisited  83 A Drive from the Centre?  86 Lesson Learning from Overseas  87 Conclusions  89 Bibliography  91 Bibliography93 Index105

CHAPTER 1

Introduction: What Is a Parish Council?

Abstract  Parish councils are not a new phenomenon in English politics or English local government. Rather, they have had a long and varied existence across parts of England. Today, however, much of England remains unparished. Parish councils have no right of existence. In fact, their existence may depend upon the ‘politics’ within the local principal authority, which, in turn, may suffer the same insecurities in relation to Parliament. The establishing of parish councils requires the approval of the principal authority. The most local tier of government in England is experiencing something of a resurgence. Here the scene is set as to why this might be the case. Keywords  Parish councils • Local government • England

Introduction Many years ago, a colleague gave an introductory lecture on local government to some first-year students. His opening point: local government is all about dustbins and dog poo; these are the two issues that bother most residents in any given council. Such a perspective does not engender much enthusiasm to research the subject further. Local government was, in effect, seen as the poor relation when examining the politics of the UK. Yet within local government, there is another poor relation: parish councils. Much of the literature on local government focuses on the principal © The Author(s) 2020 A. Jones, The Resurgence of Parish Council Powers in England, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-45128-8_1

1

2 

A. JONES

authorities, their roles and powers, the relationships between the different tiers of council—districts or boroughs and county councils, the people involved in running the council—both the elected and the council officials, and the relationship between local government and central government. This comprises an extensive body of literature. Parish councils, however, tend not to get much coverage, and when there is coverage, it is often as a footnote or an afterthought. Such a situation is exacerbated for parish councils by their portrayal in the media. Television programmes such as The Vicar of Dibley give what can best be described as a jaundiced view of parish councils. The local vicar is in charge, while the other members of the parish council are either self-­ serving, self-centred, or idiots. None of them are elected, or appear accountable for their actions in any way whatsoever. In fairness, there may well be parish councils which replicate such an image, but they are likely to be a very small minority. The vast majority of parish councils are served by hard-working, dedicated councillors, with a council clerk—whose role is essential. There are clear lines of accountability directly back to the local community. What is also of note is that both central government and the principal authorities in local government (unitary local authorities or district or borough councils) are looking to enhance the role of parish councils. With central government pushing for larger unitary authorities, there is an acknowledgement that such local government is becoming too distant from the local community. Consequently, principal authorities are looking to develop and to enhance the role of parish councils. They are the most ‘local’ form of local government and are seen to have a far better connection with the local community than any other tier of government. This idea of enhancing the role of parish councils appears at odds with how they are portrayed, and how they are sometimes treated by people working in principal authorities. This book will explore the extent to which parish councils are able to meet the demands of the other tiers of government. This introductory chapter will set the scene focusing on the historical development of parish councils as well as their ‘constitutional’ position. Thereafter, there will be an examination of the changing role of principal authorities and the extent to which parish councils have the potential to become far more prominent in local government. This could be, in particular, through the delivery of local services but parish councils can also play a prominent role in local engagement. There is a comparative chapter in this book. England is not

1  INTRODUCTION: WHAT IS A PARISH COUNCIL? 

3

the only country which has parish councils or similar styled bodies. These may be known as sub-municipalities in some of the international literature. The experiences of such bodies from across Europe and further afield may provide valuable lessons for the future roles of parish councils. Yet this book raises concerns as well. There is apprehension over the extent to which parish councils have the capacity to deliver on the range of roles and services required from either principal authorities or central government. If there is not the capacity to deliver among parish councils, the issue then arises as to who can deliver such roles and services. From this point, the concluding chapter will draw together the disparate strands of the book. It will explore the extent to which the drive for new parish councils may be little more than a fad, as well as the potential longevity of the new parish councils which have been established. Currently, there appears to be a resurgence in parish councils—demand for creating new councils as well as granting more functions to pre-existing councils. The extent to which this will last is not known, nor can it be predicted. The predilections of central government, in this case towards local government, can change on a political whim. Parish councils are also dependent upon the relationship with the principal authorities. There are too many external pressures to know what might happen. The current feeling is more along the lines of do what you can while you can.

Historical Development of Parish Councils Civil parish councils, as we understand them today, were formed in England under the Local Government Act 1894. The aim, quite simply, was for them to take on local oversight of civic duties in rural towns and villages. While this legislation is significant in detailing the role of parish councils for today, such a perspective suggests they are a relatively recent phenomenon in English local government. The reality is they date back much further, although with different roles and functions. The 1811 census noted “over 15,000 parishes, townships and similar divisions” (Fletcher 2013, 521). Webb and Webb (1963, 128–134) present examples of village meetings, dating back to 1689. Chandler (2007) and Fletcher (2013) note how care for the poor was assigned to parishes in the Elizabethan Poor Law Acts of 1597 and 1601. Similarly, Finer (1950, 118) describes parish councils as the “most important area in  local government for 500 years, particularly from the Tudors”. Redlich and Hirst (1970, 198) go back further, highlighting how there have been three types of parish

4 

A. JONES

councils since the fifteenth century: ecclesiastical, civil, and statutory Poor Law parishes. Not only could these different types of parishes be co-­ extensive, but they sometimes straddled county lines. Therefore some form of parish council has operated in England for over half a millennium. The functions and boundaries may have changed over this period of time but the longevity is clear. Parish councils are an inherent part of England, not just English local government. There is, however, a short caveat. As with today, not all of England was parished (Fletcher 2013). Urban areas, for example, may not have had parishes, although “any urban area that had not been granted borough status was usually subject to parish government” (Chandler 2007, 11). There was also a lack of co-ordinating of parishes. Parishes did not necessarily deliver the same functions in the same way. Even the mapping of the boundaries between parishes was problematic. Fletcher (2013) notes how the Ordnance Survey, which was established in 1791, was reluctant to map out the parish boundaries because of the expense. Even when legislation was passed for all of the boundaries to be mapped, with the Ordnance Survey Act 1841, the process was extremely slow. Thus the collation of what parish councils existed, what they did, and their boundaries, was not clear. It could be argued, if rather cynically, that parish councils were being overlooked centuries ago, just as they are today. Within this historical overview of the old parishes, there has also been significant debate over the civil versus ecclesiastical parishes, and which came first. There appears to be agreement the civil parishes existed first. Redlich and Hirst (1970, 31) argue ecclesiastical parishes were based upon a civil unit—the township. Such civil units developed into the ecclesiastical parishes. Toulmin Smith (1857) is much more vociferous in asserting that the civil parishes pre-date the ecclesiastical. For him, they are “the original secular division of the land” (15). He does, however, note points of confusion. The Vestry clerk, for example, was the Secretary to the Parishioners while the Parish clerk had an ecclesiastical purpose. For a point of clarity, the duties of each are detailed in his work (207). There is also extensive detail as to the role and function of the civil parishes. Coulson (1999) notes how the precursors to the modern parish councils dealt with roads, poor law, and schools. Toulmin Smith (1857, 4–5) presents a list which is then explored in greater detail in a subsequent chapter (1857, chapter 7). His list includes: • maintenance of highways and drainage

1  INTRODUCTION: WHAT IS A PARISH COUNCIL? 

5

• “preventing or remedying nuisances to the Public Health” (4) • appointing overseers and guardians of the Poor • appointing and controlling officers in relation to civil government • public lighting • public baths Subsequent to this, Toulmin Smith (1857, 44) notes responsibility for the maintenance of public peace. This list of roles and responsibilities is by no means exhaustive. Gutchen (1961) cites the role of parish and town councils cleaning water supplies in the mid-nineteenth century. It is the responsibility for law and order which was, arguably, the most important role for parishes. Parish Constables, like all office holders in a parish, were appointed by the parish and accountable to it. Yet, as an example of central interference, the County and Borough Police Act 1856 established a new system of policing based at the county level. This legislation did not repeal the role of Parish Constables. Instead, there were concurrent jurisdictions (Toulmin Smith 1857, 127). In this respect, central interference in the affairs of local government has a long history. A significant part in the role of parishes, and one which continues today, is the extent to which it engages with the local community. Toulmin Smith (1857, 211–226) places great importance on the participation of parishioners. The most prominent form of participation was through the parish meeting. It was at such meetings that explanations could be given of local matters of importance. More broadly, the government of the parish was conducted through such regular open meetings. By mid-Victorian times, there was a perception of parishes being too small for local needs, and there were suggestions for the parishes to be replaced (Chandler 2007, 49). Some of this was linked to the industrialisation of England and the concurrent decline in rural communities. The idea of parish councils, or any form of local government, as being too small to operate effectively and efficiently is something which prevails in England (if not across all of the UK) and will be further explored later in this book. The Local Government Act 1894 was an attempt to reinvigorate parishes. It also marked the clear separation between the ecclesiastical and non-ecclesiastical bodies. All non-ecclesiastical functions were removed from the religious bodies and passed to the secular bodies. The religious bodies became known as ‘parochial church councils’.

6 

A. JONES

In the 1894 legislation, rural parishes with a population of over 300 were required to have a parish council. If the population was between 100 and 300, the establishment of a parish council was optional. For those parishes with populations below 100, permission from the county council was needed to establish a parish council (Finer 1950, 118). If no parish council was established, there was a requirement to hold Public Meetings— at least two per year. Such Public Meetings have a distinct legal identity. There was also a requirement in the legislation for parish councils to appoint a clerk. In hindsight, what was supposed to be the reinvigoration of parish councils may have led to their increased marginalisation. The list of responsibilities for parish councils was harmonised and significantly reduced. Chandler (2007, 106–107) sums up the extent to which the roles had been reduced: “Parishes could own property, establish allotments, consent to the opening and closing of rights of way, repair footpaths and create and care for recreation grounds, but they had limited resources for achieving such ends.” Since the 1894 legislation the role of parish councils appeared to stagnate. Finer (1950, 1), for example, has noted the declining numbers of parish meetings between 1931 and 1948: from 5600 to 3800. Over the same time period, the number of parish councils increased from 7100 to 7300. There appeared to be either a disengagement between the local community and the parish council, or the communities became too small to survive. There were further attempts to reinvigorate parish councils through such measures as being able to re-brand themselves as Town Councils (Local Government Act 1972). More recent legislation and the reinvigoration of parish councils will form the basis of the rest of this book.

The ‘Constitutional’ Position It is important to note the constitutional position of local government and of parish councils, although the lack of constitutional position may be more accurate. In brief, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has a constitution based on parliamentary sovereignty. Parliament is the supreme law-making body. It is the ultimate source of power. No other body may override the laws passed by Parliament. At the same time, Parliament may not bind its successors. Thus any law passed by Parliament may be repealed by a subsequent Parliament.

1  INTRODUCTION: WHAT IS A PARISH COUNCIL? 

7

Parliament may create sub-national bodies, such as devolved bodies or local authorities. Parliament may also abolish such bodies. There is no constitutional protection for any of them. Parliament may also decide the responsibilities of these sub-national bodies, but can re-arrange such responsibilities using a Statutory Instrument or passing a law. No institution is exempt. These responsibilities are normally framed very clearly by Parliament. Any institution which acts beyond their prescribed powers will be acting beyond the law—or ultra vires. Any such actions are not legal. The extent to which the centre has intervened in parish affairs is not a new phenomenon. The Poor Law 1601 saw the duty of care placed on parishes by Parliament. The Poor Law 1834 replaced some 15,000 parochial authorities with around 600 Poor Law unions in an attempt for uniformity (Gutchen 1961, 87). This is an early example of central interference in  local affairs. Even the details surrounding the establishment of new parish councils have been decided by Parliament. Consider the Local Government Act 1894 which gave a clear prescription of the existence, role, and function of parish councils. This can also be taken further, to state where parish councils may not exist. For example, parish councils were not permitted in Greater London between 1935 and 2007 (Sandford 2015). While the constitutional position of local government may be clear, there is something of a counter-argument which tends not to be acknowledged. Such an argument places parish councils aside from Parliamentary sovereignty. Toulmin Smith (1857, 10) was something of an advocate for parishes: It is forgotten that Parishes and our other Local Institutions do not owe their origin to Parliament; but that, quite the reverse, Parliament itself is a result derived out of their pre-existing action of these Institutions.

While Toulmin Smith is clearly not arguing for parish councils to be above Parliament, he is noting how their creation had nothing to do with Parliament. There is also a suggestion that parishes be free to do as they please. At that point in time, there was no law of ultra vires (Chandler 2007). It is only through legislation being passed by Parliament that the relationship has changed. The power to establish new parish councils, or to abolish them, has not been in the hands of parish councils. In effect, they had to approach the principal authority for permission to abolish themselves. Even if there was

8 

A. JONES

clear demand for the establishing of such a council, there was no requirement on the principal authority to oblige. This could prove more than a little problematic if there were an insufficient number of councillors for the parish council to be quorate or the lack of a parish clerk. The abolition of parish councils has been made more difficult. Between 1997 and 2008, any decision taken by a principal authority to abolish a parish council had to be approved by the Secretary of State for Local Government and Communities. In that time period, only four applications were made, and only one was approved (Department for Communities and Local Government and The Local Government Boundaries Commission for England 2010, 35).

The Geographical Spread of Parish Councils As has already been noted, not all of England is parished, with around 70% of the population lacking parish councils or parish meetings. Much of this may be linked to the lack of parish councils in urban areas, yet that is to misrepresent some of their spread. If you examine an ordnance survey map, you will see that all of rural England is technically ‘parished’. These may link to the local parish church for the community, but the geographical boundaries are in place. Parts of England, and most notably Cornwall, have a very strong tradition of parish councils. These councils have existed for many years and have become ingrained in the community. The question is how to develop their importance to the local community in other parts of England. When examining those areas in England which are unparished, there is a predominance of urban areas. Cities such as Bristol, Leicester, Liverpool, and Stoke-on-Trent are entirely unparished. The same applies to larger towns such as Gosport, Ipswich, Luton, Plymouth, and South Tyneside. Yet there are also unparished district or borough councils which may have a more small town or rural feel, such as Broxbourne in Hertfordshire. Across England, there are many district or borough councils which have one or two parish councils within their jurisdiction. This includes Bournemouth, Christchurch, and Poole unitary authority in Dorset, Chesterfield Borough Council in Derbyshire, Middlesbrough unitary authority in North Yorkshire, and Southend-on-Sea unitary authority in Essex. Linked to this is the issue around parishing urban areas. The city of Oxford, for example, has four parish councils covering parts of the

1  INTRODUCTION: WHAT IS A PARISH COUNCIL? 

9

city—Blackbird Leys Parish Council, Littlemore Parish Council, Old Marston Parish Council, and Risinghurst and Sandhills Parish Council. In the City of Westminster, London, the Queen’s Park council was established in 2014. More recently, there was the creation of Northampton Town Council, in part response to the abolition of Northamptonshire County Council and the creation of unitary authorities across that county. This shows that it is possible to parish urban areas. The problem may be in persuading the principal authority of the benefits of doing so. Conversely, it may be about persuading the local population of the benefits to them of establishing a parish council.

Research Methods The origins of this book lie in the Councillor Commission (Copus and Wall 2017). This was a piece of research established by De Montfort University in conjunction with The Municipal Journal. It was supported by the National Association of Local Councils (NALC). The ultimate aim of this investigation was to find out what councillors ‘do’. Rather than starting from a pre-determined position on what the academic literature states about the role of councillors, the approach adopted by the Commission was to start with a clean slate. There were to be no pre-­ conceived ideas. A series of roundtable discussions were run across England, to which councillors and council officers were invited. The Commissioners who convened these meetings had a series of broad prompt questions to ask those in attendance, but these were rarely used. The aims of the research were explained to the attendees, at which point there would be an onrush of communication from the councillors, highlighting issues and concerns about their work, the difficulties in dealing with other councils or with bodies outside of the council, and much more. It must also be noted that the same councillors highlighted the positives in their role and the perceived benefits to the community of councillors, their work, and the council as a whole. No effort was made by the Commissioners to break the communication down by gender, ethnicity, or any other socio-economic factor. It was difficult enough trying to make notes. A decision was taken not to record any of the proceedings in case this impaired the participation of the councillors. While politicians may love a microphone, they can be surprisingly coy when discussing their own roles or that of their council. The aim was to

10 

A. JONES

get a full and frank discussion about the roles undertaken by councillors, from the perspective of those same councillors. There were also opportunities for councillors to present written submissions to the Councillor Commission. Such submissions were anonymised, to the extent that only the type of council to which the councillor was elected or seconded could be identified, for example, parish council, district council, unitary authority. It would also be noted if the respondent represented more than one tier of council, assuming that such information was conveyed by the councillor. Two of the roundtable discussions were targeted specifically at parish councillors, although attendees at other roundtable meetings were often multiple-hatters, sitting on more than one form of local council, possibly including a parish council. The consequence of the parish councillor inputs was an entire chapter of the Councillor Commission report dedicated to them (Copus and Wall 2017). This particular chapter provided a spur for further research into the role of parish councils and parish councillors. At this point in time, interaction with members of the Society of Local Council Clerks (SLCC) commenced, drawing in their perspectives on issues raised by councillors. Again, much of this research was anecdotal. In speaking with parish councillors or the parish and town clerks, it was more of a conversation rather than pre-­ prepared questions for a formal or semi-structured interview. Thus there would be off-the-cuff remarks about individual parish councillors (unnamed) and their responses to issues such as cutting the grass in the local cemetery or the maintenance of a sports club’s playing fields. The result of this research was a paper being presented to the European Consortium for Political Research (ECPR) annual conference in Hamburg in 2018 (Jones 2018). Subsequent to the paper being presented at ECPR, further informal meetings with parish councillors and parish and town clerks continued as part of the research for this book. A decision was taken not to develop a full-scale survey of clerks or parish councillors, or to conduct more structured interviews, as a result of the time constraints in writing this book. A further decision was taken for this book to focus solely on England. In Scotland and Wales, rather than having parish councils there exist community councils. A decision was taken not to focus on either country because of the devolved nature of local government. Decisions on local government are taken by the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly,

1  INTRODUCTION: WHAT IS A PARISH COUNCIL? 

11

rather than Westminster. The role of these Community Councils is a little different to parish councils in England, for example, in terms of responsibilities held by such councils. The situation in Northern Ireland is even more complicated. Thus a decision was taken to have a narrow focus on parish councils in England.

Conclusion This introductory chapter has set the scene to examine the resurgence in parish councils in England in the twenty-first century. What should be apparent is that parish councils are not a new phenomenon; they have a very long history, but one that is often unacknowledged and unappreciated. At the same time, there has been interference in the way in which parish councils are run. Much of this has come from Parliament, although, as will be seen throughout this book, interference may also come from principal authorities. There are common misperceptions of parish councils, with many anecdotal or apocryphal stories deriding the actions of parish councils and councillors. Some of these are perpetuated through the media. It takes only one parish council or councillor to act in a similar manner for such stories to be replenished. The consequence is for all parish councils and parish councillors to be tarred with the same brush. Yet parish councils and parish meetings are a fundamental part of English local government. They are the most ‘local’ aspect, engaging directly with local communities. They are an essential feature of local democracy. The problem, however, is the extent to which the community engages with their parish council or parish meeting. Toulmin Smith (1857) highlighted the importance of community engagement. As we look forward to the rest of this book, the issue of the community engaging with the parish council, and vice versa, is a basic requirement for a successful reinvigoration of parish councils. It is also about demonstrating how parish councils can deliver on the issues that matter to their communities. Failure here, and it does not matter how grandiose the plans are to develop parish councils, and parish councils will remain Dibley-esque.

12 

A. JONES

Bibliography Chandler, J. (2007). Explaining Local Government: Local Government in Britain Since 1800. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Copus, C., & Wall, R. (2017). The Voice of the Councillor: Final Report of the De Montfort University and Municipal Journal Councillor Commission. Leicester: DMU. Coulson, A. (1999). Decentralisation and Democracy: The Neglected Potential of Parish Councils. Progressive Review, 6(2), 115–118. https://doi. org/10.1111/1468-0041.00081. Department for Communities and Local Government and The Local Government Boundaries Commission for England. (2010). Guidance on Community Governance Reviews. London: Crown Copyright. Finer, H. (1950). English Local Government (4th ed., revised). London: Methuen & Co. Fletcher, D. (2013). Government Boundary Mapping Policy and the Knowledge Apparatus of the British State, 1841–1889. The Journal of Policy History, 25(4), 513–536. Gutchen, R. M. (1961). Local Improvements and Centralization in Nineteenth-­ Century England. The Historical Journal, 4(1), 85–96. Jones, A. (2018, September). Parish Councils and Councillors: A Resurgence in the Most Local Tier of Government? Paper to the European Consortium for Political Research (ECPR) Annual Conference, University of Hamburg, Germany. Local Government Act (1972). c. 70 (Crown Copyright). Redlich, J., & Hirst, F. (1970). The History of Local Government in England (2nd ed.). Edited by B. Keith-Lucas. London: Macmillan. Sandford, M. (2015, November 7). Parish and Town Councils: Recent Issues. House of Commons Library Briefing Paper Number 04827. Toulmin Smith, J. (1857). The Parish: Its Powers and Obligations at Law. London: H. Sweet. Webb, S., & Webb, B. (1963). English Local Government Volume 2: The Manor and the Borough Part 1. London: Frank Cass and Co. First Published 1908.

CHAPTER 2

The Drive for More Cost-Effective Local Government

Abstract  There are many reasons why there is such an increased interest in creating parish councils. Notably, their one commonality is the drive from the centre, with an underpinning for more cost-effective government. The subsequent creation of parish councils, or for existing parish councils to take on greater responsibilities, is more of an unforeseen byproduct. In pushing austerity and localism agendas, the aim appeared to be more about reducing formal state involvement in service delivery. While this occurred, with private and voluntary organisations taking on service delivery, it was not the only outcome. Parish councils got more involved. Having the most local tier of government take such an active role was not always the intended outcome. Keywords  Austerity • Localism • Cost-effectiveness • Parish councils

Introduction Having detailed the history and constitutional position of parish councils, there is another part to the backgrounding in relation to their apparent resurgence. This is, more broadly, the changing context of local government. What has been apparent across the UK is the drive for larger and larger units of local government. Such a drive has come from the centre— hence the need to explain the constitutional position in the previous chapter. It can be seen through the changes to local government in the 1970s, © The Author(s) 2020 A. Jones, The Resurgence of Parish Council Powers in England, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-45128-8_2

13

14 

A. JONES

although the argument for larger local authorities can be seen in the 1960s, and dates back even earlier. The continuing emphasis upon larger units of local government seems to have underpinned every discussion on the restructuring of local government—and continues today. The underlying reason, which appears uncontested, is larger units of local government are more cost-effective. This drive for larger units of local government has seen something of a vacuum develop in relation to engagement between local government and the local population; something which is glossed over by those proponents of larger units of local government. This is often described as a ‘democratic deficit’, highlighting the gap between the elected and the electors. Yet the push to create new parish councils has not come solely from the disconnect between larger units of local government and the local population. The austerity drive of the Coalition Government (2010–2015), in conjunction with the Localism Act 2011, has given the impetus to reinvigorate parish councils. It must be noted the reinvigoration of parish councils was not a deliberate aim of austerity, nor the localism legislation. Rather, it has been an unforeseen consequence. Austerity and localism were very much focused upon reducing the role of the state. It was about the state spending less money. If services were desired, but were deemed too expensive, then local communities had to work out for themselves how to deliver those services. This is why the localism legislation was seen to have a clear neo-liberal ideological underpinning: a further rolling back of the frontiers of the state. At the same time, it was packaged as a positive alternative in times of austerity. There are three clear sections to this chapter. Firstly, and arguably most importantly, is the continuous push for larger units of local government, with the underpinning belief of their cost-effectiveness. Secondly, there is the austerity agenda of the Coalition Government, which has continued beyond 2015, and the push to save money. Finally, and this should be seen in tandem with the austerity drive, is localism. From one perspective, this is the idea of empowering local communities. The alternative is for the state to divest itself of delivering local services. It must be noted the idea of localism pre-dated the Localism Act 2011. Although under a different heading—devolution and double devolution—the Blair Government (1997–2007) had a clear localist agenda. A significant difference between the Blair and Cameron-led Coalition Governments was the extent to which it was centrally driven. The Blair Government approach saw the need for the centre to be active in promoting and assisting in delivering

2  THE DRIVE FOR MORE COST-EFFECTIVE LOCAL GOVERNMENT 

15

devolution to local government. The Cameron-led Coalition Government, on the other hand, appeared to adopt a more laissez-faire approach, leaving individuals and communities to be more pro-active in accessing the localism agenda. There was still an initial push from the centre to encourage participation. Thereafter, the touch appeared much lighter.

Bigger Is Better: The Push for Larger Units of Local Government There is a clear narrative behind local government mergers. Using Gulliver’s Travels as a reference point, there is a “Brobdingnagian” argument; that bigger is better. The giants of Brobdingnag refused to acknowledge that Gulliver could be human because he was too small. He might have had the appearance of being human, but there was no way in which all the features of humanity could be included in something so small. At times it seems as if the same applies whenever discussing the structures of local government: the small councils are considered to be too small to be able to deliver their services effectively and efficiently. Added to this, the dialogue when examining local government is all about the economic and cost advantages of larger units. Counter-arguments are ignored or dismissed out of hand. Such a perspective is not new in relation to local government across all of the UK. Any review of local government appears to result in mergers of pre-existing local authorities. The Local Government Act 1972 reduced the number of councils in England and Wales from 1243 to 409 principal authorities. Subsequent restructurings have seen the number reduced to 365, as of 2018 (Sandford 2018), with plans to merge more councils in the future. On top of this has been the collapse of Northamptonshire County Council. The replacement bodies will be two unitary authorities covering the entire county. This example will be explained later in the chapter. With each restructuring or merger, the language used focuses very much upon the economic benefits: the economies of scale. These arguments are presented as uncontested ‘facts’. The reality, however, is significantly different. Dearlove (1979) explored a series of restructurings of local governments across England and Wales. He found the origins of the fixation on size of local authorities dated back to the Poor Law 1834. Yet it was in the justification of a planned restructuring of local government in

16 

A. JONES

Wales in the 1960s that the lack of supporting evidence came to the fore. The Local Government Commission for Wales, which was established in 1958 and reported in 1963, deemed local government to be inefficient. A minimum size and population was deemed necessary (see Dearlove 1979), yet no supporting evidence was presented to justify why this was the case. The numbers appeared arbitrary. Linked to this, the advantages in the economies of scale were deemed to be ‘obvious’, but again no explanation or justification was presented. Any subsequent plans to enlarge the units of local government referred back to this Commission’s report, be it about size or economies of scale. This has been seen with more recent mergers of local authorities, as well as in restructuring of such bodies. On 1 April 2009, Cornwall unitary authority was created, with the merger of Cornwall County Council and six borough and district councils in Cornwall—Caradon, Carrick, Kerrier, North Cornwall, Restormel, and Penwith. The justification centred around strong leadership, local responsiveness, and value for money. There was also an acknowledgement of the need to strengthen local communities. This latter point will be explored in the next chapter, although it must be noted a pre-existing structure of parish councils was already prevalent in the county. With regard to the tiered structure, the duplication of effort was deemed “inefficient and costly” (Cornwall County Council 2007, 10), although the different tiers provided different services, and the extent of the duplication could be questioned. Cornwall County Council’s submission continued noting the merger would “benefit from economies of scale, making significant efficiency savings by bringing together public services in Cornwall in a more coordinated and focussed way” (10). An entire chapter of the submission detailed how these benefits would materialise. Unsurprisingly, the counter-­ arguments are lacking, although the initial costs of the merger are noted. An example of a restructuring can be seen in Northamptonshire County Council, which was effectively declared bankrupt in 2018. There was a range of different reasons as to why this was the case, with financial mismanagement near the top of the list. None of the seven councils in the tier below the county council were in a similar position. To remedy the situation, the entire council structure of the council was reviewed. The two-­ tiered structure, which had been in place since 1974, will be replaced by two unitary authorities in April 2021. In proposing this remedy, one justification has been a level of cost savings. Efficiency and value for money are key drivers (Northamptonshire County Council 2019). There is also a belief a unitary authority will be a more effective deliverer of services,

2  THE DRIVE FOR MORE COST-EFFECTIVE LOCAL GOVERNMENT 

17

although it is unclear as to how this will be the case. Again, the language being used is not supported by any empirical evidence to defend the claims being made. In this planned restructuring, the status quo was not considered to be an option. Neither was the retention of the district and borough councils as unitary authorities. Instead, there was a clear push for either a single unitary authority or, to separate more clearly the new body from the failing Northamptonshire County Council, two unitary bodies across the county. As with the Cornwall example, above, there was also an acknowledgement of the need for the most local of councils—the parish councils. Of the councils under the umbrella of Northamptonshire County Council, three of them are fully parished Daventry District Council, East Northamptonshire District Council, and South Northamptonshire District Council. The same cannot be said of the other four district or borough councils. With the move to two unitary authorities, there are plans for parish councils to become more active and prominent. This has also included the development of new parish councils—Northampton Town Council— and the plans to create more, such as Kettering Town Council. There is an extensive global literature on the issues surrounding any restructuring of local government. For example, Copus and Jones (2013) compiled such a literature review for the Welsh Local Government Association, to inform their submission to the Commission on Public Service Governance & Delivery Service Provider Consultation (known as the Williams Commission). The findings in this review found the economic arguments for larger authorities to be split. Around half of the literature found benefits with larger authorities, where economies of scale could be utilised effectively. The other half presented negative findings. There were issues around, for example, hidden costs, such as laying off staff from the defunct authorities. This impacted upon the loss of institutional knowledge, and the need to rebuild such knowledge from scratch. The knock-on effect was actually a potential increase in costs in the short and long term. The literature also highlighted how things could differ on a case-by-case basis. Even where there were similar demographics, the creation of larger units of local government did not result in similar outcomes. With regard to impact upon democratic engagement, the literature was overwhelmingly of the opinion that larger authorities resulted in less engagement—be it through voting or even interacting with the local authority. Larger local authorities, in terms of both population and geographical size, saw an increasing disconnect between the council and the public. This has become known as the ‘democratic deficit’. The ratio

18 

A. JONES

between the number of councillors and the number of residents each of them represents is already far higher than any other council across Europe. The average ratio is over 2250 residents to 1 councillor (Game 2018) and is increasing. In effect, there are fewer councillors to deal with the problems of an increased number of ward residents. The knock-on effect of this has been for the councillors to become overworked and unable to represent their residents adequately. That feeling of representing a community was also diminished (see Copus and Wall 2017). A counter-argument to this perspective has been in the use of technology. Those who have questioned such findings, as those presented in Copus and Jones (2013), argue that technology makes it easier for councillors to deal with their constituents. Yet the findings from the Councillor Commission questioned that perspective as well. On the one hand, the use of technology has made it easier for people to access their councillors. The downside, at least from a councillor’s perspective, is that the volume of e-mails has increased markedly. Added to this, other forms of communication, such as WhatsApp or Facebook messenger, have led to an even greater increase in communications from the public. And that is even before the councillors commented on the trolling of their peers by members of the public through such online methods. A greater number of residents in a ward means an even greater number of communications for councillors. However, when governments are presenting the case for larger units of local government, the democratic aspects are pushed to one side. It is almost as if they are considered inconsequential. The economic arguments, and especially those around the economies of scale, hold sway. One of the most obvious consequences of the creation of larger local authorities is the opportunity for the development of parish councils. As the distance between the individual and their council grows, so does the disengagement. That distance—that ‘democratic deficit’—can be filled by parish councils and parish councillors. There is much anecdotal evidence of preparations to create new parish councils where larger local authorities—and particularly unitary authorities—are planned. It is, after all, the most local tier of government. This aspect will be examined in Chap. 3. In some parts of England, such as Cornwall, there is a strong tradition of active parish councils. Conversely, noting that only 30% of England is parished, there is a large part of the country with no such tradition.

2  THE DRIVE FOR MORE COST-EFFECTIVE LOCAL GOVERNMENT 

19

Austerity: The Need to Save Money The austerity programme introduced by the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition (2010–2015) had its origins in the global financial crisis of 2007–2008. At the time of the crisis, governments from around the world bailed out financial institutions, in an attempt to stop a global financial meltdown. In the aftermath of such bailouts, there was a backlash against the allegedly excessive spending on the public sectors in many countries. Too much had been spent by central governments, and that spending was unsustainable. Little consideration was given to the excesses of the financial sector. A high level of public spending was deemed to be bad for a country. Where central government debt had previously been deemed acceptable, the opposite came to the fore. Central governments were complicit in this new drive to balance the books. There was a clear ideological underpinning to the imposition of these austerity programmes—a neo-­liberal, small state approach. Public sectors around the world were penalised for governments bailing out their national financial sectors. The case against austerity was dismissed (see Gray and Barford 2018). In Britain, the Coalition Government aimed to reduce public spending. Some parts of the public sector were protected from the worst excesses of these cuts, for example, education and health. In the case of local government, huge cuts were introduced. The budget for local government in England in 2018–2019 was £95.9  billion (Ministry of Housing Communities and Local Government 2018). This is down almost £8.5 billion on the spending in 2010–2011, although up by over £2 billion on the low point in  local government spending in 2016–2017. In real terms, between 2010 and 2016, the local government budget was cut more than any other central government department (Gray and Barford 2018). To break this down a little further, the spending of a single council can be examined. The budget in 2010–2011 for Leicester City Council was £358 million. By 2019–2020, the budget had fallen to £294 million. This was despite the spending on social care—for adults and children—increasing over that time period. Consequently, while the overall budget has been cut by £64 million, the reality is that spending outside of social care has actually fallen by £90 million (Leicester City Council 2019). The problem for local government was the services that were provided still needed to be funded. Thus all statutory services—those required to be provided by local authorities—could not be cut very easily. It was

20 

A. JONES

controversial to look at reducing the volume of statutory services, with a huge public outcry whenever councils felt compelled to such action. For some councils, it has been a case of cutting the statutory provision to a minimal level just to balance the books. The discretionary services—those local authorities choose to provide but have no obligation to do so—are those which have borne the brunt of the cuts. Again, there has been huge outcry over such cuts. Although local authorities can point to the cutting of their grants from the centre, it does appear like the passing of the buck. The local authorities take the blame in the cutting of any service. The situation has been exacerbated by increased demand on many statutory services, most notably Adult Social Care and Children’s Social Care, as noted in the Leicester City Council example, above. The cost of providing these services has also increased significantly, with councils being dependent upon private providers to supplement their own provision. Yet, with a shrinking budget, this has placed even more pressure on other service providers, often resulting in the cutting of some discretionary services. The problem for the public sector as a whole is that cutting back of discretionary services is a false economy. Consider, as an example, the maintenance of parks, a discretionary service on which almost every council is looking at cutting spending. The cutting of the grass and the maintenance of play areas are reduced in an effort to save money. This may lead to the play equipment becoming unsafe for children. A potential consequence is an increased likelihood of accidents, leading to more pressure on local NHS services, be it through needing to access a local doctor or, in a worst-­case scenario, the Accident and Emergency section of the local hospital. Thus even more of a burden is placed on another part of the public sector which is already overstretched. The longer grass could very easily become a refuge for vermin, making the park as a whole even more unsafe. The lack of maintenance often leads to an increase in other offences, such as fly-tipping. This blight will impact upon the local community. An alternative example is the shutting down of Youth and Community Centres. This type of service is valued most highly by those parts of society which are least well off. The services provided by these centres give added opportunities for young people who may have difficulties at home or in education, or have some form of disability. This support is often individualised. Shutting such centres cuts these young people off, leaving them in a potential poverty trap where they become dependent upon social services or, in worst-case scenarios, become homeless due to domestic pressures.

2  THE DRIVE FOR MORE COST-EFFECTIVE LOCAL GOVERNMENT 

21

One of the consequences of the austerity programme has been for councils to become more innovative. This will be explored in much greater detail in the next section of this chapter. The context of austerity needs also to be acknowledged. Councils have looked to new forms of service provision as a result of the austerity programme. Featherstone et al. (2012) used the term “austerity localism”. In effect, the austerity programme driven by the centre could be used to incentivise localism. In some cases, this has meant the development of partnerships; these could be with other local authorities, other public sector organisations, or with private providers (see Jones and Copus 2020). Such partnerships, which have been a key feature of local government service provision dating back to the Compulsory Competitive Tendering of the 1980s, have been particularly important with regard to the provision of statutory services in times of austerity. In the case of discretionary services, bodies such as parish councils have been given the opportunity to take on board the provision of these services, for their specific community. While this has led to something of a fragmentation of service delivery, it has provided the opportunity for parish councils to mould the service to fit the needs of their community. The caveat here, however, is a refusal to take on the delivery of these local services would result in the cessation of their delivery. This will be explored in greater detail in Chap. 3.

Localism Although this section is going to focus upon the localism agenda pushed by the Coalition Government, the ideas behind such an agenda were not new. There is a long history of localism in England (see Wills 2016, chapter 2). In more recent times, the Blair Government was very keen on promoting community engagement. This was carried through via ideas such as devolution and double devolution. Yet such citizen engagement was very much centrally driven, as had been many aspects of localism in the twentieth century (see Wills 2016). There were a host of initiatives from the Blair Government, as well as reviews of previous policies such as the Inquiry into New Towns: Their Problems and Future (House of Commons Transport, Local Government and the Regions Committee 2002). It was all about persuading communities and groups to get more involved.

22 

A. JONES

Part of the problem about localism, however, is in defining the concept. Clarke and Cochrane (2013, 16) noted how localism was “a fuzzy political concept with many uses and meanings”. This was taken further by Cochrane (2016), who identified six different interpretations of the concept. Each was useful in their own specific context but could be problematic in others. Thus localism could be about the role of local government in a state hierarchy. Such an interpretation fits in comfortably with the approach adopted by the Blair Government. Yet localism could also be about geographic scale or about community and place. An alternative interpretation, which fits in with the neo-liberal ideology, sees localism as “an anti-bureaucratic metaphor” (Cochrane 2016, 910). Such an interpretation is exemplified in David Cameron’s ‘Big Society’, which was a key part of his government’s localist agenda. The Localism Act 2011 was presented as a radical devolution of power, taking it from the centre to the local level—be it to principal authorities, parish councils, communities, or even individuals. There was an acknowledgement of the legislation being part of the austerity programme: “Localism should not be adopted purely as a way to achieve reductions in public sector costs, for it is unclear whether it will be able to deliver this in the short term” (House of Commons Communities and Local Government Committee 2011, 3). There was also an acknowledgement within the Cameron localism agenda of the need for central government to resist intervening in local affairs. This was clearly a dig at the Blair Government, where the centre had been much more active in promoting and pushing their devolution agenda. Thus, in some sectors of local government there was change through the localism agenda. Schools, for example, could remove themselves from local authority control, and become academies. This meant they were funded directly from the centre and accountable ultimately to the centre. Such academies were given greater flexibility in relation to the national curriculum, as well as over terms and conditions in the employment of staff. A similar flexibility was given to any ‘Free Schools’—those established outside of local authorities. Free Schools are, in effect, a form of academy but are completely new state schools which have been established to meet a specific local demand. These Free Schools fitted snugly into the David Cameron idea of the ‘Big Society’ and localism, where local parents came together to establish and run such schools. One of the alleged benefits of becoming an academy or establishing a Free School was

2  THE DRIVE FOR MORE COST-EFFECTIVE LOCAL GOVERNMENT 

23

a lighter regulatory regime compared to those schools remaining under local authority control. The localism agenda envisaged by the Cameron-led Coalition Government saw local communities taking over the provision of local services. If, for example, there were plans to shut the local post office, the local community should be consulted to see if they wished to take over the provision of that service. It may be that such a service, which was community-­led, would be far less than the service provided by the post office, for example, reduced opening hours. It might also be linked to other locally provided services such as a library. The localism agenda was not just about furthering the Thatcherite ideal of rolling back the frontiers of the state. It was also about engaging with local communities in the provision of any services, be they public or private sector. Within all of this localist agenda, the expectation was of communities taking over the provision of services from the state. There was little or no expectation of parish councils becoming more active. As will be seen in Chap. 3, an increased prominence of parish councils in the delivery of services has been one of the spillovers from the localism agenda.

Conclusion This chapter has focused on the central drivers which have led to the opportunity for an increased role for parish councils. All three features examined in this chapter highlight how the centre has pushed a particular agenda—be it larger units of local government, austerity politics, or the localism agenda. It should also be seen in the historical and constitutional contexts, detailed in Chap. 1, where the centre has repeatedly asserted itself in the affairs of sub-national government. All three features have a single commonality: saving money. There is a clear belief, which is not wholly supported by evidence, that larger units of government are more effective and more efficient in all that they do. The economic arguments, which can be contested, are presented; the democratic arguments, which do not support the belief that bigger is better, are sidelined. The idea of a ‘democratic deficit’ is brushed aside. If people do not want to participate, that is their choice. Austerity, quite simply, was about the ways and means in which money could be saved—or, more accurately, how public spending could be cut. Again, it was centrally driven. Local government spending was one of the biggest casualties. At the same time, linked to austerity, there was a

24 

A. JONES

reinvigorated drive for localism. David Cameron’s idea of the ‘Big Society’ saw public sector provision of services being removed from the state and given to other organisations—be they community groups, voluntary organisations, or even private sector businesses. The underlying belief was that such bodies are far better at delivering public services than the organs of the state. Yet, in all of this, one unintended consequence has been the resurgence of parish councils. As principal authorities have cut back on services, so parish councils have taken the opportunity to provide these services to their local communities. There has been a mix of carrot and stick—or, maybe carrot and semtex (Wilson and Game 2011). The carrot is the opportunity to deliver services to the local community. The semtex is the threat of the services ceasing altogether if the parish fails to avail themselves of the opportunity to do so. Little thought appears to have been given as to the capacity for parishes to deliver these services. This capacity issue will be explored in Chap. 5. There appears to be an assumption by those in principal authorities that parish councils will take over the service provision. If it subsequently fails, the principal authority will not share any portion of the blame. Clearly the service was uneconomic and doomed to failure anyway.

Bibliography Clarke, N., & Cochrane, A. (2013). Geographies and Politics of Localism: The Localism of the United Kingdom’s Coalition Government. Political Geography, 34, 10–23. Cochrane, A. (2016). Thinking About the ‘Local’ of Local Government: A Brief History of Invention and Reinvention. Revisited Series. Local Government Studies, 42(6), 907–915. Copus, C., & Jones, A. (2013). Welsh Local Government Association Literature Review on Council Size: Commission on Public Service Governance & Delivery Service Provider Consultation. Leicester: DMU. Copus, C., & Wall, R. (2017). The Voice of the Councillor: Final Report of the De Montfort University and Municipal Journal Councillor Commission. Leicester: DMU. Cornwall County Council. (2007). One Cornwall One Council. Part One – Our proposal for a single Council for Cornwall. Dearlove, J. (1979). The Reorganisation of British Local Government: Old Orthodoxies and a Political Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

2  THE DRIVE FOR MORE COST-EFFECTIVE LOCAL GOVERNMENT 

25

Featherstone, D., Ince, A., Mackinnon, D., Strauss, K., & Cumbers, A. (2012). Progressive Localism and the Construction of Political Alternatives. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 37(2), 177–182. Game, C. (2018). England’s Local Elections: How Councillor Numbers Are Being Reduced by Stealth. Democratic Audit. Retrieved from https://www. democraticaudit.com/2018/04/27/englands-local-elections-how-councillornumbers-are-being-reduced-by-stealth/. Gray, M., & Barford, A. (2018). The Depths of the Cuts: The Uneven Geography of Local Government Austerity. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 11(3), 541–563. House of Commons Communities and Local Government Committee. (2011). Localism: Third Report of Session 2010–12. HC547. London: The Stationery Office Limited. House of Commons Transport, Local Government and the Regions Committee. (2002). The New Towns: Their Problems and Future. HC603-II Memorandum Submitted to the Urban Affairs Sub-Committee. London: The Stationery Office Limited. Jones, A., & Copus, C. (2020). Local State-Society Relations in England. In F. Teles, A. Gendzwiłł, C. Stanus, & H. Heinelt (Eds.), Close Ties in European Local Governance: Linking Local State and Society (Vol. 1). Basingstoke: Palgrave. Leicester City Council. (2019, February). General Fund Budget Report, 2019–20. Retrieved from www.leicester.gov.uk › media › general-fund-budget-report-2019-2020. Local Government Act (1972). c. 70 (Crown Copyright). Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. (2018). Local Authority Revenue Expenditure and Financing: 2018–19 Budget, England. Local Government Finance Statistical Release. Northamptonshire County Council. (2019). Prospectus for Change: An Integrated Plan for Local Government Reform and Transformation in Northamptonshire. Sandford, M. (2018, December 21). Local Government in England: Structures. House of Commons Library Briefing Paper Number 07104. Wills, J. (2016). Locating Localism: Statecraft, Citizenship and Democracy. Bristol: Policy Press. Wilson, D., & Game, C. (2011). Local Government in the United Kingdom (5th ed.). Basingstoke: Palgrave.

CHAPTER 3

The Rise of Parish Councils?

Abstract  While a rise in the number of parish councils in England has already been noted, what is often unclear is the roles undertaken by such councils. As with all tiers of elected local government, there is the representative role. This role feeds into so much else which is undertaken by a parish council: the parish plan being the most obvious. Yet, as with all parts of government, the roles and tasks undertaken are funded through taxation. Thus much of what parish councils ‘do’ needs to be explored before examining any potential future developments. Keywords  Elections • Parish plans • Precept

Introduction In the first two chapters of this book, the focus has been upon backgrounding. The history and development of parish councils needed to be set in a constitutional context. Added to this are the other drivers which have created the potential space for parish councils to develop: larger principal authorities, austerity, and localism. Within all of this has been the hand of central government and any agenda it wishes to pursue. This chapter is going to examine what parish councils have been doing, not just in response to the driving forces from the centre but also in enhancing their own communities. That sets the scene to examine the potential for future development, in Chaps. 5 and 6. © The Author(s) 2020 A. Jones, The Resurgence of Parish Council Powers in England, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-45128-8_3

27

28 

A. JONES

On the one hand, there are quite severe limitations upon what parish councils can ‘do’. The legislation is quite clear as to the role of parish councils. Conversely, within those limitations, there are significant opportunities to work in partnership with other bodies to deliver services for the local community. For parish councils, it is the ability to develop this balancing act, without appearing to step on the toes of the principal authority. Within this chapter, there is a focus on a series of areas to highlight ways in which parish councils have been able to enhance their role, in particular through developing new partnerships. This will not be presented through rose-tinted glasses. Not all of these partnerships have been successful or problem-free. It is important to examine such cases in order to explore the extent to which parish councils have the capacity to expand their role beyond that which is currently undertaken. These examples can also be read in conjunction with the activities of parish council-equivalents in other countries, as will be explored in Chap. 4.

Parish Plans Parish plans are not new. Owen (2002, 81) noted how “all communities in rural areas should prepare parish plans setting out what their village should look like and guiding its future development”. This idea was detailed in the UK Government’s Rural White Paper 2000, although there had been similar plans proposed in the early 1990s. Other schemes pre-­ date these plans, with the use of village appraisals in the 1970s. These enabled communities to identify local characteristics, problems, needs, threats, and opportunities to form the basis for community-initiated action (Owen and Moseley 2003, 455). There were also Village Design Statements, which focused specifically on any development proposals, to ensure any such developments fitted in with the village. Added to this were Village Action Plans, which were a response to the perceived neglect of rural communities (Moseley 2002). This was about developing a local dimension in any community strategy, although they were somewhat patchy and there were difficulties in turning the plans into action. This is often related to a capacity issue, which will be explored in Chap. 5. Parish plans are not just linked to planning issues, which are examined later in this chapter, although there is a clear tension between parish plans and planned developments from principal authorities. Similar to village design statements, a parish plan may also perform a democratic role, having the potential “to enhance the future performance of community-based

3  THE RISE OF PARISH COUNCILS? 

29

decision making in villages” (Owen 2002, 83). Aspects of good practice could be disseminated to other parish councils. It is about getting that engagement with the local community. A parish plan should feed into any proposed development projects emanating from the principal authority or from the Local Strategic Partnership. The plans should consider the needs and requirements of each parish. This could, for example, include the facilities that might be required by the community, or the defence of green space. There are, however, some concerns about parish plans. Bishop (2007, 343) noted how they could be little more than short-term, parochial, wish lists—although many are far more substantial. They may be seen as being whimsical or, more broadly, undeliverable (Gallent et al. 2008). Yet this is the balance which needs to be struck. It is about engaging with the local community to find out what they want and then working on how to deliver on those desires. If the pipedreams are too whimsical, there needs to be a discussion around what is achievable and what is not, as well as an explanation as to why it is the case. Aspiration to ‘do more’ can be built into any parish plan, and such plans should not be considered in isolation. It is often about how to build the capacity to be able to deliver on such plans. They can be built into the strategic plans of the principal authorities. The problem, as will be seen later in this chapter, is trying to find the common ground between the parishes and their plans, and the partners involved in delivering those projects. Underpinning the design of these parish plans is an important point. Gallent (2013, 384) notes the “common view that communities need plans—or some alternative project—to become a community”. If there is no plan on how to develop and grow a community, the perception appears to be it will founder. In the past, these small communities drifted along in the hurly-burly of the world. Today, that is not perceived as a viable option. The problem in developing these plans is the inability of parish councils to deliver on them in isolation. They are dependent upon actions by others (Bishop 2010). Almost any parish plan will require an input from the principal authority and other partners. That input may well start with resources. As will be explored in Chap. 5, there is now an opportunity, as never before, for the development of parish councils. There is something of a perfect storm: austerity, localism, and the creation of ever-larger principal authorities. The development of parish plans is a key stepping stone in enabling parish councils to grow. Yet it is important to develop the capacity of the parish councils to enable them to do so. Failure to build the

30 

A. JONES

capacity to deliver will result in the parish plans being deemed as pipedreams, and may ultimately result in the demise of the parish council and the sense of community.

Parish Precept An important point to note about parish councils is the way in which they are funded. A perception, which is wholly inaccurate, is their dependence upon monies from the principal authorities. Instead, parish councils are dependent upon their precept. The precept is included in a council tax bill. Council taxpayers in the parish cannot refuse to pay the precept, and the billing authority—a district or borough council or a unitary authority—cannot refuse to levy it. There has been criticism in the media of the extent to which parish councils appear to charge excessive amounts for the precepts. In February 2017, the BBC was reporting on how precepts were rising at a higher percentage than council tax (BBC 2017). The headline was far more provocative than the actual story. Two years later, a similar report (BBC 2019) noted how precept charges were going up to fund services which could no longer be provided by the principal authorities. The headline in this circumstance was far more even handed. In 2018/2019, £518  million was collected by the parish precept (Sandford 2019). To put that into context, this is across over 8800 parish councils which charged a precept, while the average charge for a Band D property was £64. Noting council tax is paid for ten months of the year, this works out at £6.40 per month for a Band D property. A Band A property will pay two-thirds the rate of a Band D property, while a Band H property will pay double that of one in Band D. Thus the average annual payment could be anything from £42.67 to £128, depending upon the value of the property. The figures themselves cover a wide range of authorities. In 2018–2019, there were 49 parish councils which raised over £1 million in their precept. The parish council which collected the most was Salisbury City Council, which raised over £3 million. Note, however, the average annual Band D council taxpayer was charged £208 for that precept in Salisbury. The highest annual precept in England in 2018–2019 was South Kirkby and Moorthorpe Parish Council in Wakefield—£306.38; the lowest of those who charged a precept was 24 pence in Surfleet Parish Council, South Holland District Council (see Sandford 2019, 8 and references).

3  THE RISE OF PARISH COUNCILS? 

31

While parish councils can raise money from elsewhere (leasing out the use of a parish or town hall for events, applying to the Lottery Commission to fund a particular project, etc.), the precept makes up the largest proportion of their finances. Ellwood (1999, 8) noted the dependence of parish councils on their precept. In 1989–1990, 56% of parish income came from the precept. By 1995–1996, it was 70%. This dependence on the precept to fund local services is hugely important (BBC 2019). There is no cap on how much a parish council may raise its precept. Principal authorities must hold a referendum if they wish to raise council tax above a particular threshold, set by central government. For 2019/2020, that threshold was set at 3% or £5 for a Band D property. Principal authorities with social care responsibilities (unitary authorities and county councils) could raise their council tax by up to 5%, although anything over the 3% was ring-fenced for social care. Parish councils do not have this constraint—hence the negative stories in the media. There has also been speculation, however, that principal authorities are creating new parish councils to avoid having to hold a referendum on council tax rises which go above the government limit. Where there has been such speculation, it has been denied most vociferously by the charging authority. Yet, taken in the context of austerity and localism, as examined in Chap. 2, such speculation remains.

Planning Planning is one area where parish councils appear to have the opportunity for greater involvement. The whole planning process has been developed through national legislation, including the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, and the Localism Act 2011. The aims of the planning processes are to ensure the public are better informed about all of the processes and to get them more engaged (see Jones and Copus 2019). Thus, there is a need for public consultation in any planning proposals. In fact, the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government (2019, 13) has noted principal authorities should encourage those making planning applications “to engage with the local community and, where relevant, with statutory and non-statutory consultees, before submitting their applications”. It must be noted, however, parish councils have no statutory planning responsibilities or powers. Being the most local form of local government, they are obvious bodies to consult. They have a connection and engagement with

32 

A. JONES

the local community that is sometimes not so strong with the principal authorities. Yet the issue of planning is one which often causes great consternation among parish councillors. The Councillor Commission (see Copus and Wall 2017) explored the role of councillors in England. In responding to the Commission, almost every parish councillor highlighted a frustration in their relationship with the principal authority. In the relationship with district and borough councils, the gravest concern was over the planning regime. Principal authorities have a duty to consult parish councils over any development plans. These should take into consideration any parish plans. Yet feedback from parish councillors was stark. While consultation was undertaken, such consultation was not taken seriously. The opinions of parish councils were felt to be inconsequential. The principal authorities, it was suggested, went through the motions of consulting with the parish councils, having already decided the outcome of the planning proposals. There was a very strong feeling here that parish councils should be given a far greater role in the planning processes. One issue here is whether or not there needs to be some form of legislation to ensure the opinions of parish councils are taken more seriously. Yet such legislation would be something of a double-edged weapon. On the one hand, the potential positives for a parish council are clear: they will be consulted and their position will be taken on board. Such a position is most likely to be seen in a parish plan. The concern, however, is the extent to which a parish council may be representative of its community. For example, how many of the councillors are elected and how many are co-­ opted? Tewdwr-Jones (1998) has questioned the suitability of parish councils in representing local interests. He has noted how they can suffer from “a lack of credibility and influence, a lack of qualified professional support staff, a parochial outlook, a lack of political direction, an absence of competition for council seats” (Tewdwr-Jones 1998, 53). Developing this point further, parish plans may be so whimsical, as noted earlier, as to be impossible to implement, and they may prevent any future developments. A concern for any developer is NIMBYism—Not In My Back Yard—and the extent to which a parish council, and the councillors sitting on it, may act in such a manner. Conversely, and in this we come full circle, is the fear of developers acting in conjunction with principal authorities to ride roughshod over the wishes of a local community. There is also a danger that partnerships

3  THE RISE OF PARISH COUNCILS? 

33

between parish councils and private or public service providers may be colonised by elite groups seeking to further their own specific interests (Tewdwr-Jones 1998). These fears are not specific to parish councils; they apply to all tiers of sub-national government.

Transport “I would rather trust the Women’s Institute than the parish council in many places, and I would emphasise that in matters of transport the representatives of the people do not suffer from the constraints that apply to many of their constituents” (Hibbs 1972, 15). Hibbs went on to point out how parish, district, and county councillors were far removed from the day-to-day issues of the average person in the street, and that the larger the local authority, the more disengaged were the elected representatives. Although almost fifty years ago, the issue of the disconnect between large authorities and the people living under those local authorities has not been resolved (as noted in Chap. 2). If anything, those larger authorities have grown even larger and the disconnect—that ‘democratic deficit’—has also grown. Yet while transport may be under the control of principal authorities, parish councils do have a role on this issue—and a role which is often neglected. Transportation issues such as footpaths, rights of way, traffic, bus shelters, street lighting, and car parking can all be dealt with at the parish level, and often are. Yet in this there may be conflict between the desires of the parish council and those of the principal authority or the county council. The findings of the Councillor Commission saw the issue of transport as a problem for parish councillors, in the same way as planning. Where planning is only under the auspices of district or borough councils, or unitary authorities, transport is under the remit of county councils as well. One respondent documented the difficulty in getting a pedestrian crossing installed (Copus and Wall 2017). There was a clear risk factor, but there had been no serious accidents (to date). Consequently, the county council argued that such a crossing would be a waste of money. The perception, at least from the parish councillor involved, and also from others who have expressed similar concerns over such issues in other parish councils, was that there would have to be a death before the county council would act.

34 

A. JONES

More broadly, issues around transport are nothing new. Hibbs noted in the early 1970s that “the village bus is on the verge of extinction” (1972, 10). There was a need, even then, for a rural transport policy to consider a viable service that could be integrated into the local community. One of the greatest barriers was the issue of subsidies for the providers of that bus service. This is something that has not changed in the intervening years, although the subsidies now go largely to private sector providers rather than those from the public sector. Where Hibbs came up with a solution of no fixed bus routes, and for the service providers to engage with the local communities to map out the transportation needs of the local community, such a radical approach was not adopted. At that time there was a growth in car ownership, and public transport was deemed less of a need. Consequently, in the intervening years, rural bus routes have been decimated. Now, there are issues around social inclusion being linked to the provision of rural bus services, with parish councils playing a key role. Local authorities have a duty to secure “socially necessary bus services” which are not provided commercially (Butcher 2010). In this capacity, the relationship between the parish council and the principal authority is extremely important. The parish council is able to communicate the needs of their community to the principal authority. Parish councils were granted powers “to support transport initiatives” through the Local Government and Rating Act 1997 (Butcher 2010). This enabled parish councils to set a precept for a number of transport-­ related issues. These included the development of car-sharing schemes, a community bus service, traffic calming measures, and so forth. Parish councils could also finance the provision of new bus shelters (Butcher 2010). For the principal authority, from a cynical perspective, this was a way in which some expenditure could be removed from their books. The maintenance of the new facilities would also fall on the parish council.

Developing Partnerships Many parish councils have been working in partnership with other bodies to deliver services for the benefit of the local community. There is, however, no standard format or relationship. Each tends to be much more ad hoc. This ad hoc-ness is a feature of local government in England as a whole (see Jones and Copus 2020). To make things more complicated, it is often difficult to track these partnerships, especially at the parish council level. There may be coverage in  local newspapers and parish newsletters.

3  THE RISE OF PARISH COUNCILS? 

35

Academic coverage is scattered across various disciplines. Consequently, the work undertaken by parish councils is somewhat under-acknowledged. Newman (2005) examined different forms of governance for parish councils and, within this, noted the importance of developing partnerships. Such partnerships have already been noted through earlier aspects of this chapter, including transport, planning, and parish plans. Pearce and Ellwood (2002, 42–43) note how parish councils have a range of powers to support services through other locally based organisations. These powers are normally wielded by the principal authority, especially when there is no parish or town council. “In practice most local councils provide a fairly restricted range of services and three dominate their expenditure: parks/open space, village/community halls and footpath maintenance” (Pearce and Ellwood 2002, 43). Yet, in collaboration with the principal authorities, and assuming there is a willingness to collaborate, there is potential for parish councils to deliver on so many other issues. An example of how a partnership can develop can be seen in a study of the Malvern Hills District Council in Worcestershire (see Yarwood 2002). In this particular circumstance, the principal authority played a key role in persuading parish councils to participate in the development process, and to work in partnership with other agencies. The issue surrounded building new and affordable housing. Parish councils were considered important partners in this development. They had the local knowledge with regard to what could be built, and what could not. The planning officers of the district council considered it better to have the parish councils as allies in any development plans rather than opponents. The developers were also actively encouraged to consult with the parish councils, to see what sort of development would be appropriate and acceptable to the local communities. Consequently, those parish councils—and, more specifically, councillors—became the targets for opposition to the plans for building new houses (Yarwood 2002, 284). Yet, if there was a lack of local support—be it from the parish council or from the local community—the development plans would founder. This case study goes further in presenting a clear role for parish councils in housing development plans. The partnership is not just about getting the houses built. In this particular example, the parish councils played a key role in identifying specific housing needs, finding suitable sites, and liaising with local residents and the developers. Yet the relationship can go much further than the building of houses. In one specific example

36 

A. JONES

(Yarwood 2002, 284), a strong partnership was formed between a parish council and a local housing association after the latter suggested that new affordable homes could help to retain services, in particular a primary school, in the parish. In return, the parish council assisted in locating a site and in conducting a housing needs survey. Crucially, on completion of the scheme, the housing association continued to liaise with the parish council and, consequently, a second phase of development occurred (Yarwood 2002, 284). This has clear benefits not just for the parish council and the developers, but also the principal authority which was willing to encourage such partnerships. Crucial in all of this has to be clear lines of communication between all partners, including the local community. Although the Malvern Hills example had some success, it was not unqualified. Power disputes arose over who controlled and managed the housing built by these partnerships, raising wider questions about the nature of participation and governance in partnership projects. In this particular example, some of the parish councils wanted an input into which people would be moving into the new developments. There appeared to be some misunderstanding as to the extent of the parish input into such decisions. Parish councillors believed they had the right to this input as they had advised the developers fully on how to take the developments forward. The housing associations which were maintaining the houses, on the other hand, saw the role of the parish councils as being advisors to the development only. Thereafter, it was up to the housing association as to how the properties were managed. Such issues go far beyond this case study and are a point of concern for any form of partnership. The Malvern Hills example shows the ability of parish councils to be able to work in partnership. The potential input can have a profound impact upon how developments may be taken forward. Work clearly needs to be done on the contracts with regard to the running of any completed project. Such detail, while of great importance, is not beyond the wit of a parish council and its partners. Another example demonstrates how parish councils may represent public opinion in large-scale planning proposals. Toke (2005) has examined a case study of wind farms and their location. The opinion of parish councils had a strong influence upon the councillors on planning committees. In fact, Toke (2005, 1534) has noted how this may actually be undue influence. Not only does each parish have on average around 2% of the council population, but many of the parish councillors are double- or even triple hatters—sitting on some combination of parish, district, and county

3  THE RISE OF PARISH COUNCILS? 

37

councils. The parish councillor level is, arguably, the most important; it is definitely the most ‘local’. Yet a double- or triple-hatter will have different pressures being brought to bear at each level of representation. There is a debate as to which ‘hat’ is considered to be the most important, but that goes beyond this book. Anecdotally, single-hat parish councillors argue the higher the hat, the more likely the councillor will toe the line of that council. There are, as ever, important caveats. There may be a concern about the extent to which the parish council represented local needs (which is discussed below). While parish councils have the potential to represent local interests and opinion, this potential may not be realised. Parish councillors may also, conversely, be working at the behest of the partners as well as the parish council. In such circumstances, there is a need for transparency, with any vested interests being declared.

Representation One of the most important roles played by a parish council is that of representation. As has already been noted, parish councils are the most local form of local government; they are the tier which is closest to the voters. As you move further up the structures of elected government, to principal authorities, and parliamentary constituencies, each tends to be more distant from the voters than the previous. Added to this, in parish council elections, the role of ‘party’ is deemed far less important. In all other tiers of government election, party labels tend to be better known than the individual candidates. Candidates stand for election on party manifestos. While many parish council elections do not see party representation, there are exceptions. The most notable of which is the double- or triple-hatter. If there is a party label at the principal authority elections, there will be a party label at the parish elections as well. This follows the guidelines of the political parties. A party member standing for election is expected to declare that membership. Standing as an independent candidate, rather than declaring the party membership, is not deemed acceptable. A double- or triple-hatter may be compelled to stand down from the principal authorities in such circumstances, or, more likely, to stand down from the parish council. Traditionally, when examining the issue of representation, the question tends to focus upon who is represented by a person who gains election. Does that person represent the ward, division, or constituency?

38 

A. JONES

Alternatively, is it the political party under whose banner election was gained? Or is it a sponsor or backer? At the parish council level, councillors tend to be far more focused on their community and their electors. This is, as has been noted repeatedly, the most local form of government and, thus, the most local form of election. There is likely to be a very personal contact between a parish councillor and his or her voting community; they are very likely to know each other. Consequently, a parish councillor is most likely to represent the electorate ahead of anything else. Even in the largest of parish councils—Sutton Coldfield—that link between the parish councillor and the community remains strong. There is, however, a huge caveat. A significant number of parish councillors are elected unopposed. This is where no candidates stand against an incumbent or against a solitary candidate. Hicks (2019) noted there were no uncontested seats in the local government elections in England in 2018, but there were 148 in 2019. The numbers for parish councils are not so easily found. According to Willett (2019), the number of unopposed candidates in parish council elections in England in 2019 was over 300. She notes as well that in 2015, only 20% of parish councils held elections. It can be questioned, therefore, as to the extent to which such a parish councillor may be deemed ‘representative’ of the electors. Related to this issue is the parish councillor who does not stand for election, but is co-opted on to the council. Again, such co-options are not unusual. Parish councils are likely to have a clear co-option policy. The concern, with regard to representation, is the extent to which a co-opted parish councillor will be concerned about ‘representing’ the people or the community. There have been accusations of co-options being akin to a gentlemen’s club, with those who propose the candidates for co-option looking for ‘like-minded’ individuals. Tewdwr-Jones (1998) was particularly critical of the absence of competition for parish council seats and the ways in which co-option were undertaken. The issue of ‘representing’ the community or the parish is of great importance. It is this relationship which will underpin the demands for local facilities, and the ways in which such demands can be met. Further, the relationship will underpin the strategic plans for any parish council, as detailed in any parish plans. Linked to this is the financial element. The setting of the parish precept, and justifying any rises in the precept, is a key part of being a representative of a local community. The demands for

3  THE RISE OF PARISH COUNCILS? 

39

better services are clear; the way in which they are funded is as important. The idea of representing the community goes all the way back to the writings of Toulmin Smith (1857), as noted in Chap. 1. The parish councillor needs to have that strong relationship with the local community. In this respect, it adds credence to the idea of the parish councillor as the spokesperson for the community.

Conclusion Parish councils have a plethora of roles to perform, some of which have been noted in this chapter. The choice as to which roles are undertaken is decided upon by the council. Yet such a decision is not taken in isolation. There are demands placed upon parish councillors by the local community (also known as the electorate) to ensure the provision of particular services, but not at excessive cost. Arguably, this is part of the most important role of a parish council: that of representation. This is a mix of representing the community as a whole, as well as the individuals in that community. Thus, to meet the demands of parishioners, developments may be undertaken with partners. This could be in the provision of services: maintaining the parish hall, cutting grass verges, and so forth. Yet these partnerships can also be far more profound: provision of new housing for the community, or other economic developments. Parish councils have the scope to ensure such developments, although there is likely to be some form of input from a higher tier of government. What has become obvious over the last few years is the extent to which parish councils are taking on more and more roles. The encouragement to do so may come from the principal authorities or from central government, yet it may also come from within the local community itself. The questions are really now about the extent to which parish councils are able to provide even more services. The issue of capacity is paramount, as will be examined in Chap. 5. There are lessons to be learned in relation to what can—and cannot— be delivered by parish councils. Many of these lessons can be drawn from the experiences of parish councils, or their equivalents, in other countries. What is clear, even prior to any such lesson learning, is that parish councils appear to have the capability to deliver far more than they currently do.

40 

A. JONES

Bibliography BBC. (2017). Parish Council Tax Bills Rise Despite Squeeze. Retrieved February 23, 2017, from https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-38827421. BBC. (2019). Parish Council Tax Bills Rise ‘To Save Services from Cuts’. Retrieved June 18, 2019, from https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-48356581. Bishop, J. (2007). Plans Without Planners? Town and Country Planning, 76(10), 340–344. Bishop, J. (2010). From Parish Plans to Localism in England: Straight Track or Long and Winding Road? Planning Practice & Research, 25(5), 611–624. Butcher, L. (2010). Transport: Rural Areas. House of Commons Library SN/BT/365. Copus, C., & Wall, R. (2017). The Voice of the Councillor: Final Report of the De Montfort University and Municipal Journal Councillor Commission. Leicester: DMU. Ellwood, S. (1999). Parish and Town Councils: Left Out in the Cold but Invited to the Party. Public Money & Management, 19(3), 7–9. Gallent, N. (2013). Re-Connecting ‘People and Planning’: Parish Plans and the English Localism Agenda. Town Planning Review, 84(3), 371–396. Gallent, N., Morphet, J., & Tewdwr-Jones, M. (2008). Parish Plans and the Spatial Planning Approach in England. Town Planning Review, 79(1), 1–29. Hibbs, J. (1972). Maintaining Transport Services in Rural Areas. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, 6(1), 10–21. Hicks, E. (2019). Uncontested Elections: Where and Why Do They Take Place? Retrieved from https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/insights/ uncontested-elections-where-and-why-do-they-take-place/. Jones, A., & Copus, C. (2019). English Local Government and Environmental Matters. In Droit et Gestion des Collectivés Territoriales: La transition écologique et les collectives territoriales (pp. 235–240). Groupe Moniteur, Antony. Jones, A., & Copus, C. (2020). Local State-Society Relations in England. In F. Teles, A. Gendzwiłł, C. Stanus, & H. Heinelt (Eds.), Close Ties in European Local Governance: Linking Local State and Society (Vol. 1). Basingstoke: Palgrave. Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. (2019). National Planning Policy Framework. London: Crown Copyright. Moseley, M. (2002). Bottom-up ‘Village Action Plans’: Some Recent Experience in Rural England. Planning Practice & Research, 17(4), 387–405. Newman, I. (2005). Parish and Town Councils and Neighbourhood Governance. Report of a Joseph Rowntree Foundation Seminar Held on March 11, 2005. Owen, S. (2002). From Village Design Statements to Parish Plans: Some Pointers Towards Community Decision Making in the Planning System in England. Planning Practice & Research, 17(1), 81–89.

3  THE RISE OF PARISH COUNCILS? 

41

Owen, S., & Moseley, M. (2003). Putting Parish Plans in Their Place: Relationships Between Community-Based Initiatives and Development Planning in English Villages. Town Planning Review, 74(4), 445–471. Pearce, G., & Ellwood, S. (2002). Modernising Local Government: A Role for Parish and Town Councils. Local Government Studies, 28(2), 33–54. Sandford, M. (2019, February 25). Parish and Town Councils: Recent Issues. House of Commons Library Briefing Paper Number 04827. Tewdwr-Jones, M. (1998). Rural Government and Community Participation: The Planning Role of Community Councils. Journal of Rural Studies, 14, 51–62. Toke, D. (2005). Explaining Wind Power Planning Outcomes: Some Findings from a Study in England and Wales. Energy Policy, 33(12), 1527–1539. Toulmin Smith, J. (1857). The Parish: Its Powers and Obligations at Law. London: H. Sweet. Willett, J. (2019, May 1). Local Elections: ‘Disaster for Local Democracy’ as Hundreds of Seats Go Uncontested. The Conversation. Retrieved from http://theconversation.com/local-elections-disaster-for-local-democracy-ashundreds-of-seats-go-uncontested-115874. Yarwood, R. (2002). Parish Councils, Partnership and Governance: The Development of ‘Exceptions’ Housing in the Malvern Hills District, England. Journal of Rural Studies, 18(3), 275–291.

CHAPTER 4

An International Comparison

Abstract  Parish councils do not exist solely in England. Many countries have a similar tier of government, although the terminology may differ: the sub-municipality. It is important to compare the roles and functions of such a tier, if only for lesson-learning or drawing of best practice. Politicians and civil servants in England are often reluctant to accept such comparisons can be helpful. There tends to be a degree of introversion: we are different; we are unique; we know best. Comparison is not being conducted to disprove this perspective. Rather, it is to explore what could potentially be done better, as well as to avoid any future pitfalls. Keywords  Comparison • Parish councils • Sub-municipalities • Lesson-learning

Introduction One of the concerns when examining local government in England, lest say parish councils, is a reluctance to compare the role, power, or function with systems from other countries. In fact, when such comparisons are suggested, the same old dismissive clichés tend to be produced, especially by politicians: their system is different to ours; they have a different structure which would not be appropriate here; they have different functions or provide different services. Yet, it is a result of these differences that lessons can be drawn. It may well be, for example, that a given function may be © The Author(s) 2020 A. Jones, The Resurgence of Parish Council Powers in England, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-45128-8_4

43

44 

A. JONES

better provided at a local level rather than a regional or national level. Alternatively, the exact opposite may be true. There should be no fear in exploring what others do. It can be very much a lesson-learning exercise. The aim of this chapter is to draw such comparisons of parish councils and their equivalents. The aim is not to say the parish structure or functions undertaken in one country is better or worse than that of another. Instead, it is about exploring what roles and functions different systems of parish councils undertake. The lessons drawn from this chapter will feed into the two subsequent chapters: with regard to the issue of capacity, and the concluding chapter which will explore what parish councils may be able to do. There are a couple of caveats that need to be noted in advance for exploring other parish council systems. The first, especially from an English perspective, is that many countries, particularly in Europe, have very small units of local government. One of the most prominent examples of such a system of local government is France, although other examples include Hungary and Slovakia—where there are suggestions of too much fragmentation (Batorova et al. 2014). The problem here is these units of local government are still principal authorities (to use the English terminology). In such circumstances, the comparisons would not be with the same tier of local government. Other countries, such as the Czech Republic, also have very small units of local government. Kruntorádová and Jüptner (2015, 16) note the existence of very small historic towns. In the Czech Republic, there is normally a requirement of a population of 3000 citizens for a town to have a council, but some of the historic towns are significantly smaller and retain the right to have a council—Přebuz, for example, has a population of 81 citizens. This historic town is far smaller than any English parish council, but it still has a council. The second caveat is the use of terminology. When writing about local government, many European authors use the term ‘municipality’ rather than local authority or local government. For the tier of parish councils, the term ‘sub-municipal government’ is used instead. In this chapter, the terms ‘municipality’ and ‘principal authority’ may be used interchangeably. The same will also apply to ‘parish council’ or the equivalent title in a given country and ‘sub-municipal government’. Another factor to take into consideration is that comparative studies of parish councils and their equivalents have been undertaken across Europe. One of the most prominent was by Denters and Klok (2013), who examined village and neighbourhood councils across nineteen Europe states. In

4  AN INTERNATIONAL COMPARISON 

45

this, they noted the importance of such councils as an instrument to prevent the increasing distance between citizens and government, particularly in terms of legitimacy and trust. Their concerns had arisen in terms of the Dutch experience at that time, with plans to remove the right of Dutch municipalities to establish sub-municipal governments. Their aim was to examine the experiences in other countries. Of the countries covered by Denters and Klok (2013), only three had sub-municipal government across the entire country—Bulgaria, Romania, and Portugal (the last of which is covered later in this chapter). The legal basis of sub-municipal government across all of the countries covered was either in national or regional legislation. Thereafter, there were differences across all of the states with regard to the election or appointment of councillors, the role of political parties, as well as the electoral systems utilised. There were also issues around the timing of elections, with some countries having their sub-municipal elections at the same time as the municipalities, while others having them entirely separate (Denters and Klok 2013, 11). Turnout was far lower where the sub-municipal elections were held separately. With regard to functions undertaken by the sub-municipalities, the numbers varied. This was made more complicated if there were different systems of sub-municipal government. In the UK, for example, there are community councils in Scotland and Wales, parish councils and a range of community fora and neighbourhood meetings across England. The conclusions drawn by Denters and Klok (2013) are something to which we will return in Chap. 6. It is important to note here how they highlighted the functions undertaken by sub-municipalities and the need for fiscal autonomy. The link of democratic accountability was also deemed essential for a successful system of sub-municipal government. The caveat here is the difficulty in getting the public involved.

European Charter of Local Self-Government Before exploring different parish council structures, there is an interesting point to note. There is a European Charter of Local Self-Government, which was adopted in 1985. All Council of Europe member states signed up to the Charter. It details the importance of local government. Further, it highlights the need to guarantee the political and administrative independence of local authorities. Included here is the suggestion to constitutionalise the position of local government. In other words, to enshrine the role, and possibly the functions, of local government in a country’s

46 

A. JONES

constitution. This is something to which the UK government has been extremely resistant (Boggero 2018, 22–23). On point of balance, the Charter does not expressly demand such constitutionalisation of local government, as it might not be possible in countries with partially-written constitutions, or countries which require special majorities in their national assembly to amend their constitution. Some countries may require a referendum to introduce such an amendment to their constitution. Consequently, the constitutionalisation of the position of local government is left much more as an aspiration than a requirement. This Charter goes much further than exploring the constitutional protection of local government. It notes the need for the financial independence of local authorities. Specifically there is great emphasis placed upon how the financial resources of a local authority ought to be commensurate with the responsibilities of a local authority. If new responsibilities are transferred to local authorities, there ought to be a transfer of appropriate financial resources as well (Boggero 2018, 212). As ever, however, this appears to be more aspirational than actual. There is a clear acknowledgement of the importance of financial autonomy for local authorities, but any such implementation is left to national authorities. There is, however, an important omission in the Charter: parish councils or sub-municipal units of local government. There is not a single reference to such units (Hlepas et al. 2018, 2). While many European countries may not have such a formal tier of local government, all of them will have some form of governance structure which operates at the ‘sub-municipal’ level. This could include neighbourhood fora and other such meetings, which can communicate the thoughts or concerns of the public up to local government. To fail to acknowledge such a tier of local government or local governance is a huge oversight. To include parish councils or sub-­ municipal government in the Charter would not be a blueprint for all countries to introduce such a tier. Rather, as with the constitutionalisation of local government or the financial autonomy of local government, it could be an aspiration, where appropriate, for the development of such a local tier of government. From here, this chapter will explore the role of parish councils in a range of different countries. Most of these countries are European. They have varying roles for parish councils or sub-municipalities. In some countries, as in England, there is not even a uniform structure of parish councils. Some, such as Poland, have developed parish councils in rural areas, with different bodies in urban areas. In others, such as the Czech Republic,

4  AN INTERNATIONAL COMPARISON 

47

they are urban. In Norway, only the capital city, Oslo, has a tier of sub-­ municipal government (Klausen 2018, 145). Consequently, the Norwegian example will not be explored any further. The first two countries will be examined in greater detail due to the prominence of their respective sub-municipal tiers of government. The remainder will note particular issues which may be similar to the earlier tiers, highlighting similar practices, but will not go into the same level of detail.

Portugal In many respects, the Portuguese system of parish councils—or freguesias—is widespread. Arguably, it is the most comprehensive across Europe. They have evolved over the last century and more “to become full-fledged, lower-tier local government units” (Tavares and Teles 2018, 194). Their origins are ecclesiastical but were integrated into the administrative system of the country in the mid-nineteenth century. They have a high level of autonomy and are recognised as being part of the structure of local government in the Portuguese constitution (Boggero 2018; Tavares and Teles 2018). The 1976 constitution identified three tiers of sub-national government: freguesias (parishes), concelhos (municipalities), and distritos (districts). At that time, there were over 4600 freguesias (Silva 2009). These were the units of local government which were closest to the people: they were the first point of contact. Despite this constitutional protection, the number of freguesias has decreased. There were some initial mergers, which saw around 300 freguesias disappear. This number was further reduced to 3092 as a result of territorial reforms introduced by central government in 2013. The justification was in the need to reduce spending as a result of the national financial crisis of 2008. As in other countries, the neo-liberal agenda of reducing the role and budget of the public sector was forcibly imposed. The Memorandum of Understanding between the Troika (the European Commission, the European Central Bank, and the International Monetary Fund) and the Portuguese Government saw an urgent requirement to cut public spending. One of the easiest ways in which this could be met was through the merging of both municipalities and freguesias (see Teles 2014). Other longer-term alternatives were not explored. It was very much a quick fix without full consideration of the consequences. The

48 

A. JONES

budget had to be cut—and had to be seen to be cut—so any possible measures were imposed. The actual functions of the freguesias are detailed clearly in law. There is a comprehensive list of functions and of specific tasks which can be undertaken. These include education, culture and sports, primary healthcare, social welfare, the environment, urban and rural land use management, and community protection (Tavares and Teles 2018, 200). While this list of tasks is quite broad brush, there is more specific legislation detailing specific tasks which should be performed by a freguesia. This detailed list includes management of children’s playgrounds and sports facilities, maintenance of signposts, pathways and footpaths, management of parish properties and of graveyards, licensing of cats and dogs, voter registration, and the supply of cleaning products to kindergartens (Tavares et al. 2012; Tavares and Teles 2018, 200). In this respect, while there appears to be a great deal for freguesias to undertake, there is little autonomy (da Silva e Costa et al. 1997). It may be the freguesias can undertake other roles beyond those stipulated, but there is an issue around capacity. The reality is the “human, financial, and technical resources… are far too limited” (Tavares and Teles 2018, 200). In many cases, there is a struggle to deliver all of the services required of a freguesia. Although there is an extensive list of duties which can be undertaken, there are issues around finance. The freguesias are highly dependent on financial resources from both the centre and from municipalities. At one time, 25% of total municipality income was spent on parishes (Opello 1981, 273). Today, municipal grants to freguesias are more flexible, although central grants are based on a fixed-formula (Tavares et al. 2012). The flexibility of the grants is such that decisions as to which functions may be delivered by a freguesia could change on a yearly basis. The freguesias can draw finance from their own resources, including a property tax. Fees may also be levied for services; there may be charges for licences; fines and penalties can be levied; and there may be charges in relation to property rentals. The reality is, however, a dependence on financial resources from the other tiers of government. There is a lively debate in relation to the size and number of local government, although this tends to be more at the level of municipality. The standard argument focuses on the degree of fragmentation at the level of municipality: too much fragmentation results in too much cost (Tavares et al. 2012). Therefore there has been pressure, via the bailout and from

4  AN INTERNATIONAL COMPARISON 

49

the Troika, on central government to merge municipalities. This leaves a greater number of freguesias in each newly-merged municipality, resulting in greater cost to the new municipality. A consequence is to explore the possibility of merging some freguesias. As a result of the financial dependence on other tiers of government, relationships with them have the potential to be fraught. There can be disagreements between freguesias and municipalities. Delicado et  al. (2016) noted a range of relationships between the two tiers in relation to renewable energy projects. Companies which wished to develop such projects needed to enter discussions with both tiers, although the municipalities seemed to be prioritised. The reason for this prioritisation is simple: the municipalities are responsible for the licensing of these activities. If the freguesia owned the land upon which the development was planned, then the developer needed to approach the freguesia, and there would be a potential for conflict between the different tiers. Delicado et  al. (2016) document an example of disagreements between the Amareleja freguesia and the municipality of Moura. This is not an isolated case. Ferreira et  al. (2010) examined the Municipal Land-Use Plan for the municipality of Tomar. They found the municipality ignored the freguesias in the initial plan in 1994—and it was not just in Tomar where such oversight occurred. In subsequent re-­ iterations of the Land-Use Plan, there was greater interaction between municipality and freguesias. There was also greater consultation between municipality and freguesias over issues such as urban expansion (Ferreira and Condessa 2012). There was also very clear consultation between the Portuguese national government and the freguesias over the territorial reforms of 2013. The planned mergers of specific freguesias occurred only after full consultation. It could be argued the mergers were going to be pushed through, but there was at least the opportunity of input from any given freguesia with regard to its future. The extent to which such an opportunity was realised, or there was an opportunity to reverse the plans of central government, was, at best, minimal. The relationship between the tiers of government is also an issue in relation to party-politics. Politics at the level of the municipality tends to focus on political parties, and it is no different in the freguesias. What tends to result is conflict between the two tiers, and this is regardless of the combination of parties involved. There may be inter-party disputes between those representing the municipality and those representing the

50 

A. JONES

freguesias. Yet there is just as likely to be intra-party disputes between those representing the needs of the freguesias and those representing the municipality (Jalali and Lisi 2009). Again, this comes back to the elected representatives of a freguesia representing the wants and needs of their local community, especially if these conflict with the aims of a higher tier of government. Despite this apparent conflict, there is a clear interlinking between the needs of the freguesias and that of the municipality. They are intertwined (Magre and Pano 2018). There is a degree of dependency on the municipality by the freguesias, especially in relation to finance. There is also a counter-dependence, with the municipalities dependent upon the specialist local knowledge which is prevalent in a given freguesia (Sousa et  al. 2013). This is even more important when the different freguesias are using their own specialist knowledge to highlight their specific needs. There is a major problem in reference to the capacity of freguesias to deliver all that they do. As has already been noted, the resources of the freguesias are far too limited for them to be able to deliver all of their services. If there is not the capacity to deliver, questions will arise as to which services will be provided, and which may have to be provided from another source. In this respect, adjoining freguesias often develop partnerships in an attempt to ensure the delivery of services. This is most likely to be between freguesias located in the same municipality.

Poland The system of sub-municipal government in Poland is not uniform. Legislation to enable the creation of sub-municipal councils has been left to the discretion of the municipalities since the 1990s. Yet, in rural Poland, there is a very clear history dating back to the twelfth century of parish councils—or, more accurately, village councils—called sołectwa. In urban areas, the terms for such units of sub-municipal government are dzielnice (districts) and osiedla (neighbourhoods) (Swianiewicz 2018, 169). There is a clear divide between the urban and the rural bodies. It is, in effect, a “dual system” of sub-municipal government (Swianiewicz 2018, 187). A sołectwo is normally a single village. A large village could be divided into two sołectwa. There are over forty thousand sołectwa in Poland (Swianiewicz 2018, 170). Interestingly, this includes a number of urban sołectwa. These are more likely in the suburbs of larger towns and cities, where there is a clear link to agriculture. An example here would include

4  AN INTERNATIONAL COMPARISON 

51

Zielona Góra, where the city expanded its boundaries at the expense of the surrounding rural municipalities. One condition of the expansion was the retention of the existing sołectwa. This has been a source of some controversy in Poland with regard to what may be termed a sołectwo, as will be seen later in this section. Within each sołectwo, there is a tradition of a locally-elected village head—sołtys. This tradition is as old as the establishment of the sołectwa. The sołtys is elected in a village meeting, normally for a term of four years; the same term of office as those elected to the village council—radasołecka (Matysiak 2017, 225). Since 2018, there has been a limit on the number of terms that a mayor may serve: two five-year terms. Such limits have not been placed on a sołtys. Constitutionally, there is no protection for the sołectwa, although it would be very difficult for a different tier of government to interfere in their operations. This is unlike the urban equivalents, where the municipalities may have a vested interest in the development of such a tier of government. Currently, twenty of the twenty-three Polish cities with a population over 150,000 have established some form of sub-municipal government. Of the three cities without sub-municipal government, Kielce and Radom have never developed such structures. The third city, Białystok, had sub-municipal structures from 1995 to 2006. At that time, the mayor and city council moved to abolish all sub-municipal governments within the municipality (Swianiewicz 2014, 177). The average sołectwo has a population of around 300 residents. Consequently, there is a very close relationship between the local residents and the sołectwo. There does not appear to be any similar data for dzielnice or osiedla. Some of this may be attributed to the priority which is placed upon such bodies by the municipality. The functions of any of the sub-municipal bodies in Poland—sołectwa, dzielnice, or osiedla—are the same, in that the roles and functions undertaken are decided at the municipal level. It is the attitude of the higher tiers of government towards these different bodies where there are problems, as will be seen in the finance issues, below. A consequence of this is the urban bodies tend to see far fewer functions devolved to them. Swianiewicz (2018, 177) notes the only roles assigned to neighbourhoods “are as the animator of local communities and as rather insignificant consultants on city-territorial policies”. It is the traditional existence of the sołectwa which sees the possibility of the municipalities devolving more functions to them. Some of this, as will

52 

A. JONES

be seen below, is linked directly to finance and the establishment of Fundusz sołecki, which is loosely translated as the Village Funds. The issue of financing sub-municipal government has seen a degree of interference from national government. There is no central budget for urban sub-municipalities—which is one of the reasons why there have been attempts to establish urban sołectwa. For the sołectwa, a law was passed in 2009 which encouraged rural local governments to transfer around 1% of their revenues to the sołectwa. The allocation to each individual village tends to be in relation to population size. The money would be transferred into specific Fundusz sołecki. Although the legislation ‘encouraged’ rural municipalities to transfer such funds, there was no obligation. Instead, the legislation provided a further incentive for these municipalities to transfer such funds: it would be matched by central government funding. The plan for these Fundusz sołecki was to focus upon small-scale investments into the local community. Such investments include the maintenance of community infrastructure and facilities, as well as cultural events. These investments need to be undertaken in conjunction with the local community. The sołectwo may not act unilaterally. There must be local consultation. It is also possible for the development of projects between villages, where there can be mutual benefit for two villages in a joint project. Again, however, there is a clear need for consultation with both villages or communities. The relationship between sub-municipal government and the municipalities can be a little fraught. This is particularly the case with the dzielnice and osiedla which need the approval of the municipal authorities for their establishment. Added to this, as has already been noted, is the lack of funding for such sub-municipal bodies (see Swianiewicz 2014, 180–181). The sołectwa, as a result of their longevity, tend to have a less formal relationship with the municipalities. The whole structure of sołectwa has been supported by a Krajowe Stowarzyszenie Sołtysów (National Association of Village Heads). This was established in 1994. This body has received active support from prominent Polish politicians. A consequence has seen the Krajowe Stowarzyszenie Sołtysów become a prominent lobbying body at the national level. Thus any moves to abolish sołectwa or to decrease their role in local government will be resisted most strongly by the Krajowe Stowarzyszenie Sołtysów and their supporters.

4  AN INTERNATIONAL COMPARISON 

53

One of the issues for sub-municipal government in Poland is the extent to which there is engagement between this tier of government and the local citizenry. The smallest sołectwo see election turnouts of around 25%. The larger the population within a sołectwo, the lower the turnout (Swianiewicz 2018, 171). The average turnout across all sołectwa is around 15%. This can be compared to turnouts in urban elections, which rarely go above 10% (Swianiewicz 2014, 182). The development of the Fundusz sołecki has seen a rejuvenation in local interest in the sołectwa. Prior to 2009, it was often difficult to find candidates to stand for sołtys. Since that point in time, there has been a noticeable increase in the candidates willing to stand for the post. The extent to which this interest can be directly linked to the development of the Fundusz sołecki is, at least for now, purely speculative. With the urban equivalents lacking in the Fundusz sołecki revenues, it is often difficult for them to function effectively. They are very dependent upon the municipality. Yet there appears to be significant demand in urban communities for the development of stronger neighbourhood structures. There is demand for greater powers to be devolved to such neighbourhood bodies, but there is no conviction from those in the municipalities to act. Instead, they point to low electoral turnouts at the sub-municipal level—specifically sołectwa elections—as a justification for not devolving powers. Conversely, there is the demand for greater powers to be devolved to these urban sub-municipal bodies which will lead to citizens increasing their stake in the local community. It appears to link back to the belief in the importance of the most local tier of government and to bring government closer to the citizens. Swianiewicz (2014) has described this scenario as the “vicious roundabout of marginalisation”. Local activists tend not to be attracted to local causes because they cannot do much to change things: a lack of power has been devolved. At the same time, the local officials are unwilling to support local causes because of a lack of activist involvement. There is a reluctance from the local officials to pick up even more work when the local community is not willing to participate.

Jamaica Local government in Jamaica does not look complicated. There is a central government department with overriding authority—the Ministry of Local Government and Community Development. It was possible for the Minister to dissolve part or all of local government. This position changed

54 

A. JONES

when local government was entrenched in the Jamaican constitution in 2015 (Schoburgh 2018, 168). Local government across Jamaica comprises the Kingston and St. Andrew Corporation, the Portmore Municipal Council, and twelve parish councils. In this respect, these parish councils could be seen as municipalities or principal authorities. As a counter to this perspective, noting the geographical size of the parishes across Jamaica, and the functions undertaken, they differ little from parishes in England. In this respect, a brief outline of their roles and functions is worth noting. Great emphasis has been placed on community governance in Jamaica (Schoburgh 2009). Parish Councils were established through legislation, while their roles and functions are also laid out by central government. Some of this can be dated back to the Parish Councils Act 1887. Their roles include developing and maintaining infrastructure and public facilities such as local parks; provision of local services such as street lighting; and a regulatory role which includes planning approval, licensing of trades and businesses, and street parking. In 2003, Parish Development Committees (PDCs) were established (Schoburgh 2009). Their aim was to produce long-term strategic plans for their respective communities (Schoburgh 2011–2012). They were, however, not overly successful. This has been attributed, at least in part, to a failure to engage with the local communities. The PDCs, along with Community Development Committees were surpassed by more business-­ oriented bodies, such as Business Improvement Districts. More recently, there has been a change in name, from parish council to municipal corporation (Schoburgh 2018, 172). While such a change may appear symbolic, there is a clear change in emphasis. A parish council focuses primarily on the political and the administrative roles, while a corporation adds a more ‘business’ orientation. The relationship between the centre and the parishes is uneven. The centre dominates. In particular areas, however, there is a degree of enthusiasm to devolve—or, more accurately, to deconcentrate—some powers. Osei (2007) noted how the Office of Disaster Preparedness and Emergency Management deconcentrated many of its roles to parish councils. This was attributed, at least in part, to the small numbers of staff employed by the Office. Each parish had to establish a disaster committee, with a named co-ordinator. This disaster committee became part of the parish council set-up.

4  AN INTERNATIONAL COMPARISON 

55

There was, however, a significant problem. The parish disaster committees lacked both the capacity and the resources to perform their function. This came to light post-Hurricane Ivan (Osei 2007, 230). That hurricane, in September 2004, saw over a quarter of a million dollars’ worth of damage to Jamaica, with tens of thousands of houses damaged or destroyed. While the tourist sections of the island were open for business within days of the hurricane, it took far longer for the rest of Jamaica to recover. There are, more broadly, issues around the extent to which the parish councils are able to deliver all of their designated functions. There is evidence of consultation with the public in regard to which services should be delivered, or which should be prioritised. The problem is the lack of evidence to demonstrate how this acquisition of information informs policy making (Schoburgh 2014).

Trinidad and Tobago Local government is not protected in the constitution of Trinidad and Tobago. Central government may intercede in the role and function of local government (Schoburgh 2010). Between the granting of independence in 1962 and the early-1980s, local government in Trinidad and Tobago was little more than an administrative arm of, and a deliverer of services for, the centre (Bissessar 2010). Like Jamaica, the parish councils of Trinidad (there are none in Tobago) are principal authorities. There are currently fourteen parishes in Trinidad, with populations varying between around 30,000 and 180,000. They are also known as municipal corporations, although formally there are nine regional corporations, three boroughs, and two cities (Schoburgh 2011–2012, 13). A body was established in the Municipal Corporations Act 1990 to bring the different parish councils together. This was the Trinidad and Tobago Association of Local Government Authorities (TTALGA). Membership is automatic for all parish councillors, although it is optional for members of the Tobago House of Assembly. Most funding of these parishes comes from the centre. There are both statutory and discretionary services for which the parishes have responsibility. The list of statutory responsibilities, such as policing, marks these bodies out as principal authorities (in the English terminology).

56 

A. JONES

Germany When examining local government in Germany, before even going to sub-­ municipal levels, there are some important points to note. Firstly, within Germany’s federal structure, many powers and responsibilities are handled by the Länder rather than the Federal Government. Local government is one of these areas. Consequently, there may be different practices in local government in each of the Länder. Denters and Klok (2013, 38) note there are sixteen different schemes across Germany in relation to the regulation of sub-municipal government. Taking this further, Wollmann (2017, 316) has described the relationship of local government as “ambivalent”. Anything to do with the role, function, or structure of local government is determined by the Länder, even if it goes against the will of the locally elected representatives. With regard to the sub-municipal level, there are divergent practices. For example, in both Hesse and North Rhine-Westphalia, it became a requirement for sub-municipal government to be established. In Bavaria, on the other hand, sub-municipal units are required in cities with populations over 100,000. Elsewhere across Germany, the establishment for sub-municipal units in cities was voluntary (Kersting and Kuhlman 2018). The drive to establish sub-municipal government can be seen in the territorial reforms of West Germany in the 1960s and 1970s, and again in the aftermath of the reunification of Germany. These reforms covered both urban and rural communities. Again, these reforms differed across Länder. The underpinning of them was linked to the drive for administrative and operational efficiency. Yet there was a degree of public resistance to the amalgamations of municipalities, with the development of new sub-­ municipal units of government being established (Kersting and Kuhlman 2018, 95). This was most obvious in villages and small towns where mergers had taken place. Some parts of the country, notably Hesse and North Rhine-Westphalia, established much larger territorial units of local government during these reforms. It is interesting to note it is the same two Länder which have since pushed the hardest to establish sub-municipal government. The establishment of sub-municipal units of government is likely to be handed down from the Länder to the municipalities. A consequence of this is different units of sub-municipal government, even if they are located in the same Land, may have different roles and functions devolved to them by their respective municipalities. Regardless of these differences, the

4  AN INTERNATIONAL COMPARISON 

57

boundaries and regulation of any sub-municipal government had to be defined in the local charter—akin to a constitution for the municipality. Although the boundaries can be changed at the end of any legislative period (Kersting and Kuhlman 2018). The functions of the sub-municipal units in Germany have a rather limited role, although it is likely to vary between Länder as well as between municipalities. The primary role is likely to be as a mediator between the local population and the municipality, monitoring what is happening. Again, the specific functions are likely to be detailed in the local charter. These could include the right to be informed, and to give comment, on specific policy areas, such as the budget, the changing of borders, changes in the local charter, and the development of citizens fora. Alternatively, there is a right to make proposals, although such proposals must focus on the sub-municipal unit. Traffic is a topic which appears to arise frequently (Kersting and Kuhlman 2018). In some Länder, more substantial powers have been devolved to sub-municipalities. For example, in both Lower Saxony and North Rhine-Westphalia the maintenance, design, and use of public facilities are always transferred to sub-municipalities. These public facilities include schools and old people’s homes. Both of these Länder also devolve landscaping and parks, promoting events, markets, and tourism (Denters and Klok 2013, 41). In all of these functions, the role of the sub-municipal unit is reactive. They are reacting to policy ideas from the municipality. Even where there is an opportunity to be pro-active in developing policy proposals, this is often in response to ideas upon which the municipality may have started to consult. One of the knock-on effects of this ‘reactive’ avenue can be the way in which the sub-municipal units of local government can be portrayed. They can easily be seen as NIMBYs, opposed to any policy ideas which they may perceive as having an adverse impact upon their community, at the expense of the greater good. The alternative perspective is to see these sub-municipal units as having a deep concern about the welfare of their local community.

Denmark Parish councils played a role in local government in Denmark from the mid-nineteenth century up until the reforms in 1970. Prior to these reforms, there were three tiers of local government: county (amtskommuner), town (kobstad), and parish (sognekommuner) (Bogason 1987).

58 

A. JONES

Within this structure, the parishes were responsible for schooling and for social assistance. They were able to raise their own revenue through property tax and a local income tax. One of the problems, however, was the size of the sognekommuner. If they were very small, they lacked the wherewithal to provide these services. Consequently, there was often collaboration between the sognekommuner. By the latter half of the twentieth century, concern had grown that most sognekommuner were too small to be able to solve local problem with their own resources. This situation was exacerbated by the lack of professional staff to run things, apart from a few clerks. Consequently, many parishes were merged together to form new municipalities (see Miller 1971). There is no constitutional protection of local government in Denmark, although the constitution does note the need for municipalities. The powers, duties, and obligations of these municipalities shall be decided by statute. Further, there is no constitutional requirement for the creation of sub-municipal government in Denmark. Conversely, there is nothing in law to prevent their creation. There are no sub-municipal units of government in Denmark, although there have been experiments to introduce them in Copenhagen. To date, these have not proven successful. This may be, in part, due to the unelected nature of these bodies. They have had bureaucrats and elected politicians sitting on them rather than being directly elected.

Sweden Parish councils in Sweden are the oldest tier of local government. In the mid-nineteenth century, a Royal Decree saw the establishment of county (Landsting) and primary local level (Kommun) being added to pre-­existing parish councils (Magnusson and Lane 1987, 12). Such a system stayed in place until the mid-twentieth century, where there was a wholesale restructuring of local government. One notable consequence was the constitutional recognition of local government in Sweden in 1975. Such recognition, however, did not extend to parish councils. By 1988, twenty-eight of the 284 Swedish municipalities had sub-­ divided themselves into some form of sub-municipal government structure (Elander and Montin 1990, 172). The powers given to these bodies

4  AN INTERNATIONAL COMPARISON 

59

were linked very much to the ‘soft’ sectors such as culture and leisure, and also some of the social services. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, attempts were made to introduce a form of neighbourhood committees within some municipalities. With the amalgamations of the municipalities, it was perceived that such neighbourhood committees might bring government closer to the people. For the most part, they were little more than a short-lived experiment, although some still exist in the larger cities: Stockholm, Gothenburg, and Malmö (Montin 2014). One of the issues with these committees is that the legislation to form them excluded their direct election (Denters and Klok 2013, 45) Today, the role of parish councils in Sweden is minimal. They are still used as a reference point in the collection of census data and elections.

Czech Republic As was noted in the introduction to this chapter, the Czech Republic has various sizes of municipalities, with an average population size of 1680 (Batorova et al. 2014). With the variety in sizes, the development of sub-­ municipal government has only been undertaken in some urban areas. These have been labelled “little town-halls” (Lysek 2018). There are twenty-five statutory cities in the Czech Republic—cities which have been granted a special status through an Act of the Czech Parliament. Originally, five of these cities chose to be sub-divided into sub-­ municipal units (Prague, Brno, Ostrava, Plzeň , and Ústínad Labem), with a further three cities (Liberec, Pardubice, and Opava) subsequently opting for the same. All of the statutory cities have the power to establish a sub-­ municipal tier of government, but only these eight have chosen to do so. If any other municipalities wish to establish sub-municipal units, those municipalities will need to get the national law changed, so they can be reclassified as statutory cities. Only then can sub-municipal units be established. The foundation of any sub-municipal units is enshrined in law. Thus the way they can be established is uniform. Thereafter, it is not so clear cut. The actual role and function of any sub-municipal unit must be detailed in the municipal legislation that establishes them. This may differ between different municipalities and the powers they wish to devolve to the sub-­ municipal units. There is no national legislation which outlines what powers should be devolved to sub-municipal units of government. After their

60 

A. JONES

creation, the different sub-municipal units have strived to obtain more power, competencies, and funding (Lysek 2018). Returning to the issue of size, with regard to the sub-municipal units, there may be no uniformity even within a given city. Asymmetrically divided municipalities are not unusual, with two of the eight cities being divided that way. Opava, for example, has not divided all of the city into sub-municipal units. The average population of sub-municipal units is over 16,000 citizens—which is almost ten times higher than the average for the municipalities across the Czech Republic. While the municipal legislation which establishes sub-municipal units is very clear over the powers and sources of financial income, the sub-­ municipal bodies do not have the power to issue their own regulations. Thus, while they may be portrayed as being little different to any municipality—in that they have the same structures and elected posts as all of the municipalities—it is the inability to pass their own regulations which marks them out as being far less powerful. The “little town halls” are totally dependent upon the municipal authority under which they operate. The municipality can re-shape the boundaries of any of its sub-municipal bodies. On the one hand, this may give the municipality greater flexibility in dealing with urban problems. Conversely, there is the issue of identity for the sub-municipal units. Their identity may become far from fixed.

Conclusion A wide variety of systems of parish council have been examined in this chapter. It is rather difficult to pull commonalities together, as national structures and processes clearly impact upon the role and function of parish councils or sub-municipal units of government. The most prominent commonality is the role of higher tiers of government. There is a clear line of dependence—and particularly a financial dependence—upon higher tiers, be it the municipality or central government. Added to this is the lack of constitutional protection of parishes, and often of local government as a whole. Yet even where there is a degree of constitutional protection, this has not stopped higher tiers of government from interfering in the role, structure, or function of parish councils. One of the noticeable justifications in doing so is the economic argument, the economies of scale. This is despite

4  AN INTERNATIONAL COMPARISON 

61

the lack of conclusive evidence to support such assertions from around the world (see Copus and Jones 2013). What is also noticeable is the lack of coherent structures of sub-­ municipal government. Very few countries have a standardised system of parish councils/sub-municipal units of government across the entire country. Of the countries examined in this chapter, only Portugal has such a coherent structure. In Poland and the Czech Republic, there are different rules between urban and rural municipalities in relation to the establishment and running of the sub-municipalities. A final point to note, which leads into the next chapter, is the issue around capacity. In most of the countries examined, there appears to be a record of merging sub-municipalities, or even abolishing them, because they lack the capacity to deliver services adequately. Whether this is down to finances or personnel is not always clear. The issue of lack of capacity is paramount. Some of this lack of capacity could be resolved through the use of partnerships, be it with other sub-municipalities or with private or voluntary bodies. What is unclear is the extent to which the sub-municipalities have the powers to develop such partnerships, or whether that is more dependent upon the municipality or even central government. The experiences in Portugal, for example, highlight an inconsistency here. Some freguesias appeared more capable than others in developing these types of partnerships.

Bibliography Batorova, M., Bubeníček, V., Drezgić, S., Jüptner, P., Klimovský, D., Kruntorádová, I., et  al. (2014). Local Governance Between Democracy and Efficiency: V4 Comparative Case Study. Novo Mesto: FOS. Bissessar, A. (2010). Local Governance Structures in Trinidad and Tobago: Muddling Through. Social and Economic Studies, 59(4), 127–144. Bogason, P. (1987). Denmark. In E. Page & M. Goldsmith (Eds.), Central and Local Government Relations: A Comparative Analysis of West European Unitary States (pp. 46–67). London: Sage. Boggero, G. (2018). Constitutional Principles of Local Self-Government in Europe. Leiden: Brill. Copus, C., & Jones, A. (2013). Welsh Local Government Association Literature Review on Council Size: Commission on Public Service Governance & Delivery Service Provider Consultation. Leicester: DMU.

62 

A. JONES

da Silva e Costa, M., Felizes, J., & Neves, J. (1997). European Integration and Local Government: The (Ambiguous) Portuguese Case. In M. Goldsmith & K. Klausen (Eds.), European Integration and Local Government (pp. 172–188). Edward Elgar. Delicado, A., Figueiredo, E., & Silva, L. (2016). Community Perceptions of Renewable Energies in Portugal: Impacts on Environment, Landscape and Local Development. Energy Research & Social Science, 13(1), 84–93. Denters, B., & Klok, P.-J. (2013). Dorps-en wijkraden in Europa. Universiteit Twente. Elander, I., & Montin, S. (1990). Decentralisation and Control: Central-Local Government Relations in Sweden. Policy and Politics, 18(3), 165–180. Ferreira, J., & Condessa, B. (2012). Defining Expansion Areas in Small Urban Settlements  – An Application to the Municipality of Tomar (Portugal). Landscape and Urban Planning, 107, 283–292. Ferreira, J., Condessa, B., Almeido, J., & Pinto, P. (2010). Urban Settlements Delimitation in Low-Density Areas  – An Application to the Municipality of Tomar (Portugal). Landscape and Urban Planning, 97, 156–167. Hlepas, N., Kersting, N., Kuhlmann, S., Swianiewicz, P., & Teles, F. (2018). Introduction: Decentralization Beyond the Municipal Tier. In N.  Hlepas, N. Kersting, S. Kuhlmann, P. Swianiewicz, & F. Teles (Eds.), Sub-Municipal Government in Europe (pp. 1–24). Basingstoke: Palgrave. Jalali, C., & Lisi, M. (2009). Weak Societal Roots, Strong Individual Patrons? Patronage & Party Organization in Portugal. Revista Enfoques, 7(11), 441–470. Kersting, N., & Kuhlman, S. (2018). Sub-Municipal Units in Germany: Municipal and Metropolitan Districts. In N.  Hlepas, N.  Kersting, S.  Kuhlmann, P.  Swianiewicz, & F.  Teles (Eds.), Sub-Municipal Government in Europe (pp. 93–118). Basingstoke: Palgrave. Klausen, J. (2018). Sub-Municipal Arrangements in Norway: District System in Oslo. In N.  Hlepas, N.  Kersting, S.  Kuhlmann, P.  Swianiewicz, & F.  Teles (Eds.), Sub-Municipal Government in Europe (pp.  145–165). Basingstoke: Palgrave. Kruntorádová, I., & Jüptner, P. (2015). Local Government in the Czech Republic. Paris: IMODEV. Lysek, J. (2018). The ‘Little Town Halls’ in the Czech Republic: An Unexpected Potential of Functional Decentralization. In N.  Hlepas, N.  Kersting, S. Kuhlmann, P. Swianiewicz, & F. Teles (Eds.), Sub-Municipal Government in Europe (pp. 41–68). Basingstoke: Palgrave. Magnusson, T., & Lane, J.-E. (1987). Sweden. In E.  Page & M.  Goldsmith (Eds.), Central and Local Government Relations: A Comparative Analysis of West European Unitary States (pp. 12–28). London: Sage.

4  AN INTERNATIONAL COMPARISON 

63

Magre, J., & Pano, E. (2018). The Architecture of the Local Political Community. In R.  Kerley, J.  Liddle, & P.  Dunning (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of International Local Government (pp. 418–431). Abingdon: Routledge. Matysiak, I. (2017). Gender Desegregation Among Village Representatives in Poland: Towards Breaking the Male Domination in Local Politics? In B. Bock & S. Shortall (Eds.), Gender and Rural Globalization: International Perspectives on Gender and Rural Development (pp. 222–244). Wallingford: CABI. Miller, K. (1971). Parliament and Local Government Reform in Denmark. Parliamentary Affairs, 24(4), 321–337. Montin, S. (2014). Municipalities, Regions and County Councils in Sweden: Actors and Institutions. School of Public Administration Working Papers Series, No. 27. University of Gothenburg. Opello, W. (1981). Local Government and Political Culture in a Portuguese Rural County. Comparative Politics, 13(3), 271–289. Osei, P. (2007). Policy Responses, Institutional Networks Management and Post-­ Hurricane Ivan Reconstruction in Jamaica. Disaster Prevention and Management, 16(2), 217–234. Schoburgh, E. (2009). Paradigm Shift or Rhetorical Flourish? The ‘New Orthodoxy’ of Local Governance in the Caribbean. Social and Economic Studies, 58(1), 95–124. Schoburgh, E. (2010). Is Subsidiarity the Panacea for Local Government Problems in the Caribbean? Social and Economic Studies, 59(4), 27–66. Schoburgh, E. (2011–2012). Local Government and Local Development: Bridging the Gap Through Critical Discourse: Evidence from the Commonwealth Caribbean. Commonwealth Journal of Local Governance, (10), 5–31. Schoburgh, E. (2014). Does Local Government Have Capacity for Enabling Local Economic Development? Lessons from Jamaica. Commonwealth Journal of Local Governance, (15), 3–22. Schoburgh, E. (2018). Constitutional and Legislative Changes in Caribbean Local Government. In P.  Kerley, J.  Liddle, & P.  Dunning (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of International Local Government (pp.  163–180). Abingdon: Routledge. Silva, C. (2009). Local Political Leadership in Portugal: Exceptionalism or Convergence Towards a ‘Mayoral Model’? Lex Localis – Journal of Local Self-­ Government, 7(3), 243–256. Sousa, L., Lillebo, A., Gooch, G., Soares, J., & Alves, F. (2013). Incorporation of Local Knowledge in the Identification of Ria de Aveiro Ecosystem Services (Portugal). Journal of Coastal Research, Special Issue No. 65, 1051–1056. Swianiewicz, P. (2014). Intra-Municipal Units in Urban Political Systems in Poland: Vicious Roundabout of Marginalization or Dead-End Street? NISPAcee Journal of Public Administration and Policy, 7(2), 173–198.

64 

A. JONES

Swianiewicz, P. (2018). New Experiments of Maintenance of Old Traditions? Dual System of Sub-Municipal Units in Poland. In N.  Hlepas, N.  Kersting, S. Kuhlmann, P. Swianiewicz, & F. Teles (Eds.), Sub-Municipal Government in Europe (pp. 167–192). Basingstoke: Palgrave. Tavares, A., & Teles, F. (2018). Deeply Rooted but Still Striving for a Role: The Portuguese Freguesias Under Reform. In N.  Hlepas, N.  Kersting, S. Kuhlmann, P. Swianiewicz, & F. Teles (Eds.), Sub-Municipal Governance in Europe: Decentralization Beyond the Municipal Tier (pp.  193–210). Basingstoke: Palgrave. Tavares, A., Rodrigues, M., Magalhães, C., & Carr, J. (2012, July 8–12). The Economic and Political Impacts of Top-Down Territorial Reforms: The Case of Portuguese Parishes. Paper to the International Political Science Association Conference, Madrid, Spain. Teles, F. (2014). Local Government and the Bailout: Reform Singularities in Portugal. European Urban and Regional Studies, 23(3), 455–467. Wollmann, H. (2017). The Reforms of the German Länders’ Territorial Organisation: Between Municipalities Mergers and Inter-Municipal Cooperation. Revue française d’administration publique, 162, 313–326.

CHAPTER 5

The Issue of Capacity

Abstract  While the book has focused upon what parish councils can do, the question still remains what more can they do? Here arises the issue of capacity. Do parish councils have the capacity to deliver more? Yet, it could be argued, that such a question is far too broad. The response would be ‘the capacity to do what?’. Thereafter we can move on to how capacity can be built, and, in particular, building the capacity of the community. Parish councils are very much about the local community. Collectively the community will have an idea as to what needs to be delivered. It then moves on to the extent to which the parish council has the capacity to deliver. Keywords  Community capacity building • Community development • Developing capacity • Empowerment

Introduction Arguably the biggest issue in the introduction and development of parish councils in England is that of capacity. In effect, is there the capacity for parish councils to be able to deliver a range of services from which principal authorities have withdrawn? Alternatively, do parish councils have the capacity to initiate and to deliver a new range of services? Another option is to consider the possibility of developing the capacity to deliver these services through a range of partnerships. This issue does not just apply to parish councils. With the establishment of new unitary authorities across © The Author(s) 2020 A. Jones, The Resurgence of Parish Council Powers in England, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-45128-8_5

65

66 

A. JONES

parts of England, anecdotal evidence indicates plans to develop a series of parish councils under these new authorities. Yet there does not appear to be any consideration as to the capacity for those local communities to undertake such a role. Instead, there is an implicit assumption that they can do so. With the idea of establishing some form of parish council or sub-­ municipal government, Denters and Klok (2013, 49) note the importance of two considerations: 1. the increase of citizen involvement in the administration and in public affairs more broadly 2. improving the efficiency and effectiveness of governance As to what the balance should be between these two considerations, Denters and Klok do not give a steer. The combination of both is important. Each situation is different, as their study from across Europe demonstrated. Both of these considerations feed directly into the issue of capacity. Examining the extent to which there is the capacity to deliver both the engagement of citizens and improve the governance of a territorial unit is fundamental when exploring how parish councils may enhance their role. This chapter is going to explore the concept ‘capacity building’—to examine what might be involved and the extent to which the capacity can be built in parish councils. There is, however, some unease as to the extent to which such capacity can be built. As was noted in the previous chapter, there were clear concerns in the Portuguese freguesias over the lack of capacity for them to deliver services. The ideas of capacity building from this chapter, in conjunction with the international experiences from Chap. 4, will feed into the conclusions of this book.

Capacity to Do What? When considering the capacity of parish councils to deliver services, the response tends to be very narrow: time, people, and finance, and the extent to which a given parish council has each of these. Of the three, finance tends to be the most important. Often it boils down to the amount by which council tax—or, more accurately, the parish precept—will rise, and the extent to which people will accept such an increase. Yet the concept ‘capacity’ is far more extensive. While it may be boiled down to time, people, and finance, the reality is far more complex. There

5  THE ISSUE OF CAPACITY 

67

are many other factors which come into play. Some of these overlap. They may also apply to a more strategic level of forward planning. Honadle (1981, 577) noted the capacity being the ability to: • anticipate and influence change; • make informed, intelligent decisions about policy; • develop programmes to influence policy; • attract and absorb resources; • manage resources; and • evaluate current activities to guide further actions. In the case of a parish council, there are a large number of factors which come into play when considering the concept ‘capacity’. Using Honadle’s list as a baseline, the capacity for a parish council to respond to all of this is very difficult. Consider, for example, from where change may originate, and the extent to which a parish council may be able to influence such change. If the change originates from central government, or even from a principal authority, it is going to be highly unlikely that a parish council will be able to influence such change, even if the principal authority actively seeks input from a given parish council. The higher the tier of government, the less input a parish council will have. Conversely, if the demand for change comes from the local community, a parish council is best placed to influence the change and the subsequent policymaking, even if the said policymaking rises to a higher tier of government. An important caveat to Honadle’s list is the issue of scale. The scale for parish councils, in most cases, is going to be noticeably smaller than that of principal authorities or other parts of the public sector. Noting the size of the budget of many parish councils (see Chap. 3) gives a clear indication as to the potential limits to the capacity to deliver. The caveat, however, is the lack of a cap on raising a parish precept, although an excessive rise may see an electoral backlash. It is possible to raise the precept in order to deliver a particular service or to fund a particular project. An alternative, and this links to the idea of attracting and absorbing resources, is to develop partnerships to enable the funding of a given project or service. The idea of demonstrating their capacity, in many respects, is the crux of the issue for parish councils. In trying to enhance the service provision of a parish council, it is persuading the principal authorities that they have the capacity to deliver for their local communities. This is even more the case with the development of a new parish council. Fenwick and Bailey

68 

A. JONES

(1999) provide an example of a consultation in the north of England, carried out by a new unitary authority, which looked to establishing new parish and community councils in those parts which were unparished. This covered both urban and rural areas. Two clear points may be drawn. Firstly, within this larger unitary authority there was an awareness as to the extent to which they were distanced from the people, and that parish and community councils could, at least in part, bridge that gap. Secondly, there was an awareness of the need to explore the extent of the capacity for those communities to be able to establish and run new parish or community councils. This leads on to another issue with regard to capacity. The organisation as a whole—in this case, a parish council—must have within it a number of other abilities. As noted by Honadle (1981, 578–579), these include: • forging effective links with other organisations • the processes required for problem solving • effective co-ordination of the range of functions provided • mechanisms to develop institutional learning Again, this highlights how the building of capacity is not carried out in isolation. For parish councils, and particularly for new parish councils, the forging of effective links with partners and the institutional lesson learning are hugely important. The problem is these abilities, as identified by Honadle (1981), take time to develop. The idea of institutional learning is of great importance for any organisation. Learning from mistakes and developing aspects of good practice for transference to other parts of the organisation should be built into the running of any organisation. Yet Honadle does not talk about institutional learning per se. Rather, it is the mechanisms to enable the institutional learning to occur. These will take even longer to develop, as there may be aspects of trial and error. These mechanisms could be drawn from other organisations—other parish councils, in the context of this book, or other partners. It does not mean to say they are fit for purpose. The mechanisms need to develop for the actual organisation. Problems arise if it becomes apparent that a given parish council, or a proposed parish council, does not have the capacity to deliver the services required of them. Whereas the neo-liberal approach, as examined in Chap. 2, would probably look to shutting down such a council and possibly transferring responsibilities to non-governmental organisations,

5  THE ISSUE OF CAPACITY 

69

there are now alternatives. If there is a lack of capacity, the question should be flipped back: how can the capacity be built to enable the continuance of service delivery? Ultimately, as noted by Harrow (2001), is there an awareness of the need to build capacity and, potentially more importantly, is there an awareness of the timescale to build capacity? The real problem for any new organisation is that of timescale. There is often an unfair expectation that any new organisation will have the capacity to do all of what is demanded of it. The idea of letting a new organisation take a little time to bed down and get used to their roles does not fit in with the demand of immediacy which is so prevalent in today’s society.

Capacity Building In moving to examine the idea of capacity building, it is important to note that it is a contested concept. Is the capacity building within an organisation, within a community, or some combination of the two? Should the focus of capacity building be on existing structures or the development of new structures? Should capacity building be a self-build, or should outsiders be involved? How will people know if the capacity has been built? Then there are issues around the development of partnerships as well. In this respect alone, there is much to explore. When examining the UK, the emphasis tends to be upon the community, and we will return to the concept of community capacity building later in this chapter. In considering the development and growth of a parish council, it is clear how the building of an organisation is also key. Ultimately, capacity building should not be seen in isolation. When attempting to build the capacity of a parish council, relations with principal authorities and other partners will have an impact upon the extent to which capacity may be built. In trying to build capacity, there are a number of concerns, as raised by Cuthill and Fien (2005). The first of these is dependence. When examining parish councils, there is already a degree of dependence upon both principal authorities and higher tiers of government. In establishing new parish councils, or when enabling existing parish councils to ‘do more’, the principal authorities need to give a degree of leeway. This is not about letting parish councils act ultra vires, or beyond the law. Rather, it is about giving them time, resources, and space—as well as support—to explore what can and cannot be done. Such building of capacity can also be carried out with other partners. There is no need for a parish council to be reliant

70 

A. JONES

solely on the principal authority. As has been noted in earlier chapters, parish councils are able to forge all sorts of partnerships, and not just in England. One of the drawbacks, however, is that many principal authorities show a degree of reluctance to give parish councils a relatively free hand. Even on issues such as setting the precept, pressure is brought to bear to keep it as low as possible, regardless of the aims or needs of the parish council. This capacity building is not a separate activity. It should be built into any new council, and be part of the processes. A concern here, however, is that capacity building tends to assume a technical and market-oriented form of accountability (Carmel and Harlock 2008, 164). The power to deliver a specific service can be devolved to a parish council. They are then judged on the technical aspects—the extent to which the service is delivered in full. They are also judged on the market-oriented aspects—the cost-effectiveness of delivering the service. Just as in the same way in which the justifications for larger and larger units of local government focus on the alleged economic benefits and the economies of scale, so too with the delivery of services. Such judgements ignore other forms of accountability, including the democratic accountability of any parish council. Capacity building should be about exploring how any services can be better delivered by a parish council. Again, this links back to community engagement. What can be seen, therefore, is not just an issue about building the technical capacity. It is also about building the community capacity. Thus, if the local communities are happy for a parish council to raise the precept by a significant amount in order to deliver a particular service to the local community, there should be no need to castigate that parish council for an ‘excessive’ rise in the precept. Diamond (2004) notes how capacity building is not just about the institutions. There is also a need to strengthen the institutions of civil society. Capacity building implies a sense of local negotiation and local decision making; in effect, setting a local agenda. One of the problems that has been seen with any attempts to build capacity is the way in which the community is often ignored. When examining the developments by the Blair-led Labour Government, or those from the Cameron-led Coalition Government, the emphasis was very much upon the individual: individual action or individuals getting together. The idea of community or societal involvement is often lacking. Instead, and this applies in particular to schemes from the Blair Government, was the extent to which the schemes to build capacity were top down. The aims of the capacity

5  THE ISSUE OF CAPACITY 

71

building were set by the policy professionals rather than engaging with the individuals and communities. The all-seeing benefactors giving guidance to those who did not know what to do; there is a deficiency which needs to be remedied. Such an approach undermines any long-term capacity building. The National Association of Local Councils (NALC) presents advice on how to establish a new council (NALC 2014, 2015a, 2015b). Underpinning their advice is the importance of involving, and engaging with, the local community. Thereafter, the boundaries of the council should be considered. Assuming the processes to establish a new parish council are completed, the advice offered by NALC (2015b) is about practical features to build capacity. Included here are the possible assets of the parish council, the employment of staff, budgeting, training, and continuing professional development. For there to be successful capacity building, the community must be drawn in. Without such participation, there is merely a shell. Ultimately, in such circumstances, the organisation will falter and fail.

Community Capacity Building Capacity building, therefore, needs to draw in community. The previous section may have focused upon capacity building, but the concept ‘community’ was always there. Thus, when exploring definitions of capacity building, the idea of community comes to the fore: capacity building is “the practical support provided to communities to contribute to governance as equal partners, or to enable the wider community to engage in the opportunities provided by economic and social regeneration”. (O’Hare 2010, 35) “capacity building represents a legitimate and graspable goal for funders (both public and private), of voluntary and public action”. (Harrow 2001, 210)

In both of these definitions, it is clear that communities have a role to play. Without the people, and their time, there is no possibility of building capacity. Part of capacity building, therefore, is about citizen engagement. The importance of such engagement for parish councils dates back to the writings of Toulmin Smith (1857), as noted in Chap. 1. Yet it is not just about individual engagement but also collective engagement. As was

72 

A. JONES

noted in Chap. 3, individuals may be co-opted to a parish council because of their knowledge, skills, or contacts. This does not guarantee a commitment to the community or even an awareness of the needs and demands of the community. This aspect of collective (or community) engagement is important. Yet, in moving to the idea of community capacity building, a new set of problems emerge: most notably, what community? Craig (2005) identifies three forms of community: • geographical • identity • issue-based A geographical community refers to a defined physical space. This could be a neighbourhood, for example, or a village. The idea of a community of identity, on the other hand, can occur within a geographical community or between geographical communities. A clear example of identity community can be seen in Northern Ireland, with the Unionist Community and the Nationalist Community. These separate identity communities can be seen within many geographical communities across Northern Ireland. Finally, there are issue-based communities. These are much more ephemeral (Craig 2005, 2). An issue arises, is dealt with (or not), and disappears. The community related to that issue will become visible while the issue is in the public spotlight, and will largely disappear from sight as the issue also diminishes in perceived importance. When examining the idea of community in relation to the development and growth of parish councils, it is most likely the concept of community will mean a geographical community. This is not to decry the importance of the other two forms—both of which could easily apply to a parish council. Craig (2007) notes that whichever form of community is being promoted, it is about promoting a local ‘voice’. Developing that ‘voice’ is important, but there needs to be output in response to that voice. This is where the development of (community) capacity building comes to the fore. Participation is important, but without action, nothing will be delivered. Mowbray (2005) raises a small concern about the concept ‘community’, which is worth noting. He observes how the term has been used as a “spray-on solution” (257). It can be used to present a very positive image: community engagement, for example, focuses upon the building

5  THE ISSUE OF CAPACITY 

73

of relations within a given community and enabling all members of that community to have the opportunity to be involved. In this respect, community capacity building can be presented as a positive agenda. Conversely, depending upon the adjective used with the word ‘community’, it is possible to create a potentially much more negative image. The idea of a traditional community, for example, may be celebrated for maintaining the norms of said community over the generations. It could also, however, present a community that refuses to change, that does not wish to engage with modernity, that is ‘reactionary’. In this interpretation, the idea of ‘community’ is seen as being far less than positive. With regard to community capacity building, there is an argument which notes the similarity of this concept to community development; that the two terms may be used interchangeably. While this may be the case, it is often easier to see community capacity building as enhancing a pre-existing community and its structures. Community development, on the other hand, may be more akin to building a community from scratch. In the case of building capacity for parish councils, both scenarios apply: existing parish councils wishing to do more, and developing new parish councils where none previously existed. Debates about how to strengthen civil society as a whole, through the development of communities, is a topic which has been much debated. It is often summarised in the “Budapest Declaration: Building European Civil Society Through Community Development” which emerged from an international conference in Budapest in 2004 (Craig et al. 2004). This summit highlighted a number of issues around community development, building on earlier examinations of community capacity building by the United Nations. A key term in all of this is empowerment. To enable such empowerment, the Budapest Declaration highlighted the need to train people in how to build communities, noting how different communities have different needs and requirements. Compare, for example, the needs of urban and rural communities. Their priorities are likely to differ. Ultimately, there needs to be some sort of national action plan. Included within such a plan is the need for something which addresses the role of the social economy and local communities and their economic development. There are also issues around the aims of community capacity building. In effect, what is being built? Such community capacity building could be about building the appropriate infrastructure to deliver services. It could be about developing the ability to participate in decision-making

74 

A. JONES

processes. Alternatively, it could focus upon the building of partnerships or problem-solving capabilities. There are many different forms of community capacity which could be built. The appropriate form will depend upon what a given community wants or needs. A subsequent problem around community capacity building is knowing when the capacity has been built. Consideration needs to be given as to how to measure capacity, as well as measuring how the capacity might be built. Craig (2005, 15–16) notes how this may be undertaken. There is a clear stress on participation. Such an emphasis may be around measuring who is participating and in what role or function. There is also the need to measure the extent to which goals have been achieved. Included here may be a noting of the aims and objectives of the community group and the extent to which these have been met. Such an evaluation should not be undertaken in isolation. It should be linked to the extent to which the local community has been involved; is there local ownership of whatever has been undertaken? All of this shows a need for continuous evaluation, a monitoring of projects being undertaken, the extent to which there is a community buy-in to such projects, and the extent to which they are delivered. The measuring of the extent to which capacity has been built is not just about the aggregation of data. While the data may show the extent to which targets have been reached, the measuring of community capacity should be far more. Case studies, for example, may provide better ‘evidence’ as to the extent to which capacity has been developed. They present a narrative that runs through the community capacity building, demonstrating a clear context which is often lacking from simple number crunching. What is also needed is a clear assertion as to the objectives of the community capacity building. It is important to have very clear and measurable aims and objectives. Case studies will provide a clear context to measuring the success or otherwise of each scheme. Thus what needs to be undertaken in community capacity building is the building of the capacity of the community and of the organisations involved (Craig 2007). There may be a blurring of boundaries here, but both need to be developed. One of the problems around community capacity building is that of a built-in assumption. This is an assumption of deficiency—that a community is deficient in skill, knowledge, or experience. Consequently, community capacity building is often seen as a top-down or centre-driven process (Craig 2007, 352). This top-down method, of a paternalistic higher tier of

5  THE ISSUE OF CAPACITY 

75

government, may hide fundamental flaws in the pre-existing institutional or socio-economic structures. As will be seen below, experiences in other countries have highlighted how the higher tier of government—be it national, regional, or local—is often unwilling to cede control over forms of community capacity building. In this respect, empowerment of the local community does not occur. Without that empowerment, it may be contested as to the extent to which community capacity has been built. An example of some of the problems in this community capacity building is explored by Mowbray (2005) and his case study in the state of Victoria, Australia. In May 2000, the government of Victoria introduced a Community Capacity Building Initiative. It was a three-year pilot, with a budget of around three million Australian dollars. At the outset, this seemed a worthy proposal, but there were quite stringent limitations placed upon any communities which wished to bid for funding. The target audience was the rural communities of Victoria, which therefore eliminated a large percentage of the population. Yet this target audience was further limited by a requirement for the bidding groups to be well-­ established. There was no opportunity to develop a new community from scratch. Thus it was really a pre-existing rural community capacity building initiative, in theory at least, strengthening what already existed. Not only was it about pre-existing geographical communities, there were also concerns as to which communities were identified as the benefactors of the largesse of the Victorian State Government. The selection of the communities to receive funding was undertaken by the State Government. This led to allegations of the recipients of funding being associated with the State Government—a version of jobs for the boys. Further concerns arose about the scheme. The targets appeared to be very low key and mundane. This is not to disparage such schemes, but there appeared to be very little about empowering the local communities. There were also concerns about the heavy-handedness of the State Government in the whole process, laying claim to any venture deemed successful. Linked to this was the concern over who was involved. Using pressure group terminology, there were a lot of Insider Groups—those who had close links to the State Government—who gained access to the funding. Those without such links were far less likely to be included in the scheme. There were also suggestions of the State Government, in effect, trying to buy votes for future elections through their choice of communities which were to receive funding.

76 

A. JONES

Questions could be asked as to the extent to which this Community Capacity Building Initiative was about long-term political engagement. The suggestion is that this Initiative was much more short term. Thus, Mowbray (2005, 263–264) presents a list of what may be needed to empower local communities: 1. substitute achievable and practical objectives for the customary pretentious, fuzzy, and self-serving state aims 2. move beyond the dubious use of pilot, demonstration, or trial projects and commit substantial resources on a long-term basis to universal programmes 3. include local government 4. relinquish close control (by the State Government in this particular case study) 5. strive to ensure consistency with the objectives of other government programmes and policies This list from Mowbray highlights a number of concerns over both capacity building and community capacity building. There needs to be a degree of autonomy for the communities to be able to develop, but it needs to be a long-term plan. Anything that is short-term is unlikely to develop a community. It needs to be funded properly, rather than a short-­ term cash injection. Finally, there needs to be a clear goal. Without such a goal, it will be impossible to measure the extent to which the capacity has been built.

Leadership Building capacity is a core function of leadership. Thus, with a pre-existing parish council, it might be expected the leaders of the council will be to the fore in presenting their vision for the local community. This can be seen clearly in any Parish Plan. They should be identifying those services which are needed and devising ways in which such services can be delivered. The issue of funding or the development of partnerships should also be considered. Ultimately, this leadership needs to be at the community level. Yet such leadership does not operate in a vacuum (Schoburgh 2014). The leaders of a parish—in fact, all of the parish councillors—are accountable to the public. There should be clear engagement with the public, in

5  THE ISSUE OF CAPACITY 

77

drawing out ideas from them as regards to service provision. At the same time, the vision of the parish council leadership should be communicated clearly to the community. There is also the role of higher tiers of government. Any plans being developed by the leadership needs to be roughly in line with the plans of higher tiers of government. Thus there is also a clear need for communication to the higher tier of government, and the need for the reciprocation in such communication. A problem here, as noted in Chap. 3, is the issue of co-opted councillors and councillors who are elected unopposed. In such circumstances, these councillors may not have the same levels of engagement with the local community. Tewdwr-Jones (1998) has been particularly critical of such concerns, but it relates back to the capacity-building issue. If there are insufficient numbers willing to participate in standing for election, there may be a concern as to the extent to which there is a capacity to deliver. If the leadership is lacking, the capacity will not be built. Where there is greater concern over leadership is in those areas in which there is no existing parish council. The issue is about identifying the community leaders—be it a geographical, identity, or issue-based community—and engaging with them. In such circumstances, the scenario is about devolving power to those who have none by those who do (Cuthill and Fien 2005). Thus, if new unitary authorities wish to establish new parish councils, they will need to identify those leaders, engage with them, and empower them as a parish council. Merely establishing a parish council and stepping back to see what happens will be wholly inadequate.

Conclusion When examining the idea of capacity building, or community capacity building, the important factor is simple: community. Without the community buy-in, there can be no capacity building. The two go hand-in-hand. Linked to this is the idea of co-operation. In building capacity, there needs to be co-operation with all stakeholders. This includes the community, and there are potentially multiple communities within a given geographical community. For parish councils, it also includes the principal authority and any other bodies with which the parish council has a relationship. A parish council is most likely unable to stand alone. There is, in effect, a constitutional relationship with the principal authority, as

78 

A. JONES

examined in Chap. 1. It is impossible not to have a relationship with the principal authority; thus it is best to try to develop a co-operative one. It is also important to consider as to who benefits from either community capacity building or community development. In this, there are likely to be many beneficiaries—although the extent to which each benefits may vary. In developing capacity for a parish council, the principal authority is also likely to benefit. It could mean relieving the principal authority of the burden of delivering a specific service—as was explored in Chap. 2. At the same time, the local community benefits. A service that may have been withdrawn is retained. The parish council may benefit as well, as they receive the kudos for being able to retain the service. In this positive scenario, it appears to be a win-win situation. Yet it is important to go back to the ideas of Honadle (1981). The emphasis should not just be about the delivery of a given service. It is also about how to develop the service—be it to broaden the delivery or to cut it back if it is not cost-effective or is failing to fulfil its function. Linked to that may be the exploration of alternative forms of funding a given service. Could, for example, a sponsor be found or some partner? All of this is part of the evaluation of provision, which is an essential part of capacity building. Finally, with regard to community capacity building, is that all-­ important concept: community. In building capacity, how can the (geographical) community participate? How can the barriers to participation be overcome? The most obvious barriers are time and money. If members of the community are at work for much of the week, there is limited time when they are available to participate in community activities. Parish council meetings, or parish meetings, need to be held at a time when the community is available. Alternatively, it is about using technology to enable community members to be able to participate. Without this, capacity building will fail.

Bibliography Carmel, E., & Harlock, J. (2008). Instituting the ‘Third Sector’ as a Governable Terrain: Partnership, Procurement and Performance in the UK. Policy and Politics, 36(2), 155–171. Craig, G. (2005, December 8). Community Capacity-Building: Definitions, Scope, Measurements and Critiques. A Paper Prepared for the OECD, Prague, Czech Republic. Craig, G. (2007). Community Capacity-Building: Something Old, Something New…? Critical Social Policy, 27(3), 335–359.

5  THE ISSUE OF CAPACITY 

79

Craig, G., Gorman, M., & Vercseg, I. (2004). The Budapest Declaration: Building European Civil Society Through Community Development. Community Development Journal, 39(4), 423–429. https://doi.org/10.1093/cdj/bsh040. Cuthill, M., & Fien, J. (2005). Capacity Building: Facilitating Citizen Participation in Local Governance. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 64(4), 63–80. Denters, B., & Klok, P.-J. (2013). Dorps-en wijkraden in Europa. Universiteit Twente. Diamond, J. (2004). Local Regeneration Initiatives And Capacity Building: Whose ‘Capacity’ and ‘Building’ for What? Community Development Journal, 39(2), 177–189. Fenwick, J., & Bailey, M. (1999). Local Government Reorganisation in the UK Decentralisation or Corporatism? International Journal of Public Sector Management, 12(3), 249–261. Harrow, J. (2001). ‘Capacity Building’ as a Public Management Goal: Myth, Magic or the Main Chance? Public Management Review, 3(2), 209–230. Honadle, B. (1981). A Capacity-Building Framework: A Search for Concept and Purpose. Public Administration Review, 41(5), 575–580. Mowbray, M. (2005). Community Capacity Building or State Opportunism? Community Development Journal, 40(3), 255–264. NALC. (2014). What Are Local Councils? Power to the People. Retrieved from https://www.nalc.gov.uk/library/publications/power-to-the-people. NALC. (2015a). How to Create Your Own Local Council. Power to the People. Retrieved from https://www.nalc.gov.uk/library/publications/ power-to-the-people. NALC. (2015b). Establishing Your New Local Council. Power to the People. Retrieved from https://www.nalc.gov.uk/library/publications/ power-to-the-people. O’Hare, P. (2010). Capacity Building for Community-Led Regeneration: Facilitating or Frustrating Public Engagement? International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 30(1/2), 32–47. Schoburgh, E. (2014). Does Local Government Have Capacity for Enabling Local Economic Development? Lessons from Jamaica. Commonwealth Journal of Local Governance, (15), 3–22. Tewdwr-Jones, M. (1998). Rural Government and Community Participation: The Planning Role of Community Councils. Journal of Rural Studies, 14, 51–62. Toulmin Smith, J. (1857). The Parish: Its Powers and Obligations at Law. London: H. Sweet.

CHAPTER 6

Conclusion: A Resurgence in Parish Councils?

Abstract  There is something of a resurgence in parish councils across England. As this book was being completed, there were news stories of the formation of new councils such as Northampton Town Council, and plans to create new councils such as Kettering. This leaves the question as to how many more councils can be established. How can the demand for such institutions be met? Is it possible to extend the parish councils into more urban areas, rather than leaving the appearance of them as rural and semi-rural bodies? Finally, there is the response from the principal authorities: do they want parish councils or alternative fora? Keywords  Parish councils • Future plans • Urban and rural

Introduction There is a resurgence in parish councils in England. This is not hyperbole. New parish councils or town councils are being established across much of England. Close to 300 have already been established in the first two decades of the twenty-first century. The issue is much more around why they are being established, as well as their potential longevity. To what extent is it about the demand to bring local government closer to the people, driven by the grassroots in the community? Alternatively, to what extent is it a top-down process, where principal authorities are encouraging the creation of parish councils to off-load some of the service delivery © The Author(s) 2020 A. Jones, The Resurgence of Parish Council Powers in England, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-45128-8_6

81

82 

A. JONES

functions? At the same time, in this latter scenario, if there are subsequent problems in the service delivery, it is not the fault of the principal authority. Herein lies the issue of community capacity building, as examined in the previous chapter, and the need to ensure there is the capacity and the capability to take on those roles. The aim of this chapter is to bring some of the disparate parts of earlier chapters together. In doing this, it is possible to examine why parish councils may be deemed so important, and why there is the possibility for them to do so much more. Yet there are constraints at the same time, in relation to capacity, for example, as well as in regard to the formal relationship between parish councils, principal authorities, and higher tiers of government. Lessons may also be drawn from experiences in other parts of the world. This could be in relation to the formalisation of the role of parish councils, or even a standardisation of what parish councils can do.

Closeness to the Community Arguably the most important factor in the resurgence of parish councils relates to their closeness to the community. Organisations such as the National Association of Local Councils (NALC) re-emphasise continually the importance of this link to the community. Creating new parish councils provides an opportunity to develop this important democratic link. Of all the tiers of elected government in England, it is at the parish level where the councillor is likely to know most of their constituents—and, quite possibly, on first name terms. No other tier of government is so close to its geographical community. What has become apparent, with the drive for larger and larger units of local government, is the gradual erosion of that relationship between the elected representative and their electors, in effect, the creation of a ‘democratic deficit’. And herein lies the apparent craziness of this situation. As units of local government get larger, regardless as to the reasons why, there has been a clear push to create a new tier of government which is much closer to the community. The new councils, such as the unitary authority of Cornwall or the planned new unitary authorities of North Northamptonshire and West Northamptonshire, are acknowledged as being too far away from the local community. Consequently, there is pressure to create a new tier, or to strengthen the pre-existing tier, of parish councils. From the perspective of parish councils, there is a clear opportunity to build a greater capacity to deliver more to the local communities.

6  CONCLUSION: A RESURGENCE IN PARISH COUNCILS? 

83

Yet the duplication of the former structures—moving to unitary status but then developing a lower tier of government—begs the question as to why the restructuring needed to take place. Even the economies of scale arguments, as examined in Chap. 2, seem to be turned on their head. A tier of government is removed to save money. It is, in effect, replaced by another tier with much smaller units of government and arguably less capacity to deliver services. This is presented as being more cost-effective in the way that the previous two-tiered structure was not. Linked to the drive for larger units of local government has been the policies of austerity which have been imposed by the UK central government for the past decade. Principal authorities have seen their budgets cut, which has resulted in the diminution of service provision. Where opportunities have arisen, is in parish councils taking over aspects of service provision. The concern here has been the carrot and semtex thinking: provide the service or lose it altogether. Yet it is the closeness of the parish council to the community that has resulted in some of this service provision being undertaken by parish councils and potential partners. If the demand has not been there from the local community, or even if the demand has been insufficient to justify the expense, then the service provision has been curtailed. New or pre-existing parish councils are not taking on all of the service provision of the former district or borough councils. Instead, they are taking on some of those services, but also services previously provided by a county council as well. The result is much more of a patchwork provision across different parish councils. The one significant difference in all of this comes back to the relationship between the parish council and the local community. It is a much closer relationship. Even in the largest of parish councils—Sutton Coldfield, with a voting population of around 75,000—that link to the community underpins everything done by the council. The idea of ‘closeness’ is something of a challenge for the larger parish councils. Yet that closeness is linked to the everyday life of those residents in that community.

The Constitutional Position Revisited One of the issues for parish councils, and in the way in which many of them would like to deliver so much more, is the constitutional relationship. It is not about re-writing the British constitution or removing the concept of ultra vires from the statute books. Rather it is about revisiting what parish councils can do, and how they can be established.

84 

A. JONES

Going back to the Labour Government of 2005–2010 and the Cameron led-Coalition Government of 2010–2015, there was a strong drive from the centre towards establishing new parish councils. This drive from the centre will be examined separately in the next section of this chapter, with particular regard to the current Conservative Government. In relation to the constitutional position, both governments were keen to see the development of new parish councils or alternatives to parish councils. Such alternatives included neighbourhood fora, tenants associations, and other forms of community associations (Department for Communities and Local Government and The Local Government Boundaries Commission for England 2010). From a principal authority’s perspective, and especially those in urban areas, the non-parish alternatives may have been seen as more palatable. There would be no electoral challenge to the position of the principal authority. A parish council with a clear electoral mandate could be in a position to undermine the aims and objectives of the principal authority. Where there have been moves to create parish councils in urban areas, councillors on the principal authority have suggested that the new parish councillors would belong to fringe elements, or there would be the election of Independent councillors who would not understand how politics operates, as occurred in the debates around the creation of the Spitalfields Town Council. Why there is such a fear of Independent councillors is inexplicable but they are seen as being alien to the English or British system of politics. Another reason why principal authorities are often more keen about non-parish alternatives is that many are already in existence, and principal authorities may have built up strong relationships with these bodies. In urban areas, for example, there are tenants organisations which work to represent the interests of council tenants within a given principal authority. Such bodies work closely with the specific principal authority departments. In this respect, these bodies act more like pressure groups, lobbying the principal authority about a particular issue or sector. They tend not to cover a broader remit as would be covered by a parish council. There is an extensive literature which examines these bodies which often appear in urban areas, and may be seen as a viable alternative to the formation of parish councils. Griggs and Roberts (2012) note there is something of a “messiness” when examining the spread of these neighbourhood workings. Quite often, these alternative neighbourhood bodies are not acting in a manner to increase public engagement or public

6  CONCLUSION: A RESURGENCE IN PARISH COUNCILS? 

85

participation—something which you would expect to see with the development of a parish council. Instead, the emphasis appears to be on the more effective delivery of services to the neighbourhood or community. There is much greater emphasis upon the management of service delivery, with that economic underpinning and justification, as noted in Chap. 5 on capacity building and the measuring of outcomes. Yet there is still a degree of buy-in into these neighbourhood schemes. Principal authorities have been willing to spend money to encourage community engagement. The focus has been upon those services for which the principal authority has an obligation to provide—such as street lighting or street cleaning. Yet issues such as policing and housing have also been included in some schemes (Griggs and Roberts 2012). The biggest problem that remains, however, is the question of capacity. How do these communities develop their capacity? For these neighbourhood schemes, there is no autonomous budget, unlike for a parish council. It may be that such schemes are being used to prevent moves towards establishing more urban parish councils. Alternatively, the principal authorities are reluctant to relinquish too much control to other bodies. The difficulties in getting a parish council established in an urban area are best exemplified by the drive to create a Spitalfields Town Council within Tower Hamlets in London. There were arguments over which geographical areas should be included within the boundaries of the proposed parish council. Concerns were raised, for example, that the proposed town council excluded a particular council estate. Consequently, there were suggestions as to a middle-class plot to remove part of the community from the control of the Tower Hamlets council, but leaving the so-called problem areas under their remit. Further, there were misconceptions as to what powers would be wielded by the proposed town council, and from where the precept would be derived. The actual plans for the town council detailed very clearly which powers would be taken on and which would remain under the control of the principal authority. Tower Hamlets Borough Council was opposed to the proposal. With there being strong public demand for a town council and resistance from the principal authority, NALC suggested a local referendum be held to decide the issue. This was rebuffed. Ultimately, the principal authority—in this case, Tower Hamlets Borough Council—has the final say as to whether or not a parish council will be established. At the time of writing, there was no Spitalfields Town Council; and there would be no opportunity to establish a new town council for a subsequent two years.

86 

A. JONES

A Drive from the Centre? What has been apparent for the last twenty years or so, has been a drive from the centre to establish new parish councils. Previous governments, led by Tony Blair and David Cameron, have acknowledged the importance of that parish tier of government—both directly and indirectly. The most recent government document (Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government 2019) gives a clear steer as to how the centre perceives the development of parish councils and other forms of community engagement. The then-Communities Secretary, James Brokenshire, wrote effusively about the importance of communities as “the bedrock of our society” and how the government’s “vision for active citizenship” would be part of “a new beginning for government to help local people build stronger and thriving communities for all”(Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government 2019, 4). Local councillors were mentioned once in Brokenshire’s foreword, but parish councils did not receive a mention. The importance of place and community has been highlighted repeatedly, fitting in clearly with the perception of a geographic community (Craig 2005). Consequently, there are plans for community engagement, strengthening local partnerships and civic infrastructure in England. There is also an emphasis upon that local identity—be it a village, neighbourhood, town, or county—and the associated pride in this community. The importance of democracy and community participation is also highlighted. Ultimately, however, it is up to the local communities to lead themselves. This language builds very much on the localism agenda from the time of David Cameron. In all of this, parish councils get little more than a fleeting mention. Rather than promoting them as a potential champion for community participation, with that inbuilt democratic accountability, they are not really presented as a viable option. “Where town and parish council arrangements do not exist, local authorities can support other community-led models such as neighbourhood forums that enable the meaningful transfer of power to a more local level” (Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government 2019, 9; emphasis added). As has previously been noted in the study by Griggs and Roberts (2012), this appears to be much more about the transfer of the management of service delivery rather than devolving actual powers to the community. The ties to the principal authorities will remain strong. The clear steer from the government is not

6  CONCLUSION: A RESURGENCE IN PARISH COUNCILS? 

87

to establish new parish councils, but for communities and principal authorities to look to alternatives. This leaves issues around a potential ‘democratic deficit’ in these new sub-municipalities. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (2019) does promote the importance of establishing partnerships, particularly with voluntary groups and local businesses. Reference is made to the by-­ gone age of philanthropy and their support for community activities. Such partnerships are an important part of any capacity building, and the government is aware of their importance in the success of any scheme. Ultimately, the focus is still upon localism, along with the idea of leaving no community behind. Despite the negligible mentions of parish councils throughout the documentation, the claim is still “to build on existing civic infrastructure and models of local accountability and democracy, including exploring opportunities to strengthen the role of parish and town councils” (Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government 2019, 15). The idea of building new parish or town councils does not appear as a priority, despite the evidence of demand for the creation of such bodies. Those that do exist may explore opportunities to enhance their role and to provide further services to their community. There appears to be almost a fear of creating a new tier of elected parish councils across the country. The central drive is about localism, but it is underpinned by both neo-liberalism and austerity. The perception is that the costs of establishing a new parish council are too great and cannot be justified. Added to this is the lack of trust which is prevalent in elected politicians today. With this as the backdrop, more management-oriented approaches are presented as being far more cost-effective. The lack of accountability in many of these schemes is either ignored or dismissed. The emphasis is upon the potential economic gains. Should those gains not appear, as noted in Chap. 5, the ‘management’ can shut the project down. It may not always be about what the community wants or needs, despite the rhetoric from the centre.

Lesson Learning from Overseas When examining parish councils, or sub-municipalities, in other countries, what became evident was the similarities between so many of the countries. Top of the list was central interference. Local government might be protected by the constitution, but this has not stopped national governments from interfering in the structures or the duties of local government.

88 

A. JONES

Most parish councils did not even receive that level of constitutional protection, although it could be an aspiration for the European Charter of Local Self-Government. Yet for many systems with parish councils, there was also a potential problem in the relationship with the principal authorities. This often stemmed from central legislation. Thus there are clear rules as to where sub-municipalities can be established and which tier of government decides what powers may be wielded by them. As could be seen from those case studies in Chap. 4, parish councils can be wiped from the political map on the whim of central, regional, or local government. There were mergers in Portugal, as part of budget-cutting moves. In Jamaica, the overarching functions of parish councils were realigned. There has been centrally-led experimentation with the use of parish councils or other forms of sub-municipal government in a number of countries, including Sweden and Denmark. Legislation will need to be introduced in the Czech Republic should a municipality wish to introduce a tier of sub-municipal government, assuming it is one of those which does not have the right to do so. In Germany, such experimentation was led by the Länder, as sub-municipal government is under their remit, leading to a lack of uniformity across Länder, as well as within them. Arguably, the system where sub-municipalities appear to have the greatest security is in Poland, but even here there are caveats. It was the rural sub-municipalities—the sołectwa—which appeared to have a degree of security, unlike the urban equivalents. Much of this may have been to do with a potentially powerful lobby group in the Polish Parliament. The Krajowe Stowarzyszenie Sołtysów (National Association of Village Heads) had support from prominent national politicians. Thus any moves to change the role or functions of the sołectwa would likely see a vociferous defence of the status quo. Another aspect, which applied specifically to the sołectwa, was to do with funding. The European Charter of Local Self-Government presents the case for financial autonomy for local government. In the Polish system, the sołectwa have taken a step in that direction, although this is clearly linked to a push from the centre. Rural local authorities were encouraged to transfer 1% of their revenue to the sołectwa. This would be match-­ funded by central government. Consequently the sołectwa had a significant budget with which to develop the local community. Again, however, there is a caveat. In Poland, this applied to rural sub-municipalities. The urban equivalents received nothing similar.

6  CONCLUSION: A RESURGENCE IN PARISH COUNCILS? 

89

The question here is whether there should be a degree of standardisation of funding for sub-municipalities. There can be similar questions in relation to the spread of sub-municipalities. Should there be established, as is the case in Portugal, a system of sub-municipal government across the entire country? Portugal is one of only three European countries with such a structure. Other systems are much more piecemeal. In many respects, the sołectwa in Poland look not too dissimilar to many parish councils in England. They are very much rural, although the sources of funding are somewhat different. There are also questions over the extent to which sub-municipal government should be protected from interference from higher tiers of government. The problem, however, is the degree of dependence there may be by the sub-municipalities on those higher tiers—be it financial or political. There is a clear degree of interdependence, as was evidenced in almost every example. Yet that interdependence is far from even. Principal authorities or municipalities may be dependent upon the sub-municipalities to implement some of their decisions. There is little that can be done by the sub-municipalities to contest that implementation. Quite often, that ‘obedience’ may be written down in the legislation, as appears to be the case in the Czech Republic. Thus there is clear lesson-learning that may be drawn from the experiences of others. As per the Portuguese experiences, it may be useful to draw out an extensive list of services which parish councils may have the opportunity to deliver. This could be a far more extensive list than currently exists in England. The question around finance then arises. In this case, the English parish precept gives the council a degree of financial autonomy which the Portuguese freguesias lack; in fact few sub-­ municipalities have any financial autonomy. There is still a dependency link with the principal authority, but English parish councils cannot be forced to change the precept at the behest of the principal authority.

Conclusions It is when examining the breadth of interests with which a parish council may be involved, that the potential for developing their role may grow. Pearce and Ellwood (2002, 36–37) have highlighted the range of roles performed by parish councils. Their primary role as elected bodies is to represent the needs and concerns of the local community. Such a perspective with regard to community engagement can be traced back to the

90 

A. JONES

writings of Toulmin Smith (1857). Thereafter, there are clear functional issues. There are planning issues, as has previously been noted, but also transport issues such as footpaths, traffic, and lighting, not to forget car parking! There are local environmental issues such as litter, landscaping, and vandalism. Finally, there is some potential for service delivery, with sports facilities, allotments, and community halls. This may just be the starting point. It is about finding out what else the community needs and whether or not the parish council can meet such needs. It could also be about the principal authorities, or even central government, developing a list of potential services which could be devolved to parish councils. So this leaves a very important question: how much more can parish councils do? To this, there is no fixed answer. In fact, it will differ from parish council to parish council. It comes back to the question of capacity but also to citizen engagement. It is fine for a parish council to develop a partnership to build housing which is needed in the local community, as was highlighted in Chap. 3. This requires the support of the principal authority, as well as buy-in from the local community. Herein, the problems start to rise. To what extent are principal authorities willing to devolve decision making down to the parishes? And if there is such devolving of powers, will the principal authorities ‘keep their distance’? It is very much a balancing act once the decision making has been devolved to the parish council. Yet this can be built into parish plans and into the development plans of the principal authority. It is possible for them to work together. However, if there is no buy-in from the local community, then any plans to build the capacity of a parish council will fall flat. There is a clear attachment to ‘place’. If there are opportunities for the public to be involved in developing their ‘place’, there is quite often buy-in. The question then arises as to who draws the boundaries of that ‘place’ (see Sandford 2019; Sandford and Baker 2020) and the degree of attachment to those boundaries. An artificial construct is likely to fail, as there will be no attachment to the ‘place’. Conversely, as noted above with regard to the proposed Spitalfields Town Council, there can be an almighty brouhaha over where the boundaries may be drawn. That geographic community, as noted in Chap. 5, is of great importance. The question may be over the inclusivity rather than the exclusivity of that community. In an ideal world, there would be multiple partnerships with a parish council, including a positive and constructive relationship with the principal authority. Private bodies and voluntary organisations would also buy­in to any schemes to develop the community. As the Ministry of Housing,

6  CONCLUSION: A RESURGENCE IN PARISH COUNCILS? 

91

Communities and Local Government (2019) noted, there is a long history of business philanthropy. It is not just about the mundane duties that a parish council may carry out. There are so many other opportunities for businesses to join in with these communities, but they will also need that all-important buy-in from the local community. Fears may be expressed with regard to the cost of running a parish council. There is much anecdotal evidence of principal authorities trying to persuade new parish councils to keep their precept as low as possible. The fear is the governing party in the principal authority will be blamed for excessive council tax rises. This need not be the case. The principal authority needs to sit down with the parish council to work out what services need to be delivered by the parish council, as well as all of the running costs. It needs to be a dialogue rather than a monologue. At the same time, it needs to be educative. For example, a precept of £100 for the year for a Band D property is not excessive. Break it down: £10 per month for ten months, or £2.50 per week for those ten months. That equates to two litres of milk and a loaf of bread from a local supermarket each week. In return for that, the parish council needs to explain what the community receives. This is the need for clear communication. Ultimately, the rise in parish councils stems from public demand. As larger units of local government become more divorced from the everyday lives of their residents, room grows for the development of parish councils. It is fine for community leaders, however such people may be defined, to take a lead on such developments. Without support from the principal authority, the project will go no further. Similarly, without community support, there will be no functioning parish council. That engagement with the local community is all-important. Otherwise, what may remain for a parish council is the image of Dibley.

Bibliography Craig, G. (2005, December 8). Community Capacity-Building: Definitions, Scope, Measurements and Critiques. A Paper Prepared for the OECD, Prague, Czech Republic. Department for Communities and Local Government and The Local Government Boundaries Commission for England. (2010). Guidance on Community Governance Reviews. London: Crown Copyright.

92 

A. JONES

Griggs, S., & Roberts, M. (2012). From Neighbourhood Governance to Neighbourhood Management: A ‘Roll-Out’ Neo-Liberal Design for Devolved Governance in the United Kingdom? Local Government Studies, 38(2), 183–210. Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. (2019). By Deeds and Their Results: How We Will Strengthen Our Communities and Nation. London: Crown Copyright. Pearce, G., & Ellwood, S. (2002). Modernising Local Government: A Role for Parish and Town Councils. Local Government Studies, 28(2), 33–54. Sandford, M. (2019, July 12). Where Do You Draw the Line? Local Administrative Boundaries in England. House of Commons Library Briefing Paper 08619. Sandford, M., & Baker, C. (2020, January 13). Mapping the Places. House of Commons Library Briefing Paper Number 08778. Toulmin Smith, J. (1857). The Parish: Its Powers and Obligations at Law. London: H. Sweet.

Bibliography

Araújo, J. (2005). Developments in Portuguese Local Governance. Retrieved from https://repositorium.sdum.uminho.pt/bitstream/1822/3272/1/ NEAPPSerieIV(2).pdf. Bailey, N., & Pill, M. (2015). Can the state empower communities through localism? An evaluation of recent approaches to neighbourhood governance in England. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 33, 289–304. Batorova, M., Bubeníček, V., Drezgić, S., Jüptner, P., Klimovský, D., Kruntorádová, I., et  al. (2014). Local Governance Between Democracy and Efficiency: V4 Comparative Case Study. Novo Mesto: FOS. BBC. (2017). Parish Council Tax Bills Rise Despite Squeeze. Retrieved February 23, 2017, from https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-38827421. BBC. (2019). Parish Council Tax Bills Rise ‘To Save Services from Cuts’. Retrieved June 18, 2019, from https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-48356581. Bishop, J. (2007). Plans Without Planners? Town and Country Planning, 76(10), 340–344. Bishop, J. (2010). From Parish Plans to Localism in England: Straight Track or Long and Winding Road? Planning Practice & Research, 25(5), 611–624. Bissessar, A. (2002). Globalization, Domestic Politics and the Introduction of New Public Management in the Commonwealth Caribbean. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 68(1), 113–125. Bissessar, A. (2010). Local Governance Structures in Trinidad and Tobago: Muddling Through. Social and Economic Studies, 59(4), 127–144.

© The Author(s) 2020 A. Jones, The Resurgence of Parish Council Powers in England, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-45128-8

93

94 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bogason, P. (1987). Denmark. In E. Page & M. Goldsmith (Eds.), Central and Local Government Relations: A Comparative Analysis of West European Unitary States (pp. 46–67). London: Sage. Boggero, G. (2018). Constitutional Principles of Local Self-Government in Europe. Leiden: Brill. Burchardt, J. (2012). State and Society in the English Countryside: The Rural Community Movement 1918–39. Rural History, 23(1), 81–106. Buser, M. (2013). Tracing the Democratic Narrative: Big Society, Localism and Civic Engagement. Local Government Studies, 39(1), 3–21. Butcher, L. (2010). Transport: Rural Areas. House of Commons Library SN/BT/365. Cabannes, Y. (2004). Participatory Budgeting: A Significant Contribution to Participatory Democracy. Environment & Urbanization, 16(1), 27–46. Carmel, E., & Harlock, J. (2008). Instituting the ‘Third Sector’ as a Governable Terrain: Partnership, Procurement and Performance in the UK. Policy and Politics, 36(2), 155–171. Chandler, J. (2007). Explaining Local Government: Local Government in Britain Since 1800. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Chandler, J. (2010). A Rationale for Local Government. Local Government Studies, 36(1), 5–20. Clarke, N., & Cochrane, A. (2013). Geographies and Politics of Localism: The Localism of the United Kingdom’s Coalition Government. Political Geography, 34, 10–23. Cochrane, A. (2016). Thinking About the ‘Local’ of Local Government: A Brief History of Invention and Reinvention. Revisited Series. Local Government Studies, 42(6), 907–915. Copus, C., & Jones, A. (2013). Welsh Local Government Association Literature Review on Council Size: Commission on Public Service Governance & Delivery Service Provider Consultation. Leicester: DMU. Copus, C., & Wall, R. (2017). The Voice of the Councillor: Final Report of the De Montfort University and Municipal Journal Councillor Commission. Leicester: DMU. Copus, C., Sweeting, D., & Wingfield, M. (2013). Repoliticising and Redemocratising Local Democracy and the Public Realm: Why We Need Councillors and Councils. Policy & Politics, 43(3), 389–408. Copus, C., Roberts, M., & Wall, R. (2017). Local Government in England: Centralisation, Autonomy and Control. London: Palgrave. Cornwall County Council. (2007). One Cornwall One Council. Part One – Our proposal for a single Council for Cornwall. Coulson, A. (1999). Decentralisation and Democracy: The Neglected Potential of Parish Councils. Progressive Review, 6(2), 115–118. https://doi. org/10.1111/1468-0041.00081.

 BIBLIOGRAPHY 

95

Coulson, A. (2011). Scrutiny in English Local Government and the Role of Councillors. Political Quarterly, 82(1), 102–111. Craig, G. (2005, December 8). Community Capacity-Building: Definitions, Scope, Measurements and Critiques. A Paper Prepared for the OECD, Prague, Czech Republic. Craig, G. (2007). Community Capacity-Building: Something Old, Something New…? Critical Social Policy, 27(3), 335–359. Craig, G., Gorman, M., & Vercseg, I. (2004). The Budapest Declaration: Building European Civil Society Through Community Development. Community Development Journal, 39(4), 423–429. https://doi.org/10.1093/cdj/bsh040. Cullingworth, B., & Nadin, V. (1997). Town and Country Planning in the UK (12th ed.). London: Routledge. Cuthill, M., & Fien, J. (2005). Capacity Building: Facilitating Citizen Participation in Local Governance. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 64(4), 63–80. da Silva e Costa, M., Felizes, J., & Neves, J. (1997). European Integration and Local Government: The (Ambiguous) Portuguese Case. In M. Goldsmith & K. Klausen (Eds.), European Integration and Local Government (pp. 172–188). Edward Elgar. Darlow, A., Percy-Smith, J., & Wells, P. (2007). Community Strategies: Are They Delivering Joined Up Governance? Local Government Studies, 33(1), 117–129. Davies, J. (2000). The Hollowing-Out of Local Democracy and the ‘Fatal Conceit’ of Governing Without Government. British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 2(3), 414–428. Dearlove, J. (1979). The Reorganisation of British Local Government: Old Orthodoxies and a Political Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Delicado, A., Figueiredo, E., & Silva, L. (2016). Community Perceptions of Renewable Energies in Portugal: Impacts on Environment, Landscape and Local Development. Energy Research & Social Science, 13(1), 84–93. Denters, B., & Klok, P.-J. (2013). Dorps-en wijkraden in Europa. Universiteit Twente. Department for Communities and Local Government. (2010). Draft Structural Reform Plan. London: Crown Copyright. Department for Communities and Local Government. (2015). Council Tax Statistics for Town and Parish Councils: 2015–16 England. London: Crown Copyright. Department for Communities and Local Government. (2017). Council Tax Statistics for Town and Parish Councils: 2017–18 England. London: Crown Copyright. Department for Communities and Local Government and The Local Government Boundaries Commission for England. (2010). Guidance on Community Governance Reviews. London: Crown Copyright.

96 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Derounian, J. (2011). Parish, Town and Community Councils Are Genuinely Democratic Vehicles for Translating Fine Words About Localism into Reality. Retrieved from http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/2011/12/22/ local-town-parish-councils/. Diamond, J. (2004). Local Regeneration Initiatives And Capacity Building: Whose ‘Capacity’ and ‘Building’ for What? Community Development Journal, 39(2), 177–189. Doig, A. (2014). Roadworks Ahead? Addressing Fraud, Corruption and Conflict of Interest in English Local Government. Local Government Studies, 40(5), 670–686. Elander, I., & Montin, S. (1990). Decentralisation and Control: Central-Local Government Relations in Sweden. Policy and Politics, 18(3), 165–180. Elcock, H., Fenwick, J., & McMillan, J. (2010). The Reorganization Addiction in Local Government: Unitary Councils for England. Public Money and Management, 30(6), 331–338. Ellwood, S. (1999). Parish and Town Councils: Left Out in the Cold but Invited to the Party. Public Money & Management, 19(3), 7–9. Ellwood, S., Tricker, M., & Waterston, P. (2000). Power to the Parishes  – A (Missed) Opportunity. Local Government Studies, 26(2), 7–22. Featherstone, D., Ince, A., Mackinnon, D., Strauss, K., & Cumbers, A. (2012). Progressive Localism and the Construction of Political Alternatives. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 37(2), 177–182. Fenwick, J., & Bailey, M. (1999). Local Government Reorganisation in the UK Decentralisation or Corporatism? International Journal of Public Sector Management, 12(3), 249–261. Fenwick, J., & Miller, K. (2012). Political Management and Local Performance: A Testing Relationship? International Journal of Public Sector Management, 25(3), 221–230. Ferreira, J., & Condessa, B. (2012). Defining Expansion Areas in Small Urban Settlements  – An Application to the Municipality of Tomar (Portugal). Landscape and Urban Planning, 107, 283–292. Ferreira, J., Condessa, B., Almeido, J., & Pinto, P. (2010). Urban Settlements Delimitation in Low-Density Areas  – An Application to the Municipality of Tomar (Portugal). Landscape and Urban Planning, 97, 156–167. Finer, H. (1950). English Local Government (4th ed., revised). London: Methuen & Co. Fletcher, D. (2013). Government Boundary Mapping Policy and the Knowledge Apparatus of the British State, 1841–1889. The Journal of Policy History, 25(4), 513–536. Foley, P., & Martin, S. (2000). A New Deal for the Community? Public Participation in Regeneration and Local Service Delivery. Policy & Politics, 28(4), 479–491.

 BIBLIOGRAPHY 

97

Gallent, N. (2013). Re-Connecting ‘People and Planning’: Parish Plans and the English Localism Agenda. Town Planning Review, 84(3), 371–396. Gallent, N., Morphet, J., & Tewdwr-Jones, M. (2008). Parish Plans and the Spatial Planning Approach in England. Town Planning Review, 79(1), 1–29. Game, C. (2018). England’s Local Elections: How Councillor Numbers Are Being Reduced by Stealth. Democratic Audit. Retrieved from https://www. democraticaudit.com/2018/04/27/englands-local-elections-how-councillornumbers-are-being-reduced-by-stealth/. Gardner, A. (2017). Big Change, Little Change? Punctuation, Increments and Multi-Layer Institutional Change for English Local Authorities Under Austerity. Local Government Studies, 43(2), 150–169. Gascoyne, D. (2014, February 27). A New Sense of Place Is Emerging. Local Government Chronicle. Gray, M., & Barford, A. (2018). The Depths of the Cuts: The Uneven Geography of Local Government Austerity. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 11(3), 541–563. Griggs, S., & Roberts, M. (2012). From Neighbourhood Governance to Neighbourhood Management: A ‘Roll-Out’ Neo-Liberal Design for Devolved Governance in the United Kingdom? Local Government Studies, 38(2), 183–210. Gutchen, R. M. (1961). Local Improvements and Centralization in Nineteenth-­ Century England. The Historical Journal, 4(1), 85–96. Harrow, J. (2001). ‘Capacity Building’ as a Public Management Goal: Myth, Magic or the Main Chance? Public Management Review, 3(2), 209–230. Hibbs, J. (1972). Maintaining Transport Services in Rural Areas. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, 6(1), 10–21. Hicks, E. (2019). Uncontested Elections: Where and Why Do They Take Place? Retrieved from https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/insights/ uncontested-elections-where-and-why-do-they-take-place/. Hilder, P. (2006). Power Up, People. Double Devolution and Beyond. Public Policy Research, 13(4), 238–248. Hlepas, N., Kersting, N., Kuhlmann, S., Swianiewicz, P., & Teles, F. (2018). Introduction: Decentralization Beyond the Municipal Tier. In N.  Hlepas, N. Kersting, S. Kuhlmann, P. Swianiewicz, & F. Teles (Eds.), Sub-Municipal Government in Europe (pp. 1–24). Basingstoke: Palgrave. Honadle, B. (1981). A Capacity-Building Framework: A Search for Concept and Purpose. Public Administration Review, 41(5), 575–580. House of Commons Communities and Local Government Committee. (2011). Localism: Third Report of Session 2010–12. HC547. London: The Stationery Office Limited.

98 

Bibliography

House of Commons Transport, Local Government and the Regions Committee. (2002). The New Towns: Their Problems and Future. HC603-II Memorandum Submitted to the Urban Affairs Sub-Committee. London: The Stationery Office Limited. Jalali, C., & Lisi, M. (2009). Weak Societal Roots, Strong Individual Patrons? Patronage & Party Organization in Portugal. Revista Enfoques, 7(11), 441–470. John, P. (2014). The Great Survivor: The Persistence and Resilience of English Local Government. Local Government Studies, 40(5), 687–704. Jones, A. (2018a, June 21–23). Are We Learning from the Old? A Case Study of Welsh Local Government Restructuring. Paper to the European Urban Research Association (EURA) Annual Conference, Tilburg University, Netherlands. Jones, A. (2018b, September). Parish Councils and Councillors: A Resurgence in the Most Local Tier of Government? Paper to the European Consortium for Political Research (ECPR) Annual Conference, University of Hamburg, Germany. Jones, A., & Copus, C. (2019). English Local Government and Environmental Matters. In Droit et Gestion des Collectivés Territoriales: La transition écologique et les collectives territoriales (pp. 235–240). Groupe Moniteur, Antony. Jones, A., & Copus, C. (2020). Local State-Society Relations in England. In F. Teles, A. Gendzwiłł, C. Stanus, & H. Heinelt (Eds.), Close Ties in European Local Governance: Linking Local State and Society (Vol. 1). Basingstoke: Palgrave. Jones, G., & Stewart, J. (1985). The Case for Local Government (2nd ed.). London: George Allen & Unwin. Kersting, N., & Kuhlman, S. (2018). Sub-Municipal Units in Germany: Municipal and Metropolitan Districts. In N.  Hlepas, N.  Kersting, S.  Kuhlmann, P.  Swianiewicz, & F.  Teles (Eds.), Sub-Municipal Government in Europe (pp. 93–118). Basingstoke: Palgrave. Kitchen, H. (1996). A Power of General Competence for Local Government. In L.  Pratchett & D.  Wilson (Eds.), Local Democracy and Local Government (pp. 210–228). Houndmills: Macmillan. Klausen, J. (2018). Sub-Municipal Arrangements in Norway: District System in Oslo. In N.  Hlepas, N.  Kersting, S.  Kuhlmann, P.  Swianiewicz, & F.  Teles (Eds.), Sub-Municipal Government in Europe (pp.  145–165). Basingstoke: Palgrave. Klobučník, M., & Bačík, V. (2016). Local Self-Government Structure in the EU Member States in 2011. Journal of Maps, 12(4), 671–675. Kruntorádová, I., & Jüptner, P. (2015). Local Government in the Czech Republic. Paris: IMODEV. Leicester City Council. (2019, February). General Fund Budget Report, 2019–20. Retrieved from www.leicester.gov.uk › media › general-fund-budget-report-2019-2020.

 Bibliography 

99

LGA. (n.d.). The Case for Civic and Democratic Engagement. Retrieved February 11, 2019, from https://www.local.gov.uk/topics/devolution/engaging-citizens-devolution/case-civic-and-democratic-engagement. Local Government Act (1972). c. 70 (Crown Copyright). Loughlin, M. (1996). The Constitutional Status of Local Government. In L.  Pratchett & D.  Wilson (Eds.), Local Democracy and Local Government (pp. 38–61). Houndmills: Macmillan. Lowndes, V. (2005). Something Old, Something New, Something Borrowed… How Institutions Change (and Stay the Same) in Local Governance. Policy Studies, 26(3/4), 291–309. Lysek, J. (2018). The ‘Little Town Halls’ in the Czech Republic: An Unexpected Potential of Functional Decentralization. In N.  Hlepas, N.  Kersting, S. Kuhlmann, P. Swianiewicz, & F. Teles (Eds.), Sub-Municipal Government in Europe (pp. 41–68). Basingstoke: Palgrave. Magnusson, T., & Lane, J.-E. (1987). Sweden. In E.  Page & M.  Goldsmith (Eds.), Central and Local Government Relations: A Comparative Analysis of West European Unitary States (pp. 12–28). London: Sage. Magre, J., & Pano, E. (2018). The Architecture of the Local Political Community. In R.  Kerley, J.  Liddle, & P.  Dunning (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of International Local Government (pp. 418–431). Abingdon: Routledge. Matthews, P. (2014). Being Strategic in Partnership  – Interpreting Local Knowledge of Modern Local Government. Local Government Studies, 40(3), 451–472. Matysiak, I. (2017). Gender Desegregation Among Village Representatives in Poland: Towards Breaking the Male Domination in Local Politics? In B. Bock & S. Shortall (Eds.), Gender and Rural Globalization: International Perspectives on Gender and Rural Development (pp. 222–244). Wallingford: CABI. Mawson, J. (2009). Local Economic Development and the Sub-National Review: Old Wine in New Bottles? Local Government Studies, 35(1), 39–59. Miller, K. (1971). Parliament and Local Government Reform in Denmark. Parliamentary Affairs, 24(4), 321–337. Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. (2018). Local Authority Revenue Expenditure and Financing: 2018–19 Budget, England. Local Government Finance Statistical Release. Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. (2019a). National Planning Policy Framework. London: Crown Copyright. Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. (2019b). By Deeds and Their Results: How We Will Strengthen Our Communities and Nation. London: Crown Copyright. Montin, S. (2014). Municipalities, Regions and County Councils in Sweden: Actors and Institutions. School of Public Administration Working Papers Series, No. 27. University of Gothenburg.

100 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Moseley, M. (1997). Parish Appraisals as a Tool of Rural Community Development: An Assessment of the British Experience. Planning Practice & Research, 12(3), 197–212. Moseley, M. (2002). Bottom-up ‘Village Action Plans’: Some Recent Experience in Rural England. Planning Practice & Research, 17(4), 387–405. Moseley, M., Parker, G., & Wragg, A. (2004). Multi-Service Outlets in Rural England: The Co-location of Disparate Services. Planning, Practice & Research, 19(4), 375–391. Mowbray, M. (2005). Community Capacity Building or State Opportunism? Community Development Journal, 40(3), 255–264. NALC. (2014). What Are Local Councils? Power to the People. Retrieved from https://www.nalc.gov.uk/library/publications/power-to-the-people. NALC. (2015a). How to Create Your Own Local Council. Power to the People. Retrieved from https://www.nalc.gov.uk/library/publications/ power-to-the-people. NALC. (2015b). Establishing Your New Local Council. Power to the People. Retrieved from https://www.nalc.gov.uk/library/publications/ power-to-the-people. NALC. (2015c). Devo Local: A White Paper for Empowering and Strengthening Local Democracy. London: National Association of Local Councils (NALC). Newman, I. (2005). Parish and Town Councils and Neighbourhood Governance. Report of a Joseph Rowntree Foundation Seminar Held on March 11, 2005. Northamptonshire County Council. (2019). Prospectus for Change: An Integrated Plan for Local Government Reform and Transformation in Northamptonshire. O’Hare, P. (2010). Capacity Building for Community-Led Regeneration: Facilitating or Frustrating Public Engagement? International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 30(1/2), 32–47. Opello, W. (1981). Local Government and Political Culture in a Portuguese Rural County. Comparative Politics, 13(3), 271–289. Osei, P. (2007). Policy Responses, Institutional Networks Management and Post-­ Hurricane Ivan Reconstruction in Jamaica. Disaster Prevention and Management, 16(2), 217–234. Owen, S. (2002). From Village Design Statements to Parish Plans: Some Pointers Towards Community Decision Making in the Planning System in England. Planning Practice & Research, 17(1), 81–89. Owen, S., & Moseley, M. (2003). Putting Parish Plans in Their Place: Relationships Between Community-Based Initiatives and Development Planning in English Villages. Town Planning Review, 74(4), 445–471. Owen, S., Moseley, M., & Courtney, P. (2007). Bridging the Gap: An Attempt to Reconcile Strategic Planning and Very Local Community-Based Planning in Rural England. Local Government Studies, 33(1), 49–76.

 BIBLIOGRAPHY 

101

Page, E., & Goldsmith, M. (1987). Centre and Locality: Functions, Access and Discretion. In E. Page & M. Goldsmith (Eds.), Central and Local Government Relations: A Comparative Analysis of West European Unitary States (pp. 1–11). London: Sage. Pearce, G., & Ellwood, S. (2002). Modernising Local Government: A Role for Parish and Town Councils. Local Government Studies, 28(2), 33–54. Phillips, A. (1996). Why Does Local Democracy Matter? In L.  Pratchett & D.  Wilson (Eds.), Local Democracy and Local Government (pp.  20–37). Houndmills: Macmillan. Pill, M., & Guarneros-Meza, V. (2019). The Everyday Local State? Opening up and Closing Down Informality in Local Governance. Local Government Studies. https://doi.org/10.1080/03003930.2019.1624256. Pratchett, L., & Wilson, D. (1996). Local Government Under Siege. In L.  Pratchett & D.  Wilson (Eds.), Local Democracy and Local Government (pp. 1–19). Houndmills: Macmillan. Quinn, K. (2015). Conventional Politics or Revolution: Black Power and the Radical Challenge to the Westminster Model in the Caribbean. Commonwealth & Comparative Politics, 53(1), 71–94. Redcliffe-Maud, L., & Wood, B. (1974). English Local Government Reformed. London: Oxford University Press. Redlich, J., & Hirst, F. (1970). The History of Local Government in England (2nd ed.). Edited by B. Keith-Lucas. London: Macmillan. Ryan, M., Stoker, G., John, P., Moseley, A., James, O., Richardson, L., & Vannoni, M. (2018). How Best to Open up Local Democracy? A Randomised Experiment to Encourage Contested Elections and Greater Representativeness in English Parish Councils. Local Government Studies. https://doi.org/10.1080/0300393 0.2018.1473769. Salmon, P. (2005). ‘Reform Should Begin at Home’: English Municipal and Parliamentary Reform, 1812–32. Parliamentary History, 24, 93–113. Sandford, M. (2015, November 7). Parish and Town Councils: Recent Issues. House of Commons Library Briefing Paper Number 04827. Sandford, M. (2016). Public Services and Local Government: The End of the Principle of ‘Funding Following Duties’. Local Government Studies, 42(4), 637–656. Sandford, M. (2018, December 21). Local Government in England: Structures. House of Commons Library Briefing Paper Number 07104. Sandford, M. (2019a, February 25). Parish and Town Councils: Recent Issues. House of Commons Library Briefing Paper Number 04827. Sandford, M. (2019b, July 12). Where Do You Draw the Line? Local Administrative Boundaries in England. House of Commons Library Briefing Paper 08619. Sandford, M., & Baker, C. (2020, January 13). Mapping the Places. House of Commons Library Briefing Paper Number 08778.

102 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Schoburgh, E. (2009). Paradigm Shift or Rhetorical Flourish? The ‘New Orthodoxy’ of Local Governance in the Caribbean. Social and Economic Studies, 58(1), 95–124. Schoburgh, E. (2010). Is Subsidiarity the Panacea for Local Government Problems in the Caribbean? Social and Economic Studies, 59(4), 27–66. Schoburgh, E. (2011–2012). Local Government and Local Development: Bridging the Gap Through Critical Discourse: Evidence from the Commonwealth Caribbean. Commonwealth Journal of Local Governance, (10), 5–31. Schoburgh, E. (2014). Does Local Government Have Capacity for Enabling Local Economic Development? Lessons from Jamaica. Commonwealth Journal of Local Governance, (15), 3–22. Schoburgh, E. (2018). Constitutional and Legislative Changes in Caribbean Local Government. In P.  Kerley, J.  Liddle, & P.  Dunning (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of International Local Government (pp.  163–180). Abingdon: Routledge. Silva, C. (2009). Local Political Leadership in Portugal: Exceptionalism or Convergence Towards a ‘Mayoral Model’? Lex Localis – Journal of Local Self-­ Government, 7(3), 243–256. Skelcher, C. (2003). Governing Communities: Parish-Pump Politics or Strategic Partnerships? Local Government Studies, 29(4), 1–16. Somerville, P. (2005a). Community Governance and Democracy. Policy & Politics, 33(1), 117–144. Somerville, P. (2005b, June 29–July 3). The Potential for Neighbourhood Governance in England. Paper Presented to European Network for Housing Research (ENHR) Conference, Reykjavik, Iceland. Sousa, L., Lillebo, A., Gooch, G., Soares, J., & Alves, F. (2013). Incorporation of Local Knowledge in the Identification of Ria de Aveiro Ecosystem Services (Portugal). Journal of Coastal Research, Special Issue No. 65, 1051–1056. Stewart, J. (2014). An Era of Continuing Change: Reflections on Local Government in England 1974–2014. Local Government Studies, 40(6), 835–850. Stoker, G. (1996). Redefining Local Democracy. In L.  Pratchett & D.  Wilson (Eds.), Local Democracy and Local Government (pp.  188–209). Houndmills: Macmillan. Sullivan, H. (2001). Modernisation, Democratisation and Community Governance. Local Government Studies, 27(3), 1–24. Sweeting, D., & Copus, C. (2012). Whatever Happened to Local Democracy? Policy & Politics, 40(1), 21–38. Swianiewicz, P. (2014a). An Empirical Typology of Local Government Systems in Eastern Europe. Local Government Studies vol., 40(2), 292–311. Swianiewicz, P. (2014b). Intra-Municipal Units in Urban Political Systems in Poland: Vicious Roundabout of Marginalization or Dead-End Street? NISPAcee Journal of Public Administration and Policy, 7(2), 173–198.

 BIBLIOGRAPHY 

103

Swianiewicz, P. (2018). New Experiments of Maintenance of Old Traditions? Dual System of Sub-Municipal Units in Poland. In N.  Hlepas, N.  Kersting, S. Kuhlmann, P. Swianiewicz, & F. Teles (Eds.), Sub-Municipal Government in Europe (pp. 167–192). Basingstoke: Palgrave. Swianiewicz, P., & Kurniewicz, A. (2019). Coming Out of the Shadows? Studies of Local Government in Central and Eastern Europe in European Academic Research. Local Government Studies, 45(2), 153–174. Tavares, A., & Teles, F. (2018). Deeply Rooted but Still Striving for a Role: The Portuguese Freguesias Under Reform. In N. Hlepas, N. Kersting, S. Kuhlmann, P.  Swianiewicz, & F.  Teles (Eds.), Sub-Municipal Governance in Europe: Decentralization Beyond the Municipal Tier (pp. 193–210). Basingstoke: Palgrave. Tavares, A., Rodrigues, M., Magalhães, C., & Carr, J. (2012, July 8–12). The Economic and Political Impacts of Top-Down Territorial Reforms: The Case of Portuguese Parishes. Paper to the International Political Science Association Conference, Madrid, Spain. Teles, F. (2014). Local Government and the Bailout: Reform Singularities in Portugal. European Urban and Regional Studies, 23(3), 455–467. Tewdwr-Jones, M. (1998). Rural Government and Community Participation: The Planning Role of Community Councils. Journal of Rural Studies, 14, 51–62. Thuesen, A. (2017). Local Democracy in Large Municipalities: Co-creating Democracy and Rural Development Through Multi-level Participation Structures and Local Development Plans. Town Planning Review, 88(3), 327–348. Toke, D. (2005). Explaining Wind Power Planning Outcomes: Some Findings from a Study in England and Wales. Energy Policy, 33(12), 1527–1539. Toulmin Smith, J. (1857). The Parish: Its Powers and Obligations at Law. London: H. Sweet. Webb, S., & Webb, B. (1963a). English Local Government Volume 2: The Manor and the Borough Part 1. London: Frank Cass and Co. First Published 1908. Webb, S., & Webb, B. (1963b). English Local Government Volume 2: The Manor and the Borough Part 2. London: Frank Cass and Co. First Published 1908. Willett, J. (2016). Cornwall’s Devolution Deal: Towards a More Sustainable Governance? The Political Quarterly, 87(4), 582–589. Willett, J. (2018, September 26). Parish Councils Are a Vital Space for Participatory Democracy – But They Are in Crisis. British Politics and Policy at LSE.  Blog Entry. Retrieved from https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/ parish-councils-engagement/. Willett, J. (2019, May 1). Local Elections: ‘Disaster for Local Democracy’ as Hundreds of Seats Go Uncontested. The Conversation. Retrieved from http:// theconversation.com/local-elections-disaster-for-local-democracy-as-hundreds-of-seats-go-uncontested-115874.

104 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Williams, C. (2004). Community Capacity Building: A Critical Evaluation of the Third Sector Approach. Review of Policy Research, 21(5), 729–739. Williams, A., Goodwin, M., & Cloke, P. (2014). Neoliberalism, Big Society and Progressive Localism. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 46(12), 2798–2815. Wills, J. (2015). Populism, Localism and the Geography of Democracy. Geoforum, 62, 188–189. Wills, J. (2016a). Locating Localism: Statecraft, Citizenship and Democracy. Bristol: Policy Press. Wills, J. (2016b). Emerging Geographies of English Localism: The Case of Neighbourhood Planning. Political Geography, 53, 43–53. Wilson, D., & Game, C. (2011). Local Government in the United Kingdom (5th ed.). Basingstoke: Palgrave. Wollmann, H. (2000). Local Government Systems: From Historical Divergence Towards Convergence? Great Britain, France, and Germany as Comparative Cases in Point. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 18(1), 33–55. Wollmann, H. (2004). Local Government Reforms in Great Britain, Sweden, Germany and France: Between Multi-Function and Single-Purpose Organisations. Local Government Studies, 30(4), 639–665. Wollmann, H. (2017). The Reforms of the German Länders’ Territorial Organisation: Between Municipalities Mergers and Inter-Municipal Cooperation. Revue française d’administration publique, 162, 313–326. Yarwood, R. (2002). Parish Councils, Partnership and Governance: The Development of ‘Exceptions’ Housing in the Malvern Hills District, England. Journal of Rural Studies, 18(3), 275–291.

Index

A Amtskommuner, 57 Austerity, 14, 19–23, 27, 29, 31, 83, 87 Austerity localism, 21 Australia, 75 B Białystok, 51 Big Society, 22, 24 Blair, Tony, 14, 86 British constitution, 83 Brobdingnag, 15 Brokenshire, James, 86 Budapest Declaration, 73 Budget, 19, 20, 47, 48, 52, 57, 67, 75, 83, 85, 89 Bulgaria, 45 Business Improvement Districts, 54 C Cameron, David, 22, 24, 86 Cameron-led Coalition Government/ Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition, 15

Capacity, 3, 24, 28–30, 34, 39, 44, 48, 50, 55, 61, 65–78, 82, 83, 85, 87, 90 Capacity building, 66, 69–78, 82, 85, 87 Central government, 2, 3, 19, 22, 27, 31, 39, 47, 49, 52–55, 60, 61, 67, 83, 89, 90 Coalition Government/Cameron-led Coalition Government/ Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition, 14, 19, 21, 23, 70, 84 Community capacity building, 69, 71–78, 82 Community Development Committees, 54 Community/neighbourhood, 53, 85 Concelhos, 47 Constitution, 6, 46, 47, 54, 55, 57, 58, 83, 88 Co-opted councillors, 77 Cornwall, 8, 16–18, 82 Cornwall County Council, 16 Council clerk, 2

© The Author(s) 2020 A. Jones, The Resurgence of Parish Council Powers in England, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-45128-8

105

106 

INDEX

Councillor, 2, 8–11, 18, 32, 33, 35–38, 45, 77, 82, 84, 86 Councillor Commission, 9, 10, 18, 32, 33 Council tax, 30, 31, 66, 91 County and Borough Police Act, 1856, 5 Czech Republic, 44, 46, 59–61, 88, 89 D Democratic deficit, 14, 18, 23, 33, 82, 87 Denmark, 57–58, 88 Devolution, 14, 15, 21, 22 Discretionary services, 20, 21, 55 District/borough councils, 8, 10, 16, 17, 30, 32, 33, 35, 83 Distritos, 47 Double-hatters, 37 Dzielnice, 50–52 E Ecclesiastical parishes, 4 Economies of scale, 15–18, 60, 70, 83 Empowerment, 73, 75 Engagement, 3, 11, 14, 17, 21, 29, 32, 53, 66, 70–73, 76, 77, 85, 86, 90, 91 England, 3–5, 8, 9, 11, 15, 18, 19, 21, 30, 32, 34, 38, 43, 45, 46, 54, 65, 66, 68, 70, 81, 82, 84, 86, 89 European Charter of Local Self-­ Government, 45–47, 88 F Finance, 31, 34, 48, 50–52, 61, 66, 67, 89 France, 44 Freguesias, 47–50, 61, 66, 89 Fundusz sołecki, 52, 53

G Germany, 56–57, 88 H Hesse, 56 Hungary, 44 I Identity, 6, 60, 72, 77, 86 Independents/Independent councillors, 84 Infrastructure, 52, 54, 74, 86, 87 J Jamaica, 53–55, 88 K Kobstad, 57 Krajowe Stowarzyszenie Sołtysów, 52, 88 L Labour Government, 84 Länder, 56, 57, 88 Leadership, 16, 76–77 Leicester City Council, 19, 20 Local government, 1–3, 5–7, 11, 13–24, 32, 34, 37, 38, 43–48, 52–58, 60, 70, 76, 81–83, 88, 91 Local Government Act 1894, 3, 5, 7 Local Government Act 1972, 6, 15 Local Government and Rating Act 1997, 34 Local Government Commission for Wales, 16 Localism, 14, 15, 21–23, 27, 29, 31, 86, 87 Localism Act 2011, 14, 22 Local Strategic Partnership, 29

 INDEX 

M Malvern Hills District Council, 35 Mayors, 51 Mergers/Amalgamations, 15, 16, 47, 49, 56, 59, 88 Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, 86, 87, 91 Ministry of Local Government and Community Development, 53 Municipal Corporations Act 1990, 55 Municipalities, 44, 45, 47–54, 56–61, 88, 89 The Municipal Journal, 9 N National Association of Local Councils (NALC), 9, 71, 82, 85 Neighbourhood fora, 46, 84 Neo-liberalism, 87 NIMBYs/NIMBYism, 32, 57 Northamptonshire County Council, 9, 15–17 Northampton Town Council, 9, 17 Northern Ireland, 6, 72 North Northamptonshire, 82 North Rhine-Westphalia, 56, 57 Norway, 47 O Office of Disaster Preparedness and Emergency Management, 54 Opava, 59, 60 Ordnance Survey Act 1841, 4 Osiedla, 50–52 P Parish clerk, 4, 8 Parish Constables, 5 Parish councillor, 10, 11, 18, 32, 33, 36–39, 55, 77, 84

107

Parish Councils, 1–11, 13, 14, 16–18, 21–24, 27–39, 43–47, 50, 54, 55, 57–61, 65–73, 76–78, 81–91 Parish Councils Act 1887, 54 Parish Development Committees (PDCs), 54 Parish Meeting/public meeting, 5, 6, 8, 11, 78 Parish plan, 28–30, 32, 35, 38, 76, 90 Parliament, 6, 7, 11, 88 Parliamentary sovereignty, 6, 7 Participation, 5, 9, 15, 36, 71, 72, 78, 85, 86 Partnerships, 21, 28, 29, 33–37, 39, 50, 61, 65, 67, 69, 70, 74, 76, 86, 87, 90, 91 Planning, 28, 31–33, 35, 36, 54, 67, 90 Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, 31 Planning committees, 36 Poland, 46, 50–53, 61, 88, 89 Policing, 5, 55, 85 Poor Law 1601, 7 Poor Law 1834, 7, 15 Portugal, 45, 47–50, 61, 88, 89 Precept/parish precept, 30–31, 34, 38, 66, 67, 70, 85, 89, 91 Principal authorities, 2, 3, 7–9, 11, 15, 22, 24, 27–37, 39, 44, 54, 55, 65, 67, 69, 70, 77, 78, 81–85, 87–91 Q Queen’s Park, 9 R Rada sołecka, 51 Representation, 37–39 Romania, 45 Rural White Paper 2000, 28

108 

INDEX

S Salisbury City Council, 30 Scotland, 45 Slovakia, 44 Society of Local Council Clerks (SLCC), 10 Sognekommuner, 57, 58 Sołectwa, 50–53, 88, 89 Sołtys, 51, 53 Spitalfields Town Council, 84, 85, 91 Statutory Instruments, 7 Statutory Poor Law parishes, 4 Statutory services, 19–21 Sub-municipalities, 3, 45, 46, 52, 57, 61, 87–89 Sub-national government, 23, 33, 47 Sutton Coldfield, 38, 83 Sweden, 58–59, 88 T Tenants organisations, 84 Toulmin Smith, Joshua, 4, 5, 7, 11, 39, 72, 90 Tower Hamlets Borough Council, 85 Town and Country Planning Act 1990, 31 Transport, 33–35, 90 Trinidad and Tobago, 55 Trinidad and Tobago Association of Local Government Authorities (TTALGA), 55

Triple-hatters, 37 Troika, 47, 49 Two-tiered structure, 16, 83 U UK Government, 1, 13, 15, 28, 46, 83 UK/United Kingdom, 1, 5, 13, 15, 45, 69 Ultra vires, 7, 69, 84 Unitary authorities/unitary status, 8–10, 15–18, 30, 31, 33, 66, 68, 77, 82, 83 Unopposed candidates, 38 V Vestry clerk, 4 The Vicar of Dibley, 2 Victoria, 75 Village Action Plans, 28 Village design statements, 28–29 W Wales, 15, 16, 45 West Northamptonshire, 82 Williams Commission/Commission on Public Service Governance & Delivery Service Provider Consultation, 17