<<

LOCALITY WORKING IN

PARISH SUMMITS – SEPTEMBER/ OCTOBER 2008

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES

Parish Summits September/ October 2008

Summit Grange, & Lyth Valley Venue Cartmel Village Hall Date Tuesday 2nd September 6.30 – 8.30pm

Local Areas and Boundaries of Partnerships

Comments & Responses

Value of whole exercise. Different groupings for different purposes. For example Colton parish is part of the Community Board and part of the & Low Market Town Initiative. The problems of a rigid border structure may hinder flexibility that communities and parishes require in terms of interest and geographical definition.

Allegiance to certain service centres not necessarily the same for all residents in proposed areas. Parishes on partnership boundary may look across the boundary to other service centres

[PR – SLDC] – From district perspective the tension of the need for flexibility in terms of borders is understood. However the boundaries are created for two reasons: 1, if organisations are to devolve then certainty is required in terms of organisational structure, and 2, the need to understand at a detailed level intelligence about the community. Targeted relevance to improve understanding of communities to help inform, implement and create a framework for delivery of services.

Powers and purposes of LAPs before clarifying boundaries. is in Ulverston and Low Furness LAP, but A590 creates a boundary for the parish to move into the Grange, Cartmel and Lyth LAP.

Population is important. , Staveley and Upper Kent has largest population of 35,000, which is by far the largest of all.

Neighbourhood Forum must be the same as the new LAP structure and boundaries. Must be mindful of creating a new bureaucracy. Priority must be money on services and not lost in administration.

There must be a degree of trust in the LAP boundaries proposed. There needs to be an emphasis on developing and building a partnership.

More concern for parishes on border. Those parishes at the heart of the Grange, Cartmel and Lyth area are happy. Must concentrate on those parishes toward the edge of the boundaries.

2 Parish Summits September/ October 2008

How the Partnership will work

Comments & Responses

Identify the big issue of planning areas – the procedures of the district council and national park.

Many assumptions before agreement – emphasis on service centre as the driver to define the outcome; informed by population numbers (district, parish and county elected reps could make any executive too large and unwieldy); funding – will this create an extra level of bureaucracy – would it develop into a ‘cost’. Sceptical but marginally positive that the executive could work.

Any LAP co-ordinator would need clout and power in their own organisation. Reps from the three tiers of would come together to elect a chair, could create a large executive. Need to involve other service providers – NHS, Police etc.

Voting could become a problem if there is no consensus. There is a fundamental need for all to come together to discuss the main problems across the parishes and communities. Any coordinator must have authority to get people to respond both at local and organisational level. All partners need to sign up.

For Young People to be involved there needs to be stimulation and interest. Information is required to inform through Schools, Connexions and Young . In many respects Young People have no clue what locality working is especially in the context of South Lakeland – very difficult to explain. Any LAP must make use of the views and opinions of Young People and work to address identified problems faced by Young People such as the availability and affordability of local public transport.

Elected Reps to form any executive. Partnership is all bodies, community groups, businesses, third sector etc. However these other organisations must be represented by officers with clout. Must be attractive to residents and community and open to scrutiny by residents. Needs finance and money for this to work.

Make wards (District & County) co-terminus with area partnership boundary.

3 Parish Summits September/ October 2008

Notes from Maps

- Killington, , Mansergh to S&KL. - Lupton and Hutton Roof to S&KL? - ti and Lakes. - Colton and Haverthwaite to Grange and Cartmel. - Following have natural affinity: , , Upper Allithwaite, Staveley in Cartmel, Colton, Haverthwaite, , Grange. - Following have natural affinity: Cartmell Fell, Crook, Underbarrow & bradleyfield, , Levens, , , , , Methop and Ulpha, & Lyth. - , Staveley with Ings to Windermere and Lakes.

- Must take into account M6 and A590. - Consider geographical features – hills, roads and valleys. - Local allegiance to towns, list of functions, school catchments, Doctor catchments and Police areas.

4 Parish Summits September/ October 2008

Summit High Furness Venue Water Yeat Village Hall Date Monday 8th September 7 to 9pm

Local Areas and Boundaries of Partnerships

Comments & Responses

Different groupings for different purposes: - Flexible boundaries - Smaller parishes from different groupings - How restrictive are the boundaries?

[PR – inclinations, reflected in affinities, trying to capture a view based on what as parishes you already know about the communities and divisions of activity.] prioritisation based on geography – communities responsible in areas and having control – must build on concensus – listening and acting on thinking.

In terms of the High Furness area half look to and half look to Ulverston. Colton and Satterthwaite joining with Skelwith half in Lakes already so should seem sensible for all to join Lakes area.

Hawkshead and look to the Lakes area. Issues very dissimilar as they are very rural in flavour. Common interest rather than geographical pull. Skelwith and Satterthwaite must be involved. Colton (from the opinion from the Clerk) want to be involved with Grange area. Potential for a 3 way split for Colton.

Concern that this may create another level of bureaucracy. Would 12 voices be better than one?

[PR – from a district perspective – proportional budget share than currently takes place in year one. Questions around how much has been spent, what are the parameters for budget spending on priorities and population and proportion]

[PR - Annual budget discussions – giving influence over expenditure. Gives understanding about what services – conversations between those delivering service and those getting the services.]

[PR – precept opportunities to specifically charge for delivery of services coupled with local knowledge, efficiency and influence over procuring contracts and the way the budget has been spent.]

Changes to boundaries – Lowick must be tied with Egton. No strong link up towards Coniston. Nibthwaite (west Colton) should also be included.

5 Parish Summits September/ October 2008

How the Partnership will work

Comments & Responses

Parish issues need to be taken into account now. Solved through opportunities places through LAPs.

Requirement to create a culture change through district and county through consultation and agreement with all the players. Co-ordinators – will they be recruited? Will they be funded through principal authorities? Will there be any additional costs?

Where is the LDNPA? Need to be involved – (through the LSP)

Every parish to be represented with the possibility of clustering: - 5 parish reps - 1 county councillor - 3 district councillors, and - 1 co-ordinator

Parish plans had brought in people with relevant skills – sub-groups to be formed based on needs as and when required.

Not one single model – importance of co-ordinator as liaison between parishes. Parish through parish clerk as the voice of the parish.

In general feeling that this has all been seen before, it’s all been heard before and that as parishes we must wait and see.

Notes from Maps

Comments raised by , , Blawith and Subberthwaite: - Different groupings for different purposes and activities? - Is anyone really listening (and acting) on what we say? - Role of national park. - How can we get our county councillors to be active? - Blawith & Subberthwaite and Lowick to Ulverston area. - Nibthwaite (western part of Colton) and Spark Bridge (southern part of Colton) to Ulverston and Low Furness area.

- Skelwith to Windermere and lakes. - Questions over Colton – does it have more affinity with Grange and Cartmel area due to Community board? - Hawkshead and Claife services in Ambleside. - Does Coniston have more affinity with south or west?

6 Parish Summits September/ October 2008

Summit Kent Estuary Venue Memorial Hall Date Wednesday 23rd September 7 to 9pm

Local Areas and Boundaries of Partnerships

Comments & Responses

Helsington Parish part of Lyth Valley based on sentiment but reality is we need more information. How are budgets to be established? Need to find where economic base is located.

[PR – inclinations, reflected in affinities, trying to capture a view based on what as parishes you already know about the communities and divisions of activity.]

General concensus is that Lyth Valley looks to Milnthorpe rather than Grange. Lyth Valley together. Total of 15 parishes with Milnthorpe a centre. Eastern parishes look to (Lune Valley area).

Alingment with County Council wards – Levens and Crosthwaite to Lyth Valley. Discussion around whether Kendal to be a separate partnership area – ‘people heard when they have something to say’.

For parish there is no real issue with the area as it stands.

[PR – question around flexible boundaries – requirement for minimum standards and a need to understand how budget will be spent through a fixed boundary and location. Parishes need to feel comfortable with the area they will be in.]

For Preston Patrick there must be a focus for any partnership area to work – possibility of too many focuses – Kendal or Kirkby Lonsdale. Must take into account travel patterns and issues such as low unemployment but no large employers as well as shopping patterns (although this is in no way definitive).

For Natland there is greater affinity to the Kent Estuary rather than Kendal area.

How the Partnership will work

Comments & Responses

Main question surrounds how any partnership will work: - All parishes need to be represented - Small - Initial meetings quite frequent to start - Possibility to reduce the average age of parish councillors - Inclusive of voluntary representation – learn to walk before run - Recognition of body or executive at local level.

To sell this there needs to be a list of issues which will be up for discussion with budgetary requirements. Need for 1 representative from each parish. Need to build confidence, get trust and understand what can be influenced. Some cynicism especially from Preston Patrick – what’s in it for them?

7 Parish Summits September/ October 2008

Notes from Maps

- Natland – as a village we identify with similar villages to the South of us.

Comments raised by Helsington and : - Mansergh to & Kirkby Lonsdale. - Natland, Stainton, Sedgwick and to Kent Estuary area - 2 valleys groupings – what would its centre affinity be?

- Lyth valleys – Crook, Underbarrow and Bradleyfield, Helsington, Levens, Witherslack, Crosthwaite & Lyth, Cartmell Fell - Winster Valley – , Beetham, Holme, Burton, Hutton Roof, Lupton, Preston Patrick, Preston Richard, Heversham, Milnthorpe, Hincaster, Sedgwick, Natland, Stainton, Old Hutton & Holmescales.

Comments raised by representatives from Levens, Burton-in-Kendal and Holme: - Lyth Valley = a community of interest – Local Service centre is Milnthorpe, which is also local service centre for Burton, Holme, Beetham, Arnside, Preston Patrick and Preston Richard. - Mansergh, Lupton and Hutton Roof look to Kirkby Lonsdale – linked by secondary education. - Lyth and Winster Valley areas – , Witherslack, and Ulpha, Helsington, Levens, Heversham, Milnthorpe, Arnside, Beetham, Holme, Burton, Preston Patrick, Preston Richard, Hincaster.

Comments raised by Preston Patrick: - Mansergh to S&KL. - Stainton and Sedgwick look more to Kent Estuary. - Preston Richard, Preston Patrick and Lupton gravitate to Kirkby Lonsdale for Health, Education and Shopping. - Milnthorpe main service centre for Arnside, Beetham, Holme, Heverham. - Priorities must be roads, planning, police, local access and transport. - Prerston Richard, Preston Patrick, Lupton all on 567 Bus route that goes between Kirkby Lonsdale and Kendal. - Police = Milnthorpe, Waste = Kendal, Shopping = Kendal (possibly south to Lancaster), Doctors = Milnthorpe.

8 Parish Summits September/ October 2008

Summit Ulverston & Low Furness Venue Hall, Ulverston Date Thursday 25th September 7 to 9pm

Local Areas and Boundaries of Partnerships

Comments & Responses

Haverthwaite and Colton is questionable. Cotlon as it is allied with both Grange and Consiton. Haverthwaite as it is a parish with affinity to Staveley- in-Cartmel. Lowick prefer to be in with Ulverston rather than High Furness.

Up to parishes where they have affinity – very important. Colton and Haverthwaite within the grange and Cartmel Board. Broughton in Furness sit within the High Furness area. Important not to split a parish – i.e. Colton.

Question asked – what if you want to go it alone? What if parishes didn’t want to get involved?

The proposal reflects the forum and MTI area. Questions around Haverthwwaite and Lowick. There is a need for a partnership to have a centre. Mansergh more affinity to Sedbergh and Kirkby Lonsdale. Skelwith looks more to the Lakes.

Important to recognise the topography and geographical aspects of a partnership.

There is a natural affinity with Blawith & Subberthwaite with Ulverston. However there is some affinity with Coniston – i.e. planning. In terms of business the parish looks more to Ulverston.

Should the geography dictate or should it be the issues dictate – possibility of taking a thematic approach rather than a fixed area approach. Why the need for the hard and fast boundaries?

Colton looks more to the grange area. Issue raised in terms of Hawkshead district ward being stretched over 3 potential partnership areas. What are Claife and Satterthwaite views. Colton are part of the Grange board. Four parishes over 3 potential boundaries.

Elected representatives core to the partnership. No one size fits all – up to local area to decide how it works. Other organisations very interested – Police, and Community Policing agenda.

An acceptance that there will be more parish councillors on board than district and county councillors.

9 Parish Summits September/ October 2008

How the Partnership will work

Comments & Responses

[IMPORTANT – SEND LIST OF QUESTIONS AS PER PRESENTATION TO PARISH COUNCILS WITH RESPONSE TO FOLLOW A WEEK FOLLOWING NEXT PARISH MEETING]

Notes from Maps

- Colton and Haverthwaite move to Grange and Cartmel area. - Satterthwaite, Claife, Hawkshead, Skelwith, Coniston, Torver, Dunnerdale (part of Duddon Valley) to move north to Windermere and Lakes area.

- Question over Colton – Haverthwaite to Grange area. - Lowick looks more to Ulverston. - Satterthwaite, skelwith, Hawkshead, Claife to Windermere and Lakes. - Mansergh to S&KL.

Suggestions raised by Urswick and Haverthwaite Parish: - Haverthwaite to Grange/Cartmel area - Colton to Grange area - Lowick to Ulverston - Mansergh to S&KL. - We cannot comment on the appropriateness of proposed boundaries until we know/ understand more about the aim of LAP is. However, local knowledge of natural affinity leads us to make the changes we have suggested.

- Thematic approach rather than fixed areas – let geography follow issues – e.g. cycle route from Ulverston to Haverthwaite, whereas local services, e.g. Post Office might link Blawith and Subberthwaite and Lowick with Egton. - Blawith & Subberthwaite and Lowick to Ulverston rather than High Furness area. - Colton and Haverthwaite to Grange and Cartmel area. - Hawkshead, Claife and Skelwith to Windermere and Lakes area. - LAP issues to take into account – transport and road safety, Ulverston Canal Head regeneration, Cycling route.

10 Parish Summits September/ October 2008

Summit Kendal, Staveley & Upper Kent Venue County Hall, Kendal Date Tuesday 30th September 6.30 – 8.30pm

Local Areas and Boundaries of Partnerships

Comments & Responses

Kendal needs to be separate – it may (will) dominate the whole area. The North West of the partnership area doesn’t have much in common with the South East of the defined area. There needs to be some fine tuning on the east side of the area – notably Mansergh, Killington and Firbank.

Any boundaries or partnership area needs to be reviewed in a couple of years. The geography needs to fit to what people relate to, therefore Kendal is it’s centre and should stay in (not majority view). Size wise there are perhaps too many parishes to the western edges – near to the Windermere area. Rural and town needs are different, however there is a need for local contact for a particular service. The rural national park boundary is critical – more important than SLDC and national park authority should have been involved from the beginning.

There are distinct differences in issues between rural and town. A degree of influence that can be had is important especially in reference to population totals – therefore Kendal should be separate. The national park authority area is different because of planning authority. Good parish councils (should) welcome the opportunity to engage.

Kendal and neighbouring parishes should have autonomy. Also from the parishes further afield.

Kendal should be a unit in its own right. There is a population imbalance and there are differing issues. Natland, Sedgwick and Stainton should be in Kent Estuary. Areas should reflect the national park boundary – but might it change? Firbank and Killington (and Mansergh) should be consulted regarding the preference to Sedbergh and Kirkby Lonsdale.

[JFD – there will be another round of consultations to ensure another chance for parishes that haven’t yet engaged and another opportunity for existing practitioners.]

11 Parish Summits September/ October 2008

How the Partnership will work

Comments & Responses

About six people so not too many. Should it include planning: local knowledge vrs quasi-judicial service. Traffic regulation orders, parking, highway stewarding, road sweeping, park maintenance could all be devolved.

Keep it simple. Each parish council needs to be represented, plus district and county councillors – except for Kendal. Two-way process with the communities for information and responsibility, especially feedback. Involvement of non- elected partners need to be drawn on. Systems need to evolve and budgets must be devolved.

Doughnut around Kendal – 1 rep per parish (also suggested and supported by participants from large parishes. No conclusions for Kendal level – complication of so many potential people.

Involvement of wider partners/agencies. Only some budgets will be devolved (after top slicing). All parishes are not equal (e.g. councils vrs meetings) – not all will be able to attend but must be able to attend when pertinent. How do you select where too many? Substitutions should be allowed.

[JFD – Next additional consultation stage]

Need for communication strategy around this development with reference with improved services.

Need update for forums and statement during local democracy week.

Keep it simple.

Each PC represented and District and County Counillors (MP?) (Kendal spread could be different).

Two way process with communities. Valuable discussion around involvement of non-elected members and how we can draw on these resources and remain accountable e.g. PCT, Police. Systems and involvement might evolve. Budget must be devolved.

12 Parish Summits September/ October 2008

Notes from Maps

- Strongly – Kendal is a unit in its own right. Different issues; population imbalance. - Strongly – Natland, Sedgwick and Stainton join with Kent Estuary. - National Park issues have their own consequence (Planning e.g.) for those parishes as Kentmere and . - Firbank and Killington should be consulted. - Mansergh should be consulted.

- Crosthwaite/Lyth/Winster Valleys: Witherslack, Meathop/Ulpha/ / Underbarrow/ Crook to Milnthorpe and kent Estuary - Hutton Roof/ Lupton/ Mansergh/ Killington/ Firbank to Kirkby Lonsdale and Sedbergh. - Urban Kendal – Kendal and immediate parishes e.g. Natland, Stainton and Burneside - Rural Kendal – Longsleddale, , Whitwell, Docker, , Huttons. - Kentmere and Staveley to Windermere. - Blawith and Subberthwaite to Ulverston - Haverthwaite to Grange. - Colton?

- Staveley with Ings – we will orientate towards Lakes!! - Preferred Crook and Underbarrow to move to Grange and Cartmel area. - Skelwith to lakes - Colton? - Mansergh to Sedbergh and Kirkby Lonsdale - Firbank and Killington? - Should Kendal not stand alone? – population, area needs, influence. - ‘Good’ Parish Councils welcome the opportunity to engage and take greater local responsibility - LDNP/SLDC present different planning issues and responsibilities. - If the Stricklands to Kendal then Staveley to Lakes Winderemere, but a ‘horseshoe’ arrangement equally good and maybe preferred.

13 Parish Summits September/ October 2008

Summit Windermere & Lakes Venue Marchesi Centre, Windermere Date Monday 6th October 7 to 9pm

Local Areas and Boundaries of Partnerships

Comments & Responses

Skelwith to move to Lakes area. Staveley, Kentmere etc – if Kendal becomes a separate LAP Stavely may become a lynchpin to the area. Need for cohesion in terms of services.

Hincaster to move towards the Stainton area. Skelwith may decide to move within the Lakes area. Claife – not sure whther to draw into the Lakes, Windermere area. Potential new boundary of national park especially within Kendal and Upper Kent.

How the Partnership will work

Comments & Responses

- Partnership is wider than the members. Must include grassroots influences. Inner wheel (elected) and outer (partnership). - Decision element based on community - Safeguards against who shouts loudest - Inclusion means just that – you sign up - Young person(under 25) forum – to bring that voice - 3 CCC and 7 DC’s fewer than 10 parish balance to full representation and local decision making – which level becomes representative (party balance issues)

- accessibility - increase highway stewardship - local planning issues - transport issues - admin resources and costs involved - expenses

Public needs to be part of meeting – clear debate raised by community

Young people require support (i.e. model of community safety partnership in Windermere)

Representation = 3 and 3. Police, 3rd sector, PCT. Are they present at every meeting or not? ‘pool’ from who could be invited or drawn in occasionally or invited for specific reasons. Elected members must be accountable.

Elected members require executive powers – make up of representation = CC/DC and Parish.

Very important that balance should be at parish level. Parish should outnumber both district and county councillors to get that influence.

14 Parish Summits September/ October 2008

Notes from Maps

- Jim Bland – create following area – Crook, Underbarrow & Bradleyfield, Levens, Crosthwaite & Lyth, Cartmell Fell, Witherslack, Meathop & Ulpha and helsington.

- Jim Bland – Firbank, Killington and Mansergh to Sedbergh and Kirkby Lonsdale.

- Detail area – Not for us to decide, but the following may wish to be part of Windermere and lakes – Kentmere, Staveley with Ings. - Skelwith to Lakes and Windermere area. - Staveleys position depends on whether Kendal is developed on its own – size and numbers – does it need balancing?

- Questions over Staveley and Kentmere areas joining Windermere and Lakes partnership. - Question whether Claife should join. - Question over extension of LDNP boundary. - Should Hincaster move into Upper Kent area – affinity with Stainton parish.

15 Parish Summits September/ October 2008

Summit Sedbergh & Kirkby Lonsdale Venue Village Hall Date Thursday 15th October 7 to 9pm

Local Areas and Boundaries of Partnerships

Comments & Responses

Opposition from Barbon (Parish Clerk) locality working needs to be sold – proposal rejected entirely and permanently.

Healthy cynicism – like to see it work. Firbank, Killington and Mansergh would be better in the Sedbergh & Kirkby Lonsdale area. Representation on district council may be a problem as the partnership areas do not reflect ward areas. Need to work together – on a small scale already (Kirkby Lonsdale, Barbon and Casterton). The test will be the resources that are allocated to the areas. Importance is where people affiliate themselves and difficult in light that parishes on the boundaries have tended not to come to these events. Difference between organic growth vrs input from above. Must be stressed that parish councillors are voluntary.

Good idea to have areas with same boundaries with CCC and SLDC’s admin boundaries. The east area naturally divides into two – Sedbergh and Kirkby Lonsdale – but are they too small?

Mansergh should be with Kirkby Lonsdale. Killington and Firbank with Sedbergh. Question of how it will work? Where do the meetings take place etc.? The influence of the dales national park is very important – planning?

16 Parish Summits September/ October 2008

How the Partnership will work

Comments & Responses

Should be ok for our small area for district and county councillors, but complicated if Killington, Firbank and Sedbergh could involve 3 county councillors.

Concerns over time that may be involved, but an opportunity to share clout and secure decisions. What will it do to party politics?

Locality co-ordinator role

Who will the co-ordinator be employed by? Only part of the job? Might they end up with local people going to them instead of the council (parish)?

The co-ordinator needs to respond to the agenda of the LAP – officer support for the LAP.

Why 7 co-ordinators? Why not just 1 officer in SLDC & CCC?

How will the co-ordinator work with all the parish councils? Does it put in another tier of local government?

The partnership concept may work in terms of joint planning integration to deal with Appleby parish Council during Appleby Fair.

Will there be – for example – 20 standard things that can be budgeted/spent for/on locally?

Will the governance/practice arrangements be standardised across the area?

Will it take away the value of a parish council? – [No] – wider partnership will enable activity that is currently not in the control of the parish council.

It is important to note that parish councillors are not paid and the partnerships are calling for parish councillors to make ever-increasingly complex and difficult decisions and create more work. Should the partnership not appoint its own co-ordinator?

Notes from Maps

- Questions over Firbank, Killington. - Mansergh to S&KL area – to conform with District ward boundary (not CCC boundary) - Possible to create two areas – one co-terminus with YDNPA (Sedbergh, and Garsdale) and one around Kirkby Lonsdale area (Kirkby Lonsdale, Barbon, Casterton and Middleton. Also to include Mansergh)

- Mansergh, Killington and Firbank to move to S&KL area - Structure must have more parish representatives than district and County Councillors. - Questions over time, capacity and party politics.

17