North Dorset Community Partnerships Legacy report October 2017
1. Executive Summary
2. Main Report 2.1 Purpose of Report 2.2 Background 2.3 What did the Community Partnerships do? 2.4 How did the Community Partnership model work? 2.5 Why did the District Council support the Community Partnerships model? 2.6 Lessons learnt: strengths, weaknesses and issues
Appendices 1. Community Partnership areas 2. Timeline 3. Community Partnership principles
Hugh de Iongh Community led Development Officer, North Dorset Community Planning & Development Team Dorset Councils Partnership
12th October 2017
1 North Dorset Community Partnerships Legacy report
1. Executive Summary
Within North Dorset, an area/place based Community Partnership ‘model’ had been developed over two decades, with four community partnerships covering the market towns and their surrounding villages, supported by some core funding from the District Council. Each of the Community Partnerships was supported by a part time Community Resource Worker, seconded from the District Council. The District Council ceased funding for the Community Partnerships and the Community Resource Workers from April 2017 onwards, due to funding constraints.
This report is both a record of a significant part of the way the District Council worked, and also to take the lessons learnt, positive and problems alike, for any future local structures, particularly if in a unitary authority scenario.
Lessons learnt, strengths, weaknesses and issues of the ‘Model’ The key strengths and issues of the ‘model’ were as follows: Strengths Volunteers. There was a high level of commitment & skills from a core of volunteers. And the Community Partnerships provided an opportunity for volunteers to get involved, who would not normally otherwise have joined their local Town or Parish Council.
Community Resource Workers. A particularly valued element, as a key point of contact, wide networks, practical support for projects, fundraising expertise, etc, as part of an area/place based approach
Community Partnerships. The Community Partnerships provided: An overview for an area, of strategic & local issues, and co-ordinating action Partnership working, bringing together a wide range of partners to work on local issues A strong role in supporting and delivering projects locally The ability to secure funding Building capacity & resilience; some communities now have a stronger ‘can do’ attitude The value of an area/placed based local structure for facilitating local action, and also the flow of information up and down.
2 Support for Civil Society. The model provided support for the numerous voluntary and community organisations working at a very local level.
Weaknesses & Issues Relationship with Local Councils. A good working relationship between the Community Partnership and the Town Council is crucial, and caused difficulties where this did not exist. Any local structures need to address this. The Community Partnerships generally found it difficult to engage with Parishes. Some Parishes became involved if a specific issue affected them, but not otherwise, and this became the way of working.
Balancing strategic work and action. Getting the balance right between having a forum for discussion with a range of local organisations involved, and having a focus on action can be difficult. Likewise the balance between ongoing consultation & keeping the Community Action Plans up to date as against action on the ground was also difficult. Getting the structure right can help with this.
Accountability. Whilst the Community Partnerships provided an opportunity for Participative Democracy, there was always a concern from some that the Community partnerships were not elected and so not accountable. Most of the Community Partnerships had a membership structure, which created administrative work, but did provide a measure of accountability through elections to the Board, etc. There were also other checks and balances through external decision makers. There are lessons here for any future local structures.
Balance of managing risk, trust and independence. The District Council provided a significant part of the funding for the Community Partnerships, but understood they were independent organisations, and trusted them to deliver, including some very significant projects with some risk. That trust, and accepting a level of risk, was crucial. Likewise, the District Council was not able to direct the Community Partnerships, as independent organisations, to work on District Council strategic priorities, although in reality work at a local level met many of the District Council’s strategic priorities in any case.
Market Town Area. Although many of the historic ties between market towns and villages are not so strong now, this level of area does continue to have a rationale and provides a useful building block for clustering, e.g. if developing local structures to work under a Unitary authority.
3 2. Main Report
2.1 Purpose of Report North Dorset supported a Community Partnership ‘model’ in the District for around two decades, and this was a significant element of the way the District Council worked. Due to ever reducing funding resources, the District Council ceased funding for the model from April 2017.
This report summarises how the Community Partnership model worked, for two purposes: As a record of a significant part of the way the District Council worked Lessons learnt, positive and problems alike, for any future local structures, particularly if in a unitary authority scenario
2.2 Background Rural community development started in North Dorset with the appointment of the first Community Development Worker for the Sturminster area back in 1995, and then the start of a nascent community partnership in Sturminster in 1997, triggered by the closure of the Sturminster Newton livestock market that year. This community partnership drove to achieve a development of the livestock market site which met the identified needs of the community, as far as realistically possible within commercial and planning constraints.
Building on this example of local involvement and action, the Community Partnerships model was developed with local communities in early 2000’s, with four community partnerships based on market towns and their surrounding areas. The community partnerships were not another layer, but were another way of working, enabling key organisations, such as Parish & Town Councils, voluntary and community organisations, statutory authorities, businesses and individuals to work together on issues in their area.
The Community Partnerships were constituted as not for profit organisations, to enable them to apply for funding, enter into contracts, etc. They were run by volunteers, with support from four part time Community Resource Workers who were employed by Dorset Community Action & then the District Council, seconded across to the Community Partnerships.
The Community Partnerships covered the following areas: Blandford Forum & surrounding villages: DT11 Forum Gillingham & surrounding villages: Three Rivers Partnership Shaftesbury & surrounding villages (inc. cross border into West Wilts & South Somerset): Shaftesbury & District Task Force Sturminster Newton & surrounding villages: SturQuest Stalbridge did not have a partnership as such, but worked in a partnership way on projects, and was included in the partnership model. An umbrella partnership, the Community Partnerships Executive North Dorset (CPEND) covered North Dorset. CPEND included the Community Partnerships and other key organisations.
4 Where the catchment area of a market town extended into another County, e.g. villages in Wiltshire looked to Shaftesbury, the Community Partnerships worked to their area, and were not restricted by County boundaries.
A map of the areas is at Appendix 1, and a Timeline is at Appendix 2.
2.3 What did the Community Partnerships do? The role of the Community Partnerships was to work on the community, economic and environmental development of their area, normally a market town and its surrounding villages. The work tended to focus on community development in the early years, with some environmental work, and an increased focus on economic development in recent years.
The principles of the roles of the Community Partnerships cover the following main aspects: Identify local issues. This is through consultation, new and existing, and developing Area Action Plans Work on local issues. Acting as a facilitator, and building consensus. Working in partnership, hosting projects and providing support, and delivering some projects themselves (e.g. RiversMeet Leisure Centre) Consultation. Helping the District Council & others consult locally. Feed local issues up to the District Council & others. Work inclusively. Work with range of relevant local and other organisations. Being pro- active in involving disadvantaged groups. Work collaboratively. Work well with statutory organisations, particularly Town& Parish Councils, community & voluntary organisations, business sector Be Enterprising. Ability to move quickly, apply for funding which statutory organisations cannot, etc For the full Community Partnership Principles, see Appendix 3
The Community Partnerships have supported the development of a wide range of projects, with a few examples as follows: DT11 Forum: DT11 Transport Action Group, Trailway work (economic impact study, developing projects to improve economic benefit), Trailway Ultrafast Broadband project (very significant project developed, but funding not approved), Stourpaine V Hall, Wheels2Work (with SturQuest)
Shaftesbury & District Task Force: The Task Force developed a strong track record in supporting and securing funding for local projects, such as the Bowls Club, Swimming Pool, Football Club, Trinity Hall, HOPE (community Enterprise) a number of Motcombe projects, East Knoyle Village Hall, and many others. Open Spaces. Travel Study, lead on community transport.
5 SturQuest: The Exchange, community input into development of livestock site, Development briefs (Town Centre & North Dorset Business Park), Community Office, migrant workers group, Unity.com, Open Spaces Group, Wheels2Work (with DT11 Forum)
Three Rivers Partnership: RiversMeet Leisure Centre, developing the Health Forum and Patient Participation Group, Fit Gillingham events, outdoor gyms, supporting the development of the Walking Festival.
CPEND: Travel Study, Broadband, funding (strong role in securing Sowing Seeds & Northern Dorset LAG programme)
Overall, the 4 Community Partnership were supporting around 60 or more at any one time.
2.4 How did the Community Partnership model work? Community Partnerships The Community Partnerships were set up and run by local volunteers, with support from Community Resource Workers.
Each Community Partnership developed from different local circumstances and priorities, and developed their own legal & governance structure, so there was no template structure, although they all had a common role. All the Community Partnerships had a Board / Management Committee, and in most cases this included a representative from the Town Council. They also ran open meetings, looking at particular issues. The DT11 Forum was particularly strong on this, holding open meetings in the villages as well.
The Community Partnerships developed Community Action Plans for their area, built up through consultation and existing plans such as Parish Plans. These Action Plans also identified who should take on which areas of work (e.g. statutory organisations, Community Partnerships, other organisations), and the Community Partnerships Work Programmes would flow from the Action Plan, as well as other initiatives and opportunities which came up.
The Community Partnerships reported every 4 months to the District Council and other funders through a standard report framework, covering activity and some Performance Indicators.
CPEND & REP There was a working group of the four Community Partnerships, but following an independent evaluation of the Community Partnerships (Jeff Bishop, 2007), a more strategic District wide partnership was proposed. The Community Partnerships Executive North Dorset (CPEND) was set up, comprising the Community Partnerships, DAPTC Northern, NDDC and DCC, Dorset Community Action, and other organisations as needed. CPEND took a strategic view of the North Dorset area, and worked on District wide issues, such as transport & broadband, as well as working with the District Council to help secure LEADER & other funding. CPEND met regularly for many years, then changed to an ‘issue based’ format, meeting as and when needed.
6 A North Dorset Regeneration company, the Rural Enterprise Partnership, was also set up by the Community Partnerships, to carry out regeneration work, bid for contracts and generate income. Although a key player in helping to secure LEADER funding for the Northern Dorset LAG, it did not achieve many of its other aims, and closed down.
Community Resource Workers The Community Resource Workers were hosted and managed by the Community Partnership Chairs, and worked a 4 day week.
The Community Resource Workers supported work across their market towns and parishes area, working on projects for the Community Partnerships and also for other organisations. They worked on community, economic and environmental issues and projects, and worked inclusively as much as possible.
The Community Resource Workers were a first point of contact for many in the community, and because of the wide range of work they covered, the Community Resource Workers were able to give advice, link with other initiatives, and ‘join the dots’, a value added role.
The Community Resource Workers supported local initiatives and projects through project development, governance structures, funding, volunteers, Good Practice, etc. They also signposted to other sources of advice as appropriate.
As part of project development, the Community Resource Workers had expertise in raising funds, and secured significant funding, directly or through in depth support, for many local projects (over £100k secured on average per year, directly or through direct support, by the four Community Resource Workers).
The Community Resource Workers developed wide networks, and were able to circulate information to a large number of local contacts. The four Community Resource Workers had contact with over 800 groups & individuals overall.
The Community Resource Workers also supported their Community Partnership as an organisation, working with volunteers, running a Community Office, etc
Funding The District Council covered the full costs of the Community Resource Workers, and part of the running costs of the Community Partnerships themselves. Town Councils also supported local Community Partnership running costs (except in Blandford).
District Council funding support ceased from April 2017. There are no Community Resource Workers, except in Sturminster Newton, where the Town Council now employs the local Community Resource Worker. Most of the Community Partnerships are currently continuing without District Council funding, although the DT11 Forum and CPEND have ceased to operate.
7 2.5 Why did the District Council support the Community Partnerships model? The District Council supported the Community Partnership model for two main reasons, to deliver local action and for policy reasons.
Local action. The Community Partnerships and the Community Resource Workers were supporting and delivering a wide range of projects at a local level, from the very significant (The Exchange, Sturminster Newton, and RiversMeet Leisure Centre, Gillingham) to many small local initiatives such as work on open spaces, play area projects, supporting sports groups, health events, town centre projects, running community offices, etc.
When the District Council was capped in 2005, the community partnerships were able to help the District Council with some aspects of Tough Choices, the main example being the development and operation of the RiversMeet Leisure Centre in Gillingham.
Being a small local authority, the District Council, was able to deliver more working in partnership with local communities, including the Community Partnerships, Town & Parish Councils, community groups, etc, than it would ever have done working by itself. This was set out, for example, in the North Dorset District Council Corporate Plan (2004 -2008), which said: ‘North Dorset District Council has a profound commitment to a bottom up approach to community planning and a longstanding enthusiasm for partnerships as a way of delivering local priorities”.
Over and above the work and projects delivered, the Community Partnerships and particularly the Community Resource Workers have helped develop stronger local communities, more resilient and better able to tackle local problems (e.g. closure of services such as libraries, leisure centres)
Jeff Bishop, in the independent evaluation of the North Dorset model (2007) said: ‘Overall, the North Dorset ‘model’ of community planning is working well, is tuned to its local context, is varied appropriately for different local settings and is delivering both a growing sense of community confidence and capacity and practical projects of many different types. To continue our analogy, though we may know of better practice on certain ‘ingredients’ elsewhere, the overall ‘recipe’ is one of the best we have seen’.
Policy reasons. Market town regeneration. Market towns were identified as having a key role in the rural economy (Rural White Paper: Our Countryside: The Future - A Fair Deal for Rural England, DEFRA, 2000). The Community Partnership model, which was working on market town regeneration plans and work programmes, delivered to this policy driver, as well as being able to secure funding from the Market & Coastal Towns Initiative funding programme. There was also a parallel initiative from the Countryside Agency (Vital Villages, 2001) promoting Parish Plans, working on the same basis of local communities developing social, economic and environmental plans for their area. The combination of Market Town Regeneration Plans and Parish Plans helped to develop Community Action Plans for the market towns and surrounding villages.
8 Community Planning. Under the Local Government Act 2000, Local Authorities had a duty to develop a Strategic Partnership and Community Strategies for their areas. The Community Partnerships had already been developing Action Plans for their local areas (partly under the market town initiative above), and the District Council decided not to set up a separate Local Strategic Partnership, but to work to the Dorset Strategic Partnership as its umbrella Partnership. The District Council then adopted the Dorset wide Community Strategy (‘Shaping our Future – The Community Strategy for Dorset 2007- 2016) in 2007. This approach, with no District level Local Strategic Partnership, reduced the need for an extra layer, but was the exception to the norm. Localism. The Localism Act 2011 reinforced the policy principles of empowering local communities, both in general terms, and with specific tools, such as the Right to Bid re Assets of Community Value. The Community Partnership model also delivered the principles of the Big Society idea, promoted by Prime Minister David Cameron in 2010.
2.6 Lessons learnt: Strengths, weaknesses and issues.
Strengths Volunteers High level of commitment (overall volunteer numbers estimated at one stage as around 100, creating 10 FTE) Level of volunteer skills, some very high, e.g. with considerable experience in project management & financial management, either from business or public sector. Volunteers, who would not normally get involved in Parish or Town Councils, were able to be actively engaged in the future of their own communities through Community Partnerships Learning point: the value of volunteers in terms of time, skills and commitment. But must be valued and respected, locally supported where possible, and is never an automatic answer to a gap.
Community Resource Workers The Community Resource Workers were a particularly valued part of the model, and provided the following: Key Point of Contact. With their wide local knowledge, they were often the first and key point of contact for local people, able to give advice & guidance, and also make the link with other relevant people and organisations Wide networks. Each of the Community Resource Workers had very wide local network, so had a very good overview of who is doing what, and also for circulating information (e.g. re funding opportunities) and promoting consultation. Support for projects. They had a good understanding of the process of bringing people together to develop and deliver a project, drawing in relevant subject expertise as needed. They provided valuable advice and guidance, particularly around governance, fundraising, etc, with direct help in many cases.
9 Funding. The Community Resource Workers brought in very significant funding for projects, either directly or through detailed support. Support for the Community Partnerships. They helped with the running of the Community Partnerships as organisations providing admin and office support in some cases. Learning point: the value of a key person on the ground with generic development skills, and who is area/place based, not issue based.
Community Partnerships Community voice and role in shaping local services, identifying gaps and supplying information on local needs, holding service providers to account. Strategic thinking for a local area: When Community Partnerships started, they were able to take a strategic view of local issues, whereas Town & Parish Councils were much more restricted in their powers. Town & Parish Council powers have widened over time, first with the Power of Wellbeing (2000) and then the Power of Competence (2011), which has enabled them to take a wider role, but only for their specific area. Partnership working: The Community Partnerships have the ability to bring together a wide range of partners to work on a local issue, particularly when involving the voluntary and community sector, the public sector and sometimes the business sector. (expand on involvement of business sector, opportunity, learning point, etc) Capacity & resilience: Community Partnerships have helped to create the capacity in communities to tackle local issues, big and small, with a clear ‘can do’ attitude (a form of social capital) in some areas. Projects: Community Partnership’s role in delivering projects, either by supporting projects with advice and fundraising, by hosting projects, or directly delivering projects. Securing funding: Community Partnership’s ability to attract project funding which is not accessible to local government (e.g. Charitable Trust funding for The Exchange, Sturminster Newton). Framework for engagement: provides a framework for local authorities and others to consult & engage at a local level (as one of many ways, Town & Parish Councils clearly being another). Community Plans: the area/place base of the Community Partnerships and the Community Action Plans provide an overview of an area and the main issues. Structure: each of the Community Partnership structures developed from different circumstances, and this is important, but Good Practice to ensure all are working to a common and defined purpose Learning point: the value of area/place based local structures, both for facilitating action on the ground, and for the flow of information up and down with high level Local Authorities Learning point: the value of allowing local structures to develop according to local circumstances, but working to a common and defined purpose
10 Supporting Civil Society at a local level Civil Society, made up at a local level with a real diversity of voluntary and community groups, is very valuable in terms of what they do in their communities, working on the ground and with local knowledge, volunteer input, increasing collaboration, and building social capital (although acknowledged there will always be some variation in quality and impact). At the local level, Civil Society is broad, working on social, community, local economic and environmental issues. Civil Society also provide a net and help fill gaps where statutory services find it increasingly difficult to deliver (e.g. community transport, older people, young people). The Community Partnerships model, with Community Resource Workers, had a role in supporting Civil Society at a very local level, and a measure of place based liaison and developing partnership working. Learning point: the value of the Civil Society sector as an equal partner, and its particular value in an area/placed based approach.
Weaknesses
Relationships with the Town Council A successful working relationship between a Community Partnership and the Town Council in the area is crucial. In many ways the roles of the Town Council and the Community Partnership complement each other, and can work well in partnership on local issues (e.g. on local public land, where the Town Council owns and manages land, and worked with Community Partnership Open Spaces groups who secured external funding and brought volunteers for practical work). And having a co-opted Town Council member on the Community Partnership is good practice. But where the Town Council is not supportive of the Community Partnership, either in principle or in practice, then collaborative working becomes more difficult. Learning point: For any local structure, the relationship with the Town Council is crucial. Having a Town Councillor involved in the local structure is Good Practice.
Engagement with Parishes Apart from the DT11 Forum, which had good parish involvement, the other Community Partnerships generally found it difficult to engage parishes. Some Parishes only became involved if an issue affected them directly, which the Community Partnerships accepted as reasonable, but for other parishes, there were also concerns that the Community Partnerships only worked for the market towns (a reinforcing cycle, of course, if parishes were not involved). There was also some cynicism about the role of the Community Partnerships as an extra layer, and in some cases the issue of accountability was a concern (see below). Learning point: for any local structure, engaging with the parishes, holding meetings there etc, is Good Practice, but Parishes will, understandably, generally only be interested in issues which affect them directly
Involvement of relevant local organisations The ideal template for a Community Partnership is to involve a range of voluntary and community organisations, the business sector and the local Councils (Town & Parish), so providing a wide Forum for discussing and working on local issues. In practice, this risked becoming a talking shop, and was difficult to maintain over time.
11 Learning point: for any local structure, the combination of either a Forum or thematic sub groups (bringing in specific partners when needed), with a management core focused on delivery, is, in practice, the best balance.
Keeping Community Action Plans current The Community Action Plans provided an overview of the area and issues to focus on for all local and statutory partners, and also helped direct the work programme of the Community Partnerships themselves. There has been a difficulty in keeping Community Action Plans current when the Community Partnerships & Community Resource Workers have been working hard on supporting and delivering projects locally, so had limited spare capacity. Whilst Neighbourhood Plans focus on land-use issues, recent Neighbourhood Plan consultations have often provided much wider information and views which could be used for updating Community Action Plans. Learning point: the value of the Neighbourhood Plan consultations, for the wider information and views given over and above land-use issues
Volunteers The Community Partnerships could not have run without volunteers, both as leaders and as general volunteers. However, as with any voluntary and community organisations, there are some challenges: Volunteers tend to volunteer for local, but not strategic work, so it was more difficult for the Community Partnerships to find & retain volunteers with a strategic view, and with leadership skills. Risk of burn-out of key volunteers, difficulties of succession planning, issues common to all voluntary and community groups Volunteers have their particular interests, which is often the reason for them volunteering. There was a risk of a perception in some cases of ‘pet projects’, although this can happen in community groups, Parish and Town Councils as well. There is a risk of the Community Partnerships becoming a proxy battleground for local politics (as in Shaftesbury some time ago). Learning point: the need for good support, based on Good Practice within the voluntary sector, for volunteers at a local level
Key Issues
Accountability The Community Partnership model provided an opportunity for Participative Democracy, which creates opportunities for all members of a population to make meaningful contributions to decision- making, and seeks to broaden the range of people who have access to such opportunities. At a local level, this was different to the Representative Democracy, the basis on which Town & Parish, District & County Councils work on. This raised questions amongst some about the ‘accountability’ of the Community Partnerships. This covered accountability to the public, and to other levels of Local Government, and the basis of the leadership role.
The Community Partnerships (except for SturQuest) had a membership structure, which anyone in the area could join, elections were held, so the Trustees/Directors of the Community Partnerships
12 were elected through an open process. This created administrative work, and there were issues about setting membership criteria and making sure membership remained relevant, but this did provide a measure of accountability through elections to the Board, etc.
There were also other checks and balances on the work of the Community Partnerships, firstly through the process on building a consensus on priorities, projects etc, and secondly that significant decisions, such as planning decisions, funding, were made by other organisations with their own accountability. Learning point: for any local structure, ensure there are ways which enable accountability to be built in. Learning point: ensure that the structure is open, so there can be ‘seats at the table’ for local organisations, such as Town & Parish Councils, voluntary and community groups, business groups.
Independence The Community Partnerships developed as independent, non-political groups, working on locally identified priorities on the basis of consensus building and partnership working. Although the District Council was the main funder, this independence was always understood, and was highly valued by the Community Partnerships. It also enabled access to external funding that other bodies such as the District Council could not.
This did mean that although the District Council was providing significant funding support, the District Council did not directly steer the Community Partnerships, as independent organisations, to work on the District Council’s strategic priorities. In practice, the lead District Council Officer encouraged the Community Partnerships to work on District Council priorities as part of their overall work, and in reality work at a local level met many of the District Council’s strategic priorities in any case. But as District Council priorities change over time, e.g. from disadvantaged groups/inclusion work, then health & wellbeing, then economic development, it can take time to change the focus of work locally, as community led development work has long lead in times. Learning point: need for a clear and open understanding of the issue of independence for any local structure, and good partnership work in practice.
Balance of managing risk & trust The District Council supported two very significant projects (RiversMeet Leisure Centre, Gillingham & the Exchange, Sturminster Newton), and numerous smaller projects. The Trailway Broadband project was also a very significant project which did not go ahead. Some of these projects were relatively high risk, and the innovative approach of the District Council in ‘managing risk’ with both support and public funds, rather than being ‘risk averse’, was crucial.
In practice, this balance worked best with professional project development by the Community Partnerships, the use of external consultancy support in some cases (including assessing and confirming viability), and the District Council on its part trusting local people and groups to deliver on their aspirations, and therefore managing risk regarding public funding rather than being risk averse.
13 Learning point: Both trust, and an approach which manages risk rather than is risk averse, is crucial to the working relationship between a local authority and any local structure it may be supporting.
The market town area Is the market town area, i.e. market town and surrounding parishes, a good geographical template to work to? This area reflected the previous Rural District Council area. It also reflects the local level of work within Unitaries such as Wiltshire Council (Area Boards) and Herefordshire Council, and fits with factors such as school catchment areas. This is also a potential model of working within the Dorset Local Government Review.
In the 2007 review of the Community Partnership model by Jeff Bishop, the summary on this was: ‘Once again, when asked the ‘in principle’ question about whether it was good to focus on ‘areas’ covering town and surrounding parishes, rather than handle each separately, the answer was generally a very clear ‘yes’: “they sort of made themselves”. People made spontaneous comments about the value of trying to re-establish the old market town and catchment parishes pattern, even if they immediately acknowledged that the practical reasons behind this in years ago (shopping, service provision, limitations on travel etc.) are no longer true, viable or (probably) recoverable in full. Much of this is still true! The links between our rural areas, parishes and villages and their respective centres are crucial’.
With a Unitary structure just having the Unitary Council as the umbrella and Town and Parish Councils at the very local level, there is a gap, and the Market town area geographical template has a role, maybe combined with a wider District or Northern Dorset Forum. Single Market town areas are probably not appropriate for local level working in a unitary structure, but a very useful building block, e.g. for clustering. Learning Point: the market town and surrounding parishes is still a useful geographical and social template.
14 Appendices Appendix 1 Community Partnership areas
15 Appendix 2 Timeline Year What happened 1995 Community Development Worker project initiated by NDDC through DCA (employment and management) and the Dorset Rural Development Programme. Part time post for Sturminster Newton 1997 Sturminster Newton Livestock Market closes Sturminster Newton 2000 & Beyond set up Planning for Real consultation on future of livestock market site, by SN2000 & Beyond. Starts the whole debate about the future of the site. 2000 Local Government Act 2000, Duty for Local Authorities to develop Community Strategies Dorset Local Strategic Partnership set up
NDDC develops basis for the Dorset Community Strategy and the Local Strategic Partnership to provide the statutory community plan for North Dorset as an umbrella, with a focus on Community Partnerships to deliver local community planning. 2001 Shaftesbury District Task Force set up DT11 Forum set up
Countryside Agency ‘Vital Villages’ programme set up, promoting Parish Plans with advice & funding 2002 North Dorset Community Partnership Steering Group set up, with Community Partnerships, Northern area DAPTC and NDDC
Market & Coastal Towns Initiative set up, which provided support and funding for setting developing market town regeneration action plans. Sturminster & Shaftesbury are awarded MCTI support & funding 2003 Sturminster Newton Area Action Plan completed Quality Town & Parish Council scheme introduced (pre-cursor to widening of powers in 2009)
Three Rivers Partnership, Gillingham, set up (building on work done before by the Gillingham Action Team) 2004 Liveability funding programme (£3.7m) secured, largely on the basis of the Community Planning model in N Dorset 2005 NDDC capped. Tough Choices programme started, including Local Delivery, which includes local organisations, such as Town & Parish Councils and Community Partnerships taking on local services. Main Community Partnership example is RiversMeet Leisure Centre. Gillingham Area Action Plan completed Shaftesbury Area Community Action Plan completed
16 2006 DT11 Forum receives MCTI support and funding (albeit considerably less than Sturminster & Shaftesbury did earlier in the programme)
‘Strong and Prosperous Communities’ Local Government White Paper, set out clear agenda for community planning 2007 Independent evaluation of the North Dorset Community Planning model by Jeff Bishop. Recommends, among other things, the development of a more strategic partnership for the N Dorset area
Community Partnerships Executive for North Dorset (CPEND) set up, comprising the 4 Community Partnerships & Stalbridge, Northern area DAPTC, NDDC, DCC and DCA
Dorset’s Sustainable Community Strategy, ‘Shaping our Future – The Community Strategy for Dorset 2007-2016 is adopted by NDDC as its Community Strategy 2008 Sowing SEEDS LEADER funding programme secured (£?m), mainly by NDDC EDO Hilary Ritchie, with significant support from CPEND
Community Strategic Plan for the Blandford area completed 2009 Town & Parish Councils get ‘power of well-being’, power to promote or improve economic, social or environmental well-being of their area 2010 Best Community Partnership Award, Local Government Chronicle and Health Service Journal
RiversMeet Leisure Centre completed (£4.6m) 2011 Localism Act 2011 CPEND report on Broadband potential in the area, which initiates the Trailway Broadband project 2012 Community Partnership Principles established, clarifying the role of the Community Partnerships
Community Resource Workers transferred from DCA to NDDC employment, and seconded across to the Community Partnerships for direct line management by Community Partnership Chairs
Rural Enterprise Partnership set up 2014 Review of Community Partnerships model, with funding to Community Partnerships reduced to a standard level
Northern Dorset LEADER funding secured (£1.5m), with significant drive from CPEND, and REP submitting bid on behalf of Northern Dorset 2015 Rural Enterprise Partnership closed down. 2017 NDDC funding for Community Partnerships and Community Resource Workers
17 ceases DT11 Forum and CPEND formally cease to operate Sturminster Newton Town Council takes on the Sturminster Area Community Resource Worker
Appendix 3 Community Partnership Principles
This identifies the generic roles of the Community Partnerships, with examples, and also the elements which North Dorset District Council, as a funder, is particularly interested in, as a ‘Social Return’ on its Investment. Activity How What NDDC are looking for as a ‘Social Return on Investment’ Identify local Encourage, facilitate and Key issues identified across N issues carry out consultation to Dorset (reviewed annually by identify local need, e.g. CPEND) specific surveys such as Providing information and Broadband and travel, feedback on local issues supporting Parish Plans Review of key local issues in the market towns & their rural areas, Develop, update, review e.g. through reviewing and and refresh Community updating Community Plans &/or Action Plans for their Action Plans areas Work on local Act as a facilitator & Supporting and/or implementing issues encourage organizations projects and activities which to work together, e.g. address local issues getting groups started on an issue Build consensus on what needs doing and how, e.g. through consultation & agreed Action Plans Provide an umbrella for new initiatives and organizations, e.g. Open Spaces, Library support groups Support organizations to deliver projects, e.g. with funding and other advice The Community Partnership itself deliver projects Consultation Be a channel (one of Be a channel (one of many) for
18 many) for NDDC and other NDDC and other statutory statutory organizations to organizations to consult locally consult locally o by circulating consultation o by circulating to wide range of local consultation to contacts wide range of local o by responding to the contacts consultations where the o by responding to subject is relevant the consultations where the subject Be a channel (one of many) for is relevant local issues to be taken to NDDC and other organizations Be a channel (one of many) for local issues to be taken to NDDC and other statutory organizations
Communicate Communicate what’s Report to NDDC on progress on going on to the wider Work Programmes, the work of community, e.g. through the Community Partnerships, & the open meetings, AGM’s, work of the CReW & PDW press, websites, etc Work Include a robust range of Develop number and range of inclusively organizations in the people involved, including support Partnership, or the way for groups & people outside the the Partnership works, partnership e.g. Town & Parish Councils, Community organisations, Business representation Have clear and open ways of Widen involvement to listening to issues and ideas, increase number and including open meetings/fora range of people involved, e.g. inc. individuals with Whilst the Community Partnerships skills or experience to work for all in their communities, offer NDDC is particularly interested in work linking with disadvantaged Have an ‘Open Door’ for groups (e.g. young people, older new ideas and issues, e.g. people, people with disabilities). Community Office, regular This can be done by: open meetings/forums o ‘Knowing their communities’, e.g. through Be pro-active in involving survey work, existing NDDC disadvantaged groups ward data through local partner o Linking pro-actively with
19 organisations partner organisations, e.g. young people, older people, people with disabilities, and other groups where easily identified (e.g. Ghurkhas) o Considering the needs of different groups in every day work , e.g. meetings, venues Work Active involvement as a Active involvement as a partner in Collaboratively partner in CPEND, work CPEND, work with Town & Parish with Town & Parish Councils, community organizations Councils, community and statutory organisations organizations & statutory organisations, e.g. sharing Good Practice between organisations, sharing skills & expertise
Be Enterprising Take opportunities when Take opportunities when appropriate, e.g. funding appropriate opportunities for projects Ability to adapt to policy Ability to adapt to changes changes, e.g. Localism Making progress towards financial Making progress towards self-sufficiency financial self-sufficiency, e.g. through widening grant base, generating income Have strong & Common standards, e.g. Common standards, e.g. professional Governance standards, Governance standards, policies Governance policies Ability to line manage staff Line managing staff Annual Work Programmes Annual Work Programmes H de Iongh, Nov 2012 V3
20