Pathfinder to UNITARY ‘ Local Government at the heart of our communities ’

A submission by

The Districts of County Durham Chester-le-Street

Derwentside

Easington Durham City

Wear Valley

Sedgefield

Teesdale

The Durham Districts Pathfinder to UNITARY submission is made by:

Chester-le-Street District Council Derwentside District Council District of Easington Council Sedgefield Borough Council Teesdale District Council Wear Valley District Council Pathfinder to UNITARY ‘ Local Government at the heart of our communities ’

NEWCASTLE GATESHEAD

SUNDERLAND

MIDDLESBROUGH

DARLINGTON

Contents

1 Introduction 4 Foreword 4 Executive Summary 6 2 Our Vision - What we will deliver 14 Organisation Culture 15 Objectives 15 Excellent processes 16 3 Strengthening leadership 18 Strategic leadership 18 Front line Members 18 Democratic representation 20 A balanced and representational council(s) 21 4 Partnership working 23 Neighbourhood partnerships 23 Strategic level partnerships 24 Transactional partnerships 25 5 Devolution to neighbourhoods 27 A design for devolved and engaged governance 28 Frontline delivery - Neighbourhood Service Centres 29 6 Evidence supporting our Approach 32 Natural Communities 32 Options appraisal of the alternative solutions 35 Examining the Neighbourhood and Community Issues 35 Stakeholder Engagement 36 The risks inherent in a ‘single County Unitary’ 39 7 How we will deliver this 41 Performance Management 41 Excellent services - impact of our approach 43 The project in more detail 48 Managing the transition 50 Transformation Board 51 On-going service delivery 52 Safeguards 53 8 Financial case 55 Projected transition costs and ongoing savings 55 9 Closing statement 62

Appendix 1: Natural Communities Supporting documents „ Service excellence: The core principals underlying our approach to service delivery „ Our communities - Our call: Stakeholder workshop report „ Durham Districts telephone survey 3 1 Introduction

Foreword

The White Paper 'Strong and Prosperous Communities' presents an emphatic case for radical reform in Local Government. For County Durham, it represents the best opportunity in decades to review two-tier working and build new Unitary Authorities. Our communities need a local government structure that responds to best practice and pushes the boundaries of community leadership and public service provision.

The Government has challenged local councils to work closer with communities and to forge new models of governance that meet their future needs. At its heart, the challenge encourages local authorities to work with partners to reshape public services around the needs of citizens and the communities that use them. The approach recognises that people want choice over services, influence over those who provide services and higher service standards. Services cannot be standardised so that 'one size' fits all circumstances. Such an approach is outdated and inappropriate to the way people and communities access and use services today. In a County as diverse as County Durham, it is particularly inappropriate. Our bid recognises the County's diversity and harnesses it to develop ambitious, innovative governmental structures over the next five years.

Linda Ebbatson Alex Watson (OBE) Alan Napier Leader of the Council Leader of the Council Leader of the Council

4 We have responded to the Government's challenge through our vision of a local government structure that will reflect the way citizens and the different communities in County Durham work. Our proposal reshapes the way services are organised and rebuilds them around consultation with citizens and communities. Our proposal develops a local government system for County Durham where democracy, empowerment and access to services are tailored to the needs of each community. At the same time, our approach retains a capacity to respond to strategic issues at the city region, regional, national levels and beyond.

We do not wish to slip back into old arguments and simply present a unitary model grounded in and led by, existing structures. Instead, we embrace the White Paper because we want to put in place flexible and responsive structures of local government that deliver excellent public services.

We urge you to accept our proposal and we will be delighted to introduce you to stakeholders in County Durham to assess this proposal against their needs and aspirations.

Bob Fleming Ken Robinson Neil Stonehouse Leader of the Council Leader of the Council Leader of the Council

5 Executive Summary

Why a Pathfinder to Unitary approach?

1.1 The District Councils of County Durham agree that unitary local government would improve the quality of life in County Durham. We do not believe that the government should rush to the single county unitary solution proposed by Durham County Council. If implemented carefully, our bid will fulfil the White Paper's aspirations and help the residents of County Durham. The County has diverse communities with unique deprivation levels that need a unitary authority that is fit for purpose.

1.2 A re-organisation, which is perceived as a simple absorption of district functions with those of a county authority has a number of critical risks in delivering the aspirations of the White Paper. In particular, neighbourhood services will be disrupted and a significant 'talent leakage' will occur. Our approach avoids these risks. We will undertake a formal option appraisal through community engagement to implement an optimal solution. We will design from the community up so that current services are sustained and neighbourhood engagement drives improved outcomes.

Our Vision - what we will deliver 1.3 Our vision for County Durham is one where residents enjoy a significantly improved quality of life. Our transformational changes will improve services and outcomes for our residents. To manage the transition from two tier government to unitary government, we will undertake a phased programme of fundamental change that culminates in shadow elections in 2011. 1.4 Our key principles and objectives are to ensure that: our model is focussed on the community and outcomes rather than the organisation; we will narrow the gaps in deprivation across County Durham; and we will have a stronger and more focussed influence in the growth of the City Regions. 1.5 We will strengthen leadership at the Neighbourhood, Sub County and County levels by implementing a new role for frontline members. We will put them at the heart of their communities through neighbourhood charters and neighbourhood development plans. The enhanced neighbourhood structures will be complemented by an inclusive review of political wards to reflect natural communities. During the transition phase, joint scrutiny arrangements will be extended between the two tiers. At the same time, we will develop stronger strategic links by having County Cabinet Members join district Cabinets. We will establish a joint Transition Board with executive support, subject to external inspection to ensure that reforms take place. 1.6 We will deliver excellent services through three interconnected levels. We will increase neighbourhood focused services, develop greater efficiencies in back office functions and coordinate policy and strategy focused at the sub county level. Our business transformation programme will re-engineer all customer access processes across the county into the new arrangements to ensure that the public is clear about its service provider. We will have a single contact number to enhance customer-focused services throughout the process. 1.7 We will work with the complex web of partnership that operates within the County. We recognise that there are many successful partnerships operating at differing geographic levels within the County and they all have equal validity. We will align partnerships with service delivery at the neighbourhood, district / joint district and County level to ensure clarity and fitness for purpose.

6 1.8 We will devolve service delivery to neighbourhoods through the introduction of Neighbourhood Service Centres. The centres will be aligned to the neighbourhood charters to deliver tailored services that reflect the level of need for public services within the neighbourhood. How we got here - our evidence base

1.9 Our desire for a pathfinder to unitary is based on evidence from four major sources. We assessed the geographies of the County to identify the natural communities. We carried out an option appraisal of local government models. We assessed the neighbourhood and community issues within the County. Finally, we assessed the risk of a single county unitary on services across the Districts.

1.10 The complex interrelated and connected communities in the county are shaped, in part, by the county's unique position between two city regions. The communities reflect the labour markets, retail patterns, housing markets and community identities.

1.11 The complex needs of our communities require a modern and progressive local government structure for County Durham to deliver improved outcomes. The new structure will need to be able to accommodate and fit in with these patterns and provide accountable and responsive local services for local communities and neighbourhoods. The structure must be supported by strategic leadership capacity to represent the County's localities at a city region, sub regional and regional level.

1.12 The District Councils commissioned KPMG to carry out an independent analysis to examine all possible future local government structures in County Durham.

KPMG initially identified 15 options. After a high-level evaluation, these were reduced to nine for further evaluation. Extensive analysis reduced the list to three:

„ a single county unitary with policy and delivery devolved to local areas

„ two unitaries - on a north and south sub division

„ three unitaries, based upon the natural geographies of the County.

1.13 We commissioned the Tavistock Institute to help us develop a new more engaged and democratic framework for local governance in the county. Through extensive work with our stakeholders, we concluded that devolved services were effective when co-ordinated around a community of interest, where local members take substantive decisions and officers work in partnership with other public services.

1.14 We listened to our communities and they told us that:

„ public service delivery has to be designed and organised around the citizen-consumers in a holistic, integrated and tailored fashion

„ citizen-consumers have to be engaged in a systematic and sophisticated fashion

„ citizen-consumers and their political representatives have to have the ability to define services and their variability.

7 1.15 We carried out a telephone poll of over 500 residents/stakeholders to gauge their views on the two options being submitted to Government on the future governance of County Durham and the importance they placed on having a stronger voice in local decision making.

The survey revealed that of those expressing a preference, over 60% opted for a Pathfinder option - for all councils to work together in partnership with residents, partner agencies, stakeholders and the Government to develop new ways of delivering local services leading to the establishment of unitary arrangements.

Respondents were clear also in their demand for a greater say in the local decisions that affect their lives and their communities with just over two thirds of residents, (67.4%) and 84.3% of stakeholders considering it to be 'very important' for local people to have a stronger voice in local decisions.

How we will deliver this.

1.16 Our bid will deliver a performance management framework built upon the outcomes we want to achieve. Our particular focus will be to reduce the gap between County Durham residents and the country concerning life chances. We will focus clearly on local and national priorities.

1.17 Our financial case shows that our phased and consultative approach will significantly reduce the costs and risks of transition. By starting early on reorganisation and spreading the work over a longer time period we would minimise the transition costs (over time) maximising the efficiencies and service improvements.

1.18 The development phase based on rationalising district services and introducing new neighbourhood centres would deliver the following savings and costs:

Summary of forecast savings/costs - at district level during the development period

07/08 08/09 09/10 10/11 11/12

£m £m £m £m £m

Savings from Back Office 0 4.5 9.5 12.0 12.0 and Shared Services

Neighbourhood centres (0) (0.75) (1.25) (1.75) (1.75)

Costs of Transition` (0.5) (2.0) (3.0) (2.2) (0.3)

Net Saving (0.5) 1.75 5.25 8.05 9.95

We believe that the savings of £12 million per annum from streamlining District services can be further enhanced by working with the County Council on rationalising some of their services giving the potential for combined 8 annual savings of £22 million. 1.19 Further additional costs reductions will then flow from the new unitary arrangements taking total savings to within the range of £27 million to £35 million. Transitional costs will also increase and will fall within the range of £13 million to £18 million dependant upon the final unitary model determined through option appraisal.

1.20 We will enable the transition from two tiers to Unitary through a managed transition programme, the essential components being:

„ political management „ creation of a single back office „ customer access strategy „ units of sub county policy and shared services „ and neighbourhood management strategy.

1.21 We will make the final decision on the unitary structure after we have appraised the options presented by KPMG against neighbourhood delivery through our new service centres and joint teams and their ability to respond to wider regional and national policy areas.

1.22 When we reach the point of decision, we will have created the building blocks of a new unitary system of shared services, neighbourhood delivery, democratic processes, sub county policy and management units. The decision becomes focussed around:

„ a single county unitary with a slim centre working with strong localities „ forming two unitaries north and south „ forming three unitaries reflecting our economic and social geographies.

1.23 We will create a Transformation Board to ensure the changes take place. The Board will have a focussed remit to move from a single tier system to a unitary system of local government by 2012. It will do this by back office integration and organisational efficiencies and enhanced neighbourhood arrangements during the transition period. The Transformation Board will be established by September 2007 at which point it will commence on a number of essential work streams with key stakeholders in the county.

1.24 When local government structures are rapidly reorganised, services are disrupted. To avoid these problems, the District and County decision-making arrangements will continue as an enhanced joint working format with the eight two-tier councils until 2012. The joint working format will ensure that high quality of service is maintained and the Transformation Board's structural changes are implemented locally.

9 1.25 We believe that our proposals will deliver significant benefits to the people of the County by providing neighbourhood based services, properly managed and supported by policy and strategy that reflect the natural geographies of the County. These tangible improvements are needed because the high deprivation levels mean that a large number of our residents depend on public services.

1.26 We conclude that our approach will deliver the White Paper's aspiration to County Durham residents through a robust and sustainable way that will benefit our communities.

Key Messages

1.27 Local government services, provided by county and district councils, are crucial to the well-being of the people of County Durham. The choice of structural arrangement, therefore, is critical but needs to be fit for purpose in dealing with the changing needs of our communities over the next 20-30 years.

1.28 We agree that the best system is a form of unitary government but we do not believe that the government should rush to the single county unitary solution without an appraisal of the various options available and full and open consultation.

1.29 If community engagement and empowerment are to be taken seriously, then community and partner organisations need to be involved in that option appraisal.

1.30 Whatever is the best option, the form that the organisation takes, its sub-structure and culture, will be critical in determining whether it delivers the organisational outcomes required by the White Paper and the service delivery outcomes needed by the people of County Durham.

1.31 Our model for unitary governance devolves resources and decision making to the most effective levels. Significant efficiencies can be gained by merging front and back office services with a slim but effective centre. By managing the transition over an extended period, we can take advantage of best practice in existing unitary and metropolitan councils. It also ensures that:

„ the unitary solution is designed from the community up with new arrangements being developed through discussions with local communities and not imposed from the top down

„ the unitary solution follows an evolutionary process over four years rather than bolting amalgamated district services on a county structure, which was not designed for that purpose

„ current services are sustained and improved rather than put at risk through a big bang approach which would have a massive impact on continuity

10 „ the approach is based on partnership working where:

„ front-line services will be delivered through a partnership-based approach, working with Town and Parish Councils, local communities and other stakeholders through Local Strategic Partnerships to shape the delivery of neighbourhood services. Performance data provided at the neighbourhood level will feed an effective performance management system that underpins community engagement and devolved services

„ the management and co-ordination of neighbourhood services would take place at a sub-county level - all councils sharing those functions on a geographic basis building on a number of shared service arrangements already in place

„ support comes from a county-wide shared back office and strategic policy function

„ strategic leadership would be effective at all levels from neighbourhoods through to sub regional, city regional and regional levels providing a strong voice and promoting the interests of all people in the county. We cannot agree with a ‘one size fits all’ approach, which is effective at one level, but does not adequately reflect the voice of the community at a local level or argue the strategic case at the city region level

„ we can provide an effective programme of change with strong and inclusive governance arrangements.

1.32 By contrast, a reorganisation that involves merging services on traditional lines misses the opportunity for radical and innovative review to respond effectively to the White Paper. It also has a number of important risks:

„ a serious disruption of district services such as housing, planning, environmental health, leisure, benefits payments and the street scene as key staff leave

„ new structures are proposed for area management and community empowerment, which ignore the experience district councils have developed over a number of years. The existing community engagement would be put at risk, rather than being a building block for community based structures

„ for many of the services delivered by the districts, the county unit is not the optimal size or focal point for effective delivery

„ strategic housing, economic development and regeneration, transport and aspects of planning that connect to the city regions agenda would be lost

„ other services such as liveability, street scene, neighbourhood renewal, community development, housing and leisure are not delivered as well by large organisational structures

„ the ability to shape county services such education, social care, libraries, and highways to meet local circumstances would be diminished.

11 1.33 Our approach delivers significant savings through shared services and local co-ordination. The benefits of our approach are:

„ services are maintained to a high standard, without the risk of significant disruption and transitional costs are minimised

„ savings from efficiency gains in the early stages of implementation will be ploughed back into front line services where they will benefit neighbourhoods and enhance community engagement

„ we will minimise the risks associated with implementation by ensuring that good governance arrangements are in place from the outset with all Councils and other local and regional stakeholders represented as the programme of change is implemented

„ we will have the strategic flexibility and ability to respond to the local neighbourhood agenda and the wider regional spatial issues such as city regions

„ we are reviewing first, which provides a stable organisational platform for developing and avoids a continuous review process that would be needed for a rushed big bang implementation.

1.34 The future of our County and our communities is too important for a rush to judgement. We are not going to impose a solution. Our approach builds from the community to deliver a stable, inclusive and well grounded unitary structure.

12 13 2 Our Vision – What we will deliver

2.1 Throughout the process of developing a new structure for local government in County Durham we have been conscious that the exercise is not one simply of drawing lines on a map or structure charts. In particular we feel it is important to have a clear vision for local government for local communities in County Durham. This needs to be clear about:

„ organisational culture - what sort of organisation(s) we are striving to create „ objectives and outcomes „ excellence in approach and process.

Our Vision for local government is a Unitary structure that is:

„ neighbourhood centred, with strong levels of accountability to local residents „ strategic and flexible to variable geographies „ efficient and represents value for money.

2.2 Our research, stakeholder engagement and options appraisal indicate that this devolved form of local government could lead to an arrangement based upon one, two or three unitary authorities.

This will be delivered over a period from 2007 to 2011 with the formation of shadow council(s) following implementation of five key worksteams aligned to:

„ determination of the political management and representation arrangements „ creation of a single back office „ a co-ordinated customer access strategy „ co-ordination of units of sub county policy and shared services „ development of a neighbourhood focused service strategy.

2.3 Overseeing this process will be a Transformation Board formed by the Leaders of all Councils with a responsibility for the delivery of all the key decisions necessary to manage the planned programmes of change. They will in addition ensure the effective involvement in this process of local communities, our stakeholders and effective communication with staff and trade unions. The critical stages in this process are as follows.

Timescale Activity

September 2007 Transformation Board Established

September 2008 Transformation Board Determine Unitary Authority(ies) for Consultation with Stakeholders

July 2009 Unitary Authority(ies) Number and composition agreed by Secretary of State

December 2010 Boundary Committee Approve New Unitary Authority(ies) Ward boundaries

May 2011 Shadow Unitary Authority(ies) Elections

April 2012 New Unitary Authority(ies) Operational

14 “ Each area of Organisation culture

improvement 2.4 The organisations we are creating will need to be capable of delivering transformational change. To do this they will need to be: will have clear „ better in touch with the communities they serve and in line with stakeholders and accountable „ vibrant, flexible and adaptable - able to respond quickly and innovatively to changing circumstances and to offer different and tailored services to diverse objectives ” communities

„ transparent in their decision-making and having clear lines of accountability for delivery

„ ‘learning organisations’ at the centre of pursuing public service excellence

„ capable of working closely with our partners and stakeholders in a way which sees challenge as constructive

„ outward rather than inward-looking, working beyond our boundaries as well as at the most local level.

Objectives

2.5 Our proposal seeks to connect a strategic vision and neighbourhood delivery by making strategic decisions, objectives and actions more transparent and accountable to our communities. Our structure will allow us to deliver a programme of step changes to achieve improved outcomes.

2.6 The main purpose of any reorganisation of service delivery is to improve outcomes. The critical test of our proposal is its ability to deliver against the key requirements for the people of the county – these are to:

„ improve the quality of life for our residents

„ narrow the gaps between the most deprived areas and the rest of the county

„ redirect resources to address areas of need and achieve value for money

„ have a stronger and more focused influence in the City Regions debate

„ ensure equality and equity of service

„ ensure that the reorganisation does not cost residents either financially or in terms of service disruption.

15 2.7 Having set these objectives - which will be expressed more fully through the on-going development of the Local Area Agreement and its successor – we will put in place a comprehensive performance management regime which sets out clear targets and a monitoring regime for both service delivery outcomes and the specific outcomes, in terms of organisation and representation, agreed from the transition process. Each area of improvement will have clear and accountable objectives. 2.8 The later section on performance management shows how we will seek to develop the performance management framework, in particular showing how it will operate at all levels, both enhancing our accountability at a regional and national level as well as reinforcing our commitment to the active engagement of local communities at a neighbourhood level.

Excellent processes

2.9 There are a number of key features to the ‘way in which we will do business’ which we think are critical to the goal of seeking improvement through empowerment and local engagement. Each of these will be informed by our constant striving to ‘build the best’ so we will be using best practice to achieve greater connection between strategic issues and local neighbourhood delivery. 2.10 The measurement of performance at the local level also means we will be able to identify high performing area services, analyse their strengths and ensure that the drive for continuous improvement is informed by local good practice. This not only applies to local authority services, but also to our work with other public service providers, the private and voluntary sector.

2.11 In each of the district services, we will identify those that perform best in terms of outcomes and user satisfaction. We will use those services as the baseline to build new, more integrated services.

2.12 The key features of how we will operate relate to:

„ developing strategic leadership „ strengthening partnership working „ devolving to neighbourhoods.

16 17 3 Strengthening leadership

3.1 Our bid supports the White Paper’s view, that strong and vibrant local democracy and councillors are the key to ensuring public service providers are capable of providing services that local communities’ value, improve lives and shape places for the better.

Strategic leadership

3.2 It is crucial that in any new arrangements the political leadership model allows for the tough decisions to be made and that the people making those decisions are clearly mandated to do so and are accountable to the electorate for the outcomes of those decisions.

3.3 During the Pathfinder stage strategic leadership will effectively be provided by:

„ County and District Executives with a County Council Executive member being co-opted onto each of the District Council Executives

„ a Transformation Board, comprising the Leaders of all Councils, that will be responsible for the key decisions which provide the step changes for which we are accountable to the Government and our communities with our Pathfinder agreement.

3.4 The Transformation Board will ensure that change happens as we have set out in the document and is detailed in section 7. The Board will consider all the options set out in the White Paper and take account of the experience of other councils in implementing the new arrangements. The Board will also take account of community views through consultation and a healthy debate on their preferred form of governance.

3.5 The respective Chief Executives and a jointly appointed Transformation Director will manage a full-time programme management team, drawn from staff within the eight authorities, to support the Board. Chief Executives will have explicit contractual accountability for the delivery of the transformation agenda.

Frontline Members

3.6 Our approach is to place control for services at the lowest practicable level and by doing so make the role of a councillor more attractive and have a positive impact on the recruitment of candidates and electoral turnout. To carry out this enhanced role there will be a comprehensive development and support framework for councillors as part of our organisational development programme. We envisage a number of clear roles for the local councillor under the new neighbourhood focused arrangements.

3.7 Primarily, local councillors will be responsible for the setting and monitoring of service standards and outcomes for their community. In practical terms, this will take the form of a Neighbourhood Charter, setting out performance standards for the community. The Neighbourhood Charter will contain:

18 „ disaggregated performance data from both the Local Area Agreement and the government’s floor targets for neighbourhood renewal

„ environmental standards and milestones for improvements

„ local survey based data highlighting local issues to be tackled

„ the services and performance standards of the Neighbourhood Service Centre.

3.8 Additionally, local councillors will have a broader role in ensuring the continuous development of local communities. This would take the form of establishing a Development Plan for the community, which will be used to harness the resources and ingenuity of the locality to bring those plans to fruition. This would involve councillors working with local community partnerships to secure financial resources, provide project management skills and other elements necessary to bring local projects to the fore.

3.9 Councillors will also have a role acting as advocates for their community and local constituents in respect of public services. Crucially, throughout the transitional period councillors will act on behalf of constituents to access and shape the full range of local authority services, irrespective of whether they are initially a County or District councillor.

3.10 Councillors will also have a role to play in new scrutiny arrangements, bringing forward the voice of local people into reviews of services, policy and local facilities. They will have an automatic right to take part in a scrutiny review involving a local facility or service, irrespective of which council runs that facility during the transition period. All councillors will take part in the transformation programme through the scrutiny of the main elements of the work streams set out in Section 7 of this submission.

Diagram 1 The role of the Frontline Member Scrutiny of strategic policies issues & services

Neighbourhood Strategic development information & services & data

FRONTLINE MEMBER

Understanding Galvanises local of locality & resources constituents

Development of Neighbourhood Charter

19 Democratic representation

3.11 The White Paper acknowledges that strong and strategic leadership is critical to drive forward change and improvement. Both of these attributes are critical in a county with some of the most severe challenges in the country. However, whilst those leading have to operate at a sub-regional, regional and national level, in order to make a lasting and sustainable difference, it is critical that they are fully engaged with their local “our approach communities.This engagement is central to the pathfinder ethos and goes beyond bolt-ons to current structures. Our approach reflects a sea change, reflects a sea where local councillors are clearly recognised as community leaders and they empower residents and local stakeholders to play a real role in change, where shaping the delivery of local services. local councillors 3.12 Given this vision, it is self evident that: are clearly „ communities need to relate to their local councillor and recognised as community „ local councillors need to relate to their communities and have the skills and experience to take on the task. leaders and 3.13 Ensuring the right structure for ward arrangements based on current they empower communities is a complex process and not one a council can establish in residents and local isolation – town and parish councils, the voluntary, community, private and public sectors and local residents all need to be given a chance to influence stakeholders the debate. Given that the new structure will lead to a radical change in the way services are delivered, it is appropriate that one of the first tasks on that to play a real role journey should be to determine the optimum community arrangements for the in shaping the Durham of today. To ensure the inclusion of stakeholders it is proposed that the task is carried out in consultation with the seven districts-based Local delivery of local Strategic Partnerships and Town and Parish councils.

services” 3.14 Our bid proposes a review of ward boundaries, democratic representation and accountability. This will determine the optimum number of Councillors to represent our communities. The ward arrangements would seek to ensure that they represent natural communities to help foster identifiable community leadership and will reflect the diversity of the differing parts of the county in terms of settlement patterns and population density as well as established ward areas. These ward arrangements will seek to balance the need to ensure an efficient pattern of representation for the new authorities. In some instances this will be facilitated by single member wards. In other areas this might require multi member wards. We need to allow for diversity of political party representation and to help foster greater participation as elected members by presently underrepresented groups such as women and BMEs.

3.15 This review is required as the current electoral arrangements for councils in the county would not be fit for purpose for the new way of working set out in this submission. This conclusion is reached given:

„ the large size of the County Council divisions, combined with the traditional low turnout (lower than that for Districts) when elections have not coincided with a General Election

„ the significant size variations between district council wards and a number of known anomalies in community boundaries

„ there is not universal coverage of Town and Parish councils in the County.

20 A balanced and representational council(s)

3.16 While many serving councillors have demonstrated the attributes necessary for a true community champion, as with the majority of local government, Durham cannot claim to be truly representative in terms of the demographic make-up of its elected members. The White Paper highlighted the Government’s intention to help ensure there are more diverse and representative councillors by establishing an independent review of the incentives and barriers to serving on councils. It will be too ambitious to expect that review to have concluded and for its findings to be implemented prior to the Shadow Elections proposed by the White Paper for May 2008.

3.17 Given the clear message within the White Paper that leadership is the key to the success of an organisation and a community, our submission will ensure that there is time for the new unitary local government structures to have ‘fit for purpose’ political leaders. As part of our submission, it is proposed that in the build-up to unitary, work is carried out with local political organisations, the Local Government Association and local government development agencies to ensure the candidates for the proposed unitary elections in May 2011 are truly representative. We would also seek to ensure that the findings of the independent review of barriers and incentives are tested in the county as a national pilot and form part of the Pathfinder’s evaluation.

3.18 After years of uncertainty over the future of local government structures in the two-tier areas of the North East, any new structures will need time to shed the baggage of animosity between the tiers. The alternative, to have elections in May 2008, would not allow for the organisational and cultural changes necessary to form the foundations for new ways of working.

21 22 4 Partnership working

4.1 Within County Durham there is a long experience of developing partnerships between agencies to improve services, manage programmes and provide a strategic direction for the County and its component localities. Much of the experience gained in securing community engagement in our partnerships work has been achieved through District Council led Local Strategic Partnerships. This experience is matched by a desire through our proposals to use partnerships more effectively.

4.2 The vision in the White Paper for partnerships to provide a means by which local authorities can provide strategic leadership and rebalance the relationship between local government and the communities they serve is one we share. We recognise that the effective use of partnerships is critical to our proposals so that we can improve service outcomes, raise public satisfaction and through this, work towards the goal of more sustainable and cohesive communities. Effective use of partnership structures underpin our proposals for moving towards a unitary structure.

4.3 However, the very nature of two tier working and historic evolution of partnership working in County Durham has led to an over complication of partnership arrangements and our bid seeks to simplify this, make partnership working more accessible to all our partners and produce clear outputs and accountability for delivery. There are two levels of partnership working that effectively respond to the needs of our communities.

“ the effective Neighbourhood partnerships

use of partnerships 4.4 In order to have strong neighbourhood focused service arrangements is critical to our effective partnership structures will be essential to ensure services are co-ordinated around ‘place’ rather than service delivery convenience. proposals so that This will ensure better co-ordination of individual services which are designed to align with local community demands and aspirations. This process will we can improve be assisted by the role of local ward members as community leaders. service outcomes, 4.5 Under our model we believe that: raise public „ local partnership structures need to do more than just exert influence. satisfaction and Indeed if the White Paper’s requirement for devolution is to be achieved, through this, work local governance structures need to be built from the bottom up and geared around the needs and desires of local communities rather than imposed towards the goal on communities from above of more sustainable „ it is important to work with the complex web of partnership and community and cohesive engagement structures that have been built up by district councils over a period of years as opposed to seeking to reconfigure this into a standard communities ” number of sub county areas for simple organisational neatness

„ the LAA needs to have a central role within the performance management system for new arrangements, but the proposed outcomes need to be framed to ensure that they fully reflect the concerns of localities, particularly in relation to neighbourhood environmental and ‘pride of place’ issues.

23 Strategic level partnerships

4.6 The existing pattern of local strategic partnerships will be maintained over the transformation period to ensure that service delivery is shaped in line with the principles of our proposals and to provide certainty and continuity on service delivery to individual communities.

4.7 A capacity will also be retained to ensure that the strategic issues of “ local governance importance to the well-being of the county are properly managed through a number of strategic partnerships operating at a County or sub county level. structures need The role of these partnerships will be to effectively articulate the needs and opportunities of the county on a wider spatial scale such as a city region level to be built from or the regional level as well as in more wider sectoral discussions around the bottom up such issues as rural development, climate change or health inequalities. This activity will be co-ordinated through a County Durham Partnership. and geared around 4.8 Critical to this approach will be the joint leadership provided by the current the needs and Local Strategic Partnerships working with the Strategic Partnership for County desires of local Durham and the Local Area Agreement Board to drive service improvements in localities and for the County overall. communities 4.9 Thematic partnership arrangements will support the ‘place’ focus and cover rather than imposed the critical service and policy areas of importance to the county, including the on communities management of the partnership and service block arrangements forming part of the County Durham Local Area Agreement. These will be charged with: from above ” „ considering strategic service development and improvement issues

„ interpretation of governmental and other national policy advice and locally originated research to improve services in County Durham

„ providing a strong input to local service co-ordination and delivery via the LSP structures that is based on the transfer of research, best practice and learning to ensure in a locality services are efficient, effective and closely aligned to locality and community preferences and priorities.

4.10 A further aspect of this strategic partnership working will be a focus on cross boundary work. This capacity will need to be able to capture both strategic as well as place considerations and be able to operate flexibly to respond to differing geographies. Such an arrangement will be important in supporting the City Regions process or to consider broader issues at a regional or national scale.

Strategic and thematic partnerships

County Durham Strategic Partnership Children’s Services Economic and Regeneration

LAA Executive Board Health and Well Being Safer Communities

Locality Local Strategic Partnerships Housing and Communities Environment Transportation

24 Transactional partnerships

4.11 Organisationally there is a need to develop our existing transactional partnerships to provide the best services with an emphasis on value for money and quality of service delivery. This means that we will source services from the organisations within and outside of the County from public and private service providers and with the voluntary sector, Town and Parish Councils.

4.12 To gain greater efficiencies in ‘back office’ and transactional functions a number of partnership structures which are aligned to partnering and effective procurement arrangements will be used to deliver effective services. These will be overseen by management board arrangements with clear accountability for the delivery and performance of these functions on a cross agency basis.

4.13 All of our partnership working will however have a number of common characteristics:

„ leadership at every level provided by elected members whether as ward representatives or in an executive role

„ a focus on the citizen with all debates informed by community engagement, consultation and research

„ a strong performance management framework that ensures partners are outcome focused and can demonstrate to local communities and other key stakeholders that the outcome of partnership working is providing added value to the service delivery process.

4.14 Clearly to make this work and to provide effective community and voluntary sector engagement a strong compact with the voluntary and community sector is needed. This would be focused around a clear commitment to support the third sector and its organisational arrangements so they can be effective and equal partners in our planned governance and operational arrangements. This will include ensuring that a community and voluntary sector compact provides for:

„ community participation and engagement in local public service delivery decisions

„ a level of security of funding for the sector over a medium term period (3 years) to ensure the sector can concentrate on supporting and developing its contribution to partnership work and service delivery in the county as opposed to continually chasing a sustainability constantly of funding

„ encouraging a greater diversity of service provider offer from the community and voluntary sector

„ asset transfer and management arrangement

„ local authorirty support in community capacity building.

25 26 5 Devolution to neighbourhoods

5.1 Our programme will develop the neighbourhood empowerment models and structures that suit the individual communities. The process will be supported by a comprehensive network of neighbourhood and town service centres and draw upon best practice across the County. One size does not fit all. Service centres will differ across communities and will be based upon the community’s public service needs. In many cases the neighbourhood service centre may be managed and run by the voluntary sector. We will review the sub district area management arrangements to ensure that public services can deliver at the most local level practicable.

5.2 Frontline Members will work in partnership with Town and Parish Councils and local people. Our neighbourhood partnership arrangements will ensure that public service providers including the Parish and Town Councils, work together to respond to the priorities jointly agreed with our communities in our neighbourhood charters. Where appropriate this will include both the sharing of assets and the local authority working with organisations where we need to improve capacity. The members will be supported by officers to develop a neighbourhood charter, neighbourhood service centres and neighbourhood/ village/town partnerships.

5.3 We will develop a service commissioning framework to deliver the services that people articulate through neighbourhood engagement structures. This will include reviewing the management arrangements of community based services, for example libraries, housing, community development, regeneration, highways, project management, social care and support to schools. We will seek to merge services at the level that makes them most responsive to the communities they serve whilst maintaining efficient delivery.

“ One size does not fit all. Service centres will differ across communities and will be based upon the community’s public service needs ”

27 Case Study 1: Working with communities in Easington

Easington is recognised as an area where the Council, the Town and Parish Councils, partners and residents have worked together to shape a common vision for the place and are making it happen through shared effort. Area forums have been in place for a number of years; community representatives have formal places on the LSP Executive and thematic groups; and local policy from the Community Strategy to our social inclusion approach is rooted in community appraisals, forums and workshops.

Much service delivery is devolved to localities. Clean and Green Teams work on an area basis, with workers well known and trusted by the communities they serve. A close working relationship exists between the District and Town and Parish Councils, including partnerships for play, events, grounds maintenance, cleansing, nature conservation and shared problem solving through Area Forums. This shared approach has been codified in the Local Council Charter for Easington between the three tiers of councils.

This approach recognises the absolute necessity for a partnership between local residents and service providers in making Easington a great place to live. Local people want more opportunities for involvement but may want it in different ways. In Easington the Council has worked with residents and partners to develop a new “menu” of opportunities for local people to get involved with the Council and its partners in the way that suits them best, whether they want to influence the vision for the area, collectively tackle a pressing local issue or share their own personal experience of a service so that it can be designed better for the good of all.

A key strand of this work recognises that the current size of Area Forum (4 in the District covering around 23,000 residents each) is not sufficiently effective or reflective of the nature of the community, which is strongly identified with particular towns and villages. The Council’s work with partners is suggesting at least 10 neighbourhood forums for the District in the future.

A design for devolved and engaged governance

5.4 This approach allows us to provide answers to the key organisational design questions concerning developing an enhanced neighbourhood driven structure.

Strategy - we will organise around communities (not services) to create best outcomes for citizens. At the neighbourhood level this will take the format of a Neighbourhood Charter. Corporate Policy and strategy must take place at a geographic level whereby it can inform and be responsive to the neighbourhood, and provide the vision for the organisation as a whole playing an active role in wider strategic considerations such as the city regions.

Structure - decision making power will be located as close to people and places as possible.

Processes - information flow between officers and service users, levels, services, and partners will be enhanced by public sector workers and their work being physically and virtually co-located in multi disciplinary teams where they can understand in detail the issues faced by families and individuals in particular neighbourhoods.

Rewards - citizens, officers, members and partners will be empowered and motivated to participate and perform

People - a participative development approach will be used to progressively influence the mind-sets and skills of members, officers, partners and citizens. 28 Frontline delivery - Neighbourhood Service Centres

5.5 We propose that through the savings made by the formation of an integrated back office we will introduce a comprehensive and sustainable network of neighbourhood service centres to ensure that each community in the county has access to services which are commensurate with its needs. This is not a simple reshuffle of our existing local offices or improved asset management across the two tiers of local government. This is a new concept making best use of services provided by the voluntary and statutory sectors together. Our model of neighbourhood services centres comprises four core elements.

1. In those communities where residents have a high need to access public services and there is already voluntary sector provision with an established community partnership operating through an existing centre, we will provide significant levels of core funding for the centre in return for a service level agreement based upon the neighbourhood charter. Services will be commissioned from mainstream providers where a local need is identified by the existing partnership from across the public and private sector. We will also provide in situ IT facilities to provide access to services not delivered from the centre. In this way we will assist the provision of service centres operated by a sustainable voluntary sector.

2. In those communities where residents have a high need for public services, there is no voluntary sector provision and no community partnership, we will target our development workers from the County and District councils to build this capacity. This will be a key role for the elected Councillor, as set out elsewhere in this document.

3. In those larger communities where physical access to public services is generally good, we will review assets to make for a more co-ordinated approach. This will be combined with a core service standard and comprehensive information provision through in situ IT provision, better asset management and improved communications and staff training.

4. In those villages where access to services is limited but there is less dependency upon public services, we will instigate a lighter touch approach, such as a touch screen information kiosks in the local library, community centre or main thoroughfare. This will be a minimum service standard in all communities in the County. Variations in the level of service provision will be determined through the Neighbourhood Charter.

5.6 We will underpin our Neighbourhood Service Centres with improved access to services through the Customer Relationship Management system and co-ordinated access to services arrangements. Neighbourhood Charters will set out shared priorities for which public bodies will be jointly responsible.

5.7 The following case study provides an insight as to how Neighbourhood Service Centres will operate in two neighbouring villages.

29 Case Study 2: Neighbourhood Centres

Rural East of Sedgefield Borough - West Cornforth & Sedgefield Village

West Cornforth is located in the south the County and has a population of 2700. It started as an industrial village in the 19th century and suffers from higher levels of deprivation than other parts of the county and is a high user of public services. Less than half of the working age population is in employment and approximately half of the residents have no qualifications. There is limited access to mainstream service providers.

Set up in 1995, the Cornforth Partnership carries out projects and programmes aimed at the social and economic regeneration of the village. From its premises a number of mainstream providers deliver services to the community, including: Jobcentre Plus and the Development Trust Association. The centre provides services directly including youth work, training, community transport, elderly support and an action for health programme.

Recognised as an example of good practice by the Neighbourhood Renewal Unit, the partnership requires core funding to support its running costs, and typically this is met through time-limited grants. This has a serious impact on the centre’s ability to provide a sustainable service base response to community need.

Sedgefield Borough propose to provide a service level agreement to the partnership, developed from the neighbourhood charter, to extend the number of public services and give security of provision for the future through a significant grant towards their core funding. This would equate to roughly £50,000 per annum. This would allow the service centre to be sustainable and deliver against the Neighbourhood Charter, without losing its community identity or being centrally controlled by the Council.

In sharp contrast, lying only a few miles south east of West Cornforth is Sedgefield Village. Sedgefield is an ancient and very picturesque village. The village is a conservation area and a thriving community with low levels of deprivation and comparatively low use of public services. The Village will therefore receive a lighter touch approach with the installation of a public service kiosk in a community location to improve access to public services. The Neighbourhood Charter will focus more on environmental issues than social regeneration.

30 31 6 Evidence supporting our approach

Natural communities

6.1 County Durham is situated at the heart of the North East of England between the two conurbations of Tyneside/Wearside and Teesside and has a population of 493,470. It has a diverse series of communities. The central and eastern areas contain the larger urban centres that accommodate nearly 80% of the County's population. The urban areas, which are the main employment and service centres for the county, include Durham City, Bishop Auckland and Peterlee. The western part of County Durham, west of the A68, is more rural with a lower and more dispersed population.

6.2 The main centres contribute to the different employment, housing, retailing and access to public services patterns, which support the sustainable communities. Each centre is part of a series of catchment areas that extend from the two adjacent conurbations. The County's residents have greater mobility for employment, housing markets and retail and leisure activities, which create a stronger inter-relationship and inter-dependence between the population centres of County Durham with the neighbouring areas of Tyne and Wear and Teesside/Darlington. This relationship is further considered in Appendix 1.

6.3 County Durham has high levels of deprivation. Four districts are eligible for Neighbourhood Renewal Fund assistance as being amongst the worst 88 local authority districts in England. Overall, 33% of the County's population live in areas ranked within the worst 30% Super Output Areas (SOAs) in the country. In Easington, ranked as the 7th most deprived district in England, 83% of the population live within the worst 30% of all SOAs. In Derwentside, Sedgefield and Wear Valley around 50% of the population live in the worst “ Residents of 30% of all SOAs. Deep-seated problems of economic inactivity/joblessness, poor levels of educational attainment/skills and heath inequalities beset the County often County Durham.

demonstrate a 6.4 Residents of the County often demonstrate a strong sense of local identity strong sense of with their own village or neighbourhood and this is especially the case in the smaller communities. This stems in part from the industrial heritage of the local identity with County and is particularly evident in the former mining communities across central and eastern Durham. A similar sense of community is also evident in their own village the more remote, rural communities of West Durham. There is also a clear or neighbourhood association for many residents with the historic County Durham and its proud associations with coalmining and the iconic cathedral city of Durham. and this is 6.5 The present County Durham is much changed from the historic County especially the Durham that stretched from the Tyne to the Tees. Following the loss of case in the smaller Gateshead, Sunderland South Tyneside, Hartlepool and Stockton-on-Tees in 1974 and Darlington in 1996, County Durham is a smaller administrative communities ” area.

32 6.6 The communities of Durham are diverse and shaped by the influence of the two major city region areas. The county could be broadly divided to the North and the South with the centres of Tyneside and Sunderland in the north influencing Durham City, Chester le Street and Derwentside districts and Tees Valley in the south including Darlington, affecting Sedgefield, Teesdale and Wear Valley Districts. Easington District, being adjacent to both also divides between the two areas with Peterlee at the centre of this division.

6.7 The communities of County Durham are shaped by the unique position of the county between two core city areas. To respond to the city regions agenda, the County needs a modern and progressive local government structure. The new structure must provide accountable and responsive local services to local communities and neighbourhoods while presenting strategic leadership at the city region, sub regional and regional level.

6.8 The following Case Study - 3 illustrates how our proposition would fit in with the promotion of city regions as part of a strong regional approach for the North East.

NEWCASTLE GATESHEAD

SUNDERLAND

Chester-le-Street

Derwentside

Easington Durham City

Wear Valley

Sedgefield

Teesdale MIDDLESBROUGH

DARLINGTON

33 Case Study 3: Engagement with the City Regions

The city regions concept - the economic flows generated by cities - has a strong influence on the North East’s economic strategy development. It is beginning to influence regional planning and housing considerations within the North East.

The North East’s Regional Economic Strategy identifies that city regions have an important role. If the right conditions are developed in the two city regions, ecomomic investment and activity will be attracted.

The city region covers a broad map of the economic activity including flows of people and businesses. City regions have an important role in the future economic success of County Durham. Within the County, local businesses need to improve their economic competitiveness and local people need help to find work. If these economic policies are to succeed, they need to be linked and co-ordinated with the city region based policies. At the same time, the policies need to have a clear role within the regional economic policy framework. Prosperous North East city regions and a strong economic performance will improve the prosperity for County Durham communities.

The two city regions project an influence beyond their core urban authorities into County Durham. With a majority of the County’s medium sized towns in one of the city regions’ sphere of influence, County Durham could be split along a north-south axis. The city regions contribute to the economies of these areas and increase the economic diversity in County Durham.

Although the concept reflects the urban functional areas, it has developed through greater cross local authority and sub regional collaboration. The current debate among authorities is to whether the city region should be the focus for delivery or the current sub regional and regional arrangements. If local government is to connect with local communities, then it needs to link city region based actions to specific policies and funding.

When the unitary structure that is neighbourhood focused works with neighbouring major cities, it will allow resource demands between the various levels to be debated and prioritised. By prioritising the resource demands across the different levels within the County, we will achieve improved economic outcomes for the respective city regions and the region overall. Such an approach will bring added benefits by aligning a range of issues including housing, spatial planning and transport investment that are related to creating sustainable communities and housing and employment markets.

The structure proposed by the Durham Districts and a strategic County Durham Economic Partnership would provide the delivery flexibility to meet the Regional Economic Strategy’s objectives. The unitary arrangements and the partnership would be focused on City Regions and permit Durham County to advance the sub county approach to economic policy development with city region partners. Together, they would be able to shape delivery of projects and schemes to better accord with City Region based action plans.

34 Options appraisal of the alternative solutions

6.9 In May 2006 the Districts agreed to fund an independent analysis in order to identify and evaluate possible future models of local government in County Durham. It was agreed that the chosen model would need to address the following issues:

„ efficiency and effectiveness/value for money „ strategic capacity „ double devolution /neighbourhood agenda „ accountability and representational functions „ developing a visionary/innovative approach capable of providing a long-term model for County Durham.

6.10 The resulting KPMG report initially identified 15 options, which were reduced to a list of nine for further evaluation. This was then reduced to three:

„ a single county unitary „ two unitaries - north and south „ three unitaries

6.11 From this analysis it was decided that enhanced two tier working could be used as a vehicle to drive the changes needed to improve local governance and services and that this experience in turn would help identify the optimal model for future unitary governance.

Examining the neighbourhood and community issues

6.12 The Tavistock Institute, London was commissioned to work with the district councils in County Durham to help develop a new more engaged and democratic framework for local governance in the county.

6.13 Our work with Tavistock identified that the devolution of service delivery and empowerment of people at the neighbourhood level will lead to more effective services, greater community cohesion and better leadership and is central to the transformation of County Durham.

6.14 Our experience of effective engagement with people and communities over the years will form the basis of any future design. Experience to date, with devolution and engagement in the county, has shown:

„ participation should be based on doing rather than talking

„ community consultation should be proactive, reach out and be focused /targeted and well - resourced. Traditional consultation meetings, forums and ‘consultations’ don’t tend to work

„ citizen-consumer empowerment works if it is well designed, meaningful, consequential, semi-autonomous

„ members and officers are most effective in consultation where they are operating ‘at the front line’ - in day-to-day operations

35 „ the effectiveness of scrutiny processes depends on being carefully structured and designed to involve community groups and of sufficient importance to motivate individual members and partners

„ devolved and engaged services work because people know their public servants and public servants know their people

„ devolved services can still be remote: local doesn’t necessarily mean engaged

„ centralised services can still be engaged: engaged doesn’t have to mean local

„ centralised and remote is rarely a good thing, even if ‘professional led’.

So …. for devolved services to be effective they need to be co-ordinated around a community of interest; local members need to take substantive decisions and officers need to work in partnership with other public services.

6.15 Through our engagement processes we will set the key targets and outcomes to be achieved for our communities and these will be continuously reassessed for their relevance.

Stakeholder engagement

6.16 The Durham Districts have a strong tradition of community engagement and relationships with Town and Parish councils, local agencies, businesses, community groups and their citizens. Partnership working, Town and Parish councils charters, neighbourhood consultation and other initiatives all help to shape the communities where people can thrive. This spirit of involvement has been extended to take account of stakeholder views on the aims of the White Paper to drive improvement in the delivery of local services and put local people and local communities across County Durham at the heart of local governance and public services.

6.17 Our stakeholders have told us that we have a one-off opportunity to improve services in County Durham.

6.18 Over 100 stakeholders from across County Durham met in November to explore the opportunities the White Paper presents. The day was led by the Tavistock Institute.

36 Sample of comments from the districts’ stakeholder event

“ Don’t invite the community to join your “ The community bureaucracies - organise should award the ‘stars’ public services around for performance not the community ” the government ”

“ It’s not about Customer Relationship Management, it’s about Citizen Relationship Management ”

6.19 These are just a few of the remarks made by a number of stakeholders including community representatives and grassroots politicians at the event but they sum up much of the thrust of the day’s discussions.

6.20 Participants also stressed the importance of timely feedback on what action has been taken in response to a community initiative or representation. The supporting document, Our Community - Our Call is intended to respond to that concern by providing feedback on the event and work that is now under way.

6.21 Key messages included:

„ create one stop shops around community needs not around integrating public service bureaucracies

„ use a basket of engagement tools, techniques and opportunities which reflect the different needs, circumstances, motivations of different people, communities and circumstances

„ remember the existing very local structures Town and Parish Councils

„ not Customer Relationship Manager, but Citizen Relationship Management

„ privilege community voices in the performance management process.

37 6.22 Added to this were a number of valuable general pointers for reform:

„ more integration and coherence in front office, back office and delivery on the ground

„ secure public and community confidence through feedback and transparency;

„ partnerships and partners need to operate at different levels; and avoid creating new silos

„ clarify what the very local is - could be a village in one area, a housing estate or ward in another area and a larger town or suburb elsewhere

„ each service will be different in terms of the extent of strategic management; the scope for local ownership and control and the types of infrastructures and assets

„ make use of distributed leadership: with key roles for frontline councillors

„ allow for possible changes in political structures – wards, cabinets etc

„ ensure bottom-up influence on the strategic framework.

6.23 From this event the three main messages and learning were clear:

„ public service delivery has to be designed and organised around the citizen-consumers in a holistic, integrated and tailored fashion

„ engagement with citizen-consumers has to be undertaken in a systematic and sophisticated fashion

„ citizen-consumers and their political representatives have to be in control of service definition and variability.

6.24 The input, ideas and openly expressed views on local authority service delivery across County Durham have helped shape this bid document.

6.25 The views of key regional and local partners, Town and Parish Councils, community groups, businesses, colleges etc throughout County Durham and the North East have been solicited through telephone and face to face discussions on the Districts’ plan to submit this bid. Widespread support has been expressed for the Districts’ radical and innovative vision for the reshaping of the way services are organised, built around consultation with citizens and communities.

6.26 We carried out a telephone poll of over 500 residents/stakeholders to gauge their views on the two options being submitted to Government on the future governance of County Durham and the importance they placed on having a stronger voice in local decision making. The survey revealed that of those expressing a preference, over 60% opted for a Pathfinder option - for all councils to work together in partnership with residents, partner agencies, stakeholders and the Government to develop new ways of delivering local services leading to the establishment of unitary arrangements.

6.27 Respondents were clear also in their demand for a greater say in the local decisions that affected their lives and their communities with just over two thirds of residents, (67.4%) and 84.3% of stakeholders considering it to be ‘very important’ for local people to have a stronger voice in local decisions.

38 The risks inherent in a ‘single County Unitary’

6.28 We have already expressed concerns in connection with the risks inherent in a traditional single County unitary being implemented in 2 short years in the Key Messages of section 1. The following table illustrates these risks:

Diagram 2 Risk of service and efficiency decline in introducing a county unitary

Decline steepens Significant Slow improvement to services as County nears disruption of as initial problems of County implementation services at point takeover of district services of new authority. of changeover - become ironed out. Key District staff poor system leave. integration, low morale.

Performance Slow decline in services as County diverts from service provision to preparation for new authority. Low morale in districts.

Time

6.29 We believe that a stepped and negotiated approach to developing a unitary model reduces risk and delivers continuous improvement.

Diagram 3 Progressive implementation to a unitary solution

Implement Evaluate Prepare Implement quick wins. potential. & decide. new structures. Performance

Collaborative investigation of new ways of working.

Time

39 40 7 How we will deliver this

Performance management

7.1 The performance management framework must be built upon the outcomes we are seeking to achieve, particularly in relation to reducing the gap between the life chances for a number of people in County Durham and those for other parts of the country. In this framework we seek to ensure that we are clearly focused on local and national priorities.

Diagram 4 Performance management outcomes

Reducing the fear of crime.

Increasing basic skills levels in the Reducing mortality adult workforce and increasing rates from cancer and heart the number of people disease/stroke. with NVQ level 2.

Increasing the stock and take-up of childcare.

Making sustainable Reducing re-offending improvements in economic performance.

Halving the number of children in low income households Reducing the harm from illegal drugs.

Access to services in rural areas/transport/access Delivering equality and equity to broadband

Cleaner and safer public spaces.

Bring all social housing into a decent condition, particularly in deprived areas and for vulnerable Tackling social households in the private sector. exclusion and delivering neighbourhood renewal.

41 7.2 And the framework needs to be able to operate at all different levels – not just at the strategic apex of our organisations.

Diagram 5 The performance management framework

Local Area Agreement plus - the outcomes we are jointly trying to achieve

Local Strategic Partnerships District Corporate Plans

Area Operations Management

Community Agreements/ Neighbourhood Charters

7.3 We need to build a balanced scorecard which reflects these key priorities and is capable of being monitored and used at both strategic and local levels as follows:

Economy and Employment Learning and Education

Economic performance Basic skill levels

Worklessness NVQ qualifications

Effectiveness of business support School performance

Stock and quality of childcare

Environment and the quality of life Health and Care

Perceptions of clean and green open spaces All housing reaching the decency standard

Recycling Cancer and heart disease rates

Fear of crime Reducing harm from drugs

Reducing re-offending

42 Excellent services - impact of our approach

7.4 The supporting document contains a review of some of the main strategic services provided by the county and districts in County Durham. We look at them from the perspective of the key issues they face. In particular, we look at how the new approach, with a greater emphasis on community engagement and partnerships, would drive the required efficiency and service improvements.

Adult Social Care

7.5 Our focus on neighbourhoods and community empowerment would help by:

„ creating an infrastructure of teams based upon established communities; assessing the various needs of individuals in a holistic way. This will enable us to create 360º strategies, ensuring that future provision will not only give value for money, but will also take into account the needs of the individual, the carer and the constraints/opportunities of the community in which they live

„ providing a strategy to commission a range of ‘living opportunities’ which will ensure that the accommodation needs of vulnerable adults, including a growing elderly population, will be provided for in the future

„ using modern tele-care solutions - centralised monitoring linked to local response teams will provide a cost effective solution for many individuals and assist in reducing admissions or referrals to institutional care

„ holding teams to account against agreed and shared performance indicators, incorporating key themes from Health, Social Care and Housing. This way of working has been tested in the successful Pathfinder ‘Sedgefield Integrated Team’, acknowledged as good practice in the Government’s recent White Paper ‘Our Health, Our Care, Our Say’

„ enabling closer working with the Voluntary and Community Sector to ensure they are adequately supported to maximise their potential contribution to Adult Social Care.

Children’s services

7.6 Our focus on neighbourhoods and community empowerment would help by:

„ improving work in relation to the NEETS agenda (those not in educational employment or training), including developing partnership working between schools and local planning groups and service providers

„ commissioning, coordinating and providing services closer to children and their families communities, improving community involvement and local accountability in decision making

„ localising services in geographical ‘patches’ that are co-terminus with schools and health facilities. This would also link closely with Local Strategic Partnerships and the development of neighbourhood arrangements

„ offering real involvement to children, young people and their families in service planning and delivery and decision-making on matters that affect them building on the good practice developed by Derwentside

„ working with local schools and partners to progress Building Schools for the Future in priority areas, tackling the on-going issue of poor performance in deprived communities and improving the scale of local special needs 43 provision. Transport

7.7 Our focus on neighbourhoods and community empowerment would help by:

„ developing local solutions with local providers with and around local communities - such as car sharing, locality service planning, Wheels to Work and the like

„ increasing community transport in relevant localities

„ redesigning services to be flexible and take into account local issues including solutions that work across boundaries

„ training young people to drive as a way of encouraging them into work and training

„ involving communities in Local Development Frameworks thereby ensuring decisions on highways meet local need but also take into account broader issues and travel to work patterns.

Housing and Sustainable communities

7.8 Our focus on neighbourhoods and community empowerment would help by:

„ collating information systematically at a local level to present to Local Strategic Partnerships and more local groups as a vehicle for engaging communities and empowering them to help shape decisions on the housing agenda

„ aggregating data up to a sub regional level to inform strategic housing policy and investment decisions and to provide a picture of the ‘state of housing’ in sub county regions and the whole county

„ tackling strategic issues such as housing market renewal and housing improvement programmes, accessibility to housing and affordability and supported housing provision at sub county level by concentrating on housing market areas which are defined largely by the City Regions

„ improving the co-ordination between strategic housing and planning, local education provision (such as Building Schools for the Future) as well as street scene and highway services - to focus on the desired outcome of creating more ‘sustainable communities.’ This would help create a new emphasis on co-ordination across schemes (moving away from a ‘silo’ approach). There would also be the opportunity to better integrate local community needs around supported housing provision to help maintain stable populations in communities to aid community cohesion

„ improving opportunity for joint working on housing supply and support with social care and health support packages to aid independent living and to help deal with issues of residential care homes and the condition of older persons housing accommodation.

44 Regeneration and economic development

7.9 Our focus on neighbourhoods and community empowerment would help by:

„ creating a new emphasis on co-ordination across schemes e.g. between job creation, education and worklessness

„ creating a clear spatial dimension to key strategies and plans (e.g. Strategic Economic Corridors) – better defining what is appropriate County-wide and what is appropriate at a local level. Better linkages between “bottom-up” local initiatives (with VCS engagement through Local Strategic Partnerships) and “top down” strategic initiatives

„ achieving greater engagement and linkages between conurbations as part of the development of City Regions

„ creating new and appropriate partnership governance arrangements that can ensure:

„ inclusive and objective engagement of key County-wide and local stakeholders;

„ an authoritative but inclusive voice for County Durham for dealing with external stakeholders; and

„ maximisation of the effect, performance and efficiency of economic development and regeneration skills and capacity within County Durham

„ ensuring access to locally appropriate services including, business support, enterprise development, job search, community transport, training and education.

45 Programme Management timetable

2007-2008 2008-2009

Political management

Establish Transformation Board – leader of each district, Identify options for future political management leader and deputy leader of the County. eg single member wards, one cadre of members, potential unitary geographies etc Drive and oversee transformational arrangements and step change in service delivery against LAA plus targets Beginning of formal consultation phase

Back office services

Initial scoping work on development of the Detailed planning and commissioning, implementation plan where necessary

Consolidation of back office through joint procurement, Single county procurement team - start to asset management etc generate savings from joint procurement and the rationalisation of assets Identify target savings from rationalisation

Customer access strategy

Develop new strategy via CD e-govt partnership Pilot face-to-face public service access points

Implement new web-site Implement new county public service call centre

Identify cost neutral implementation plan funding investment in call centre through rationalisation of assets and current customer service processes

Shared services strategy

Strategy for new models of delivery for ED, regulatory Implement first wave of joint committees/ services, environmental health, leisure, housing, street host authority arrangements scene including refuse collection, libraries etc

Identify target savings from rationalisation

Identification of sub county management areas.

Neighbourhood management strategy

Identify neighbourhood level areas for each district Review operations of LSPs – where not already defined Tighten up performance reporting at area level Refocus Community Plans on new arrangements for service delivery within the LAA and Service level agreement and financial support to first wave Neighbourhood Service Centres Develop Area plans and Neighbourhood Charters

46 2009-2010 2010-2011

Agree criteria and undertake option appraisal Boundary committee approval of political management. Plan implementation of new arrangements

Shadow unitary council elections in May 2011

Go live by mid 2009

Continue rationalisation of major assets such as depots, council offices etc

Roll out of public service access points across the county

Roll out of services through the call centre

Complete shared services programme Review overall service delivery strategy in line with neighbourhood model and strategic fit with wider Achievement of savings from initial wave policy issues such as City Regions. of shared services

Joint community development teams fully Roll out neighbourhood service centres where gaps established and long term programme of in provision exit. neighbourhood partnership development underway.

47 The projects in more detail

7.10 We have already outlined our approach to neighbourhood management and reviewing political management and leadership. In the next section we look at each of the other three transformational projects in a little more detail. The Programme Management timetable is summarised on pages 46-47.

Back office services

7.11 All councils, and where possible other public services, will move to a shared back office which will drive considerable efficiencies and internal service improvement. We have no preconceived ideas about whether this would be best done through the assimilation of district back office functions within the County’s systems, the establishing of a jointly owned arms length delivery vehicle or through partnership with a private sector provider. In doing so we would seek to take advantage of the work carried out by the County Durham E-Government Partnership and the opportunity for procurement, assistance and advice from the North East Centre of Excellence. An option appraisal to establish the best course would be an early task for the project management team.

7.12 Back office systems would be migrated to the new ‘vehicle’ in a phased way in order to minimise disruption and manage the close down of existing IT systems and operational processes. The aim would be to achieve significant efficiencies, create improved performance in transactional services and improve customer service without any diminution of service in the transition phase.

7.13 While the main purpose of the single back office vehicle would be to provide services to the eight current councils and whatever unitary structure succeeds them, there would also be the opportunity to offer services to:

„ other public service providers such as Health, Police and Fire Services „ Town and Parish Councils „ the community and voluntary sector.

7.14 It is envisaged that the ‘single back office’ would be established in phases which would need to be agreed, but might look like this:

Phase 1 „ Financial transactional services (creditors, debtors etc) and accountancy „ IT services and other communications - landlines and mobile phones „ HR transactional services (e.g. payroll) „ Council tax and other revenue collection „ Legal services „ Procurement „ Increased transactional services on the web „ Generic customer services such as concessionary travel „ Printing, publications, stationery.

Phase 2 „ Insurance „ Benefits claim processing „ Call centre infrastructure „ Support for other customer access initiatives such as support for touch screens in neighbourhood centres „ Working towards common HR policies, shared training and development „ Recruitment.

Phase 3 „ Customer services migrating from education, social care services, planning and others such as schools admissions.

48 7.15 We would want to ensure that this approach offers modern employment by maximising the opportunities of home working and ‘hot desking’ in local centres.

Shared services at the front line

7.16 Front-line services will be delivered at the level which is most appropriate to that service. Some current district services may eventually be delivered at a county level, but experience from other areas in the building of shared services is that this is better achieved through an incremental approach rather than a ‘big bang’ which has led to some spectacular failures recently. Conversely, a number of community facing County services are managed on an area basis that should be aligned with district services.

7.17 Initially, we see policy, management and a number of front-line services building shared service vehicles across a clustering of districts reflecting the natural geographies of the County. These services would include:

„ Policy and Strategy „ Planning processing „ Building control „ Refuse collection and recycling „ Some aspects of street scene and grounds maintenance services such as depots, vehicle maintenance „ Environmental health „ Highways „ Arts, libraries and museums „ Leisure, possibly through the creation of a Leisure Trust „ Economic development and regeneration „ Youth services „ Housing and homelessness „ Highway maintenance „ Licensing „ Trading Standards

7.18 The principle would be for services to be managed by bespoke partnership vehicles and located at the most appropriate council acting as host.

7.19 Strategic services which require shared service arrangements to establish economies of scale, will be linked to the county-wide back office in areas such as: „ schools „ child protection „ adult social care „ asset management „ shared procurement „ commissioning

7.20 Other services will be delivered at a much more local level. These would include, for example:

„ responsive street scene services such as parks maintenance and local litter picking „ community safety and neighbourhood wardens „ community facilities management „ play area management

49 Case Study 4: merging services supporting people

As part of the Supporting People Value Improvement Programme the District Councils worked with Durham County Council and other partners to bring together Community Alarm and Warden Services for Sedgefield, Wear Valley and Teesdale.

In so doing the following was achieved:

„ service providers reduced from 13 to 1 „ savings to commissioners of £400,000 „ service standards improved „ need for significant investment in service infrastructure in the Wear Valley area negated „ service introduced in the Teesdale area; an area not previously receiving such supporting people funded services „ 40% increase in numbers of vulnerable people benefiting from these services.

No restructure, no fuss, no big bang - just better services and savings.

Service access

7.21 Linked to the above will be an integrated approach to service access across the county which will include all councils and other key public services providers. The key principles will be:

„ single phone number giving access to a county-wide call centre

„ face-to-face access through a linked network of ‘first-stop shops’ based in district council service centres, public libraries and other service centres. This will build on the existing single Customer Relationship Management system to ensure a seamless service through co-ordinated joint training for customer service staff, clear protocols and service standards

„ a single county-wide web-page giving on-line access to public services

„ a Business Transformation programme to re-engineer all customer access processes across the county into the new arrangements building on the e-government shared services report. This will be based on the assumption that as many people as possible will be encouraged to self serve through web-based services (currently the number of transactional services available on the web is low compared to other counties and districts) and other more “ Our challenge cost effective channels. is to produce 7.22 This approach will be a challenge to current e-services such as education change and adult social care who currently receive a variety of customer queries and handle them in an ad-hoc manner. However achieving service integration which is both has been made easier through the work of the District Council led Durham evolutionary Net Partnership that has provided broadband connections to all schools and a wide range of community groups across the County. and radical ” Managing the transition

7.23 Our challenge is to produce change which is both evolutionary and radical. We believe we can achieve this based on a community engagement model where the management of service delivery is devolved to the most appropriate level. One of the key features of our bid is the approach to the transitional component. It is our contention that a unitary created by what is perceived as a simple absorption of district councils by the County Council is likely to create a prolonged period of risk, uncertainty and service 50 instability. 7.24 Instead we are proposing a slightly longer period of transition but one which:

„ has the same end point of a unitary structure of local government for County Durham

„ chooses the form of unitary government through a formal and inclusive option appraisal in which the criteria are generated locally within national guidelines

„ seeks to engage local neighbourhoods, the voluntary sector and community groups in a debate about the structures and service delivery mechanisms which will best promote empowerment and engagement

„ emphasises service stability during the transition

„ offers reassurance to employees at a time of significant potential uncertainty

„ takes a programme management approach to transition – taking the elements of service redesign, changing political management arrangements, the creation of a single back office and developing neighbourhood management as a range of distinct but interlinked projects co-ordinated and overseen by a Transformation Board.

Timescale Activity

September 2007 Transformation Board Established

September 2008 Transformation Board Determine Unitary Authority(ies) for Consultation with Stakeholders

July 2009 Unitary Authority(ies) Number and composition agreed by Secretary of State

December 2010 Boundary Committee Approve New Unitary Authority(ies) Ward boundaries

May 2011 Shadow Unitary Authority(ies) Elections

April 2012 New Unitary Authority(ies) Operational

Transformation Board

7.25 Adhering to the timetable for implementation will be a challenging process and it requires a strong, transparent and accountable decision making mechanism to ensure a new unitary system that is ‘owned’ by stakeholders and is operational in April 2012. Achieving this vision will be the responsibility of a Transformation Board made up of the Leaders of the 8 councils (and the Deputy Leader of the County Council) supported by the respective Chief Executives and a jointly appointed Transformation Director who will manage a full-time programme management team drawn from staff within the eight authorities.

7.26 The Transformation Board will have a focussed remit to move from a single tier system to a unitary system of local government by 2012 and in doing so will achieve back office integration and organisational efficiencies, as well as enhanced neighbourhood arrangements, in the transition period. As detailed in the above timetable, the Transformation Board will be established by September 2007 at which point it will commence on a number of essential work streams (detailed in the following section) with key stakeholders in the county. 51 7.27 While the timetable for the Transformation Board will be challenging, it will allow sufficient time to engage with stakeholders in order that the new structures are shaped to meet their needs as opposed to the alternative in a quicker process, where stakeholders have to bend their needs to meet the shape of new council structures. To ensure stakeholders are engaged with the Transformation Board, a programmed series of scrutiny meetings will be scheduled where it will be held to account for its progress against the commitments made in this submission.

7.28 Just as Durham requires a new unitary system of local government, it is quite fitting that while developing that system, there also needs to be bespoke scrutiny arrangements to oversee the process. Determining the final membership of those arrangements will require further consultation with stakeholders, but as a minimum will include representatives from:

„ County Durham LAA Board „ Government Office for the North East „ Local Strategic Partnerships „ Town and Parish Councils „ Community Empowerment Networks „ Front-line members from existing councils.

7.29 Taking this inclusive approach to overseeing the work of the Transformation Board will have a number of benefits. It will:

„ provide an added impetus to the eight authorities to adhere to the implementation timetable

„ ensure the evolving changes have relevance to stakeholders

„ create an opportunity for even greater efficiencies and joint working at the neighbourhood level by giving the opportunity for partners to not only scrutinise but become actively engaged in sharing back office services and neighbourhood arrangements.

7.30 We propose that the Audit Commission is engaged to support the work of the Transformation Scrutiny Panel and that they will prepare regular progress reports for consideration at the scheduled scrutiny meetings - copies of which will also be made available to the Department for Communities and Local Government.

On-going service delivery

7.31 Given the proven adverse impact reorganisation of fewer government structures can have on services to the public if implemented in a short-time frame and from a single point in time, existing District and County decision making arrangements will continue in the eight two-tier councils in the build-up to 2012. The role of the councils will be to ensure the continued provision of high quality services as well as the local implementation of the Transformation Board’s agreed actions.

7.32 Whilst ultimately there is expected to be a need for fewer councillors in the new unitary system, during the transition period, it will be positively advantageous to have the current number of councillors to explain and manage the change. The key difference to the current system is that all councillors will assist on any local government service, irrespective of whether responsibility currently lies with a district or the County Council. Indeed, as the neighbourhood service centres are rolled out across the county, this issue will increasingly become irrelevant – overcoming any current issues of confusion regarding accountability for service delivery.

52 7.33 To ensure the joint working approach is reflected in the current District and County Council decision making arrangements, County Council Executive members will take on specific area responsibilities and will sit on District Council cabinets or equivalent executive arrangements. In addition, the current practice for increased joint scrutiny arrangements will continue, both between the local government tiers and also through the increased incorporation of Local Strategic Partnership members and Town and Parish Councils on council scrutiny panels.

Safeguards

7.34 We are confident that given the clear direction set out in the White Paper, progress on this submission will be achieved without recourse to arbitration as a consequence of the arrangements set out in this submission. The key features of which are:

„ placing the Local Area Agreement Board and the Local Area Agreement structures at the heart of the transition process in order to tie in the new structures into the delivery of outcomes, rather than just looking neat on paper

„ putting in place a Transformation Scrutiny Panel to oversee the Transformation Board’s progress on:

„ service delivery improvement targets

„ milestone targets in relation to the development of the new arrangements

„ commissioning the Audit Commission to support the Transformation Scrutiny Panel through the provision of regular independent assessments on progress with the Pathfinder commitments

„ establishing a Transformation Director and full-time programme management team from within the eight authorities to provide overall programme and project management

„ taking a project management approach to each of the elements of the programme in line with the proposed programme on the timetable so that:

„ work is done concurrently where possible

„ dependencies are identified and planned in

„ the programme takes account of the overall resource required and ensures that the transition itself does not adversely impact on day-to-day service delivery.

7.35 We will utilise a federal system whereby the Leaders of the Districts and County make up a joint board to oversee the process of transition. The Board will be supported by an enhanced joint scrutiny arrangement. Scrutiny reviews will be established for each of the key transition areas, to be approved by the Board.

53 7.36 A pathfinder approach would enable each review to be subject to external inspection to ensure that the process does not falter. Independent experts will contribute to the reviews to guide recommendations.

Risk management

7.37 As with any major programme of change, there are risks associated with the transitional arrangements outlined in the bid. The key risks associated with the delivery of the outcomes are

Risk Probability Impact Mitigation

Not able to agree ultimate solution Medium High External challenge

No hard strategic edge to Medium Medium Clear and accountable decision-making governance arrangements

Prolonged uncertainty High Medium Good stakeholder communications strategy

Anticipated outcomes not delivered Medium High Strong performance management arrangements

Stakeholders not engaged Medium Medium Stakeholder Management strategy

Financials not robust Medium High Continued review of financial impact

Unclear accountability to Members High High Clear and accountable for services as merging commences governance arrangements

54 8 Financial case

Projected transition costs and ongoing savings

8.1 We believe the decision about the future of local government in County Durham is too important to rush to a judgment. The difficulty in defining the precise form that best meets local needs and national imperatives makes it hard for us to present a financial case in the same way as other bidders have done. Our case is a structured two-step approach that forecasts the delivery of savings building from an early stage up to the maximum level when the preferred structure of government is determined.

8.2 We have looked at the figures presented by the County Council and we believe that they may reasonably represent the savings available by stripping out duplication and reducing management layers. We would seek to do the same through our approach to shared services. However, their bid may understate the overall level of savings available. We believe that in areas such as adult social care, children's services and libraries we can deliver significant efficiencies by working together. We recognise that a proportion of these savings will need to be ploughed back into these services to meet both the increased demand for services and the community led transformation of services we propose. We think that there is sufficient scope to achieve our goals and significantly reduce the costs of local government in County Durham.

8.3 However, we also believe that the County Council may have understated the transition costs, because of the impact and risk of a 'big bang', short timescale approach. Our gradual and consultative approach means our proposal reduces the risk, manages the impact and restricts the transitional costs.

8.4 Our proposal is presented on the basis that:

„ the costs of how each option operates will not be radically different whatever unitary option is chosen

„ services in County Durham need to be shaped over the next few years by professionals working with local people and community organisations, rather than speculative modelling exercises. When new councils were created in the late 1990s, few of the predictions made in bid documents bore much relation to actual service configurations that emerged

„ by building models over time and securing savings as we proceed, we believe this will provide a robust starting point of cost saving around services we already know and manage

„ the County Council does not have a strong track record in controlling costs - see chart on council tax increases. It will need the challenge and participation of the districts to deliver the opportunities that are available.

55 Diagram 6 £1000 Council Tax Band D £900 (ex Parishes)

£800

£700

Durham County £600

Derwentside £500 Chester-le-Street

Wear Valley £400

Durham City £300 Teesdale £200 Sedgefield

Easington £100 98/99 99/00 00/01 01/02 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07

8.5 We believe that our phased and consultative approach can significantly reduce the transition costs and risks. We will start to reorganise immediately but spread it over a longer time period to minimise the transition costs and (over time) maximise the efficiencies and service improvements.

Transition costs

8.6 We understand that the County Council has estimated their transition cost at around £19 million. We believe this underestimates the cost. Voluntary Early Retirement (VER), redundancy and pension enhancements need to be considered. We also believe there are costs in 'keeping the seven district councils afloat' which may have been underestimated. Significant gaps will appear in the district councils management structures as senior managers leave that will need to be filled. However, these posts will be difficult to fill by traditional recruitment because of the organisations’ short lifespan.

Redundancy and severance payments

8.7 We understand that the County Council would have a proposed policy of no compulsory redundancies but would still need significant headcount reduction to meet its savings target. To meet its target, it would need to offer attractive early retirement and voluntary severance packages.

8.8 Evidence from previous reorganisations would indicate that the number of people opting to take advantage of VER and other negotiated terminations will be of the order of 150-200. The costs of these severances will vary wildly depending on age, seniority and years' service. In the case of Chief Executives/ Directors and other long serving senior officers they are likely to be significant six figure sums. We believe an overall cost of £15m would be a realistic assumption of VER and severance.

56 Temporary and Interim Staffing

8.9 Staff losses at the districts will have to be handled as well as possible in order to minimise service disruption. We believe it will be difficult to recruit for organisations with a lifespan of less than 18 months. As a result, these posts will need to be filled through agency and consultancy arrangements, which are far more expensive than traditional employment. When applied to a handful of posts in each of the seven district councils, the additional cost could be £2-3 million.

8.10 The temporary arrangements will improve available capacity, but there will be a detrimental impact on service delivery.

Systems integration and simplification

8.11 The county’s approach has costs and short term disruption from the early termination of IT contracts. Novation costs, migration and retraining for retained systems are likely to be greater in the County's approach than in a more measured and programme managed approach to change.

Closedown

8.12 There is a significant cost involved in ‘winding up’ the eight old authorities. There is a need to close the books, to deal with the legal issues around the transfer of ownerships and the more administrative and ceremonial activities undertaken by authorities.

8.13 When all of these points are considered, we believe that the transitional costs for the county council will be higher than anticipated and may be in the region of £25-30 million.

The districts' approach to transition

8.14 We believe that our own proposals will significantly reduce these costs by:

„ taking a more negotiated and phased approach to create new unitary structures thereby minimising the impact of 'talent leakage'

„ creating a single back office, sharing front-line services and developing unified access arrangements. We would expect to reduce headcount without “ we can any compulsory redundancies and rely on natural turnover. Our aim is to reduce the head count in management and back office personnel by 20% significantly over the next four years for district services, but keep the cost of severance payments to less than a maximum of £4.5 million. Our approach will minimise reduce both the the early termination and reduce the migration/novation costs costs and risks of „ a more gradual approach to reduce the planning costs. There would still transition through be a significant need to backfill the positions left vacant by those undertaking programme and change management, and this would be less than if a 'big a more phased bang' approach were adopted. Our estimates are that costs for a full time and consultative programme management team together with five project teams and some additional accounting capacity would be of the order of £3 million. approach ”

57 Ongoing savings

8.15 The County Council's limited release of information indicates ongoing savings in the region of £21 million. We understand that the County Council has already committed to spend around £16 million of this on Area Management Partnerships, devolved ward/neighbourhood budgets and significantly enhanced councillor remuneration.

“ Under our 8.16 However, we do not know whether they have considered the following points. proposal, savings „ To equalise council tax across the county, in the most conservative case, would cost around £3.6 million. However, this figure may be more depending and costs would on the assumptions made about applying parish precepts that account for £9 be much more million of the tax take and vary widely across the county area. grounded in a „ The costs of pay harmonisation and re-run job evaluation exercises as services are amalgamated. realistic and consultative 8.17 We assess these costs around £5 million and on this basis, it is difficult to see how their transitional costs can be met from ongoing savings. approach to 8.18 Under our proposal savings and costs would be much more grounded in service redesign a realistic and consultative approach to service redesign and therefore less and therefore ‘at risk.’ In addition, the districts have a good track record of controlling cost and innovating in service delivery - often through devolution and partnership less at risk ” working. Indeed we would welcome the opportunity to work with the professionals in services such as adult social care, children’s services and libraries to help drive innovation and service improvement by developing flexible, responsive and value for money solutions based in local partnership working and community engagement.

8.19 Our proposals offer the opportunity for significant savings, built around a community led approach to front-line services creating robust sustainable efficiencies.

8.20 In doing this we have taken a very cautious approach to the calculation of potential savings and during the development phase have concentrated on the two key projects:

„ a single back office and

„ shared services at a joint district level for Environment/ Street scene, Planning/regulatory services and Cultural and Leisure services.

8.21 Our calculations demonstrate that, when fully implemented, these would deliver annual savings of at least £12 million.

The costs of transition under our proposals

8.22 While we have stressed that a major advantage of our approach is that transition costs are minimised, we recognise that these would still play a significant role.

8.23 Approximate key costs include: £m

Early Retirement/Voluntary Severance 4.5

Transition planning/project management teams 3.0

Other(relocation, fees etc) 0.5

58 Total 8.0 8.24 The following table summarises the timings of these savings and costs during the development period. We identified some of the savings from our approach that will be used to improve services from the bottom up. In 2008-09, for example, we would seek to use £750,000 to establish or provide sustainable support for 15 neighbourhood service centres. Over time, this would grow further. Financial forecasts have been completed on the basis of adding a further 10 centres in each of the two subsequent years creating 35 in total. The ultimate number will be agreed following full consultation with our communities. These centres would develop further local initiatives such as:

„ Enhancing support for the local member role

„ Developing new neighbourhood charters and compacts

„ Supporting local forums

„ Enhancing the performance management capacity of the authorities to report data at a local level.

Summary of forecast savings/ (costs) – at district level during the development period

07/08 08/09 09/10 10/11 11/12 Total

£m £m £m £m £m £m

Savings from Back Office 0 4.5 9.5 12.0 12.0 38.0 and Shared Services

Neighbourhood centres (0) (0.75) (1.25) (1.75) (1.75) (5.5)

Costs of Transition (0.5) (2.0) (3.0) (2.2) (0.3) (8.0)

Net Saving (0.5) 1.75 5.25 8.05 9.95 24.5

8.25 Our unitary option will, therefore, start with significant savings already secured. In addition to the ongoing savings of £12m, we also believe that there is significant potential for efficiency gains in services currently run by the County Council. Based on current figures, the County Council spends significantly above the average for Adult Social Care amounting to £20 million. We have already noted that some savings would have to be reinvested back into the service areas to deliver the enhancements required. Even allowing for this we think that savings of £10 million a year could be achieved.

8.26 Our belief is that in working with the county council in the period up to 2011/12 some of these savings could be released early, increasing the potential for combined annual ongoing savings to £22 million.

8.27 Additional savings and transitional costs will then flow from whatever model comes through the option appraisal process. The costs and savings will arise from integrating the current County Council back office function into the new unitary structure. The model will establish and combine existing district and county services as appropriate. For example, combining maintenance and fleet operations will generate management and procurement opportunities, while combining libraries with current district leisure and culture outlets will generate efficiencies and service enhancements.

8.28 The financial model used would show that the savings of £22 million already secured would grow to between £27 million for a three unitary option up to £35 million for a single unitary option. 59 8.29 There will be additional transitional costs to reach different unitary options. The costs have been assessed as increasing the identified £8 million for rationalising the district services up to £13 million for the three unitary option and £18 million for the single unitary option.

8.30 In summary we believe that whatever unitary structure is chosen, there will be significant savings on current costs. The extent of those savings can only be broadly predicted.

8.31 What is important is that the transition phase to a unitary structure is one which:

a. maintains and improves current services rather than putting them at threat of significant disruption

b. builds firm foundations for new models of services from the extensive and successful examples of community engagement being developed by the districts now

c. gives the new council(s) a good opportunity to start with robust administration and support and quality services protected from the risk of change.

8.32 We believe that our approach demonstrates these objectives. A gradual build towards the optimum unitary solution will deliver robust and sustainable cost savings and efficiencies from an early stage - without placing too much risk to existing service delivery.

60 61 9 Closing statement

9.1 Our approach is unique. We are proposing a pathfinder approach to form a unitary structure in Durham to be established in 2011. We will deliver:

„ a unitary solution that has been designed from the community up with new arrangements being developed through discussions with local communities

„ the unitary solution which has evolved over a period of five years sustaining current services and maintaining a strategic leadership role

„ efficiencies by integrating our back office services and designing other services around our citizens and community needs

„ a unitary solution that reflects the natural geographies of the County

„ services through a partnership-based approach that works with local communities and other stakeholders through Local Strategic Partnerships to shape neighbourhood service delivery

„ an organisational development plan to develop our managers and our Councillors to be effective in their community leadership roles

„ strategic leadership that is effective at all levels from neighbourhoods through sub-regional, city regional and regional levels that provides a strong voice and promotes the interests of County Durham

„ joint working with other public services such as the Town and Parish Councils, the Primary Care Trusts, the Police and the voluntary sector to maximise efficiencies and deliver more effective, joined up and responsive neighbourhood services

„ a constructive role within the region, including city regions and provide the leadership which will be most effective in the regional agenda

„ services with minimal disruption to protect the quality of life of our most disadvantaged residents.

„ an effective programme of change with strong and inclusive governance arrangements, accountable to the Department for Communities and Local Government for delivery of agreed outcomes

„ a well managed and more far reaching change to local government than the traditional approach could achieve.

Our innovative and pragmatic approach will deliver the best possible outcomes for the people of County Durham.

62 Appendix 1 Appendix 1 - Natural Communities

County Durham is situated at the heart of the North East of England between the two conurbations of Tyneside and Teesside extending from the North East coast to the high moors of the North Pennines Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The County covers some 223,000 hectares and has a population of 493,470. The County forms one of the Regions’s four sub regional units and is served by seven District Councils and Durham County Council.

The County is a diverse area. The central and eastern parts of the County contain the larger urban centres that accommodate in their immediate environs some 79% of the County’s population. These are the main employment and service centres for the county and vary in size from Durham City and Bishop Auckland to Barnard Castle and Crook as shown in Table 2. These centres formerly had an economic rationale strongly linked to the economic base of the county: steel, railways and coal industries. The two former NewTowns at Newton Aycliffe and Peterlee were established respectively as manufacturing employment centres and to help address the contraction of local coalmining in south west Durham and to support the mining industry and help create increased local employment diversity in East Durham.

The western part of County Durham to the east of the A68 is more rural with a lower and more dispersed population with Barnard Castle acting as a service and administrative centre for much of the western part of the county.

Table 2 – County Durham major centres of population (2001 Census)

Consett 27,400 Bishop Auckland 24,500

Stanley 16,300 Crook 8,300

Chester-le-Street 23,900 Spennymoor 17,200

Durham 42,100 Shildon 10,100

Seaham 21,700 Newton Aycliffe 25,500

Peterlee 30,100 Barnard Castle 25,500

Each of these centres plays a role in terms of employment, housing retailing and access to public services in line with the objective of the creation of sustainable communities. The centres are also part of wider catchment areas that extend outwards from the higher order centres within the two conurbations to the north and south of the County. With increasing mobility in terms of employment, housing markets and retail and leisure activities, there is now a greater inter-relationship and inter-dependence between the population centres of County Durham with the neighbouring areas of Tyne and Wear and Teesside/Darlington.

64 This changed role for County Durham’s communities is reflected in a number of ways.

Employment structure

„ the employment structure has changed considerably since the late 1970s with a contraction of the former industrial base associated with coalmining, steel making and railway engineering. There is now a more diverse employment structure, though manufacturing activities at 22% of all employment is significantly greater than the regional average at 16%. Service sector employment is under represented and is dominated by public services activities

„ there has been an increase in the level of commuting from the county to nearby employment locations within the two adjacent conurbations.

Housing

„ there has been a shift in the tenure patterns to a higher level of owner occupation and this level is now in line with national averages at 68% though the share of housing in the social sector, at around 25%, remains above the national average of 19%.

Retail

„ greater diversity in shopping patterns influenced by the major urban conurbations and ‘out of town’ centres such as the Metro Centre at Gateshead.

A further distinguishing feature of County Durham is the level of deprivation being experienced, with four districts being eligible for Neighbourhood Renewal Fund assistance as being amongst the worst 88 local authority districts in England. Overall some 33% of the County’s population live in areas ranked within the worst 30% Super Output Areas (SOAs) in the country. In Easington, ranked as the 7th most deprived district in England, some 83% of the population live within the worst 30% of all SOAs. In Derwentside, Sedgefield and Wear Valley around 50% of the population are resident in SOAs within the worst 30% nationally. Many parts of the County have deep-seated problems of economic inactivity/joblessness, poor levels of educational attainment/skills and health inequalities.

The communities of Durham are, therefore, not uniform nor contained to a county level of geography but operate as part of a series of community and service patterns shaped by, and forming part of, the two major city region areas that broadly divide the county. The centres of Tyneside and Wearside (Sunderland) in the north influence Durham, Chester le Street and Derwentside districts and Tees Valley in the south including Darlington, impacting on Sedgefield, Teesdale and Wear Valley Districts. Easington District, being adjacent to both conurbations, also divides between the two areas, with Peterlee at the centre of this division.

65 These spatial relationships are shown by reference to a number of factors:

Labour market areas

„ journey to work statistics provide an indication of the labour market catchment areas across the county. There is a focus of movements around Durham City reflecting its role as a major service centre and the location of a number of major employers in the national and local government sectors as well as the health sector. Districts nearest the adjacent conurbations tend to have the greatest outflows influenced by the major employment locations within the adjoining conurbations such as Team Valley, Gateshead, Washington and Doxford Park in Sunderland as well as the centres of Newcastle and Sunderland. To the south the importance of Darlington and Hartlepool is evident:

this serves to show the importance and relationship with the adjacent conurbations for those communities in the county, with only Durham City having a reasonable level of self containment in terms of labour market patterns within the County. Easington and Chester le Street have the largest outflows to adjacent conurbations.

Table 3 - Labour markets

District % Within % Within District % Outside District (Outside of District) of County

Chester-le-Street 30 22 48

Derwentside 53 16 31

Durham 62 15 23

Easington 42 10 48

Sedgefield 54 21 25

Teesdale 61 20 19

Wear Valley 56 29 15

Housing markets

„ recent work on housing markets across County Durham identified a number of broad markets in operation. There is a relatively contained market around Durham City, but across much of the remainder of the county there exists a relationship between Darlington and markets across Sedgefield, Wear Valley and Teesdale. Easington has tended to have a closer link with the southern area of Tyne and Wear and in particular Sunderland, while parts of Derwentside are more influenced by the Gateshead/Newcastle areas and Chester-le-Street by south Gateshead and western Sunderland including the Washington area. 66 Health services

„ the County is served by the County Durham and Darlington Acute Hospitals NHS Trust through general hospitals in Durham, Bishop Auckland and Darlington. In the eastern part of the County, the majority of Easington District residents and some Sedgefield Borough residents use services provided through the North Tees and Hartlepool NHS Trust in Hartlepol and Stockton. Some patients in the notheren part of Easington are served by hospitals opeated by the City Hospitals Sunderland NHS Foundation Trust.

Retail and leisure trends

„ research on retail and shopping trends indicates that for non food retailing much of the southern part of the County (Wear Valley, Sedgefied and Teesdale) is influenced by Darlington, while Hartlepool draws expenditure from the Easington area. A similar patter applies for the northern part of the county with Easington, Durham and Chester le Street being served by Sunderland and Newcastle/ Gateshead with Derwentside more influenced by Newcastle and Gateshead. It is estimated that for retail and leisure activities around 40% of the county’s population travel to Tyne and Wear and 25% to the Tees Valley area.

Other factors

„ a number of other factors further demonstrates this pattern of a series of communities within broad spatial divisions of the County and the links to the adjacent conurbations. The county is covered by a number of broad post code areas related to Newcastle, Sunderland, Darlington and Teeside. The Durham postcode area is confined to Durham City and Chester-le-Street as well as areas to the immediate east and west of Durham District. Local newspaper readership suggests that the Northern Echo based in Darlington is prominent across much of the southern and central part of the county, while across north western communities the Newcastle Journal is more established. In Easington and in the eastern parts of Chester le Street and Durham, the Sunderland Echo Is read and the Hartlepool Mail readership also extends in to the southern parts of Easington. Public transport services are shaped by routes that radiate out from Durham City but also those connecting with Newcastle and Gateshead in the north and north west of the County, Sunderland and Hartlepool in East Durham and from Darlington and Stockton across the Sedgefield, Wear Valley and Teesdale areas.

67 The people of County Durham do have a strong sense of local identity with their own village/neighbourhood which provides a strong sense of community and place for many people and this is especially the case in the smaller communities. This stems in part from the industrial heritage of the County and is particularly evident in the former mining communities across central and eastern Durham. A similar sense of community is also evident in the more remote, rural communities of West Durham. There is also a clear association for many residents with the historic County Durham and its proud associations with coalmining and the iconic cathedral city of Durham.

The County Durham of today, however, is much changed from the historic County Durham that stretched from the Tyne to the Tees, following the loss of Gateshead, Sunderland South Tyneside, Hartlepool and Stockton-on-Tees in 1974 and Darlington in 1996.

The above factors illustrate how the present economic, commercial, social, and service patterns now influence the nature of life in the communities of County Durham today. There does exist across County Durham a complex series of interrelated and connected communities and one that is shaped by the role these communities play in the two city region areas that extend into the County.

68 Supporting documents Supporting document – Service excellence

S1.1. The core principles underlying our approach to service delivery are:

x Back office services All councils, and where possible other public services, will move to a shared back office which will drive considerable efficiencies and internal service improvement. This could be done by building on to existing systems for example those currently being developed by the County Council or by a new partnership for example with a major private sector provider.

x Service access Linked to the above will be an integrated approach to service access across the county which will include all councils and other key public services providers. The key principles will be: – A single phone number giving access to a county-wide call centre – Face-to-face access through a linked network of ‘first-stop shops’ based in district council service centres, public libraries and other service centres. This will be build on the existing single Customer Relationship Management system to ensure a seamless service through co-ordinated joint training for customer service staff, clear protocols and service standards. – A single county-wide web-page giving on-line access to county public services. – A Business Transformation programme to re-engineer all customer access processes across the county into the new arrangements. This will be based on the assumption that as many people as possible will be encouraged to self serve through web-based services (currently the number of transactional services available on the web is low compared to other counties and districts) and other more cost effective channels. This approach will require a significant challenge to current e-services such as education and adult social care who currently receive a variety of customer queries and handle them in an uncoordinated manner.

x Front-line services Front-line services will be delivered at the level which is most appropriate to that service. Some current district services may eventually be delivered at a county level, but experience from other areas in the building of shared services is that this is better achieved through an incremental approach rather than a ‘big bang’ which has led to some spectacular failures recently.

Initially we see a number of front-line services building shared service vehicles across 2/3 districts, probably around a cluster of districts in the north and another in the south west. These services would include:

– Planning processing – Building control – Refuse collection and recycling Supporting document – Service excellence

– Some aspects of street scene and grounds maintenance services such as depots, vehicle maintenance, hit squads etc. – Environmental health – Benefits processing – Leisure, possibly through the creation of a Leisure Trust – Economic development and regeneration – Youth services

The principle would be for services to be managed by Joint Committees and located at the most appropriate council acting as host. Staff could be seconded or TUPE’d across.

County level services will be strategic services and those which need the economies of scale at a county level. They will link to the county-wide back office in areas such as – Schools – Child protection – Adult social care – Asset management – Shared procurement – Commissioning

Other services will be delivered at a much more local level. These would include, for example:

– Responsive street scene services such as parks maintenance and local litter picking – Community safety and neighbourhood wardens

x Sharing best practice One of the key drivers in the development of more efficient and effective services is the sharing of best practice within the County.

For Durham County Council services this means that we will ensure that while strategy is determined at a county level, local delivery will be shaped by the efforts to co-ordinate public services at a local level such as through the Local Strategy Partnerships / Community Plans and Neighbourhood agreements. The measurement of performance at the local level also means we will be able to identify high performing area services, analyse their strengths and ensure that the drive for continuous improvement ids informed by local good practice.

Similarly in each of the district services, we will identify the best performer in terms of outcomes and user satisfaction and use that as the baseline to build new, more integrated services. Supporting document – Service excellence

Adult Social Care

S1.2 In Durham the number of people aged over 50 years continues to rise with a projected increase of 84% for people over 85 years of age by 2021. Substantial resources and investment will be required to meet the needs of these service users and their carers and to, at the same time, meet the demands for greater choice and quality of preventative services designed to improve independence.

S1.3 The future direction of health and social care emphasises a shift from acute to community based services with increased integration of health and social care commissioning and provision and high quality prevention services. Effective commissioning for choice and promoting independence is a major challenge for all councils. The key developments identified in ‘Independence, Well-Being and Choice’ are shifting to self assessment, individualised budgets and direct payments.

S1.4 The changes required are: x to move away from being a provider of legacy services (residential care for older people/learning disabilities/people with a physical disability, respite care and day care services) to a commissioner of services that are delivered either at the service users home or as close to their home as possible x avoiding inappropriate admissions of older people to acute hospital beds and ensuring that if they are admitted their discharge is not delayed x effective partnership working x services linked into local areas, particularly based on natural communities and co-terminus where possible with health and Local Strategic Partnerships. Local Assessment and Care Management teams are fundamental to integrating services in localities and are the most appropriate delivery model.

S1.5 Best practice elsewhere suggests that we need to: x further develop Strategic Commissioning – fully understanding the cost/price structure of the local market for social care in order to deliver the best possible value for money x collate information for groups of service users on numbers and needs; services and spending; and the effectiveness of services at a partnership level x use innovative approaches to day care for older people living in isolated rural communities, for example in the homes of locally recruited adult placement carers x tele-care services using sensors that monitor movements that alert relatives or neighbours to possible problems that people using services might have at home.

S1.6 Our focus would be on: x developing truly integrated teams to create universal services and effective prevention. Health, Social Care and specialist Housing practitioners will require reliable and shared systems based around single assessment and jointly owned care plans Supporting document – Service excellence

x minimising duplication by using generic care assistants for low levels of interventions and concentrating the efforts of the limited number of high level professionals on those with the greatest needs x adopting a more strategic approach to forward planning, developing joint strategies that link the accommodation, social and care needs of the individual x moving away from obsolete models of institutional care to modern provision, embracing new technologies and the latest designs in specialist accommodation and lifetime homes x driving down the costs - if Durham spent at the average level for county Councils it could save over £20million. Two counties with higher performing services spend at a level equivalent to a saving of £10 million.

S1.7 Our focus on neighbourhoods and community empowerment would help by: x creating an infrastructure of teams based upon established communities; assessing the various needs of individuals in a holistic way. This will enable us to create 360º strategies, ensuring that future provision will not only will give value for money, but will take into account the needs of the individual, the carer and the constraints/opportunities of the community in which they live x providing a strategy to commission a range of ‘living opportunities’ which will ensure that the accommodation needs of vulnerable adults, including a growing elderly population, will be provided for in the future x using modern tele-care solutions - centralised monitoring linked to local response teams will provide a cost effective solution for many individuals and assist in reducing admissions or referrals to institutional care x holding teams to account against an agreed and shared performance indicators, incorporating key themes from Health, Social Care and Housing. This way of working has been tested in the successful Pathfinder ‘Sedgefield Integrated Team’, acknowledged as good practice in the Government’s recent White Paper ‘Our Health, Our Care, Our Say’. Supporting document – Service excellence

Children's Services

S1.8 The Children and Young Peoples Partnership has been in operation for some years and is well established as the overarching strategic body. Many of the services delivered for children in the county work well and CSCI report considerable progress has been made in modernising services.

S1.9 However, there are still some areas needing to be addressed: x maximising the flexibilities of the Health Act (1999) section 31 to pool monies from agencies and bring efficiencies through reduction in transaction costs. x CSCI noted that whilst the County Council had turned around serious staffing shortfalls in the children in need teams, the teams were not yet delivering a consistently good standard of practice and address skill shortfalls x meeting the take-up targets for 3- and 4-year-olds into Early Years provision and Children’s Centres x planning for falling rolls while maintaining quality and choice x developing a relevant vocational curriculum supported by strong employer links x responding to Education Act 2006 - schools exploring Foundation and Trust status

S1.10 And there are considerable challenges. The picture in County Durham for young people is that: x a considerable number of children and young people are likely to witness domestic violence and are potentially at risk of significant harm x over 600 young people aged 16 -19 were homeless or at risk of homelessness in 2004-05 x 38 wards across County Durham are in the top 20% nationally for teenage conceptions x County Durham has high levels of youth unemployment. In addition, some 30% of households with children receive some form of state benefit x there has been an increase in the numbers of children under 10 on the Child Protection Register as a result of parental problems involving substance and alcohol misuse as well as domestic violence x bullying is a significant problem and, many report, not being treated with respect in schools/educational settings x there is lack of appropriate places for children and young people to socialise and spend their leisure time constructively. This is an issue often brought about by young people as a priority and one which affects youth nuisance and anti-social behaviour levels in the County. x there is much to be done on positive youth engagement in decision making and the planning of services.

S1.11 Best practice elsewhere suggests we need to x pool multiple funding streams to set up multi-agency Children’s Centres x raise attainment through parental involvement and family learning programmes x establish community cafes, libraries and health services in Extended Schools x raise aspirations through work with sports clubs - players mentoring pupils etc Supporting document – Service excellence

x develop 14-19 Partnerships and Learner entitlements x promote community reporting frameworks – info on outcomes for children at a neighbourhood level x involve young people in governance as board directors and observers, in planning and shaping the service eg in staff appointments x develop a Commissioning Framework - recording existing activity to analyse approaches - effective commissioning/contract monitoring of a wide range of services from a strong and well-developed voluntary sector.

S1.12 Key issues include:

x While partnership working between DCC and PCTs is strong at a broader level it is still in a developmental stage. One difficulty is that policy is agreed at a countywide level and this does not always enable localities to have the freedom to concentrate on local strategic priorities as resources follow the overall county strategy. Participation of children and young people is developing well at locality level but at a countywide level it is made up of panels of young people who are not representative of localities and tend to be the ‘usual suspects.’ x Overall attainment at GCE A-level is improving faster than that seen nationally and this needs to be maintained but a lot of the improvements have been due to NRF and other locally sourced funding streams and the risk if these specialist mentoring and other interventions cease Also good average rates across the County mask some serious disparities. The 2003 results for percentage of children achieving KS2 Level 4 ranged from 69% in Wear Valley to 86% in Teesdale. The percentage of young people achieving 5+ GCSEs A* - C ranged from 36.9% in Easington to 58.5% in Teesdale. Looking within localities we find for example that in Derwentside young people from Blackhill achieved 60.2% in 5+ GCSEs A8-C whilst Consett South young people achieved 13.9%. x Some social care family support services are patchy and again short term funding has supported this and examples of good practice have been developed at a local level using this funding through Children’s Fund. Wear Valley has for example done some work in Tow Law through Children’s Fund and this has informed the Family Support Strategy, however even with this best practice example there have been difficulties in community and partner relationships. The project has however reduced the requirement for more complex support services within the school. x Better contract management and decommissioning of poorly performing, inappropriate or expensive services - Durham’s spend is significantly higher than most other counties despite many others performing equally as well with much lower expenditure. On 2005 figures a reduction to the average expenditure level would mean a saving of £5.9 million. x A strategic commissioning framework built on demand forecasting, needs analysis and a joint approach with Health. The aim is to shift from silo commissioning and provision to a strategic commissioning approach. Factors to be taken into account are joint commissioning, GP practice based commissioning and PCTs. x Services for children with complex needs need to be developed in partnership with other agencies. x More locally based decision-making and commissioning. x Engagement of children and young people and their families in decision making has been patchy and the County Council has lagged significantly behind in this area. Localities have taken forward this much more Supporting document – Service excellence

proactively. Derwentside’s work in particular has been recognised as best practice nationally. The Children Services Authority has not been proactive in learning from this local best practice and taking it forward on a county basis. x Universal services to children and young people need to be improved too. The vast majority of services are based around the needy and provision of specialist and targeted services. There is a need for universal services such as “things for young people to do” and sport development, which are delivered and managed locally.

S1.13 Our focus on neighbourhoods and community empowerment would help by: x Improving work in relation to the NEETS agenda, including developing partnership working between schools and local planning groups and service providers x Commissioning, coordinating and providing services closer to children and their family’s communities, improving community involvement and local accountability in decision making. x Localising services in geographical ‘patches’ that are co-terminus with schools and health facilities. This would also link closely with Local Strategic Partnerships (Local Strategic Partnerships) and the development of neighbourhood arrangements. x Real involvement of children, young people and their families in service planning and delivery and decision-making on matters that affect them building on the good practice developed by Derwentside. Supporting document – Service excellence

Transport

S1.14 In the North East region, the decline in bus passenger journeys over the last 15 years has been 41%, greater than any other region apart from Yorkshire and Humberside. Over the same 15 year period, car ownership has grown by over 50%, although the number of people in Durham without access to a car still exceeds the national average. Transport policy initiatives have had a limited impact to date - car ownership is expected to continue to grow and bus use is expected to continue to decline. In Durham, per capita spending on public transport in 2004/05 remained below the national average.

S1.15 A great deal of work has been linked to the progression of LTP2 and its delivery supported by other local funding. In Teesdale and Wear Valley, for example, the emphasis has been to develop Community transport because of the difficulty in accessing broader public transport. However LTP2 is capital funding and all capital has revenue implications and often it is revenue costs that have to be met through grants or use of local external funding where it is available. And it is not possible to fully understand what transport operates at a local level and what resources Durham County Council put into transport locally. This is partly because budgets cross a number of services for example social care, education and health. S1.16 The impact on people in relation to jobs is particularly crucial in an area like Durham where wages are low. Many services only run at peak times and this has an impact on the ability of people to take employment. Wheels to work schemes have been introduced in some parts of the county but these are through short-term funding programmes.

S1.17 Key issues in transport are: x Maintaining a comprehensive bus network as the major operating groups repeatedly rationalise networks x Improving accessibility - links to health and further education facilities, and links from rural areas, are frequently poor x Integration, particularly with rail. The County has a relatively limited rail infrastructure and needs to maximise its use x Rural Transport – accessibility to public transport in rural areas, and the impact of lessening services on the rural economy is a significant issue. This is compounded by targets that encourage the maximisation of services to areas of greatest population that may not equate to areas of greatest need adversely affecting services in rural areas which can lead to withdrawal of some services. x Poor information and inadequate infrastructure – bus shelters, waiting facilities, safety and security at bus stations, etc x A significant number of Durham people use a network of trunk bus services to and from major centres north and south of the county for work, shopping and leisure purposes. A number of areas have difficulty in accessing services that are provided for health care out of county. Easington residents for example may require services in Sunderland. Free transport groups will only be able to get free transport within the county but then have to pay for transport in Tyne and Wear. This is also true of services in the south of the county where Darlington is the site of some Acute Trust services, Hartlepool and Middlesbrough for others. x Transport costs are not currently paid for children under 5 for nursery places. In rural areas it can mean parents are unable to access these Supporting document – Service excellence

services. There are also issues in terms of access to out of hours schools services for the young people in accessing taxi services.

S1.18 We need to: x understand service provision and performance at that local level. It will be increasingly important that as we increase work in ‘Neighbourhoods’ that clear routes are agreed for: x commissioning services across range of providers x ensuring performance is managed more effectively (for example making sure commissioners of services hear about complaints as well as bus companies) it is not possible to manage performance x access to services needs to be strengthened x develop new solutions building on community links in the commissioning of transport services to address local circumstances particularly in relation to services in rural areas x stable funding and organisational capacity building for third sector organisations x review inappropriate targets and replace these with targets that reflect key local priorities

S1.19 Our focus on neighbourhoods and community empowerment would help by: x Developing local solutions with local providers with and around local communities – such as car sharing, locality service planning, Wheels to work etc. x Increased Community Transport in relevant localities x Service redesign must be flexible and take into account local issues including solutions that work across boundaries x Training young people to drive as a way of encouraging them into work and training x Involvement of communities in Local Development frameworks will also ensure decisions on highways meet local need but also need to take into account broader issues and travel to work patterns etc. Supporting document – Service excellence

Housing Services and Sustainable Communities

S1.20 Public sector housing is a critical service area, particularly in an area of deprivation such as County Durham. Policy has been subject to a period of continuous change since the early 1980s and the introduction of ‘Right to Buy’ with the thrust of policy being to increase levels of owner occupation and to diversify the supply of social housing through more choice that is wider than council housing. Accompanying this has been a drive to increase the generation of private sector investment into public housing provision and renewal, making housing policy part of the ‘place shaping’ and sustainable communities’ agenda.

S1.21 In Durham the outcome has been a diversity of social sector supply with 3 Large Scale Voluntary Transfers, 2 Arms Length Management Operations and 2 retained stock authorities operating. Further integration on supply side would seem inevitable as Large Scale Voluntary Transfers and Registered Social Landlords organisations have opportunities to come together and merge. The local authority role is now more ‘strategic’ with emphasis on private sector land supply and renewal of older housing, social housing diversity of choice, the needs of vulnerable groups by age, income and disability and providing housing support services, including the linkages with the wider supporting people agenda. The Supporting People Partnership has proved to be strength in providing housing related support. A recent Best Value review achieved the rating of a 2* service with excellent prospects for improvement. In particular positive comments were made on partnership working and its strategic focus.

S1.22 We need to focus on: x decent Homes compliance x affordable housing in rural areas and in areas of economic disadvantage x putting greater emphasis on housing markets and therefore city region influences x supporting older housing renewal - now a major challenge for County Durham given the stock profile especially in former coalfield communities x sheltered and supported housing provision (aged person accommodation, supported accommodation, care homes) given the health and age profile and characteristics of many social sector tenants. x joint service planning with Primary Care Trust and Adult Social Care - housing has tended to be the minor partner (except in some instances such as former Sedgefield Primary Care Trust area) x driving efficiencies from joint approaches to maintenance contracts, research and sub regional strategy etc x creating innovative vehicles for efficient delivery of housing renewal and neighbourhood regeneration schemes

S1.23 Our focus on neighbourhoods and community empowerment would help by: x Collating information systematically collated at a local level to present to Local Strategic Partnerships and more local groups as a vehicle for engaging communities and empowering then to help shape decisions on the housing agenda. x The data should also be aggregated up to a sub regional level by local partners to inform strategic housing policy and investment decisions and Supporting document – Service excellence

to provide a picture of the ‘state of housing’ in sub county regions and the whole county. x Tackling strategic issues such housing market renewal and housing improvement programmes, accessibility to housing and affordability and supported housing provision at sub county level by concentrating on housing market areas which are defined largely by the City Regions. x Improving the co-ordination between strategic housing and planning, local education provision (such as Building Schools for the Future) as well as street scene and highway services – to really focus on the desired outcome of creating more ‘sustainable communities.’ This would help create a new emphasis on co-ordination across schemes (moving away from a ‘silo’ approach). There would also be the opportunity to better integrate local community needs around supported housing provision to help maintain stable populations in communities to aid community cohesion. x Improved opportunity for joint working on housing supply and support with social care and heath support packages to aid independent living etc. and to help deal with issues of residential care homes and the condition of older persons housing accommodation etc. Supporting document – Service excellence

Regeneration and Economic Development

S1.24 The main emphasis of the strategies that impact on regeneration in the north east is the concentration on the importance of the urban areas and the development of city regions. County Durham is bordered by the two main city regions in the north east: x Tyne and Wear – incorporating Chester-le-Street, Derwentside, Durham City, and Easington x Tees Valley – incorporating Sedgefield and parts of Wear Valley and Teesdale

S1.25 The draft Regional Economic Strategy and the Northern Way Growth Strategy both emphasise the need to develop these city region areas. Further strategies, such as the Tyne and Wear City Region Development Plan, have used these as the basis for identifying the future direction of development to be pursued in the north east.

S1.26 The draft RES also recognises the need to focus on rural development through the Market Towns Initiative. Spatial planning will be guided by the Regional Spatial Strategy that will inform the Local Development Frameworks.

S1.27 The County Durham SRP has an extensive membership however, the effectiveness of this partnership and the strength of the relationships within it need to be reviewed. There is a perception that the partnership is inhibited by current governance arrangements and lacks robust performance management so County Durham does not achieve the success that it should. This is particularly relevant given the proximity of the two core urban areas. There is a need for the County Durham SRP to develop an approach which incorporates a North / South facing policy perspective.

S1.28 Key issues to address include:

x Engagement with the voluntary and community sector through Local Strategic Partnerships and local economic development strategies (e.g. Derwentside – development of The Greenhouse at Greencroft and involvement of VCS in local Employability initiative). x Worklessness Agenda – engagement of key agencies (Job Centre Plus) in local initiatives (4 NRF Districts). x City Regions Agenda – the potential role of 3 “Strategic Economic Corridors” within the County has now been brought to the table and needs to be led at a local level, as well as co-ordinated at a County level. x NetPark Initiative – there remains a need to develop understanding/action on the role of NetPark across the County, particularly regarding the geography and content of different economic “themes” linking into NetPark, e.g. property development, connectivity, skills, business support services. x Knowledge Economy Agenda – a County-wide strategic issue but momentum/focus on this has stalled at a County level and needs to considered cross-County and locally together with the University of Durham. x Enterprise Agenda – this is being addressed on a number of fronts (e.g. ONE, County enterprise Strategy, LEGI and local initiatives) but, as yet, Supporting document – Service excellence

without a clear understanding being developed of the roles/expectations of different organisations and services. A particular challenge is how to raise the performance of the most disadvantaged areas (e.g. through LEGI) whilst at the same time ensuring that performance is raised across the County. x Skills Agenda –the LSC currently gives a high priority to basic skills and NVQ Level 2 Qualifications but the County Durham SRP has yet to fully address priorities that go beyond these LSC targets and how available resources could best be used to achieve strategic aims. x Physical Regeneration – development of clear plans and priorities to address issues of new floorspace requirements, how to deal with redundant/under-used floorspace, enhance the role and attractiveness of town centres, and improve the role of key rural service centres. x Ensuring that there is improved access to services, and service priorities determined at the neighbourhood level. x Addressing the huge disparities between districts and localities.

S1.29 Our focus on neighbourhoods and community empowerment would help by: x Creating a new emphasis on co-ordination across schemes e.g. between job creation, education and worklessness. x Creating a clear spatial dimension to key strategies and plans (e.g. Strategic Economic Corridors) – better defining what is appropriate County-wide and what is appropriate at a local level. Better linkages between “bottom-up” local initiatives (with VCS engagement through Local Strategic Partnerships) and “top down” strategic initiatives. x Greater engagement and linkages between Urban conurbations as part of the development of City Regions. x Creating new and appropriate partnership governance arrangements that can ensure: o Inclusive and objective engagement of key County-wide and local stakeholders; o An authoritative but inclusive voice for County Durham for dealing with external stakeholders; and o Maximisation of the effect, performance and efficiency of economic development and regeneration skills and capacity within County Durham. x Ensuring access to locally appropriate services including, business support, enterprise development, job search, community transport, training and education. Supporting document – Service excellence

Corporate Services

S1.30 The single back office would be a core project for the Transition Board and would be set underway as soon as the overall change programme for local government in the County.

S1.31 We have no preconceived ideas about whether this would be best done through the assimilation of district back office functions within the County’s systems, the establishing of a jointly owned arms length delivery vehicle or through partnership with a private sector provider. An option appraisal to establish the best course would be an early task for the project management team.

S1.32 Back office systems would be migrated to the new ‘vehicle’ in a phased way in order to minimise disruption and manage the close down of existing IT systems and operational processes. The aim would be to achieve significant efficiencies, create improved performance in transactional services and improve customer service without any diminution of service in the transition phase.

S1.33 While the main purpose of the single back office vehicle would be to provide services to the eight current councils and whatever unitary structure succeeds them, there would also be the opportunity to offer services to: x other public service providers such as the Police, Fire Services and Health x Town and Parish Councils x the community and voluntary sector.

S1.34 It is envisaged that the ‘single back office’ would be established in phases which would need to be agreed, but might look like this:

Phase 1:

ƒ Financial transactional services (creditors, debtors etc) ƒ Accountancy ƒ IT services and other communications - landlines and mobile phones ƒ HR transactional services (e.g. payroll) ƒ Council tax and other revenue collection ƒ Legal services ƒ Procurement ƒ Increased transactional services on the web ƒ Generic customer services such as concessionary travel ƒ Printing, publications, stationery etc

Phase 2:

ƒ Insurance ƒ Benefits claim processing ƒ Call centre infrastructure ƒ Support for other customer access initiatives such as support for touch screens in neighbourhood centre Supporting document – Service excellence

ƒ Working towards common HR policies, shared training and development ƒ Recruitment

Phase 3:

ƒ Customer services migrating from education, social care services, planning etc such as schools admissions

S1.35 We would want to ensure that this service vehicle is as modern as possible and would seek to ensure that it offers modern jobs by maximising the opportunities home working and ‘hot desks’ in local centres. A Stakeholder Workshop held by six Durham District Councils at Beamish Hall on 16th November 2006

Exploring a new vision for local governance in County Durham

Our communities - Our call “ The aim of this White Paper is to give local people and local communities more influence and power to improve their lives. It is about creating strong, prosperous communities and delivering better public services through a rebalancing of the relationship between central government, local government and local people ”

Ruth Kelly MP Secretary for State for Communities & Local Government Exploring a new vision for local governance in County Durham

Background

On 16th November 2006 stakeholders from across County Durham met at Beamish Hall to explore views and ideas on how we can work together to deliver better and more efficient services to residents of the County. The issues and ideas that emerged are helping shape the future of local governance in County Durham through informing the response of six of the Durham District Councils to the Local Government White Paper – Strong and prosperous communities. This document is a record of that event.

Overview

“ Don’t invite the community to join your bureaucracies – organise public services around the community ”

“ The community should award the ‘stars’ for performance not the government ”

“ It’s not about Customer Relationship Management, it’s about Citizen relationship management ”

These are just a few of the remarks made by community representatives and grassroots politicians at Beamish Hall on 16th November but they sum up much of the thrust of the day’s discussions.

Participants also stressed the importance of timely feedback on what action has been taken in response to a community initiative or representation. This report is intended to respond to that concern by providing feedback on the event and work which is now underway.

Our communities - Our call Key messages included:

 Create one stop shops around community needs not around integrating public service bureaucracies  Use a basket of engagement tools, techniques and opportunities which reflect the different needs, circumstances, motivations of different people, communities and circumstances  Remember the existing very local structures - parishes and town councils  Not CRM, but Citizen Relationship Management  Privilege community voices in the performance management process

Added to this were a number of valuable general pointers for reform:

 More integration and coherence in front office, back office and delivery on the ground  Secure public and community confidence through feedback and transparency  Partnerships and partners need to operate at different levels and avoid creating new silos  Clarify what the very local is - could be a village in one area, a housing estate or ward in another area and a larger town or suburb elsewhere  Each service will be different in terms of the extent of strategic management; the scope for local ownership and control and the types of infrastructures and assets  Make use of distributed leadership: with key roles for frontline councillors  Allow for possible changes in political structures – wards, cabinets etc  Ensure bottom-up influence on the strategic framework. For the six Durham District Councils that convened this event their learning from the stakeholders who attended is clear:

 Public service delivery has to be designed and organised around the citizen-consumers in a holistic, integrated and tailored fashion  Engagement with citizen-consumers has to be undertaken in a systematic and sophisticated fashion  Citizen-consumers and their political representatives have to be in control of service definition and variability.

This learning raised some serious challenges:

 How to design such mechanisms/structures?  How to reconcile them with the needs to be strategic, efficient, and deliver national and local priorities?  What would the transition to such structures look like and how would the change-over be managed?

Since the stakeholder workshop the six districts have been working on an innovative model of governance which links directly to communities, giving local people more power and influence over decisions and a stronger voice in service delivery. It also promotes more effective joining up of services across the Districts. The input, ideas and openly expressed views on local authority service delivery across County Durham recorded here have provided the basis for that work. These insights are helping shape the six districts response to the Local Government White Paper inviting local authorities in shire areas to make proposals for improved forms of local government.

The case for or against unitary local government was not discussed at the event. But it was clear from the discussion that whatever structure is agreed must address the requirements highlighted in this report. Exploring a new vision for local governance in County Durham

Welcome & Introduction

The workshop began with a welcome and introduction from Councillor Bob Fleming, Leader, Sedgefield Borough Council and Chairman of Durham Districts Forum. Bob emphasised the importance of the day’s work and that it would be vital in shaping

Bob Fleming the six districts response to the opportunities for reform offered by the Local Government White Paper. (A full list of participants is attached as Appendix 1 to this report). Councillor Johnny Kelleher from the Tavistock Institute, London, who were facilitating the day, then gave a brief overview of the agenda for the day (the Agenda is attached as Appendix 2 to this report) – and launched into the work with a quick exercise on County Durham in 2010 the results of which are tabulated below.

A quick brainstorming exercise - County Durham in 2010

Essential/Desirable To be avoided

Something that means More customer involvement. The same again. something to the people. Non-silo working. Too much bureaucracy. Better public services. Sustainable communities. Staying the way things are. More employment. Better management of services. Hidden agendas. Accountability. Public satisfaction. Duplication of services. Clear lines of communication with officers. Higher voter turn out. Fewer targets.

Culture of support. Youth inclusion. Working in silos.

Improve the whole thing. Outcomes not targets. Too many new initiatives.

Open agendas. Listen and hear the people.

Cash to deliver the services. Constructive vocational training programme. Support health and well being. More action. Better communications. Exploring a new vision for local governance in County Durham

Session 1: White Paper opportunities

The first main session of the workshop addressed setting a devolution and engagement agenda for County Durham

Phil Swann from the Tavistock Institute kicked off the session by giving a short presentation on the opportunities offered by the recent White Paper.

More devolved and engaged local governance: the national context: the Local Government White Paper Phil Swann

 The context  The Government’s vision  The white paper and county areas  The issues for County Durham  Some questions to consider

Ruth Kelly The aim of the white paper is “ to give local people and local communities more influence and power to improve their lives ”

The White Paper “ Revitalised local authorities working with their partners to re-shape public services around the citizens and communities that use them ”

To enable partners to respond more flexibly, to reduce top-down control, to enable citizens and communities to play their part.

“ People to be given more control over their lives; consulted and involved in running services; informed about the quality of services in their area and enabled to call local agencies to account if services fail to meet their needs ”.

Our communities - Our call White Paper options

 The status quo is not an option  Unitary bids  Enhanced two tier pathfinders

NOT THE ISSUE FOR TODAY

NOT THE LONG TERM ISSUE ANYWAY

WHAT SHOULD MORE DEVOLVED & ENGAGED LOCAL GOVERNANCE LOOK LIKE?

 Provide strong, strategic leadership  Enhance and support community engagement and neighbourhoods  Clarify and unify service delivery  Secure efficiency and effectiveness Johnny Kelleher Key themes

 Organisational culture  Subsidiarity  Community engagement  The very local  Efficiency and effectiveness  Partners Organisational culture

 Enhanced two tier involves the de facto creation of a new organisation  The culture of that new organisation will be critically important

Subsidiarity

 New division of labour between “county” and “district” levels  Responsibility could shift upwards, downwards and sideways  A general presumption of getting closer to people and places

Community engagement

 A major driver of governance and services  Drives information flows, scrutiny, control and operational management  May need new organisations  Essential, not simply desirable

The very local

 Neighbourhoods, wards and parishes  The main place for engagement and information  Where possible the place for scrutiny, control and operational management

Efficiency and effectiveness

 Services planned around citizens and customers  Continuous improvement and reform in the light of local information and engagement

Partners

 What works for them?  Implications for subsidiarity and scrutiny Exploring a new vision for local governance in County Durham

Small group work on more devolved and engaged local governance

Following Phil Swann’s presentation every participant was allotted to one of 6 mixed groups. Each group of participants had their own question to explore, namely:

In County Durham in the future: Johnny Kelleher 1 What kind of organisational culture will we need in local government?

2 What could subsidiarity and more devolution look like?

3 How could community engagement be made a major driver of governance and services?

4 How can we establish a strong role for neighbourhoods/ parishes/wards?

5 How can we encourage efficiency and effectiveness in local government?

6 What will work for local government’s key partners?

Each individual found a person they did not know, introduced themselves and ask their own question and answered the other person’s question. They then moved on to another person. Each group then came together, introduced themselves to each other, pooled what they had learned, and noted the key points on the flipchart.

The results of their work follows: 1 What kind of organisational culture will we need in local government?

 Culture of “change” – shift from ‘STATUS QUO’ to ensure positive change  Openness, flexibility  It has to be a ‘can do’ culture  Transparent, open and honest  Better communication between community and organisations in all directions  No ‘defend your own empire philosophy’  Localities have cultures (e.g. Teesdale)  Proper conduits to address community concerns ‘ONE STOP’ approach – reduction in bureaucracy  Put the ‘servant’ back into public service  Proper consultation and PARTICIPATION  A culture which promotes and ACTIVELY ENCOURAGES community involvement to overcome apathy  Continuity of key personnel  SIMPLE, EASY TO UNDERSTAND STRUCTURE TO FACILITATE COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT ENGAGEMENT  CLARITY between OFFICERS and MEMBERS  LESS POLITICAL CONTROL

2 What could subsidiarity and more devolution look like?

 Structure that allows decisions to be made at the appropriate level  Local area forums with devolved budgets  With accountability and responding locally  Parish councils carry out services locally but don’t have total control?  Customers to be involved at all levels from bottom up  Better lines of communication for agencies working together  Statute may hinder agencies working together sharing service provision – resolve together  Model with agencies coming together to listen to what people want– they want progress that reflects what they want  Agencies to work together  Local people need to take responsibility locally  Get people involved properly so that they understand budgets and services  Local networks to be able to scrutinise the arrangements where decisions are made e.g LSPs  Minimise bureaucracy – local people need to be able to influence decisions – maximise ability for organisations to influence  Stop talking structures – think about processes for accountability  Need genuine ‘buy in’ – good cross section of local people  More meaningful consultation before discussions are made – not after – and then feedback  Local groups need to be able to influence and expect a response  Ability to express views on services provided 3 How could community engagement be made a major driver of governance and services?

 Flexibility of structures – formal and informal engagement  Devolved powers and cash  More involvement  Discussion on what can or cannot be devolved  Local impact, local issues  Services accountable  Roll out strategic partnerships  Better internal communications  Agreement between service providers  Ask community what they want  Ownership- use “words we understand” – and at least half agree  Look at barriers – access to training etc  A new approach!  Community engagement beyond geography  Leadership at all levels (county, district, town, parish, public)  Motivation factors  Area forums, neighbourhood partnerships – one size does not fit all  Open more doors  Young people (youth councils etc)  Representation at meetings, more mentors  Working together!

4 How can we establish a strong role for neighbourhoods/parishes/wards?

 Understand and fully reflect needs  Give more and better information to people at community level – and more often  Use community engagement to change culture and thinking around community engagement  Make neighbourhoods more important – and the people living there  Communicate to the right level  Instil pride in communities through investment and encouragement  Cut jargon and bureaucracy  All need to demonstrate results and feedback – this is not a one way process  Advise clearly about services to inform effective decision making and improve services  GO BEYOND LIP SERVICE  Engage partners earlier in the process so people can shape the process and the outcomes rather than just being belatedly asked to approve  Encourage partner involvement so that local interests are taken seriously and brought into the decision making  Involve young people  Devolve budgets to ensure communities have some say about investment  BE DIFFERENT – BE BOLD  Recruit community “leaders” – provide training and guidance  Give more autonomy where it is needed/wanted  HIGHLIGHT SUCCESSES 5 How can we encourage efficiency and effectiveness in local government?

 General agreement to bring down to local level  Knowing the right people  Getting local people and organisations to solve local issues  Honesty – if that person can’t help, then pass on to people who can help  Should be run on a customer service basis  Prioritise, action, feedback around local decision making  Working in partnership for delivery and planning  Pooling resources – no duplication  The public are confused!  Difficulty of local authority reacting to central government often in a knee jerk reaction (e.g. police services)  Accountability – who is going to monitor efficiency and effectiveness?  Liaison body – communication between organisations e.g. when utilities are working in an area  One person responsible for a particular area  Empower local councils – because of structures, often hands are tied  Encourage community involvement in scrutiny – give public ownership  Give the people what they want – listen to the people, take notice of the people  LISTEN TO LOCAL VOICES

6 What will work for local government’s key partners?

 Clarity – understand who does what  Who are key partners? – social services, police  Depends on project as to who key partners are. Have to keep open mind and let people identify relevant partners  Understanding / communication of what partners do  Should LSP be more local? Do people understand what LSP is?  Jargon is lost in communities. Partners to get into communities, not leaflets  Currently ‘invite people to get involved in our bureaucracy’  Reduce duplication  Too much is asked of people in the community who are already involved  Partners need to present themselves to community not vice versa  Partners should be better joined up. Individual at the centre, with one person dealing with all their needs  Engage with voluntary and community sector as they are working with people. Support sector and make it sustainable  Local government needs to identify who key partners are for particular needs  Partners not to fight for own corner. Identify best agency to solve the problem  More clarity of who partners talk to in local government about an initiative  All partners are individual agencies. Don’t assume how they will want to be involved Exploring a new vision for local governance in County Durham

Session 2: engaging with local communities

Session 2 addressed the question:

How can we put local people and local communities at the heart of local governance and local public services?

The six groups were asked to discuss one of three sub-questions and draw their answers.

Group 1 replied: Group 2 replied: Group 3 replied: this is a path it’s a cat not a dog! neighbourhoods should form the hub of any structure Groups 1 and 2 discussed the question:

How would local people and local communities need to organise themselves in order to engage better with local government and local public services?

Group 3 and 4 discussed the question:

How do local government and local public services need to be structured in order to enable more engagement with local people and local communities?

Groups 5 and 6 discussed the question:

How would the lives of local people be different as a result of more engagement between citizens and local government and local public services?

Group 4 replied: Group 5 replied: Group 6 replied: lots of different things it would be a much there will be weeds have to be changed better world as well as flowers together

Our communities - Our call Exploring a new vision for local governance in County Durham

Session 3: devolving services and control

Session 3 addressed the general question:

How can we devolve services and control as close as possible to people and places?

The session consisted of an Open Space exercise with ‘listening posts’ where ideas about different services could be discussed. Volunteers from among the participants looked after each listening post. All other participants circulated, and placed post-it notes at the listening posts, and talked to the people they found there about that service in relationship to the general question the session was addressing.

The services explored were a mixture of county and district, local authority and non local authority services. Some services were suggested for exploration by the facilitators, others nominated by the participants.

They were:

 Community safety  Waste and Refuse  Economic Development  Parks and leisure  Roads and transport  Planning  Health  Social Services  Children’s services

The results of this exploration are recorded on the following pages.

Our communities - Our call Community Safety Waste & Refuse Economic Development Parks & Leisure Roads & Transport Planning Health Social Services Children’s Services Exploring a new vision for local governance in County Durham

Session 4: making it work

Session 4, the final session, addressed the implications of the work accomplished so far in the day and specifically:

What is required to get better services through engagement and devolution?

Driving improvement in local governance through more local delivery of services and deeper engagement.

Participants worked together first in pairs and then in larger groups to identify how more devolution and engagement could drive better services. Drawing on the work of the day these groups reported that local governance and public services are going to be better because:

Local governance and public services are going to be better because:

 There will be clear, open, honest multi-way communication between service providers and service users  There will be empowered enthused, aware local politicians  We will involve local people and communities in the design of the service

 Better communication, openness will happen top down, bottom up, because officers/staff pay as much attention to customers rather than just budgets, and communities will see action as a result of what they have said

 A sustainable LSP brings service providers together with neighbourhoods  Residents more involved and contributing to decisions made  Residents can see the changes  More joined up working will help meet the needs of the end users – sharing resources and skills  Trust and respect build happier and more involved communities  Accountability can be retained via local ward and parish councillors  Customers are involved where decisions are made  Decisions are made at the lowest effective level  We are more open about options/information – breeds trust  Residents know what the issues (other views) are  County/district/parish councillors work together

 Local services are delivered at local level  Better overall value (better service first time)  Improved local knowledge and involvement of local organisations  Strategic is left with strategic  They will value local volunteers and championing their requirements to local level then to strategic level

 Effective communication will lead to accessible services  There will be political acceptance across the board to accept the need to engage with the community and to allow the results of the engagement to influence the mix and levels of service provision

Health warning

 In a democracy, apathy is still permissible  Without funding for neighbourhood partnerships it will collapse  Vital importance of funding locally for community groups, CVS etc

 Communities will be empowered and funded to lead in caring for their patch (council won’t have to do to but with)  K.I.S.S. Keep it simple stupid! – Clear and simple lines of communication  Action team/patch based working – with community link team  Local funding ? local performance targets ? local accountability ? inter-agency co-operation Concluding remarks

Exploring a new vision for local governance in County Durham

The day ended with some concluding remarks by Roy Roy Templeman Templeman, Chief Executive, Chester-le-Street District Council. Chief Executive Roy Templeman thanked everybody for their very active Chester-le-Street contributions to the day and noted the scale of the challenge District Council to be addressed in establishing a genuinely devolved and engaged form of local governance for the people of County Durham. He remarked that when he began as a young local authority officer more thirty years ago in a progressive, successful council, it was still taken for granted that councils were central to ‘place shaping and place making’. Officers were confident in doing so as they only felt accountable to their communities and felt guided by their day to day engagement with their communities. This workshop he hoped marked a first step towards putting local communities back at the heart of all local governance in County Durham. Exploring a new vision for local governance in County Durham

Appendix 1: List of Attendees

Rebecca Abrahams Alan Harley Jonathon Servers John Arthur Joan Harley Betty Shepherd Sheila Askew Jane Hartley Rachel Spence Andrew Bailey Bill Haywood Michael Stevens Lisa Bancroft Simon Henig Neil Stonehouse Steve Barr Gloria Hird Phil Swan Ron Batty Tina Hutchinson Teresa Taylor Brenda Bell Donna Jefferson Roy Templeman Doreen Birleson Janet Johnson Chris Tennick Geoff Bosworth Johnny Kelleher Dale Thompson

Julie Bowles Sue Kelley Dave Turnbull Joy Brindle John Khan Eunice Turnbull Victor Cadaxa June Kneafsey Julie Underwood Mary Cartwright Mike Lavender Mike Waterson Camilla Child Linda Le Dune Joan Watson Steve Clarke Andrew Luke Barbara Webb Kathryn Glasper Karen Lynn Berni Whitaker Jamie Corrigan Rhoda Makepeace Melanie White Stan Cudlip Michael Martin Frank Wilkinson Jim Cunningham David Marshall Maureen Wilkinson

Roy Curtis Lesley Millgate Michael Wilks T W Davison Alice Naylor Ginny Williams Joanna Defty Reginal Nelson Gloria Wills John Digby Frank Nelsson Pauline Wilson Janice Docherty Roland Owens Christine Wood Sid Duggan Simon Owens John Young Michael Dulieu Andy Palmer Kathy Eastwood S Parkinson Gordon Elliott Tina Parry Malcolm Elliott Bob Potts

Ray Ellis Darren Race Stuart Exley Colin Rae Verna Fee Colin Reynolds Angela Fleming Peter Richards Bob Fleming Graham Robinson Jo Forster Maxine Robinson Sonia Forster Billy Robson Karen Froggatt Mike Russell Angus Graver M Sekowski Elizabeth Hall Lawrence Serewics

Our communities - Our call Exploring a new vision for local governance in County Durham

Appendix 2: Agenda

10.00 Welcome and introduction Cllr. Bob Fleming, Leader, Sedgefield Borough Council and Chairman of the Durham Districts’ Forum

Overview of the day Johnny Kelleher, Tavistock Institute

County Durham in 2010 – a quick exercise

Session 1: White Paper opportunities More devolved and engaged local governance – setting the agenda for County Durham. Phil Swann, Tavistock Institute

Setting a devolution and engagement agenda for County Durham

small groups

11.20 Coffee break

11.50 Session 2: Engaging with local communities How can we put local people and local communities at the heart of local governance and local public services?

small group work with plenary feedback

1.00 Lunch

1.40 Session 3: Devolving services and control How can we devolve services and control as close as possible to people and places?

small group work with plenary feedback

2.40 Tea break

3.00 Session 4: Making it work What is required to get better services through engagement and devolution?

whole group work

Reflections

Concluding remarks: Roy Templeman, Chief Executive, Chester-le-Street, District Council

4.00 Close Durham Districts Telephone Survey : January 2007 Prepared by NWA Social Research

Q1 How important do you feel that it is for local people to have a stronger voice in local decisions? Total

Fairly Not Very important important important Don't know Row % Unweighted Count Count Count Count Count Row % Row % Row % Row % Unweighted Unweighted Unweighted Unweighted District Chester le Street 74.0% 57 19.5% 15 1.3% 1 5.2% 4 100.0% 77 Derwentside 70.3% 64 26.4% 24 3.3% 3 100.0% 91 Durham City 69.8% 54 24.9% 19 2.6% 2 2.6% 2 100.0% 77 Easington 64.0% 72 19.3% 22 7.0% 8 9.7% 11 100.0% 113 Sedgefield 70.4% 69 25.6% 25 3.1% 3 1.0% 1 100.0% 98 Teesdale 61.3% 19 29.0% 9 9.7% 3 100.0% 31 Wear Valley 70.4% 50 22.6% 16 5.6% 4 1.4% 1 100.0% 71 Age 18-24 years 56.4% 39 38.0% 25 1.3% 1 4.3% 3 100.0% 68 25-34 years 72.2% 46 23.4% 14 2.9% 2 1.5% 1 100.0% 63 35-44 years 72.4% 50 23.5% 16 1.4% 1 2.7% 2 100.0% 69 45-54 years 78.1% 56 17.7% 13 4.2% 3 100.0% 72 55-64 years 65.8% 69 25.7% 28 5.7% 6 2.8% 3 100.0% 106 65-74 years 74.3% 75 15.9% 16 5.1% 5 4.7% 5 100.0% 101 75+ years 64.7% 50 22.1% 18 3.6% 3 9.6% 8 100.0% 79 Gender Male 68.9% 202 24.5% 72 4.8% 14 1.9% 6 100.0% 294 Female 69.5% 183 22.1% 58 2.6% 7 5.8% 16 100.0% 264 Stakeholders stakeholder 84.3% 43 11.8% 6 2.0% 1 2.0% 1 100.0% 51 Residents resident 67.7% 342 24.5% 124 3.9% 20 3.9% 21 100.0% 507 Durham Districts Telephone Survey : January 2007 Prepared by NWA Social Research

Q2.a Do you have any comments, queries or concerns about this option? - Single Unitary

wish to keep concern that concern re current comments concerns re this is too local Districts/do effectiveness/worka concerns re democratic lack of large/too knowledge or not wish to bility - costs/ accountability/f information remote interest change positive/negative Council Tax airness Count Count Count Count Count Count Count Row % Row % Row % Row % Row % Row % Row % Unweighted Unweighted Unweighted Unweighted Unweighted Unweighted Unweighted District Chester le Street 6.5% 5 15.6% 12 14.3% 11 11.7% 9 5.2% 4 1.3% 1 3.9% 3 Derwentside 2.2% 2 12.1% 11 20.8% 19 8.8% 8 8.8% 8 1.1% 1 Durham City 1.3% 1 20.8% 16 9.0% 7 7.9% 6 1.3% 1 3.9% 3 1.3% 1 Easington 3.5% 4 24.7% 28 25.6% 29 3.6% 4 5.4% 6 3.6% 4 2.7% 3 Sedgefield 3.1% 3 8.2% 8 6.1% 6 10.2% 10 4.1% 4 3.1% 3 4.1% 4 Teesdale 16.1% 5 12.9% 4 3.2% 1 3.2% 1 Wear Valley 5.6% 4 12.6% 9 19.6% 14 8.5% 6 4.3% 3 7.1% 5 Age 18-24 years 6.8% 5 17.5% 12 4.0% 3 1.4% 1 2.8% 2 25-34 years 4.9% 3 16.0% 10 12.5% 8 6.9% 4 3.5% 2 1.7% 1 35-44 years 5.5% 4 16.2% 11 8.8% 6 2.8% 2 2.7% 2 3.0% 2 6.0% 4 45-54 years 4.4% 3 22.1% 16 13.4% 10 12.6% 9 2.7% 2 7.1% 5 4.1% 3 55-64 years 3.9% 4 16.9% 18 17.9% 19 8.5% 9 3.6% 4 5.0% 5 1.0% 1 65-74 years 3.7% 4 13.5% 14 19.5% 20 14.2% 14 4.9% 5 3.9% 4 3.0% 3 75+ years 1.2% 1 19.8% 15 18.7% 15 4.0% 3 4.9% 4 2.6% 2 3.8% 3 Gender Male 2.7% 8 14.7% 43 16.2% 48 9.3% 27 2.0% 6 3.2% 9 3.0% 9 Female 4.2% 11 17.2% 46 15.7% 42 6.6% 17 4.9% 13 3.8% 10 3.1% 8 Stakeholders stakeholder 7.8% 4 11.8% 6 25.5% 13 7.8% 4 5.9% 3 2.0% 1 3.9% 2 Residents resident 2.9% 15 16.3% 83 15.0% 77 8.0% 40 3.1% 16 3.6% 18 3.0% 15 Durham Districts Telephone Survey : January 2007 Prepared by NWA Social Research

Q2.a Do you have any comments, queries or concerns about this option? - Single Unitary

against concern option - no prefer this about job more efficient/able to able to do against - reason in favour - centralised/one stop option - no losses do more more things other given other shop preferable reason given Count Count Count Count Count Count Count Count Row % Row % Row % Row % Row % Row % Row % Row % Unweighted Unweighted Unweighted Unweighted Unweighted Unweighted Unweighted Unweighted District Chester le Street 2.6% 2 2.6% 2 1.3% 1 2.6% 2 1.3% 1 1.3% 1 3.9% 3 Derwentside 4.4% 4 1.1% 1 3.3% 3 1.1% 1 2.2% 2 Durham City 3.9% 3 9.0% 7 2.2% 2 1.3% 1 13.1% 10 Easington 3.5% 4 7.9% 9 2.6% 3 Sedgefield 2.0% 2 1.0% 1 3.1% 3 10.3% 10 Teesdale 6.5% 2 3.2% 1 16.1% 5 Wear Valley 1.4% 1 2.8% 2 2.8% 2 1.4% 1 5.7% 4 8.3% 6 Age 18-24 years 1.6% 1 4.4% 3 1.5% 1 6.2% 4 25-34 years 1.6% 1 4.4% 3 5.9% 4 35-44 years 1.4% 1 4.3% 3 1.4% 1 1.4% 1 4.3% 3 5.5% 4 12.4% 8 45-54 years 1.6% 1 8.8% 6 1.3% 1 1.5% 1 1.5% 1 12.0% 9 55-64 years 1.1% 1 5.9% 6 1.9% 2 3.7% 4 4.8% 5 65-74 years 1.2% 1 .9% 1 3.9% 4 3.1% 3 7.3% 7 75+ years 1.3% 1 2.4% 2 1.4% 1 5.0% 4 1.2% 1 2.3% 2 Gender Male .3% 1 4.8% 14 1.0% 3 1.7% 5 .7% 2 3.0% 9 7.9% 23 Female 2.1% 5 2.7% 7 .4% 1 .4% 1 2.2% 6 .8% 2 2.6% 7 6.1% 16 Stakeholders stakeholder 2.0% 1 2.0% 1 3.9% 2 5.9% 3 2.0% 1 9.8% 5 Residents resident 1.3% 6 4.0% 20 .2% 1 .6% 3 1.7% 9 .2% 1 2.9% 15 6.8% 34 Durham Districts Telephone Survey : January 2007 Prepared by NWA Social Research

Q2.a Do you have any Total ti

no comments, queries or other concerns comments Row % Unweighted Count Count Count Row % Row % Unweighted Unweighted District Chester le Street 23.4% 18 2.6% 2 100.0% 77 Derwentside 28.6% 26 5.5% 5 100.0% 91 Durham City 22.3% 17 2.6% 2 100.0% 77 Easington 15.0% 17 1.8% 2 100.0% 113 Sedgefield 43.9% 43 1.0% 1 100.0% 98 Teesdale 35.5% 11 3.2% 1 100.0% 31 Wear Valley 19.8% 14 100.0% 71 Age 18-24 years 53.9% 36 100.0% 68 25-34 years 39.1% 25 3.4% 2 100.0% 63 35-44 years 22.8% 16 1.5% 1 100.0% 69 45-54 years 6.9% 5 100.0% 72 55-64 years 23.3% 25 2.7% 3 100.0% 106 65-74 years 13.8% 14 7.0% 7 100.0% 101 75+ years 31.5% 25 100.0% 79 Gender Male 26.0% 77 3.4% 10 100.0% 294 Female 26.1% 69 1.2% 3 100.0% 264 Stakeholders stakeholder 7.8% 4 2.0% 1 100.0% 51 Residents resident 27.8% 142 2.4% 12 100.0% 507 Durham Districts Telephone Survey : January 2007 Prepared by NWA Social Research

Q2.b Do you have any comments, queries or concerns about this option? - 'Pathfinder'

would wish to avoid concern about concerns about concern more local to more information do not wish concerned 'large' accountability/fairnes efficiency/effect about the people required to change about costs authority s iveness timescale Count Count Count Count Count Count Count Count Row % Row % Row % Row % Row % Row % Row % Row % Unweighted Unweighted Unweighted Unweighted Unweighted Unweighted Unweighted Unweighted District Chester le Street 2.6% 2 6.5% 5 6.5% 5 1.3% 1 6.5% 5 3.9% 3 1.3% 1 1.3% 1 Derwentside 6.6% 6 6.6% 6 6.6% 6 3.3% 3 2.2% 2 9.8% 9 2.2% 2 1.1% 1 Durham City 1.3% 1 3.9% 3 6.6% 5 3.9% 3 2.6% 2 2.6% 2 2.4% 2 Easington 52.7% 60 4.4% 5 .9% 1 1.8% 2 1.8% 2 1.8% 2 1.0% 1 Sedgefield 4.1% 4 3.1% 3 2.0% 2 9.2% 9 1.0% 1 1.0% 1 3.1% 3 Teesdale 9.7% 3 3.2% 1 3.2% 1 3.2% 1 3.2% 1 3.2% 1 Wear Valley 8.3% 6 8.4% 6 4.3% 3 2.8% 2 1.4% 1 Age 18-24 years 14.6% 11 1.4% 1 3.2% 2 25-34 years 15.3% 10 1.6% 1 3.4% 2 3.1% 2 4.8% 3 4.8% 3 35-44 years 13.5% 10 5.7% 4 1.5% 1 8.4% 6 3.2% 2 1.3% 1 2.9% 2 45-54 years 11.9% 9 4.4% 3 4.0% 3 3.9% 3 2.8% 2 1.3% 1 3.1% 2 2.8% 2 55-64 years 9.4% 11 2.0% 2 8.4% 9 7.0% 7 1.9% 2 6.8% 7 .9% 1 65-74 years 15.8% 17 5.0% 5 8.1% 8 3.0% 3 2.0% 2 5.0% 5 1.1% 1 1.9% 2 75+ years 16.9% 14 2.6% 2 1.5% 1 6.6% 5 2.5% 2 3.7% 3 3.9% 3 Gender Male 11.2% 36 1.4% 4 5.2% 15 4.7% 14 1.3% 4 3.0% 9 2.5% 7 1.7% 5 Female 16.5% 46 5.4% 14 3.4% 9 4.0% 10 2.3% 6 4.7% 12 .8% 2 1.9% 5 Stakeholders stakeholder 9.8% 5 3.9% 2 2.0% 1 2.0% 1 5.9% 3 9.8% 5 7.8% 4 Residents resident 14.1% 77 3.2% 16 4.6% 23 4.6% 23 1.4% 7 3.2% 16 1.8% 9 1.2% 6 Durham Districts Telephone Survey : January 2007 Prepared by NWA Social Research

Q2.b Do you have any comments, queries or concerns about this option? - 'Pathfinder'

prefer this can see prefer to see don't like prefer to see prefer this option - logistical one Council option - no organisations requires more option - no unhappy problems for County reason working together consultation reason given with current with this other Durham given Count Count Count Count Count Count Count Count Row % Row % Row % Row % Row % Row % Row % Row % Unweighted Unweighted Unweighted Unweighted Unweighted Unweighted Unweighted Unweighted District Chester le Street 5.2% 4 3.9% 3 3.9% 3 2.6% 2 6.5% 5 5.2% 4 3.9% 3 1.3% 1 Derwentside 1.1% 1 12.1% 11 1.1% 1 6.6% 6 5.5% 5 1.1% 1 2.2% 2 Durham City 6.4% 5 1.3% 1 9.2% 7 9.2% 7 9.0% 7 2.4% 2 1.3% 1 Easington 1.8% 2 1.8% 2 .9% 1 1.0% 1 4.5% 5 5.4% 6 2.7% 3 Sedgefield 1.0% 1 2.0% 2 9.2% 9 2.0% 2 3.1% 3 2.0% 2 1.0% 1 Teesdale 29.0% 9 3.2% 1 3.2% 1 Wear Valley 2.8% 2 18.3% 13 1.4% 1 1.3% 1 4.3% 3 2.8% 2 4.3% 3 Age 18-24 years 1.7% 1 1.3% 1 17.3% 12 2.8% 2 1.4% 1 25-34 years 5.0% 3 1.6% 1 6.4% 4 4.8% 3 5.2% 3 1.5% 1 1.7% 1 35-44 years 2.9% 2 1.4% 1 10.6% 7 1.5% 1 8.7% 6 5.8% 4 45-54 years 1.4% 1 1.3% 1 9.6% 7 1.4% 1 9.0% 6 8.7% 6 4.1% 3 55-64 years 2.8% 3 .9% 1 8.5% 9 .9% 1 7.0% 7 6.6% 7 2.7% 3 1.0% 1 65-74 years 5.4% 5 2.1% 2 7.1% 7 2.0% 2 1.8% 2 4.9% 5 4.1% 4 4.1% 4 75+ years 1.3% 1 8.8% 7 1.2% 1 5.4% 4 1.3% 1 2.7% 2 Gender Male 4.5% 13 .9% 3 8.9% 26 .7% 2 5.5% 16 6.9% 20 3.7% 11 1.1% 3 Female .9% 2 2.0% 5 10.3% 27 1.2% 3 4.4% 11 3.5% 9 .8% 2 1.9% 5 Stakeholders stakeholder 5.9% 3 2.0% 1 5.9% 3 3.9% 2 7.8% 4 5.9% 3 9.8% 5 Residents resident 2.5% 12 1.4% 7 9.9% 50 .6% 3 4.7% 23 5.3% 26 1.6% 8 1.7% 8 Durham Districts Telephone Survey : January 2007 Prepared by NWA Social Research

Q2.b Do you Total h

no comments, queries or concerns Row % Unweighted Count Count Row % Unweighted District Chester le Street 37.7% 29 100.0% 77 Derwentside 31.9% 29 100.0% 91 Durham City 37.8% 29 100.0% 77 Easington 17.7% 20 100.0% 113 Sedgefield 56.1% 55 100.0% 98 Teesdale 38.7% 12 100.0% 31 Wear Valley 39.5% 28 100.0% 71 Age 18-24 years 56.2% 37 100.0% 68 25-34 years 40.8% 26 100.0% 63 35-44 years 32.5% 22 100.0% 69 45-54 years 30.3% 22 100.0% 72 55-64 years 33.3% 35 100.0% 106 65-74 years 26.7% 27 100.0% 101 75+ years 41.5% 33 100.0% 79 Gender Male 36.5% 106 100.0% 294 Female 36.3% 96 100.0% 264 Stakeholders stakeholder 17.6% 9 100.0% 51 Residents resident 38.3% 193 100.0% 507 Durham Districts Telephone Survey : January 2007 Prepared by NWA Social Research

Q3 Do you have any comments, concerns or queries about any other aspects of the proposed new arrangements?

accountability, comments perceived lack of representation, comments on size efficiency/effec do not wish to on costs information fairness, identity of authorities tiveness job losses change Count Count Count Count Count Count Count Row % Row % Row % Row % Row % Row % Row % Unweighted Unweighted Unweighted Unweighted Unweighted Unweighted Unweighted District Chester le Street 5.2% 4 9.1% 7 5.2% 4 2.6% 2 3.9% 3 1.3% 1 3.9% 3 Derwentside 4.4% 4 4.4% 4 14.2% 13 1.1% 1 2.2% 2 1.1% 1 8.8% 8 Durham City 2.6% 2 2.6% 2 2.6% 2 3.7% 3 2.4% 2 6.6% 5 Easington 3.6% 4 28.1% 32 7.1% 8 2.6% 3 Sedgefield 1.0% 1 1.0% 1 3.1% 3 1.0% 1 1.0% 1 1.0% 1 3.1% 3 Teesdale 9.7% 3 3.2% 1 3.2% 1 19.4% 6 Wear Valley 7.1% 5 2.8% 2 8.4% 6 1.4% 1 2.8% 2 Age 18-24 years 1.4% 1 9.7% 7 25-34 years 1.7% 1 1.6% 1 12.3% 8 1.5% 1 4.4% 3 3.2% 2 35-44 years 8.2% 6 1.4% 1 2.9% 2 3.0% 2 1.4% 1 7.1% 5 45-54 years 1.3% 1 5.8% 4 20.3% 15 1.2% 1 4.1% 3 1.4% 1 5.2% 4 55-64 years 5.7% 6 4.0% 4 10.9% 12 .9% 1 3.7% 4 1.1% 1 9.7% 10 65-74 years 5.1% 5 5.1% 5 6.3% 7 2.0% 2 5.8% 6 5.7% 6 75+ years 5.2% 4 12.6% 10 1.3% 1 1.5% 1 3.7% 3 Gender Male 3.0% 9 2.9% 8 9.1% 28 1.6% 5 4.1% 12 .7% 2 4.7% 14 Female 5.4% 14 3.1% 8 12.2% 33 .4% 1 2.5% 7 1.2% 3 5.3% 14 Stakeholders stakeholder 9.8% 5 5.9% 3 9.8% 5 2.0% 1 9.8% 5 2.0% 1 2.0% 1 Residents resident 3.5% 18 2.7% 13 10.6% 56 1.0% 5 2.7% 14 .8% 4 5.3% 27 Durham Districts Telephone Survey : January 2007 Prepared by NWA Social Research

Q3 Do you have any comments, concerns or queries about any other Total tfth d t?

how will Parishes thought this work with new had been no comments authorities? rejected other made Row % Unweighted Count Count Count Count Count Row % Row % Row % Row % Unweighted Unweighted Unweighted Unweighted District Chester le Street 3.9% 3 2.6% 2 1.3% 1 61.0% 47 100.0% 77 Derwentside 6.6% 6 57.2% 52 100.0% 91 Durham City 2.6% 2 11.4% 9 65.4% 50 100.0% 77 Easington 1.8% 2 1.0% 1 2.7% 3 53.0% 60 100.0% 113 Sedgefield 4.1% 4 84.7% 83 100.0% 98 Teesdale 3.2% 1 9.7% 3 51.6% 16 100.0% 31 Wear Valley 1.3% 1 5.5% 4 70.6% 50 100.0% 71 Age 18-24 years 1.5% 1 3.5% 2 84.0% 57 100.0% 68 25-34 years 1.9% 1 4.3% 3 69.0% 43 100.0% 63 35-44 years 7.1% 5 68.8% 47 100.0% 69 45-54 years 1.4% 1 1.4% 1 2.7% 2 55.3% 39 100.0% 72 55-64 years 2.8% 3 .9% 1 6.0% 6 54.2% 58 100.0% 106 65-74 years 1.0% 1 1.2% 1 8.8% 9 59.0% 59 100.0% 101 75+ years 2.3% 2 4.3% 3 69.1% 55 100.0% 79 Gender Male 1.7% 5 1.1% 3 5.7% 16 65.5% 192 100.0% 294 Female .7% 2 .8% 2 5.3% 14 63.1% 166 100.0% 264 Stakeholders stakeholder 9.8% 5 2.0% 1 11.8% 6 35.3% 18 100.0% 51 Residents resident .3% 2 .9% 4 4.9% 24 67.3% 340 100.0% 507 Durham Districts Telephone Survey : January 2007 Prepared by NWA Social Research

Q4.a Do you have a preference for one of the models? Total

Yes No Unweighted Unweighted Unweighted Row % Count Row % Count Row % Count District Chester le Street 67.5% 52 32.5% 25 100.0% 77 Derwentside 48.3% 44 51.7% 47 100.0% 91 Durham City 59.5% 46 40.5% 31 100.0% 77 Easington 79.5% 90 20.5% 23 100.0% 113 Sedgefield 43.9% 43 56.1% 55 100.0% 98 Teesdale 48.4% 15 51.6% 16 100.0% 31 Wear Valley 61.7% 44 38.3% 27 100.0% 71 Age 18-24 years 61.6% 42 38.4% 26 100.0% 68 25-34 years 57.1% 36 42.9% 27 100.0% 63 35-44 years 67.8% 47 32.2% 22 100.0% 69 45-54 years 64.8% 47 35.2% 25 100.0% 72 55-64 years 56.9% 61 43.1% 45 100.0% 106 65-74 years 61.3% 62 38.7% 39 100.0% 101 75+ years 49.1% 39 50.9% 40 100.0% 79 Gender Male 61.3% 181 38.7% 113 100.0% 294 Female 57.8% 153 42.2% 111 100.0% 264 Stakeholders stakeholder 86.3% 44 13.7% 7 100.0% 51 Residents resident 57.0% 290 43.0% 217 100.0% 507 Durham Districts Telephone Survey : January 2007 Prepared by NWA Social Research

Q4.b If Yes - Which do you prefer? Total

Single Council Pathfinder no preference Row % Unweighted Count Count Count Count Row % Row % Row % Unweighted Unweighted Unweighted District Chester le Street 27.3% 21 40.3% 31 32.5% 25 100.0% 77 Derwentside 22.0% 20 26.3% 24 51.7% 47 100.0% 91 Durham City 32.2% 25 27.3% 21 40.5% 31 100.0% 77 Easington 12.4% 14 67.2% 76 20.5% 23 100.0% 113 Sedgefield 18.4% 18 25.5% 25 56.1% 55 100.0% 98 Teesdale 12.9% 4 35.5% 11 51.6% 16 100.0% 31 Wear Valley 19.6% 14 42.1% 30 38.3% 27 100.0% 71 Age 18-24 years 11.4% 7 50.2% 35 38.4% 26 100.0% 68 25-34 years 14.3% 9 42.9% 27 42.9% 27 100.0% 63 35-44 years 30.9% 21 36.9% 26 32.2% 22 100.0% 69 45-54 years 30.8% 22 34.0% 25 35.2% 25 100.0% 72 55-64 years 25.2% 26 31.8% 35 43.1% 45 100.0% 106 65-74 years 18.2% 18 43.1% 44 38.7% 39 100.0% 101 75+ years 16.5% 13 32.7% 26 50.9% 40 100.0% 79 Gender Male 24.6% 71 36.6% 110 38.7% 113 100.0% 294 Female 17.4% 45 40.4% 108 42.2% 111 100.0% 264 Stakeholders stakeholder 37.3% 19 49.0% 25 13.7% 7 100.0% 51 Residents resident 19.6% 97 37.3% 193 43.0% 217 100.0% 507 Durham Districts Telephone Survey : January 2007 Prepared by NWA Social Research

Q4.b If Yes - Which do you prefer? - omitting 'no preference' Total

Single Council Pathfinder Unweighted Unweighted Unweighted Row % Count Row % Count Row % Count District Chester le Street 40.4% 21 59.6% 31 100.0% 52 Derwentside 45.6% 20 54.4% 24 100.0% 44 Durham City 54.1% 25 45.9% 21 100.0% 46 Easington 15.6% 14 84.4% 76 100.0% 90 Sedgefield 41.9% 18 58.1% 25 100.0% 43 Teesdale 26.7% 4 73.3% 11 100.0% 15 Wear Valley 31.8% 14 68.2% 30 100.0% 44 Age 18-24 years 18.4% 7 81.6% 35 100.0% 42 25-34 years 25.0% 9 75.0% 27 100.0% 36 35-44 years 45.5% 21 54.5% 26 100.0% 47 45-54 years 47.5% 22 52.5% 25 100.0% 47 55-64 years 44.2% 26 55.8% 35 100.0% 61 65-74 years 29.7% 18 70.3% 44 100.0% 62 75+ years 33.5% 13 66.5% 26 100.0% 39 Gender Male 40.2% 71 59.8% 110 100.0% 181 Female 30.1% 45 69.9% 108 100.0% 153 Stakeholders stakeholder 43.2% 19 56.8% 25 100.0% 44 Residents resident 34.5% 97 65.5% 193 100.0% 290 Durham Districts Telephone Survey : January 2007 Prepared by NWA Social Research

Q4.b If Yes - Which do you prefer? Single Council

Q4.c Why is that? Total

other no reason - reasons for general one stop more represent effectiveness/ preferring preference for shop/less effetive/efficie area workability Unitary County duplication nt reduce costs nationally questions County Unitary Row % Unweighted Count Count Count Count Count Count Count Count Row % Row % Row % Row % Row % Row % Row % Unweighted Unweighted Unweighted Unweighted Unweighted Unweighted Unweighted District Chester le Street 42.9% 9 19.0% 4 4.8% 1 4.8% 1 9.5% 2 14.3% 3 4.8% 1 100.0% 21 Derwentside 20.0% 4 10.0% 2 20.0% 4 4.8% 1 10.0% 2 5.0% 1 30.1% 6 100.0% 20 Durham City 36.1% 9 23.8% 6 12.2% 3 12.2% 3 4.1% 1 11.6% 3 100.0% 25 Easington 14.2% 2 49.7% 7 29.1% 4 7.1% 1 100.0% 14 Sedgefield 39.1% 7 22.2% 4 16.6% 3 22.2% 4 100.0% 18 Teesdale 25.0% 1 25.0% 1 50.0% 2 100.0% 4 Wear Valley 43.4% 6 28.5% 4 14.0% 2 14.0% 2 100.0% 14 Age 18-24 years 42.2% 3 27.4% 2 15.2% 1 15.2% 1 100.0% 7 25-34 years 58.4% 5 10.3% 1 19.7% 2 11.6% 1 100.0% 9 35-44 years 28.4% 6 28.3% 6 9.6% 2 13.9% 3 19.8% 4 100.0% 21 45-54 years 36.8% 8 27.2% 6 8.9% 2 8.2% 2 4.5% 1 14.4% 3 100.0% 22 55-64 years 34.1% 9 22.4% 6 20.7% 5 4.4% 1 3.7% 1 14.7% 4 100.0% 26 65-74 years 24.9% 4 15.6% 3 15.6% 3 17.4% 3 21.4% 4 5.1% 1 100.0% 18 75+ years 21.3% 3 31.9% 4 15.4% 2 7.9% 1 16.1% 2 7.5% 1 100.0% 13 Gender Male 41.5% 29 26.2% 19 11.1% 8 2.5% 2 3.2% 2 7.0% 5 8.5% 6 100.0% 71 Female 19.8% 9 19.9% 9 13.9% 6 6.0% 3 11.5% 5 11.0% 5 17.9% 8 100.0% 45 Stakeholders stakeholder 26.3% 5 26.3% 5 15.8% 3 5.3% 1 15.8% 3 10.5% 2 100.0% 19 Residents resident 34.4% 33 23.3% 23 11.5% 11 3.6% 4 7.6% 7 7.1% 7 12.4% 12 100.0% 97 Durham Districts Telephone Survey : January 2007 Prepared by NWA Social Research

Q4.b If Yes - Which do you prefer? Pathfinder

Q4.c Why is that?

able to local to communicate gives communities/ better with more opportunity to opportunities to single unitary closer to people/listen to option of efficient/effec develop new work in partnership county too big people their views least change tive ideas Count Count Count Count Count Count Count Row % Row % Row % Row % Row % Row % Row % Unweighted Unweighted Unweighted Unweighted Unweighted Unweighted Unweighted District Chester le Street 9.7% 3 12.9% 4 25.8% 8 19.4% 6 6.5% 2 3.2% 1 Derwentside 12.4% 3 41.6% 10 4.2% 1 4.0% 1 Durham City 4.8% 1 9.6% 2 14.4% 3 24.0% 5 23.2% 5 Easington 2.7% 2 81.2% 62 6.5% 5 1.3% 1 1.3% 1 2.9% 2 Sedgefield 8.0% 2 12.0% 3 24.0% 6 8.0% 2 12.0% 3 8.0% 2 Teesdale 54.5% 6 18.2% 2 27.3% 3 Wear Valley 3.4% 1 3.2% 1 27.0% 8 13.3% 4 23.4% 7 6.5% 2 3.4% 1 Age 18-24 years 11.2% 4 49.5% 18 9.0% 3 3.1% 1 5.5% 2 6.2% 2 25-34 years 10.7% 3 3.7% 1 45.8% 13 16.0% 4 3.7% 1 11.7% 3 35-44 years 14.5% 4 30.4% 8 15.6% 4 4.1% 1 12.6% 3 45-54 years 3.4% 1 40.0% 10 20.4% 5 3.7% 1 11.6% 3 7.4% 2 55-64 years 5.9% 2 8.9% 3 41.9% 15 8.4% 3 3.1% 1 2.9% 1 7.8% 3 65-74 years 6.9% 3 5.0% 2 48.3% 22 9.9% 4 4.9% 2 5.0% 2 75+ years 4.7% 1 14.6% 4 47.5% 13 12.5% 3 Gender Male 4.7% 5 4.3% 5 43.8% 50 11.6% 12 2.9% 3 3.6% 4 7.1% 8 Female 3.8% 4 12.9% 14 44.1% 49 10.4% 11 4.9% 5 3.7% 4 7.0% 7 Stakeholders stakeholder 16.0% 4 8.0% 2 20.0% 5 12.0% 3 4.0% 1 4.0% 1 16.0% 4 Residents resident 2.7% 5 8.6% 17 47.1% 94 10.9% 20 3.9% 7 3.6% 7 5.9% 11 Durham Districts Telephone Survey : January 2007 Prepared by NWA Social Research

Q4.b If Yes - Which do you prefer? Pathfinder

Q4.c Why is that? Total

other no reason - reasons for general preferring preference pathfinder pathfinder Row % Unweighted Count Count Count Row % Row % Unweighted Unweighted District Chester le Street 9.7% 3 9.7% 3 100.0% 31 Derwentside 8.4% 2 29.3% 7 100.0% 24 Durham City 4.8% 1 14.4% 3 100.0% 21 Easington 4.0% 3 100.0% 76 Sedgefield 8.0% 2 12.0% 3 100.0% 25 Teesdale 100.0% 11 Wear Valley 6.5% 2 13.3% 4 100.0% 30 Age 18-24 years 3.0% 1 12.5% 4 100.0% 35 25-34 years 8.3% 2 100.0% 27 35-44 years 7.4% 2 8.0% 2 100.0% 26 45-54 years 4.0% 1 4.8% 1 100.0% 25 55-64 years 9.0% 3 12.0% 4 100.0% 35 65-74 years 2.4% 1 15.4% 7 100.0% 44 75+ years 8.7% 2 12.0% 3 100.0% 26 Gender Male 5.8% 6 14.2% 15 100.0% 110 Female 3.7% 4 7.8% 8 100.0% 108 Stakeholders stakeholder 4.0% 1 16.0% 4 100.0% 25 Residents resident 4.9% 9 10.4% 19 100.0% 193 Durham Districts Telephone Survey : January 2007 Prepared by NWA Social Research

Q5.a Had you heard anything about this proposed reorganisation prior to receiving our letter? Total

Yes No Unweighted Unweighted Unweighted Row % Count Row % Count Row % Count District Chester le Street 41.6% 32 58.4% 45 100.0% 77 Derwentside 33.9% 31 66.1% 60 100.0% 91 Durham City 35.7% 28 64.3% 49 100.0% 77 Easington 35.9% 40 64.1% 73 100.0% 113 Sedgefield 30.6% 30 69.4% 68 100.0% 98 Teesdale 35.5% 11 64.5% 20 100.0% 31 Wear Valley 36.3% 26 63.7% 45 100.0% 71 Age 18-24 years 11.8% 8 88.2% 60 100.0% 68 25-34 years 15.9% 10 84.1% 53 100.0% 63 35-44 years 37.5% 26 62.5% 43 100.0% 69 45-54 years 53.0% 38 47.0% 34 100.0% 72 55-64 years 47.3% 50 52.7% 56 100.0% 106 65-74 years 40.9% 42 59.1% 59 100.0% 101 75+ years 30.4% 24 69.6% 55 100.0% 79 Gender Male 36.2% 106 63.8% 188 100.0% 294 Female 34.7% 92 65.3% 172 100.0% 264 Stakeholders stakeholder 90.2% 46 9.8% 5 100.0% 51 Residents resident 30.0% 152 70.0% 355 100.0% 507 Durham Districts Telephone Survey : January 2007 Prepared by NWA Social Research

Q5.b If Yes - How well informed do you feel about the options that are being discussed? Total

Very well Fairly well Not very well Not at all Unaware prior informed informed informed informed to letter Row % Unweighted Count Count Count Count Count Count Row % Row % Row % Row % Row % Unweighted Unweighted Unweighted Unweighted Unweighted District Chester le Street 2.6% 2 16.9% 13 16.9% 13 5.2% 4 58.4% 45 100.0% 77 Derwentside 2.2% 2 8.8% 8 20.8% 19 2.2% 2 66.1% 60 100.0% 91 Durham City 15.1% 12 16.6% 13 3.9% 3 64.3% 49 100.0% 77 Easington 5.5% 6 13.4% 15 16.9% 19 64.1% 73 100.0% 113 Sedgefield 2.0% 2 14.3% 14 12.2% 12 2.0% 2 69.4% 68 100.0% 98 Teesdale 3.2% 1 9.7% 3 9.7% 3 12.9% 4 64.5% 20 100.0% 31 Wear Valley 1.3% 1 11.0% 8 21.1% 15 2.8% 2 63.7% 45 100.0% 71 Age 18-24 years 4.6% 3 5.9% 4 1.4% 1 88.2% 60 100.0% 68 25-34 years 11.1% 7 3.1% 2 1.7% 1 84.1% 53 100.0% 63 35-44 years 4.3% 3 15.5% 11 17.7% 12 62.5% 43 100.0% 69 45-54 years 3.9% 3 17.9% 13 25.6% 18 5.6% 4 47.0% 34 100.0% 72 55-64 years 3.6% 4 16.7% 18 24.0% 25 3.0% 3 52.7% 56 100.0% 106 65-74 years 3.7% 4 10.8% 11 19.7% 20 6.7% 7 59.1% 59 100.0% 101 75+ years 13.2% 10 16.1% 13 1.1% 1 69.6% 55 100.0% 79 Gender Male 3.2% 10 13.9% 41 16.7% 48 2.3% 7 63.8% 188 100.0% 294 Female 1.5% 4 12.0% 32 17.3% 46 3.8% 10 65.3% 172 100.0% 264 Stakeholders stakeholder 13.7% 7 39.2% 20 27.5% 14 9.8% 5 9.8% 5 100.0% 51 Residents resident 1.3% 7 10.4% 53 15.9% 80 2.4% 12 70.0% 355 100.0% 507 Durham Districts Telephone Survey : January 2007 Prepared by NWA Social Research

Q6.a Thinking again about giving local people a stronger voice in local decisions. - First mentioned issues

local policing/commu planning/deve transport/traf community housing/rep education/youth nity safety lopment health fic issues airs programmes environment Count Count Count Count Count Count Count Count Row % Row % Row % Row % Row % Row % Row % Row % Unweighted Unweighted Unweighted Unweighted Unweighted Unweighted Unweighted Unweighted District Chester le Street 9.1% 7 5.2% 4 1.3% 1 2.6% 2 9.1% 7 3.9% 3 3.9% 3 6.5% 5 Derwentside 7.7% 7 5.5% 5 1.1% 1 6.6% 6 8.8% 8 1.1% 1 4.4% 4 7.6% 7 Durham City 9.2% 7 6.4% 5 3.9% 3 3.9% 3 3.9% 3 6.2% 5 13.1% 10 Easington 4.4% 5 7.5% 8 1.8% 2 1.8% 2 4.4% 5 1.8% 2 8.0% 9 Sedgefield 6.1% 6 5.1% 5 1.0% 1 1.0% 1 5.1% 5 2.0% 2 6.1% 6 5.1% 5 Teesdale 9.7% 3 3.2% 1 3.2% 1 Wear Valley 8.4% 6 9.7% 7 2.8% 2 7.1% 5 9.8% 7 5.6% 4 2.8% 2 4.3% 3 Age 18-24 years 5.5% 4 1.3% 1 5.0% 3 4.4% 3 1.5% 1 25-34 years 3.0% 2 3.3% 2 1.7% 1 8.1% 5 4.8% 3 9.3% 6 9.8% 6 35-44 years 11.4% 8 11.8% 8 2.9% 2 4.6% 3 5.6% 4 10.4% 7 45-54 years 8.9% 6 12.3% 9 1.4% 1 1.3% 1 11.2% 8 1.4% 1 2.8% 2 8.9% 6 55-64 years 6.9% 7 9.3% 10 4.7% 5 6.9% 7 9.7% 10 1.8% 2 4.0% 4 5.7% 6 65-74 years 8.3% 8 5.1% 5 .9% 1 3.9% 4 5.1% 5 6.9% 7 1.1% 1 11.8% 12 75+ years 4.1% 3 2.5% 2 5.2% 4 1.3% 1 2.8% 2 2.8% 2 1.5% 1 Gender Male 10.5% 30 6.5% 19 1.0% 3 2.8% 8 5.6% 16 2.4% 7 2.7% 8 7.0% 20 Female 3.1% 8 6.8% 18 1.5% 4 4.7% 12 5.8% 15 4.3% 11 5.5% 14 7.4% 19 Stakeholders stakeholder 13.7% 7 25.5% 13 2.0% 1 5.9% 3 3.9% 2 7.8% 4 15.7% 8 Residents resident 6.3% 31 4.8% 24 1.4% 7 3.9% 19 5.7% 28 3.2% 16 3.6% 18 6.3% 31 Durham Districts Telephone Survey : January 2007 Prepared by NWA Social Research

Q6.a Thinking again about giving local people a stronger voice in local decisions. - First Total ti d i

leisure no specific finance/cou facilities/acti issues ncil tax roads/parking vities other mentioned Row % Unweighted Count Count Count Count Count Count Row % Row % Row % Row % Row % Unweighted Unweighted Unweighted Unweighted Unweighted District Chester le Street 2.6% 2 1.3% 1 13.0% 10 41.6% 32 100.0% 77 Derwentside 3.3% 3 3.3% 3 4.4% 4 46.2% 42 100.0% 91 Durham City 2.2% 2 2.6% 2 1.3% 1 3.9% 3 43.3% 33 100.0% 77 Easington 1.8% 2 7.0% 8 2.6% 3 59.0% 67 100.0% 113 Sedgefield 6.1% 6 3.1% 3 6.1% 6 53.1% 52 100.0% 98 Teesdale 6.5% 2 6.5% 2 3.2% 1 3.2% 1 64.5% 20 100.0% 31 Wear Valley 8.4% 6 8.4% 6 32.6% 23 100.0% 71 Age 18-24 years 5.9% 4 1.3% 1 5.9% 4 69.2% 47 100.0% 68 25-34 years 4.3% 3 55.6% 35 100.0% 63 35-44 years 2.8% 2 1.5% 1 4.3% 3 7.2% 5 37.6% 26 100.0% 69 45-54 years 6.7% 5 4.2% 3 5.4% 4 35.6% 26 100.0% 72 55-64 years 1.6% 2 5.0% 5 3.5% 4 6.8% 7 34.1% 37 100.0% 106 65-74 years 1.9% 2 3.7% 4 3.0% 3 5.1% 5 43.2% 44 100.0% 101 75+ years 1.2% 1 1.2% 1 10.1% 8 67.2% 54 100.0% 79 Gender Male 1.6% 5 2.6% 8 2.0% 6 6.6% 19 48.8% 145 100.0% 294 Female 2.5% 7 4.0% 10 2.9% 8 5.3% 14 46.4% 124 100.0% 264 Stakeholders stakeholder 5.9% 3 2.0% 1 2.0% 1 3.9% 2 11.8% 6 100.0% 51 Residents resident 1.6% 9 3.4% 17 2.4% 13 6.2% 31 51.2% 263 100.0% 507 Durham Districts Telephone Survey : January 2007 Prepared by NWA Social Research

Q6.b And how would you most prefer to give your opinion or be involved? - First mentioned only

postal by local email/web telephone questionnaire through face to face letter/newslett meetings/foru surveys surveys s Councillors referendum surveys er ms Count Count Count Count Count Count Count Count Row % Row % Row % Row % Row % Row % Row % Row % Unweighted Unweighted Unweighted Unweighted Unweighted Unweighted Unweighted Unweighted District Chester le Street 14.3% 11 2.6% 2 7.8% 6 6.5% 5 3.9% 3 1.3% 1 7.8% 6 14.3% 11 Derwentside 3.3% 3 2.2% 2 13.2% 12 5.5% 5 6.6% 6 5.5% 5 5.5% 5 15.3% 14 Durham City 3.7% 3 5.0% 4 30.2% 23 7.9% 6 2.6% 2 1.3% 1 10.5% 8 11.8% 9 Easington 7.1% 8 5.3% 6 5.3% 6 3.6% 4 1.0% 1 4.4% 5 13.3% 15 Sedgefield 7.1% 7 4.1% 4 9.2% 9 4.1% 4 1.0% 1 10.2% 10 7.1% 7 Teesdale 6.5% 2 6.5% 2 3.2% 1 3.2% 1 6.5% 2 Wear Valley 4.3% 3 4.2% 3 17.1% 12 4.2% 3 2.8% 2 5.7% 4 8.3% 6 Age 18-24 years 13.0% 9 2.8% 2 12.9% 8 4.6% 3 1.5% 1 10.1% 7 7.5% 5 25-34 years 8.0% 5 2.9% 2 18.2% 11 9.7% 6 1.6% 1 1.7% 1 8.0% 5 6.4% 4 35-44 years 16.8% 12 6.0% 4 23.2% 15 1.7% 1 7.5% 5 14.2% 10 45-54 years 6.9% 5 9.5% 7 11.8% 8 9.7% 7 2.7% 2 4.2% 3 8.3% 6 14.2% 10 55-64 years 2.8% 3 4.8% 5 15.2% 16 5.7% 6 2.1% 2 2.1% 2 6.2% 6 12.2% 13 65-74 years 1.1% 1 2.7% 3 8.1% 8 4.9% 5 4.2% 4 6.1% 6 14.9% 15 75+ years 6.0% 4 4.4% 3 2.6% 2 1.3% 1 5.0% 4 9.0% 7 Gender Male 7.4% 22 2.4% 7 12.4% 34 6.5% 19 1.8% 5 1.4% 4 7.0% 20 12.3% 36 Female 4.9% 13 5.9% 16 14.3% 36 3.6% 9 3.6% 9 1.5% 4 7.3% 19 10.6% 28 Stakeholders stakeholder 13.7% 7 5.9% 3 9.8% 5 3.9% 2 27.5% 14 Residents resident 5.5% 28 3.9% 20 14.6% 70 4.7% 23 2.9% 14 1.2% 6 7.8% 39 9.9% 50 Durham Districts Telephone Survey : January 2007 Prepared by NWA Social Research

Q6.b And how would you most prefer to give your opinion or be Total ild?Fittidl

attending council meeting face meetings to face other none given Row % Unweighted Count Count Count Count Count Row % Row % Row % Row % Unweighted Unweighted Unweighted Unweighted District Chester le Street 2.6% 2 5.2% 4 6.5% 5 27.3% 21 100.0% 77 Derwentside 3.3% 3 3.3% 3 6.6% 6 29.7% 27 100.0% 91 Durham City 2.6% 2 3.3% 3 21.0% 16 100.0% 77 Easington 12.4% 14 2.6% 3 45.0% 51 100.0% 113 Sedgefield 1.0% 1 1.0% 1 4.1% 4 51.0% 50 100.0% 98 Teesdale 6.5% 2 9.7% 3 6.5% 2 51.6% 16 100.0% 31 Wear Valley 1.4% 1 9.9% 7 13.9% 10 28.2% 20 100.0% 71 Age 18-24 years 4.3% 3 3.0% 2 40.3% 28 100.0% 68 25-34 years 3.0% 2 7.6% 5 1.6% 1 31.3% 20 100.0% 63 35-44 years 1.3% 1 10.1% 7 19.2% 14 100.0% 69 45-54 years 4.0% 3 7.3% 5 8.2% 6 13.3% 10 100.0% 72 55-64 years 1.8% 2 5.2% 6 6.3% 7 35.6% 38 100.0% 106 65-74 years 2.0% 2 8.9% 9 6.1% 6 41.0% 42 100.0% 101 75+ years 6.1% 5 5.0% 4 60.5% 49 100.0% 79 Gender Male 2.0% 6 5.7% 17 7.3% 22 33.9% 102 100.0% 294 Female 1.1% 3 6.3% 17 4.3% 11 36.6% 99 100.0% 264 Stakeholders stakeholder 5.9% 3 2.0% 1 13.7% 7 17.6% 9 100.0% 51 Residents resident 1.1% 6 6.3% 33 5.1% 26 36.9% 192 100.0% 507