LOCALITY WORKING IN SOUTH LAKELAND PARISH SUMMITS – SEPTEMBER/ OCTOBER 2008 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Parish Summits September/ October 2008 Summit Grange, Cartmel & Lyth Valley Venue Cartmel Village Hall Date Tuesday 2nd September 6.30 – 8.30pm Local Areas and Boundaries of Partnerships Comments & Responses Value of whole exercise. Different groupings for different purposes. For example Colton parish is part of the Community Board and part of the Ulverston & Low Furness Market Town Initiative. The problems of a rigid border structure may hinder flexibility that communities and parishes require in terms of interest and geographical definition. Allegiance to certain service centres not necessarily the same for all residents in proposed areas. Parishes on partnership boundary may look across the boundary to other service centres [PR – SLDC] – From district perspective the tension of the need for flexibility in terms of borders is understood. However the boundaries are created for two reasons: 1, if organisations are to devolve then certainty is required in terms of organisational structure, and 2, the need to understand at a detailed level intelligence about the community. Targeted relevance to improve understanding of communities to help inform, implement and create a framework for delivery of services. Powers and purposes of LAPs before clarifying boundaries. Haverthwaite is in Ulverston and Low Furness LAP, but A590 creates a boundary for the parish to move into the Grange, Cartmel and Lyth LAP. Population is important. Kendal, Staveley and Upper Kent has largest population of 35,000, which is by far the largest of all. Neighbourhood Forum must be the same as the new LAP structure and boundaries. Must be mindful of creating a new bureaucracy. Priority must be money on services and not lost in administration. There must be a degree of trust in the LAP boundaries proposed. There needs to be an emphasis on developing and building a partnership. More concern for parishes on border. Those parishes at the heart of the Grange, Cartmel and Lyth area are happy. Must concentrate on those parishes toward the edge of the boundaries. 2 Parish Summits September/ October 2008 How the Partnership will work Comments & Responses Identify the big issue of planning areas – the procedures of the district council and national park. Many assumptions before agreement – emphasis on service centre as the driver to define the outcome; informed by population numbers (district, parish and county elected reps could make any executive too large and unwieldy); funding – will this create an extra level of bureaucracy – would it develop into a ‘cost’. Sceptical but marginally positive that the executive could work. Any LAP co-ordinator would need clout and power in their own organisation. Reps from the three tiers of local government would come together to elect a chair, could create a large executive. Need to involve other service providers – NHS, Police etc. Voting could become a problem if there is no consensus. There is a fundamental need for all to come together to discuss the main problems across the parishes and communities. Any coordinator must have authority to get people to respond both at local and organisational level. All partners need to sign up. For Young People to be involved there needs to be stimulation and interest. Information is required to inform through Schools, Connexions and Young Cumbria. In many respects Young People have no clue what locality working is especially in the context of South Lakeland – very difficult to explain. Any LAP must make use of the views and opinions of Young People and work to address identified problems faced by Young People such as the availability and affordability of local public transport. Elected Reps to form any executive. Partnership is all bodies, community groups, businesses, third sector etc. However these other organisations must be represented by officers with clout. Must be attractive to residents and community and open to scrutiny by residents. Needs finance and money for this to work. Make wards (District & County) co-terminus with area partnership boundary. 3 Parish Summits September/ October 2008 Notes from Maps - Killington, Firbank, Mansergh to S&KL. - Lupton and Hutton Roof to S&KL? - Skelwith ti Windermere and Lakes. - Colton and Haverthwaite to Grange and Cartmel. - Following have natural affinity: Lower Holker, Lower Allithwaite, Upper Allithwaite, Staveley in Cartmel, Colton, Haverthwaite, broughton East, Grange. - Following have natural affinity: Cartmell Fell, Crook, Underbarrow & bradleyfield, Helsington, Levens, Hincaster, Heversham, Milnthorpe, Witherslack, Methop and Ulpha, Crosthwaite & Lyth. - Kentmere, Staveley with Ings to Windermere and Lakes. - Must take into account M6 and A590. - Consider geographical features – hills, roads and valleys. - Local allegiance to towns, list of functions, school catchments, Doctor catchments and Police areas. 4 Parish Summits September/ October 2008 Summit High Furness Venue Water Yeat Village Hall Date Monday 8th September 7 to 9pm Local Areas and Boundaries of Partnerships Comments & Responses Different groupings for different purposes: - Flexible boundaries - Smaller parishes from different groupings - How restrictive are the boundaries? [PR – inclinations, reflected in affinities, trying to capture a view based on what as parishes you already know about the communities and divisions of activity.] prioritisation based on geography – communities responsible in areas and having control – must build on concensus – listening and acting on thinking. In terms of the High Furness area half look to Ambleside and half look to Ulverston. Colton and Satterthwaite joining with Skelwith half in Lakes already so should seem sensible for all to join Lakes area. Hawkshead and Claife look to the Lakes area. Issues very dissimilar as they are very rural in flavour. Common interest rather than geographical pull. Skelwith and Satterthwaite must be involved. Colton (from the opinion from the Clerk) want to be involved with Grange area. Potential for a 3 way split for Colton. Concern that this may create another level of bureaucracy. Would 12 voices be better than one? [PR – from a district perspective – proportional budget share than currently takes place in year one. Questions around how much has been spent, what are the parameters for budget spending on priorities and population and proportion] [PR - Annual budget discussions – giving influence over expenditure. Gives understanding about what services – conversations between those delivering service and those getting the services.] [PR – precept opportunities to specifically charge for delivery of services coupled with local knowledge, efficiency and influence over procuring contracts and the way the budget has been spent.] Changes to boundaries – Lowick must be tied with Egton. No strong link up towards Coniston. Nibthwaite (west Colton) should also be included. 5 Parish Summits September/ October 2008 How the Partnership will work Comments & Responses Parish issues need to be taken into account now. Solved through opportunities places through LAPs. Requirement to create a culture change through district and county through consultation and agreement with all the players. Co-ordinators – will they be recruited? Will they be funded through principal authorities? Will there be any additional costs? Where is the LDNPA? Need to be involved – (through the LSP) Every parish to be represented with the possibility of clustering: - 5 parish reps - 1 county councillor - 3 district councillors, and - 1 co-ordinator Parish plans had brought in people with relevant skills – sub-groups to be formed based on needs as and when required. Not one single model – importance of co-ordinator as liaison between parishes. Parish through parish clerk as the voice of the parish. In general feeling that this has all been seen before, it’s all been heard before and that as parishes we must wait and see. Notes from Maps Comments raised by Broughton West, Hawkshead, Blawith and Subberthwaite: - Different groupings for different purposes and activities? - Is anyone really listening (and acting) on what we say? - Role of national park. - How can we get our county councillors to be active? - Blawith & Subberthwaite and Lowick to Ulverston area. - Nibthwaite (western part of Colton) and Spark Bridge (southern part of Colton) to Ulverston and Low Furness area. - Skelwith to Windermere and lakes. - Questions over Colton – does it have more affinity with Grange and Cartmel area due to Community board? - Hawkshead and Claife services in Ambleside. - Does Coniston have more affinity with south or west? 6 Parish Summits September/ October 2008 Summit Kent Estuary Venue Preston Patrick Memorial Hall Date Wednesday 23rd September 7 to 9pm Local Areas and Boundaries of Partnerships Comments & Responses Helsington Parish part of Lyth Valley based on sentiment but reality is we need more information. How are budgets to be established? Need to find where economic base is located. [PR – inclinations, reflected in affinities, trying to capture a view based on what as parishes you already know about the communities and divisions of activity.] General concensus is that Lyth Valley looks to Milnthorpe rather than Grange. Lyth Valley together. Total of 15 parishes with Milnthorpe a centre. Eastern parishes look to Kirkby Lonsdale (Lune Valley area). Alingment with County Council wards – Levens and Crosthwaite to Lyth Valley. Discussion around whether