3 Responses to “The Big Society and the Pathways through Participation project”

1. admin says:

   August 23, 2010 at 3:05 pm

   One of the many activities the Pathways project is considering a form of participation is individual giving. The topic has been high on the news agenda in recent weeks, and as listed in the articles above, Eddie at Involve has written a short article exploring the role of such philanthropy in the Big Society, and how the Pathways project can help inform practitioners and policy makers of the connections and links between different activities deemed important to a sustainable ‘Big Society’.
   The post received a comment from Aditya Chakrabortty, economics lead writer for The Guardian. He linked to a thoughtful article of his which also referenced some relevant work in the area: An interesting project exploring individuals’ reactions to humanitarian crises, and research investigating the influence of social class on prosocial behaviour. Both projects, as well as Chakrabortty’s article, are well worth a read.
2. James Derounian says:

   September 15, 2010 at 3:41 pm

   Overall points

   Thank you for this opportunity to comment on I support the Government’s ‘Big Society’ proposals in principle, so long as self-help and self-determination are seen as complementary to, and not a substitute for, state support and assistance to English rural communities.

   I would also encourage the CRC (and Government) to draw on lessons from previous relevant initiatives e.g. Vital Villages (including Parish Plans), the Local Heritage Initiative LHI, and Rural Action – all of which, in their time, exemplified the Big Society’s (BS) aim to “empower communities to come together to address local issues.” I would also commend reviewing the impressive Peak District Integrated Rural Development Project from the 1980s ['Two Villages Two Valleys, Peak National Park, 1990, ISBN 0907543-383].

   Drawing on past successes can usefully inform future action and save ‘reinventing the wheel’.

   Similarly, in relation to BS proposals for “independent community organisers to help people establish and run neighbourhood groups”, I hope that Government will draw in/on the experience of ACRE, constituent RCCs/county-based ACRE bodies, and most specifically their field officers & patchworkers. Not least because research “demonstrates that community development workers play a crucial role as intermediaries, knitting together the patchwork of community aspirations and outside help” (‘Community Engagement and Leadership’ publication, 2005 page 7 for the CRC, available at http://www.ruralcommunities.gov.uk/files/NALC%20Policy%20Lflt.pdf

   Specific points

   Funding cuts/challenges. (Rural) community development is a discretionary area of operation directly delivered or funded by principal authorities. In order to deliver BS aspirations, that funding must be protected; otherwise rural community self-help will become incomplete, diminished and retarded. As a related point rural community development has traditionally been marked and marred by short-termism – typically 1-3 year funding for projects and community development workers, which does not foster stability and sustainability. These points are supported by the report ‘Skills and knowledge needed in the near future by English rural communities’ (published 2009 by ACRE for the Carnegie UK Trust and attached to this message) which highlighted problems related to “the short-termism of many programmes and support structures” (Appendix One).

   The report also reviews “the key skills and knowledge needed by rural communities to become more resilient and adaptive to change over the next twenty years” (attached, page 1).

   Opportunities. Building on the BS idea of a National Citizen Service for 16 year olds, I would like to see a ‘Green Gap Year’ offered to students between school and university; as a form of purposeful and peaceful National Service.
   Teenagers could undertake say six months work of community benefit, in pursuit of sustainability or projects to address climate change in a local community, in exchange for an educational credit equivalent to their first year’s tuition fee (currently £3,000 per head). The 3K figure could be financed by the ‘Robin Hood Tax’ or by using amounts from dormant bank accounts – as David Cameron has suggested for ‘Big Society’ initiatives.

   In this way young people could serve the needs of society, gain valuable life and study skills in the process (timekeeping, team work etc.) and be helped to make the transition from school and dependence, to university and greater independence. It could also support and foster community ventures, and make a practical contribution towards building the Coalition’s ‘Big Society’/movement to localism.

   I believe that the Government’s proposals for a Community Right to Build CRB give practical expression to localism and the Big Society; and agree with the Minister that the Community Right to Build CRB can hopefully harness & constructively channel NIMBYism so that it becomes IMBYism…..IN my back yard. [Source: 'Grant Shapps sets out vision to protect and preserve rural village life' CLG 23 July.

   http://www.communities.gov.uk/news/corporate/1648312
   ]. And, just as David Cameron has announced in relation to Cumbria and the ‘Big Society’, why not ‘pilot’ the ‘Community Right to Build’ in 3 or 4 local authority areas……and test the idea before committing further.

   Finally, I hope that the Big Society will fully connect with, recognise and build on the actions and experiences of Parish and Town Councils – local authorities closest to residents in urban and rural areas – in existence since 1894, at the junction between representative and participatory democracy, and (crucially) able to finance initiatives of community benefit.

   They also represent a source of local knowledge, resources and contacts (to support BS initiatives).

   James Derounian BSc (Hons) MPhil MRTPI FHEA FILCM Principal Lecturer in Community Development and Local Governance, National Teaching Fellow, University of Gloucestershire, Department of Natural & Social Sciences, Cheltenham GL50 4AZ

   Tel. 01242-714562
   jderounian@glos.ac.uk
3. James Derounian says:

   September 15, 2010 at 3:43 pm

   I strongly support the ‘Community Right to Build’ CRB in principle. I think there are some practical/detailed points to iron out but overall I think this is a very useful initiative.

   Detailed points:

   * Source: ‘Grant Shapps sets out vision to protect and preserve rural
   village life’ CLG 23 July.
   http://www.communities.gov.uk/news/corporate/1648312

   I agree with the Minister that the Community Right to Build CRB can hopefully harness & constructively channel NIMBYism so that it becomes IMBYism…..IN my back yard.

   * The Community Right to Build leaflet CLG 23 July.
   http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/housing/righttobuildleaflet As the ‘Community Right’ already acknowledges: “in order to prevent overdevelopment, communities will be able to expand…..by a maximum of 10% over any 10 year period.” I think this is a reasonable figure & counters arguments that this is in any way a ‘developers’ charter’.

   * CRB Background paper CLG.
   http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/newsroom/pdf/1647765.pdf I agree that the CRB gives practical expression to localism and the Big Society. I feel that the suggested 10% opposition to a proposal (via referendum) causing it to fall is too low…..and would be open to specious or mischievous abuse, say based around personalities. So in a village of 1,000 adult population you could have a clear majority in favour, but it could still be blocked by 100 dissenters; I’d up it to say 15-20% to avoid the scenario I paint.

   * FAQs I think it is a mistake to rule out rural market towns from the CRB (p.3). English rural market towns are severely pressured in terms of high house prices and a mechanism such as this to secure affordable homes would be invaluable. Furthermore, there have been so many reports (from Elinor Goodman, Matthew Taylor MP etc.) trumpeting the dire need for affordable homes in rural towns & villages that here, at last, is(potentially) a simple, empowering mechanism. In addition, as David Orr, the National Housing Federation’s chief executive, commented in September last year “on average people have to wait 90 years for a social rented home and every month sees the closure of one rural school”. This is not acceptable, and represents a ‘time bomb’ for society as a whole – if the young and low/no waged continue to be locked out of the housing market. The Rural White Paper 2000 highlighted the plight of market towns in terms of housing need/potential to deliver.

   * Response to the Head of Planning at the Campaign to Protect Rural England CPRE: her muted support limply stated that “local people should always be given a say in development.” How generous! A ‘say’ but not ‘the’say……really, it’s time that a grown up democracy truly handed power to local communities and didn’t say one thing and do another. And let’s face it; thus far the political, financial and planning systems have failed those in need of affordable homes.

   * So far the ‘Community Right to Build’ seems predicated on 80-90% support from a parish referendum. This is likely to be impossible at several levels: For example, the parish (parish council area) may well contain more than one village. Both in principle and practice a parish vote of 80-90% in favour is unlikely…..why would people in let’s say Painswick (Gloucestershire) support or even vote in relation to housing in Sheepscombe village (both of which are in the same parish)? Surely the better measure would be say a percentage of the relevant village population……maybe with the cut-off as the development boundary around the village? 80-90% also sounds way too high…..given those who choose not to vote and those voting against. Regardless, surely a vote of say 65% in favour would send a clear signal and mandate to proceed. [Any Government or local authority consultation would be mighty pleased with a 65% response let alone support….and the turnout at the General Election only average some 65% across the country!

   * It’s clear from the thousands of DIY Parish Plans and appraisals completed around England, that a majority of residents support development of affordable housing for local people. Take a look at my work from as long ago as 1996 (with Phil Allies & Malcolm Moseley: ‘Parish appraisals – a spur to local action?’ Town Planning Review, Vol 67 no.3 pp 309-329) that demonstrated “a readiness to accept a modest amount of low cost housing for local people” expressed via community generated plans. This is also reinforced by my 2005 ‘Analysis of Oxfordshire Parish Plans’ (p.10/12) provision of affordable housing (esp. For young people) was the most cited concern expressed across 15 Oxfordshire Parish Plans reviewed:
   http://portal.oxfordshire.gov.uk/content/publicnet/council_services/community_living/our_work_with_communities/community_planning/Analysis_of_OxfordshireParishPlans.pdf

   * Finally, just as David Cameron has announced in relation to Cumbria and the ‘Big Society’, why not ‘pilot’ the ‘Community Right to Build’ in 3 or 4 local authority areas……and when this happens, I really hope that my own principal authority – Tewkesbury Borough in Gloucestershire – is selected!

   James Derounian BSc (Hons) MPhil MRTPI FHEA FILCM Principal Lecturer in Community Development and Local Governance, University of Gloucestershire”