Rural government and community participation: The planning role of community councils

Journal qfRural Studies, Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 51-62, 1998 © 1998 Elsevier Science Ltd Printed in Great Britain. All rights reserved 11743-tll67/98 $19.00 + I1.1111

Pergamon PII: S0743.0167(97)00047-8

Rural Government and Community Participation: The Planning Role of Community Councils Mark Tewdwr-Jones Department of City and Regional Planning, University of Wales College of Cardiff, PO Box 906, Cardiff CF1 3YN, UK

Abstract - - Since April 1996, Wales has possessed one principal tier of local government: 22 unitary authorities. Below this tier of administration, a second level exists: community and town councils. The statutory duties of these authorities are severely limited but they do perform a valuable advisory and consultative role with the principal authorities, particularly in rural areas. The recent reorganization of Welsh local government has prompted commentators to reconsider whether community councils could be afforded more statutory powers in rural governance. This paper discusses the potential for enhancing their role with!n one service area, namely the planning process. Planning is a function of local government where changes to responsibilities could be enacted. The paper discusses the findings of two research projects: first, a survey of senior planning officers in Wales towards awarding planning powers to community councils; and secondly, a more detailed examination of the perceptions of community councils in rural mid-Wales towards their powers and duties, their planning links with the principal authorities, and their duties within local communities to generate public involvement in rural policy-making. It argues that allocating planning responsibilities to community and town councils lacks the support of both planning professionals and community council representatives themselves. However, in the dual-push for unitary councils to operate both strategically and locally, there is further scope for a reorientation of rural policy-making and for local planning authorities to provide more extensive consultation opportunities to the councils. © 1998 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved

Introduction The Welsh rural state has undergone intense periods of restructuring in recent years. Restructuring has occurred at two levels. First, a restructuring of contemporary social change in rural localities caused by, among other things, agricultural reform and population migration, the associated closure of rural services and the withdrawal of the state as direct rural service providers (Day et al., 1989). Second, restructuring has occurred at the institutional level, as the rural Welsh local authority structure has been overhauled and the framework within which public services are provided has altered to a unitary type of local government (Harris and Tewdwr-Jones, 1995). Unitary local government could well cause problems for rural service provision, as authorities attempt to 'enable' both at a

strategic level (concerned to operate competitively as strategic-enablers at the authority-wide level) and at the local level (in the provision of policies to regenerate local communities). The dual restructuring process that underlies both these push-and-pull pressures on Welsh unitary local government - - the socio-economic and the politicoinstitutional - - has created a new form of rural governance in Wales that will have an impact on rural relations, public and private service provision, and the opportunities for public involvement in the rural state. As these new and changing forms of rural governance emerge, so too will the methods and approaches adopted by government, government agencies, voluntary and private interest groups to deal with rural problems. This paper presents an assessment of planning policy-making in Welsh rural

52

Mark Tewdwr-Jones

areas within the context of recent and emerging changes to rural governance in Wales and the broader changing machinery of policy-making, by focusing on the present and potential role of unitary authorities and community councils in service provision. The Welsh Office in its recent Rural White Paper (Welsh Office, 1996) is concerned about how to identify both levels of rural local government as 'stakeholders' in the rural participation process and to consider regulatory controls within the existing institutional structures. The planning and local government structure currently operating in Wales emerged as a consequence of legislation initiated in 1994. Below the national level of government, there is one principal level of local administration. The 1994 Local Government (Wales) Act established a unitary type of local government: 22 unitary councils exist as autonomous authorities upon which specific powers are conferred. Three national parks were also created as local planning authorities within the boundaries of the 22 unitary councils. A second level of local government also exists in the form of community or town councils although these act as consultative bodies only and do not possess many powers. Community and town councils in Wales are similar to the English parish councils and Scottish community councils. The planning framework that is operated by these levels of government was also introduced by the 1994 act, amending the principal legislation consolidated in the 1990 Town and Country Planning Act. Until 1994, the land use planning system comprised: legislation and planning guidance notes at the national level; structure plans providing strategic policy, and local plans providing detailed land use policies. Within Wales, the 22 unitary planning authorities will soon commence preparation of unitary development plans (UDPs) to replace both structure- and local plans. The three national park authorities are also preparing their park-wide development plans. While the 1994 act did not extend planning powers to community and town councils, the government has accepted the principle that the councils could play an increasingly important role within unitary local government (Welsh Office, 1992). Although the councils possess neither the resources nor the expertise to accommodate any additional functions or duties, particularly in relation to planning, the government believes that they perform a valuable local democratic role within communities. This paper assesses the community councils' role within changing Welsh rural government by focusing in on the planning process. Both the Welsh Office and other commentators have suggested over the last few years that community and town councils

should be afforded an enhanced advisory role within local governance. However, little research has been advanced both to examine the degree of support for an enhanced consultative role within the new local governance structure, or to assess whether the community councils themselves would wish to see their role and status amended. Within the context of changing rural governance and community participation, to what extent can community councils perform a more integrated role within the institutional structure? And how could community councils become a catalyst to generate more community-led policy making within rural areas? These are the broader questions for the context for the paper. It is recognized that the changing nature of local government in rural Wales now involves a plethora of emerging partnerships and collaboration between different agencies of government, non-governmental organizations, and private and voluntary groups, although this research deals with the statutory policy-making aspect. Two issues - - the transfer of responsibilities to, and enhancement of, the role of community councils and the degree of support within community councils for any enhanced role - - are measured within two limited pieces of empirical research. These consider both levels of rural governance through: (a) the attitude of unitary authority planning officers towards the community council tier, and (b) the perceptions of community council members toward planning consultation measures by the higher tier authority. The remainder of this paper considers these two levels of perception; this is preceded by a discussion of the statutory and advisory role of community councils within rural areas and the nature of local democratic accountability. The paper concludes by discussing the role of community councils within the rural local government process, and also provides some indication of the councils' expectations for rural service delivery and for the frameworks within which that might operate and could be achieved.

Community councils: statutory duties and planning context The 1972 Local Government Act designated all existing parishes, boroughs and urban districts (outside the newly designated county and district councils) as 'communities'. The Wales Association of Community and Town Councils states that there are a total of 866 communities in the principality of Wales, although only those communities that are able to raise finance through the local council tax possess community councils. They are, accordingly, a level of local government formed as a direct

Rural Government and Community Participation response to the demands of the local population, and the 1994 Local Government (Wales) Act provides the statutory force for community councils to be both established and dissolved. Spatial coverage of councils across Wales is, therefore, variable: the former counties of Dyfed, Powys and Gwynedd possess complete community council coverage, whereas the city and county of Cardiff only possesses 5 out of a possible 30. There is, therefore, a strong rural emphasis toward community council existence in Wales, and this is particularly noticeable in areas that possess a high proportion of residents who speak Welsh as their first language (Aitchison et al., 1994). The statutory duties of community councils are limited to election provisions; it is their powers that are very broad, stemming from income received from council tax receipts (Ellwood, 1993). They are, consequently, capable of facilitating a wide range of local services including allotments, burials, environmental health matters, footpaths, roads and traffic, arts and recreation, public clocks and war memorials. Community councils can, therefore, act as service providers - - representing the unitary councils in undertaking specific tasks - - and as agents for the higher tier of local government. There are further powers relating to neighbour notification and consultation to the unitary councils on, for example, applications for planning permission, although the onus in this respect is usually on each community council to ensure that they receive adequate information from the principal authorities on planning matters (Arnold-Baker, 1989). The community councils also have powers to make representations on development plan preparation and unitary authorities can provide extensive opportunities for community councils' views to be taken into account in planning policy development. These opportunities, however, are dependent on the perception of the principal tier on both the role of community councils and their attitude towards innovative public consultation measures in local planning matters. In their study of Grampian Region's attempt to use community councils as a vehicle for consulting the public in the preparation of a rural structure plan, Shucksmith et al. (1985) found that the exercise had been unsuccessful because the councils were neither clear about the role they were expected to play in the process, nor were they prepared for the role, the blame for which might be targeted at the higher tier authority. They nevertheless identify the 'considerable potential' for community councils to be used as intermediaries between the local planning authorities and the rural public to generate public participation. Moseley et al., 1996 (p. 327) also highlight the role community and parish councils perform in 'devolving to local

53

people a significant share of the task for caring for their immediate local community and environment'. The weight attached to community councils' views by the unitary authorities will increase if the views are backed up by evidence of extensive consultation between the councils and the residents they serve. The most noticeable areas where community councils could play an active role in this respect are developing community and village appraisals in the countryside to inform policy development and to assist in housing needs surveys (see, for example, Rogers, 1987; Lumb, 1990; Roome, 1990; Sherwood and Lewis, 1994; and Moseley et aL, 1996). However, the planning consultation role of community councils is variable across Wales, and determined to a very large extent by the attitudes of the unitary planning authorities.

Local government and democratic representation

There is a strong tradition in British local government that local communities should be able to decide how to deal with their own problems (Davis, 1987). The case of an enhanced role for community and town councils derives from this principle, and is very much within the spirit of Local Agenda 21 that calls for local responses to sustainable development. Although community and town councils have many powers, they have very few duties (Griffiths and Lawton, 1990, p. 10). The form that an enhanced role would take for these councils has not been clarified, and their purpose and responsibilities remain vague (Griffiths and Lawton, 1990, p. 57). It is certain that, whatever role is proposed for community and town councils, planning will be central to that role. Boaden et aL (Boaden et al., 1980) study for the Department of the Environment on public participation in structure planning suggested that there was a need for more innovative participation strategies in rural areas through 'some type of local forum, neighbourhood group or community council'. The Council for the Protection of Rural Wales notes in its response to a 1991 Welsh Office consultation paper on local government reorganization that, 'Community and town councils are a much underestimated and under-utilised layer of local government. They offer great scope for enhanced powers and responsibilities' (CPRW, 1991, p. 2). But community and town councils as units of local government have their inherent weaknesses and criticisms (INLOGOV, 1986, p. 2; CPRW, 1991, p. 1; Colby in Burton, 1993). There is certainly a lack of credibility and influence, a lack of qualified and professional support staff, a parochial outlook, a

54

Mark Tewdwr-Jones

lack of political direction, an absence of competition for council seats, incomplete coverage, and they are subject to local bias and are potentially at risk of dissolution. These characteristics limit severely the extent to which community and town councils may be afforded an enhanced role. The wide variation in the abilities of community and town councils and their incomplete coverage in Wales as a whole has dictated that there should be no statutory basis for any enhanced role. The success of such a role would be dependent upon the relationships with the unitary authorities. As Griffiths and Lawton (1990, p. 20) state, 'it is no good extending the consultative role if that role is treated with resentment, hostility or indifference from the districts'. There is a danger that an enhanced role for community and town councils is at risk of reintroducing organizationalbased conflict into local government. The importance of local accountability has been emphasized over recent years. Stewart and Stoker (1988) argue that local accountability is at its most effective where there is active citizenship that can be achieved through the development of participatory democracy. Lamb (1994), however, has argued that the principal issue concerning enhanced local accountability is not participation per se but rather who controls the agenda upon which participation will occur. In his study of community councils in Glasgow, Duncan (1994) argues that representative and participatory democracy should not be viewed as opposing means of enhanced local government but rather as a means through which community and town councils and the new unitary authorities can work together for the benefit of rural and urban communities. Advocating a more prominent role in a post-reorganized local government structure, he suggests that community councils, 'possess the means to enable the proposed new local authorities to respond to changing needs with initiative and innovation' (Duncan, 1994, p. 52). Community councils use the 'traditional' approach of representative democracy. They can be tarred with the same criticism that is usually levelled at higher tiers of local government attempt at democratic practice: that is, they target and promote the interests of 'middle class' groups who may not necessarily represent the majority voice (Masters, 1973). Indeed, forming a distinction between community councils as local democratic representatives and community councils as self-interest group elites can often be problematic. The councils comprise elected representatives who work for the benefit of the community as a whole. But the representatives also operate at a microcommunity level, possessing detailed knowledge of

the areas they serve, aware of community needs and able to place particular issues on the political agenda. Community councils can, therefore, be viewed as a mechanism within representative democracy and additionally as a form of local pressure group, influencing other tiers of local government (Ffred, 1990, p. 22). They are a forum for discourse by local residents on rural community issues. While party politics may often play a role in the actions and advice of community councils, within Wales they usually comprise independently elected members who lack political direction. The councils' motives when actively involved in the local decisionmaking process could, therefore, be hinged on a desire to reflect local concerns and provide a voice to the community. They provide a means through which ideas, opinions and concerns drawn from representative democracy are channelled to higher political tiers (Hambleton and Mills, 1993). The councils are acknowledged as being p a r t of the wider democratization of politics through decentralization (Burns et al., 1994) but little research has been undertaken to assess the extent to which the councils extend or facilitate democracy to localized areas, or indeed whether they possess the capacity to take on additional duties. The following two sections discuss the findings of two separate limited pieces of empirical research concerning the present and future planning role of community and town councils in Wales. The first considers the scope for transferring some of the planning responsibilities of the district councils (as they then were) to the community councils and presents the perceptions of senior members of the planning profession throughout Wales. The second section considers the planning role of community and town councils at the micro-political level and presents the perceptions of members of the community councils within the Brecon Beacons National Park to both the authority's innovative public participation process and their planning functions. A particular aim of the research was to assess the degree to which community council members considered that their views and perceptions of community development were being taken into account by the national park's planners and whether the local-community agenda was able to be integrated into the strategic authority-wide agenda of the national park as a whole. The case for transfering planning responsibilities to community councils Research aims

A research project was undertaken by Nell Harris and Mark Tewdwr-Jones (Harris and Tewdwr-Jones,

Rural Government and Community Participation 1995) to identify the degree of support for enhancing the planning responsibilities of community councils within the planning profession. The research, undertaken during August and September 1993, shortly after the publication of the Welsh ()ffice's proposals on the future of local government in the principality (Welsh Office, 1993), took the form of a survey of senior planning officers in local government in Wales. It was decided to survey senior officers for a number of specific reasons. First, senior officers are likely to be involved, at a high level, in local authority discussions on the implications of local government reorganization, both for the local authority and the planning department. They are, therefore, likely to be aware of the recent changes in local government function and structure. Second, a senior officer's experience may extend to previous experience of local government reorganization and the research could draw on this experience. The survey was directed at all 45 local authorities in Wales, at both county and district level. The research material was collected by issuing a selfcompletion postal questionnaire, addressed to the chief planning officer or director of planning and development of each local authority planning department in Wales. The questionnaire stressed that the respondent should provide their own professional opinion as a senior planning officer and should not give the formal opinion of the authority itself. This was to avoid administrative delay in returning the questionnaire. It also attempted to minimize the political content of the response and maximize its functional content. The questionnaire was structured into a number of distinct parts, each relating to a separate issue identified from the Welsh Office's proposals for reorganization. A variety of question types were used. These included simple binary response questions, a series of other closed responses and a number of open questions where the respondent was invited to provide an extended response. The binary response questions related to the Welsh Office's proposals and statements in an attempt to provide a measure of accuracy of those statements. The extended answers addressed directly the implications of reorganization. These questions contained a high degree of flexibility for the respondent and as the implciations are as yet unknown, it would be wrong to prescribe a number of response options. Where closed responses were offered, the respondent was usually given a further option to state any other answer which was not included amongst those responses. The research presented in this paper is restricted to discussion of the possible future planning role of community and town councils in Wales; other issues relating to the future of strategic planning and -

-

55

the nature of unitary planning - - are beyond the scope of this paper and are discussed elsewhere (Harris and Tewdwr-Jones, 1995).

Research results" It was commented earlier that, if it was to be successful, any enhanced role for the community and town councils of Wales would require acceptance by the new unitary authorities beneath which they would operate. There appears to be significant support from the planning profession in Wales for an enhanced role for community and town councils. More than two-thirds of the responses to the questionnaire indicated agreement with the proposals for enhanced status. Co-operation in the new system between unitary authorities and community and town councils can, therefore, be expected in most cases. The picture turns out to be very different when considering the possible delegation of planning functions to community and town councils. Only 10 of the 26 officers (38%) that agreed with an enhanced role for community and town councils believed it possible that they could receive certain delegated planning functions. Therefore, while there is general acceptance of an enhanced role, there is a reluctance to see this extended to planning. It was noticed how the district planning officers were more reluctant than the county planning officers to see this happen. One of the county planning officers supporting the delegation of planning functions, stated that part of their county's bid for unitary status proposed a much enhanced role for community and town councils. Where officers responded in agreement with the possibility of delegating planning functions, they were very positive about the extent to which functions could be delegated (Table 1). The research indicated that the publicity of planning applications and the responsibility for neighbour notification were considered most feasible. Of those that supported an enhanced planning role, 70% believed that publicity and neighbour notification were suitable for delegation. Several of the respondents further commented that community and town councils were particular well suited to these functions. A further 60% of respondents were in support of both the provision of information and the maintenance of public registers as well as an increased advisory role. One of the district officers commented that the ability to assign planning functions to community and town councils varied and was very much dependent on the nature of those councils. The officer considered that while some would be highly

56

Mark Tewdwr-Jones Table 1. Potential planning functions suitable for delegation to community and town councils County officers

District officers

All

Percentage

2 1 1 2

5 5 5 2

7 6 6 4

70 60 60 40

Planning application and neighbour notification Information provision and administration of public registers Increased advisory role Determination of planning applications

The number of respondents identifying the particular function for delegation as a percentage of the total number of respondents in agreement with delegation of planning functions (n = 10). The figures in this column do not add up to 100% as respondents were not confined to a single response. Source: Harris and Tewdwr-Jones, 1995, p. 61. competent in executing such functions, others would not. Forty per cent of those officers indicating support for the delegation of planning functions went so far as to expect it possible that certain planning applications could be determined at the level of the community council. The type of application mentioned for possible delegation included: householder applications, minor industrial and commercial development, and changes of use. One officer believed that this could be achieved subject to professional advice being given to the community and town councils by officers of the new unitary authorities. Of the ten officers that considered it possible to delegate certain planning functions to community and town councils, six believed that this would necessarily require statutory responsibilities. Despite this element of support for an increased planning role for community and town councils, this is outweighed by those who do not wish to see the new unitary authorities delegate their planning functions. In all, 27 (73%) of the 37 responding officers stated, for a variety of reasons, that it would be inappropriate to allow community and town councils perform any further planning functions (see Table 2). The principal reason for this, expressed by 22 (81%) of the respondents, was that community and town councils are insufficiently skilled or staffed and do not possess the necessary resources. A number of other reasons was also given. Fourteen officers (52%) believed that to afford community and town councils an increased planning role would

blur accountability and a further three felt that it would simply reintroduce a two-tier planning system. Twelve (44%) of the respondents considered that community and town councils are ineffective as units of local government. Three officers (11%) believed that it would simply not be necessary or beneficial to delegate planning functions to community councils in the new system and therefore recommended against this. Finally, one respondent stated that community councils tend to be too parochial in their outlook. Their concerns were considered too restricted and narrow-focused to contribute successfully to the planning system. There is considerable disregard for the planning capabilities of community and town councils. However, that community councils have insufficient staff, skills or resources may in part be overcome by the appointment of officers from within the new unitary authorities to advise these councils. As noted above, this was in fact suggested by one of the respondents to the questionnaire. Nevertheless, there are many perceived weaknesses of community councils and not all of these may be overcome without significant alteration. While, in principle, there exists a broad consensus of support for an enhanced role for community and town councils, those in the planning profession appear reluctant to see this extend to their functions. The responses given are very defensive. It is difficult to distinguish between genuine concern for the abilities of community and town councils to exercise further planning functions, and a regard for the functioning of the planning service. Certainly, it is possible to

Table 2. Reasons given against affording community and town councils in Wales an increased planning role

They possess insufficient staff, skills and resources It would blur accountability They are ineffective as units of local government It would not be necessary They are too parochial in their outlook It would reintroduce a two-tier system

County officers

District officers

All

Percentages

3 2 0

19 12 11 3

22 14 12 3

81 52 44 11

1

0

1

4

0

3

3

11

1

The number of respondents giving the particular reason against an increased planning role as a percentage of the total number of respondents who were against an increased role (n = 27). The figures in this column do not add up to 100% as respondents were not confined to a single response. Source: Harris and Tewdwr-Jones, 1995, p. 62.

Rural Government and Community Participation suggest that the limited support expressed might be expected given that the planners' own authorities would lose certain powers through any devolvement of activities. The research has uncovered a significant disregard by the planning profession in Wales for community and town councils. On a more optimistic role, where officers considered it possible to delegate planning functions to community and town councils, the extent to which they believed this could be done was extensive. Although several officers were of the opinion that the determination of minor and small-scale planning applications was a possible function that could be delegated, the principal functions considered suitable for community and town councils were planning application publicity and neighbour notification. The planning profession have, therefore, stated their contempt towards the capabilities of community councils within Wales to fulfil an enhanced planning role, although local government officers do recognize the importance of enhancing the councils' consultative and advisory roles. But to what extent is this view shared by community councils themselves, and is there a genuine desire within the councils to increase their duties? The next section discusses the second piece of empirical research that questioned community councils on their duties and consultative roles.

Community councils' role in innovative rural public participation A second piece of empirical research was undertaken by Mark Tewdwr-Jones in 1995 to consider in more detail the current planning role of community councils and the perceptions of members of the communities themselves to the possibility of extending their planning remit. The research survey was restricted to one part of Wales: the 48 community and town councils that lie within the Brecon Beacons National Park (BBNP). The reason why the national park was chosen for study was as a consequence of on-going research by Mark TewdwrJones and Huw Thomas that is considering innovative public participation in the rural local plan-making process in the area (see Tewdwr-Jones and Thomas, forthcoming). The park authority provides an example of an attempt at a truly community-led rural policy-making process and an aim was to assess the role of the community councils within the exercise. This approach differs from the more 'traditional' form of public consultation normally adopted by local planning authorities. Brecon planners approached the process by taking the plan out to the people in an exhaustive

57

programme using a variant of the Neighbourhood Initiatives Foundation 'Planning for Real' exercise. The Planning for Real (PFR) exercise is relatively straightforward: local people work with a 3-D model of their own communities on a sufficiently large scale to enable them to identify individual buildings. Option cards are then used to represent different uses and developments and the public are encouraged to arrange and rearrange these cards to suit their wishes. This process is exciting and enjoyable, and provides a focus for discussions and debate, out of which a community view (or views) of the most desirable options emerges. Essentially, PFR provides one of the most 'hands-on' approaches to assessing what needs to be done to improve neighbourhoods, and bears some relation to the 'Jigsaw' approach developed by Action with Communities in Rural England and its Welsh variant 'Jigso' (Greeves and Taylor, 1987; Hughes, 1993 for further discussion). Its strength is that it demystifies planning, providing 'the public' with an opportunity to express its wishes in its own terms; and using that expression as a starting point for subsequent discussions and debates into which constraints (such as resources) can be introduced. Brecon Beacons National Park, like all other planning authorities in Britain, was required by central government to produce an authority-wide local plan by 1996. Prior to starting work on the park plan, the national park officer was especially concerned to actively involve the rural public in formulating planning policies, and viewed the local plan process as an opportunity to make local people more aware of the park authority as a whole and more integral to the process of rural governance. Supported by two forward planning officers who, following consultation with representatives of Neighbourhood Initiatives, radically altered the exercise to suit local circumstances BBNP set about applying the PFR exercise to the whole of the Brecon Beacons. The empirical research undertaken sought, inter alia, to assess the perceptions of members of each community and town council within the Brecon Beacons National Park towards the innovative local plan-making exercise. One underlying rationale for the more innovative approach of the park authority towards the development plan process was to engage the community fully in rural planning issues within the park area as a whole. Since the planners had attempted to foster a degree of closer cooperation with the community and town councils as a way of generating residents' participation, the councils' role within the process was pivotal. The research was undertaken in February 1995 when postal questionnaires were sent to the clerks of each of the 48 community and town councils

58

Mark Tewdwr-Jones

within the national park area. The covering letter requested that the questionnaire form be completed by the chairperson of each council or a senior member of the council if the chairperson was unavailable. The choice of chairpersons to answer the forms was determined by a recognition that an over-arching view of the role of community councils was vital, and to ensure that the respondents had some knowledge of planning issues, of the local plan-making process and had served on the councils for a relatively lengthy period. The questionnaire was split into three principal sections concerning: the personal details of the respondent (length of time resident in the area, length of time serving as a community councillor, employment status etc.); facts relating to the community council (frequency of meetings, satisfaction with the duties and powers of the councils, transfer of responsibilities, and satisfaction with the national park's consultation on planning matters); and finally, and specifically, the respondents' peceptions of the park authority's innovative public participation exercise in producing the rural local plan. The principal aims of the research were to: (i)

Assess the level of the community councils' satisfaction with the range of powers and duties they currently possess; (ii) Indicate whether community councils considered there to be scope to transfer some of the powers of both the national park and the unitary councils to the lower tier; (iii) Record community councils' perceptions towards the planning duties of the national park authority; and (iv) Highlight whether the community councils had participated within the national park's innovative rural local plan-making exercise. The completed questionnaire forms were returned in the period February to July 1995, when follow-up reminder letters had been sent out. This was an extended period that can be explained, possibly, by the infrequency with which the community councils met as a whole. Thirty-nine completed forms were returned, representing a response rate of over 81%. Table 3 presents the results of the respondents' perceptions of the degree of satisfaction they hold of the community councils' existing duties and powers and is intended to provide an initial indication of the position of community councils in the rural governance of mid-Wales. The table illustrates that over two-thirds of respondents were generally satisfied with the duties and powers of the community councils. It should be remembered that, from a statutory perspective, the range of the councils' powers are severely limited; the question was, therefore, concerned primarily with determining whether

Table 3. Satisfaction with the duties and powers of the community council to deal with local issues

Very satisfied Fairly satisfied Not very satisfied Not at all satisfied Total

Number

Percentage

8 18 12 1 39

20 46 31 3 100

Source: 'How satisfied are you with the duties and powers of the community councils to deal with local issues?'; returned questionnaires: 39 out of 48.

the advisory and consultative powers provided to community councils were satisfactory. Statistical significance was also tested to identify whether the responses were related directly to either the length of time respondents had been resident in the area, or the length of time they had been members of the community councils, to test whether significantly different views were held by individuals who had recently moved into the area or had recently been elected to the councils. In both cases, no statistical significance was recorded, and the responses did not indicate any correlation between respondents' attitudes towards the powers and duties of the councils and residency and representation. Additionally, respondents were invited to record their personal views towards this issue and the comments submitted were primarily from the one-third of respondents who were generally discontent With the duties and powers of the councils. Typical responses included the following: There's a seeming reluctance by borough and county levels to take the community councils seriously as part of the whole structure. We are more in touch than anyone with issues affecting our particular areas, but no-one seems to take our suggestions seriously. Very few suggestions put forward by the council are acted on. There is always a higher authority which must be consulted and invariably blocks any action. One respondent who recorded his frustration with the political duplication of the representatives serving on the community council: At present 8 of our 12 members also serve on the borough council, so it is difficult for us either to differ from the policies of the borough council or to add any strength to arguments put forward by our borough councillors. These responses indicate an underlying frustration with the present level of duties afforded to community councils. While there is agreement with the current range of duties the councils possess, there is, additionally, a significant proportion of

Rural Government and Community Participation dissatisfaction with the other tiers of government for their apparent failure to adequately take on board the interests and comments provided by community council representatives. Although this may reflect a political dissatisfaction with the other local government tiers for failing to follow the recommendations of the councils, it does suggest that more could be achieved on the part of the unitary councils to indicate to the lower level of governance the councils' processes of decision-making and to explain why their recommendations have not been followed in some instances. A specific question was then asked on whether the respondents believed some of the responsibilities currently undertaken by the national park authority and the unitary councils could be transferred to the community councils, the results are indicated in Table 4. This question concerned all functions of rural governance and was not restricted to planning issues alone. Responses to this question illustrate a noticeable difference of opinion between attitudes towards the unitary councils compared to the national park authority. Almost the same number of respondents were in favour of reorientating responsibilities from the unitary councils as those against the proposal. Those respondents who objected to taking on unitary council responsibilities recognized that a substantial increase in the community councils' levels of finance and resources would be required before any change was implemented. As one respondent highlighted, 'Its difficult to do anything more when you only have one clerk dealing with council business'. Those respondents who did advocate the transfer of responsibilities provided a list of local government services, ranging from the more strategic to the localized. 'Strategic services' included planning, housing and environmental functions, although these numbered a mere handful; respondents advocating the transfer of 'localized services' were recorded in greater numbers. Typical Table 4. Expression of support for the transfer of respon-

ibilities from unitary councils and the national park authority to communitycouncils Unitary councils

National park

functions put forward include: street cleaning, street lighting, toilet maintenance, footpath maintenance, bus shelters, car parks, recreational parks and playing fields, approval for charity collections, and street naming. Perceptions towards the transfer of duties from the national park authority to the community councils were not marked, and a greater proportion of respondents disagreed with transfer. Although few views were provided on the questionnaires returns for this, it is possible to suggest that respondents recognize a more strategic, rural-orientated and supportive role provided by the national park. While the authority does act as the local planning authority rather than the unitary councils, there was general agreement that community councils should not take over the planning functions of the park but rather play a more prominent role in working with the park's planners for the benefit of communities. This issue - - the planning link between the park and the community councils - - was the subject of an independent question (Table 5). Table 5 illustrates the general satisfaction of two-thirds of respondents toward the national park authority's consultation with community councils on planning and development matters. This is broadly in line with the councils' acceptance of the distribution of planning responsibilities between statutory functions carried out by the park authority and the advisory role expected from the communities. It further reinforces the belief within the community councils that they possess neither the resources nor the knowledge to take on statutory planning powers from the park. Very few comments were made on this degree of acceptance, although one response summarizes the 'agreed' view: 'The national park as at present constituted deserves praise for the ways in which it consults, and seems to listen to what we say'. This view was not shared universally by respondents, however. The negative views advanced are similar for the most part as those put forward in the replies to the question concerning the current powers and duties of the community councils Table 5. Satisfaction with the national park's consultation with community councils on planning and development issues

Number Percentage Number Percentage Yes No No response Total

17 18 4 39

44 46 10 100

12 23 4 39

31 59 10 100

Source: 'Do you think that your community council could take over some of the responsibilities of the district council and/or the national park authority?'; returned questionnaires: 39 out of 48.

59

Very satisfied Fairly satisfied Not very satisfied Not at all satisfied Total

Number

Percentage

7 19 10 3 39

18 49 26 7 100

Source: 'Are you satisfied with the national park's consultation with your council on planning and development issues?'; returned questionnaires: 39 out of 48.

60

Mark Tewdwr-Jones

(Table 3), and provided some of the most vociferous replies in the whole questionnaire. Respondents were asked in what ways the consultation process between the national park and the community councils could be improved in the future. Some provided useful suggestions, and these included: providing more explanation when decisions are taken against the recommendations of the community council; making greater use of local member knowledge; giving greater sympathy towards design and style within villages; and for more site visits to take place with community councillors present. Other respondents, however, called for greater consistency in the park's decisions, while some were altogether more cynical: Consultation seems to be a public relations exercise rather than anything else They could take notice of our suggestions and act on them. We feel that they should have properly qualified personnel to deal with area planning decisions -- some of the things people have to do in order to be able to build new homes are nothing short of ridiculous. Given the views of the respondents toward planning matters within the national park, two further specific questions were asked on the park's innovative public consultation exercise for development of the parkwide rural local plan. In particular, the questions sought to assess whether the respondents had taken the opportunity to be involved in community development issues and had attended the two rounds of public meetings arranged by the park authority to discuss community planning issues, together with their perceptions of the events (Table 6). Almost 40% of respondents had attended at least one local plan consultation meeting, whereas almost a quarter had not. The figures should not be interpreted as non-attendance by the nine community councils: it reflects non-attendance by the respondents only, and other members of the councils or the clerks of the councils could have attended as the representatives. Indeed, the national park authority Table6. Attendance at the national park's local plan consultation meetings in autumn 1993 and summer 1994

Both meetings One meeting Neither meeting Total

Number

Percentage

15 15 9 39

39 39 23 100

Source: 'The national park held two rounds of public meetings to discuss the local plan in each community, one last summer (1994) and the other in mid to late 1993. In your area, did you attend...'. The percentage column may not add up to 100% due to rounding.

had sought to work in parallel with each community council to advertise the meetings to local residents and to assist in generating high numbers of participants. Other ways the community councils had supported the park aUthority included lease of village community halls to hold the evening public meetings. The figures indicate a high level of interest within the community councils towards the innovative public consultation exercise and respondents possessed a strong interest in being involved at the outset in the process. Extended answers to the question indicate the councils' appreciation of the park authority for the time and effort expended by the officers in explaining the nuances of the planmaking process to 'novices' and to appear to listen to the community before setting the rural planning agenda. Some negative reaction was also stated by a number of respondents, however, for the park authority's failure to adequately translate community desires into practical planning policies once the draft local plan had been prepared. This reaction indicates the degree of frustration members of the public - - and indeed planning officers - - feel towards utilizing the development plan as a means to consider community planning matters that are often legally defined as falling outside the scope of the statutory land use planning process. In this conext, it is apparent that the park planners' innovative public participation process was successful in generating discourse on rural development issues and involving local residents in agenda-setting in local governance, but less successful in translating communities' needs and desires into policy-making concerns. The community councils were particularly critical of this factor and respondents indicated the high level of expectation the process had generated within the rural communities and the subsequent disappointment shared by participants. Indeed, it was stated by several respondents that the resultant disappointment caused by legal loopholes and narrow definitions had undermined the advantages of undertaking an innovative exercise in the first place, and they felt, with hindsight, that little had been achieved for the communities. As indicated in Table 7 when asked for their perceptions towards the park's local plan consultation meetings, almost two-thirds of respondents found the meetings 'informative' and 'useful', thereby proving that the exercise was beneficial in at least providing explanatory information to rural villagers and community councils on the practicalities of the rural plan-making process and in a form of inclusionary rural governance process for the public. Very few respondents possessed negative views towards the exercise, and this finding has prompted

61

Rural Government and Community Participation

Table 7. Attitude towards the national park's local plan consultation meetings

Lively Informative Useful Pointless Boring

Number of responses

Percentage

Number of no responses

Percentage

7 19 19 2 2

23 63 63 7 7

23 I1 11 28 28

77 36 36 93 93

Source: 'If you did attend, how did you find the meetings?'; number of respondents: 39; number answering this question on the questionnaire: 30, representing a response rate of 77%. The remaining nine respondents had not attended the local plan consultation meetings. The two data sets indicate those respondents in agreement with the perceptions and those disagreeing, the park's planners to continue with locality-based public participation exercises at further plan reviews and to integrate community councils more fully into the exercise. One example of this might be providing members of the councils with the training and means to enable them to establish and progress the village meetings without the 'hands-on' assistance of the national park authority.*

Conclusions: rural government and community participation In this final section the principal findings of the research are summarized. The changing agenda for rural government in Wales in the 1990s necessitates reconsideration of the duties and functions of each of the tiers of local government. Although the local government reorganization process involved a brief consideration of allocating further statutory duties to community and town councils in Wales as part of a continuing democratizing and decentralizing process within communities, the Welsh Office shied away from formal legislative change. Instead, central government advocated an extension of the advisory and consultative role of community councils within the formal rural local government structure, and laid particular emphasis on the important role community councils can play within local communities. The most recent policy statement provided has been included in the Welsh Office's Rural White Paper of 1996, A Working Countryside for Wales, although the status of the community councils was, if anything, played down compared to the policy statements in the early 1990s and only refer to duties in relation to the national parks: 'The new national park authorities are required to work closely with other local authorities and the development agencies to foster the economic and social well-being of their local communities, consulting community councils about policies and planning *This information was provided to the author through personal correspondence with a member of the forward planning department at Brecon Beacons National Park.

matters' (Welsh Office, 1996, p. 74). The onus is, therefore, on the rural unitary authorities to liaise with their communities. This research indicated that, with regard to the perception of the higher tier authority towards increasing the advisory and consultative role to community councils, there is widespread support within the planning profession in Wales for an enhanced role. But there lacks the support for devolving specific planning responsibilities to the lower tier due to, principally, lack of expertise and resources and the duplication of local government services. There was a particularly strong emphasis away from allocating statutory functions but support for increasing in the advisory capacity by dealing with relatively 'small-scale' survey and consultation issues. Whether this opinion was the result of planning professionals employed by the unitary authorities preserving their planning status within local government, or rather the consequence of a recognition that detailed local community-based matters could be more effectively dealt with at the 'grassroots' level, is a point of speculation. This provided a very one-sided argument against reorientating planning services from the unitary councils to the community councils and further research was considered necessary to test the opinions of community council members themselves toward their role within local governance, their advisory roles with the higher tier authority, and their consultative roles within the planning process. It was found that, generally, community councils within the Brecon Beacons National Park were satisfied with their present duties and powers, although there was greater concern for the apparent disregard higher tier authorities have of the opinions provided by community councils. This raises the problem of whether higher tier authorities explain and advise community councils of their policy-making process sufficiently for their decisions on sensitive issues where communities have taken an alternative opinion, and the insufficient communication that could be apparent between the two tiers. To what extent this problem is the consequence of the differ-

62

Mark Tewdwr-Jones

ence between, in Brecon Beacon's case, the national park acting as the strategic authority compared to the community councils dealing with local issues, is difficult to determine. Nevertheless, the importance of the community council level being involved with more innovative public participation techniques precipitated by the higher tier authorities is justified, particularly in rural areas where the local issues require sensitive analysis and explanation. The new governance of rural Wales has generated new pressures and opportunities on local authorities to deal with rural concerns; officers within the unitary authorities could well find local government reorganization has been the stimulus to deal with community development matters on a more strategic basis and recognize the importance of forming better working partnerships with their community council colleagues. Acknowledgements - - The author acknowledges the helpful comments provided on earlier drafts of this paper by Jon Murdoch, Mark Goodwin and Richard Cowell.

References Aitchison, J. W., Baptist, J. L., Jones, P. A. and Edwards, W. J. (1994) Community and Town Councils in Wales: a Handbook. Rural Surveys Research Unit, University College of Wales, Aberystwyth. Arnold-Baker, C. (1989) Local Council Administration in English Parishes and Welsh Communities, 3rd edn. Longcross Press, London. Boaden, N., Goldsmith, M., Hampton, W. and Stringer, P. (1980) Planning and public participation in practice: a study of public participation in structure planning. Progress in Planning 13, 1-102. Burns, D., Hambleton, R. and Hoggett, P. (1994) The Politics of Decentralisation: Revitalising Local Democracy. Macmillan, London. Burton, I. (1993) Planners guide tour on road to reorganisation. Planning 1023, 8-9. CPRW (1991) The structure of local government in Wales: CPRW's response Council for the Protection of Rural Wales, Ty Gwyn, 31 High Street, Weishpool, Powys SY21 7JP. Davis, H. (1987) Future role and organisation of local government. Local Government Policy Making 14(1), 59-64. Day, G., Rees, G. and Murdoch, J. (1989) Social change, rural localities and the state: the restructuring of rural Wales. Journal of Rural Studies 5(3), 227-224. Duncan, T. (1994) Community councils and the reform of local government in Scotland. Local Government Policy Making 20(4), 45-53. Ellwood, S. (1993) Parish and town councils: financial accountability and management. Local Government Studies 19(3), 368-386. Ffred, A. (1990) Democracy begins at home. Radical Wales 27, 22

Greeves, T. and Taylor, R. (1987) The Local Jigsaw: An Information Pack on Village Appraisals and Parish Maps. Countryside Commission and Development Commission for Rural England, Cheltenham. Griffiths, P. and Lawton, A. (1990) Community councils in Wales, report prepared by the Welsh Unit for Local Government, Polytechnic of Wales, Wales Association of Community and Town Councisl, Pen Roc, Rhodf'r Mor, Aberystwyth, Dyfed SY23 2AZ. Hambleton, R. and Mills, L. (1993) Local government reform in Wales. Local Government Policy Making 19(4), 45-55. Harris, N. and Tewdwr-Jones, M. (1995) The implications for planning of local government reorganisation in Wales: purpose, process and practice. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 13(1), 47-66. Hughes, E. (1993) Jigso: Five Years of Community Action, Past Achievements and Future. Developments, Rural Survey Research Unit, University College of Wales, Aberystwyth. INLOGOV (1986) The future role and organisation of local government, no. 2. Institute of Local Government Studies, University of Birmingham, Birmingham. Lamb, C. (1994) Area-based decentralisation: an appropriate model for enhanced local democracy? Local Government Policy Making 21(1), 59-62. Lumb, R. (1990) Rural community development: process versus product. In Rural Development, Problems and Practice, ed. H. Buller and S. Wright. Avebury, Aldershot. Masters, P. (1973) Public involvement in the planning process. T~e Planner 59(10), 459-462. Moseley, M. J., Derounian, J. G. and Allies, P. J. (1996) Parish appraisals - - a spur to local action? A review of the Gloucestershire and Oxfordshire experience 1990-94. Town Planning Review 67(3), 309-329. Rogers, A. W. (1987) Voluntarism, self-help, and rural community development. Journal of Rural Studies 3, 353-360. Roome, N. J. (1990) Community action as a mechanism for rural policy. In Rural Development, Problems and Practice, ed. H. Buller and S. Wright. Avebury, Aldershot. Sherwood, K. B. and Lewis, G. (1994) Local appraisals and rural planning in England: an evaluation of current experiences. In Progress in Rural Policy and Planning, Vol. 4, ed. A. W. Gilg. John Wiley and Son, Chichester. Shucksmith, D. M., Rowan-Robinson, J., Reid, C. T. and Lloyd, M.G. (1985) Community councils as a medium for public participation: a case study in Grampian Region. Journal of Rural Studies 1(4), 307-319. Stewart, J. and Stoker, G. (1988) From Local Administration to Community Government, Fabian Research Series 351. The Fabian Society, London. Tewdwr-Jones, M. and Thomas, H. (forthcoming) Collaborative action in local plan-making: planners' perceptions of 'planning through debate', Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design. (Draft copies available from the authors at Department of City and Regional Planning, University of Wales College of Cardiff, PO Box 906, Cardiff CF1 3YN.) Welsh Office (1992) The Role of Community and Town Councils in Wales: A Consultation Paper. HMSO, London. Welsh Office (1993) Local Government in Wales: a Charter for the Future. HMSO, London. Welsh Office (1996) A Working Countryside for Wales. HMSO, London.