This is part of two of this post on city deals and elected mayors. The first post can be found here.

In many ways the ‘city deals’, and the accompanying emphasis on elected mayors, give a solid and welcome geographic focus to many pre-existing and pending government policies and initiatives. However, the overlapping of initiatives and funding streams represented by city deals calls for an examination of which aspects of the programme represent genuinely new transfers of money and power. Also, as touched on above, there is a need for clarity over the conditions – such as the apparent dependence, in practice, of city deals on cities agreeing to move to an elected mayoral model – that may be placed explicitly or implicitly on these transfers of power.

A key question is the source of the government money accompanying city deals – quoted at £130 million in Liverpool’s case. It is unclear how much of this is ‘new’ money and how much is projected as accruing to Liverpool from existing funding pots and initiatives. The fund to support the rollout of superfast broadband is again a good example of this lack of clarity, as it has effectively been ‘sold’ as part of three overlapping but distinct government initiatives: a standalone competition administered by the Department of Culture, Media and Sport to help support economic growth; a feature of Enterprise Zones; and a feature of city deals as outlined in ‘Unlocking growth in cities’. This raises the question of whether, and how, entering into a city deal affects the way in which a city’s bids to funding pots are judged, raising serious concerns over fairness for other cities.

Similarly, the transparency and impartiality of the Regional Growth Fund allocation process has been called into question (see, e.g. here and here) in recent months and it is not necessarily clear yet how much of the £75 million of economic development money cited in Liverpool’s city deal agreement will originate from new sources, after the Treasury has exercised its signoff powers. Additionally, as noted above, money generated by Enterprise Zones will need to be shared in some way between city councils and LEPs. These questions have fuelled debate in some quarters, reflecting discussion over the wider localism agenda, on whether city deals are a ‘smokescreen for cuts’.

The omission of provisions for a single capital funding pot from Liverpool’s city deal raises the question of the level of financial autonomy likely to be available to cities. London has often been invoked as an aspirational example for other large English cities, but in addition to a specific framework for holding the Mayor to account (see above) a key power open to the Mayor of London is the ability to raise a precept collected at the borough level as an addition to council tax. This possibility has not been prominently discussed in the context of city deals, partly reflecting the fact that London is an aggregation of boroughs in a city-region rather than a single entity, but also reflecting a broader trend in government. More radical proposals for local revenue raising powers – such as those proposed by Nick Clegg and rejected by the Conservatives – have also not featured in the discourse over city deals thus far, while the Local Government Finance Bill has raised alarm from councils over the complexity of its mechanism for business rate retention, potential unfairness – identified by councils both at the richer and at the poorer end of the spectrum – and the levers it appears to give to the Secretary of State to decide on the extent and use of central appropriations from locally collected business rate revenues. Local authorities are able to request new revenue-raising powers through the Sustainable Communities Act 2007, though debate is still ongoing over the adequacy of regulations governing councils’ engagement with communities and the government’s response to proposals put forward. However, given the high profile of the ‘city deals’ process and the way in which it symbolises and aggregates a range of key initiatives across multiple government departments, the inclusion of revenue-raising capabilities in cities’ proposals for new powers may be a good way to provoke a productive discussion with government on the issue.

Similarly, it is unclear whether ‘city deals’ will free councils from the need to seek permission from the Secretary of State to carry out particular actions. The government is already removing several such requirements, particularly in the area of transport, and consistently refers to the general power of competence outlined in the Localism Act – giving councils the ability to undertake any general action legal for an individual, as long as it is not specifically ruled out in legislation – as an existing measure which could help empower cities. There is no indication, however, that councils will be able to push through measures – particularly controversial ones such as a congestion charge, put to a referendum in Manchester in 2008, or a workplace parking levy – with a mandate from local people, as opposed to from national government. Potentially, this could somewhat undermine the strong (Mayoral) leadership on which government has placed a premium.

Other powers are conspicuously absent. The liberal economist and commentator Tim Leunig has identified education as a major omission from the move to empower cities, citing poor academic achievement in many of the core cities – after adjusting for socioeconomic factors – and linking this to the level of skilled workers as a key determinant of an area’s average income. The stipulation in Liverpool that at least half of the new schools built with investment channelled through the ‘city deal’ arrangement should be academies means that, as noted in the letterfrom government to the Chief Executive of Liverpool City Council, ‘the Council will not be part of their ongoing governance or financial management’. This disconnection between council and school may undermine the council’s ability to ‘be proactive’, as the letter immediately goes on to say, ‘and work with the schools, the private sector and the universities in Liverpool to help them develop specialisms and identify and attract appropriate sponsors’. Recent context, including the intervention of the Education Secretary Michael Gove in attempting to compel Downhills School in the London Borough of Haringey to become an academy, suggests that this issue may continue to prove prominent in future city deals.

However, in some areas the new powers open to councils potentially fit very well with other moves from government. For example, the opportunities arising from the government’s planned reforms to public health commissioning and delivery – currently being taken forward as part of the Health and Social Care Bill – have considerable relevance to the new cities agenda. Under the proposed changes, local authorities would have responsibilities (currently envisaged to be a joint responsibility with clinical commissioning groups) for preparing Joint Strategic Needs Assessments, developing joint health and wellbeing strategies to respond to the needs identified and commissioning public health interventions. Approximately £2.2 billion of public health funding will be available across all local authorities. Decisions on how to spend this money, and strategic responsibilities, would be discharged through health and wellbeing boards comprising local healthcare commissioners and local representatives with public health interests across disciplines. The wide-ranging capabilities of the powerful cities envisaged in the city deals model would in theory be an ideal basis for effective work across disciplines to bring together public health and other objectives relating to transport, planning, housing and related issues in order to address the wider determinants of public health and ensure that resources were used as efficiently as possible. For example, Liverpool Primary Care Trust identified road safety as a key public health issue and agreed to put funding towards extending 20 mph speed limits in the city. The move will save an estimated 140 children per year from death or serious injury, taking considerable pressure off acute healthcare services. The possibilities for building on this joined-up approach in a city combining public health responsibilities with a Mayoral Development Corporation and (potentially) greater planning, housing and transport responsibilities are considerable. Ensuring that a broad base of expertise is represented on health and wellbeing boards will be essential to making the most of these opportunities.

This post is based upon an LGiU member briefing by Majeed Neky. For more information about LGiU membership, please contact chris.naylor@lgiu.org.uk.

Liverpool’s city deal highlights some important questions about how cities’ potential new freedoms will fit with the wider role of cities within a region, including their role in providing jobs to a wider Travel to Work Area (TTWA).

Government guidance on city deals recognises that ‘in some areas the lowest appropriate level [to exercise power] may be a local authority, but in others it will be the local economic area. When it comes to powers related to economic development, such as strategic planning and transport, there is likely to be a strong case for aligning powers with the functional economy.’ LEPs are seen as the obvious vehicle for ‘encouraging local leaders to think and work together in ways that reflect their true economic geography’. LEPs were established in 2010, in a move seen by some as an attempt to counterbalance the government’s abolition of Regional Development Agencies, with geographic partnerships of local authorities and local business organisations invited to bid for LEP status. In theory LEPs broadly reflect established economic areas such as TTWAs. The partnerships have no statutory income but are able to bid for money from funds such as the £1.4 billion Regional Growth Fund and, recently, the Growing Places Fund for infrastructure development.Practically all of England is covered by LEPs as of January 2012.

Significantly, as reiterated by the government when making its ‘city deal’ offer to Liverpool, monies from business rate growth generated within an EZ will by default go to the LEP area hosting that EZ. In Liverpool, this may see tension between the city council and its partners in the city-region LEP – including the surrounding boroughs of Halton, Sefton, Knowsley, St. Helens and the Wirral – over the distribution of money raised. A more significant complication arises from the likely establishment of elected mayors in core cities but not elsewhere across the wider city-region, potentially causing a mismatch of power and influence between LEP partners. Several powers that the government cites as potentially available to cities – particularly those concerning transport commissioning and funding – could see problems of representation and accountability arise if devolved in such an unequal system. Conversely, the decision to hold mayoral referendums in some geographically proximate cities, such as Leeds and Bradford, makes it difficult to define city-regions straightforwardly as overlapping with LEPs, and could lead to unproductive rivalries, with the relatively loosely-knit LEPs an insufficient vehicle for finding consensus. For example, writing in Planning magazine, Sir Peter Hall notes that Salford, within the Greater Manchester metropolitan county, has voted to switch to a mayoral system before the city of Manchester has decided its position, citing ‘Manchester and Salford mayors slugging it out over the critical question of the terminus of the High Speed 2 rail line’ as the type of deadlock that could potentially occur. He concludes that ‘the logical answer would be the one that has worked successfully for 12 years in London: an executive mayor for the entire city-region, who could assume local enterprise partnership powers.’

There are also concerns over how far a LEP-led and city-focused approach to driving growth will recognise the needs ofrural economies and communities, the extent to which new city powers (particularly compared to the previous arrangements for regional development) are likely to contribute to the larger national task of rebalancing the economybetween North and South, and the ability of smaller cities to claim new powers. The last point was illustrated well by the government’s decision to limit bids for its fund to support the priority rollout of super-fast broadband to the 14 cities with over 150,000 homes, and the rejection by Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt of Brighton’s campaign, based on the prominence of its digital industries, to be allowed to bid. However, in January 2012, Greg Clark made a speech to theCentre for Cities (which concerns itself with all cities in the UK) in which he invited all cities to put forward proposals for city deals.

Part 2 will look at what powers and with what strings attached.

This post is based upon an LGiU member briefing. For more information about LGiU membership, please contact chris.naylor@lgiu.org.uk.

Eric Pickles, Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, said

“Freezing council tax is a concrete way councils can support residents in tough times, by keeping bills down for local families. Anything less is a kick in the teeth to hard-working, decent taxpayers which is why it is great that over 200 councils have already pledged to freeze.

“Most councils will be setting their budgets in the next few weeks and I fully expect the number freezing to climb further. For council taxpayers who’ve seen their bills double since 1997 to around £120 a month they need that decision to go their way.”

I think current LGiU research will make Mr. Pickles happy. Working with the MJ, we have surveyed key finance officers in local government – with one of the questions being ‘In 2012, do you plan to freeze your council tax or increase it above the 25% ‘deal’ offered by the Government?’

So far, just shy of 94% of all authorities have said they will opt for the freeze. What’s more, a good number of these authorities are not on the official list of 201 ‘freezer’ councils can released by Eland House (pdf). My prediction then is for the final number to be more towards the 300 mark.

However, despite opting for the Government’s deal this year, 78% of councils say they would sooner have the freedom in 2013/14 to raise council tax at whatever rate they feel appropriate. It will be interesting to see how Pickles plays this over the next 12 months.

The survey not only asked about council tax though. We are also gathering information on business rates, future borrowing plans, benefits and Tax Increment Finance powers.

Results will be published next week in the MJ. If you want to be among the first to receive the full data, please sign up to our blog here.

Justine Greening acknowledged the divisions HS2 has created by conceding that:

‘It is clear from the consultation that a national high speed rail network – High Speed 2 – generates strong feelings, both in favour and against the scheme.’

Even though the government has announced that HS2 will go ahead, those against continue to put forward their case vociferously. They have won some concessions regarding the impacts to the natural environment, such as an increase in the length of tunnels on the route. And the Secretary of State has pledged to “ work constructively with local authorities along the line of route to minimise the negative consequences of HS2 and maximise the benefits.”

On the economic value of HS2, the government’s own figures suggest that groups such as 51m may have a point. The government’s benefit to cost ratio for phase 1 of the route stands at £1.40 (that is, a return of £1.40 on every £1 invested). Mark Odell and Jim Pickard write in the Financial Times (£) that:

‘The economic case for [HS2] has weakened so much over the past year that the London to Birmingham section is now considered “low” value for money.’

They quote Stephen Glaister, a transport economist and executive director of the RAC Foundation, who says that “the Treasury wouldn’t normally get out of bed for that.”

The long lead time before HS2 comes to fruition (phase 1 won’t be complete until 2026) obviously makes concrete projections about the economic benefits more difficult. For example, some commentators have questioned the assumptions the government has made about the value to business of reducing journey times (HS2 will reduce the journey time between London and Birmingham to 49 minutes). Douglas McWilliam, Chief Executive of CEBR, an economics forecasting and analysis consultancy, warns that:

‘Modern rail, with the ability to plug in computers and increasing wifi and mobile connectivity, is much more like a substitute office than the rail of the time when the official estimates were made. And by the mid-2030s [sic] when HS2 comes in, high tech teleconferencing will make much business travel unnecessary.’

The government is promoting HS2 as being an important part of a low carbon future. The publication High Speed Rail: Investing in Britain’s Future, says that:

‘Many of the carbon emissions from both building and running a high speed line are covered by the European Union Emissions Trading System, meaning much of the carbon impact of HS2 will be offset by emissions reductions elsewhere.’

However, the actual reduction in carbon emissions that the project will achieve is difficult to quantify due to long-term uncertainties relating to the price of fuel and how that will influence people’s travel decisions, other policy measures that may be introduced such as a road tax, and how quickly the UK electricity supply is decarbonised. Greengauge 21, a research consultancy in favour of high speed rail, has produced an interim report on the carbon impacts of HS2, but will not publish a final report (with conclusions) until later in 2012.

A more pressing concern for local authorities along the route is the potential political fallout of the decision by the Coalition to press ahead with HS2. Only three of the districts that are members of 51m have elections pending in May 2012. But the impact on the ruling Conservatives in Cherwell and Stratford-upon-Avon, and the Liberal Democrats in Three Rivers, may be significant if voters choose to punish the national Coalition via local elections.

The headline decision to proceed with HS2 has been taken, but there is still considerable planning that will be required at the local level, and local planning authorities have a key statutory role here. So far it is unclear how well planning for HS2 will knit into local planning processes for housing growth, transport and other infrastructure. Sir Peter Hall, a long-time supporter of high speed rail, cautions that:

‘Silo planning – where HS2 plans high-speed rail, NR plans other routes, and there is little co-ordination with land use planning, regeneration and park-and-ride provision – must at all costs be avoided.’

Finally, the timing of the announcement of such a large transport infrastructure project so close to the implementation of many of the provisions of the Localism Act from April this year is unfortunate to say the least. People are being encouraged to roll up their sleeves and participate in neighbourhood planning. But there will be a sense in the communities along the route who are opposed to HS2 that the big decisions that really affect local areas will continue to be made by others irrespective of whether they get involved or not in local planning processes. 

Local authority support for HS2

The following local authorities have publicly supported HS2 (this list is not exhaustive):

• Leeds City  Council
• Liverpool City Council
• London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham (the borough will host a station at Old Oak Common)
• Manchester City Council
• Newcastle City Council
• Nottingham City Council
• Sheffield City Council

The Go-HS2 collaboration includes Birmingham City Council and a range of its partners.

Predominantly these councils’ support is based on the economic projections set out for HS2. For example, Go-HS2argues that HS2 will boost the West Midland’s economy by £2.5 billion and create up to 2,000 operational and maintenance jobs.

***

Local authority opposition to HS2

The largest group of local authorities opposed to HS2 is 51m, a national campaign of 18 councils (the campaign is called 51m because each Parliamentary constituency would in theory have to pay £51 million towards the cost of HS2). Members are:

• Aylesbury Vale District Council
• Buckinghamshire County Council
• Cherwell District Council
• Chiltern District Council
• Coventry City Council
• Harborough District Council
• Leicestershire County Council
• Lichfield District Council
• London Borough of Hillingdon
• North Warwickshire Borough Council
• Oxfordshire County Council
• South Bucks District Council
• South Northants District Council
• Stratford-on-Avon District Council
• Three Rivers District Council
• Warwick District Council
• Warwickshire County Council
• Wycombe District Council.

Broadly, the group consists of districts and counties through which HS2 will run. The obvious exception is Coventry City Council. In December 2010 it unanimously opposed HS2. At the time one councillor commented that “HS2 would relegate Coventry to little more than a backwater. We would end up with all of the disadvantages and none of benefits.” HS2 will not stop at Coventry.

The London Borough of Camden is not part of 51m but is also opposed to the route. The HS2 project proposes demolishing more than 200 homes within the council area to the north of Euston station.

While 51m argues that the economic case for HS2 has been overstated, many of the councils involved are opposed to the local environmental impact of the HS2 route (for a brief discussion of this see Comment below). As well as concerns about damage to the natural environment, 51m also cites possible impacts of increased noise and blight for people living alongside or near to the route, and consequent declines in value for business and residential properties.

The group has put forward its own proposals which focus on increasing the capacity of the existing rail network.  

On 8 February 2012, 51m wrote to the Secretary of State urging her to overturn the government’s decision to proceed with HS2. The group has threatened to challenge the decision through a judicial review. Councillor Ray Puddifoot, Vice-Chairman of 51m and Leader of the London Borough of Hillingdon, said that:

“The consultation process was unfair and inadequate in many respects… it is right that we challenge the Government’s decision to progress with this misguided scheme.”

This post is an exert from an LGiU member briefing by Andrew Ross. Briefings are accessible to all elected members and officers of LGiU member authorities. For more information on LGiU membership please contact our Partnerships Manager Chris Naylor on chris.naylor@lgiu.org.uk. 

A summary of his points can be found below:

UK local councils actually run quite a tight fiscal ship: We need to ensure that central government cannot force local government to perform actions without providing the funding necessary. Councils also need to raise more of their funding locally and be accountable for that funding. With the exception of a limited amount of redistribution between rich and poor areas, neither central nor local government should be able to promise lots of goodies that someone else has to raise the funds to pay for.

Focus on residents: We should start with a presumption in favour of local control but we need to start with the citizen and work up. Does something need to be done? If yes then can citizens do this without government involvement? If no then can local government do this? Only if the answer is no should we turn to central government. I don’t want localism to mean setting up lots of little Whitehalls all around the country.

We need to make it easier for people to work with councils: I think the coalition tried to sell the ‘big society’ concept with the idea that it would lead to volunteers taking over loads of services when actually the big society is about a mixed market in service provision. This will include some private providers, some voluntary groups, central government agencies and the local council. These partnerships need to be about sharing risk not simply transferring it all. We need to change our thinking and remove the barriers to people coming forward to run these services, even if there may not be many wanting to do this in practice.

A full round-up of the debate can be view on the Guardian Local Government Network here.

(c) josephpilgrim.com

*NEW SPEAKER ADDED* We are very pleased to announce that Ruby Sharma from Twitter UK will be running a ‘getting to know Twitter’ session at the Lambeth Social. This will give some background to how twitter works, it’s reach and growth. There will also be time for some Q&As too.

As part of Social Media Week, LGiU have teamed up with Lambeth Council to put on ‘The Lambeth Social’.

This is going to be a free and informal event aiming to bring together local politicians, residents, bloggers, volunteers and community activists to discuss how social media can foster new collaborations and build more co-operative communities.

We want to hear about what you’re doing, who you’re working with and how others can get involved in your project, campaign or cause.

Speakers

• Ruby Sharma, Twitter UK
• Rob Dale, LGiU
• Cllr Christopher Wellbelove, Lambeth Council
• Giles Gibson, Herne Hill Forum
• Others tbc

For more information, please get in touch with Rob on rob.dale@lgiu.org.uk or tweet @robandale 

Today we’re in Bristol hosting a major one-day policy conference for the south-west and west midlands. The Localism Act – over to you brings together Local Government Minister Andrew Stunell, Cities Advisor Lord Shipley, with a range of local councillors and officers as well as senior officials from the Department for Communities and Local Government.

Speakers include

This year, many of the coalition’s localist policies come into effect. What will this mean for how we see local politics?

Whatever you think about academies, it seems that they are here to stay. Forty per cent of secondary schools have converted, or are in the process of converting to, academy status and, although the rate of conversion has slowed, there is little reason to suppose that this number will not continue to grow. Indeed, recent research by the Local Government Information Unit (LGiU) showed that a majority of council lead members and directors for children’s services thought that more than half the schools in their area would have academy status by the end of 2013.

I should declare an interest. In a previous role, I was involved in setting up an academy and I believe that school (the RSA Academy in Tipton) is a shining example of progressive educational practice and of what can be achieved by an enlightened academy sponsor.

There’s also a strong localist argument for academies. We know that successful innovation rarely comes from centralised plans rolled out in a standardised form. Innovation happens when practitioners on the ground are given the freedom to experiment, to respond to localised conditions and to learn quickly from their successes and, even more importantly, their failures.

So if we want to drive real innovation, we need to devolve power down to the lowest possible level – in this case, the school. True localists should therefore at least be open to the idea of academies. At the same time, we know that for innovation and improvement to flourish they also need to be transmitted across broader networks so that others can learn from and adapt them. We also know that there are strategic needs in education that cannot be met by individual schools acting alone. Someone needs to monitor quality, ensure accountability, guarantee that all children get a place and attend school, and provide additional assistance such as school improvement support and services for children with special educational needs.

Local authorities (and local authorities alone) have the capacity and the democratic accountability to perform what government has described as a strategic role, and Michael Gove has said that “in a more autonomous schools system, local authorities have a crucial role to play” in “championing … families, supporting vulnerable families and championing education excellence”.

So whatever we think of academies, they’re not disappearing any time soon. And whatever we think of local government’s track record in education, it has an ongoing job to do.

The question then becomes: can local authorities play this role effectively and support both academies and maintained schools? Here, the picture is less than clear cut.

Direct funding of academies will reduce the money available to local authorities to provide support services. This may present difficulties, but already we see local councils seeking ways to meet this challenge – for example by innovating in service delivery; increasing the cost of traded services; reducing the range of school support services available to maintained schools; selling traded services to schools that convert to academy status; and competing to provide services in other authority areas.

However, while these sorts of practical measures may help local authorities to transform their support services, many of the respondents surveyed by the LGiU felt that they did not enjoy sufficient legal powers to effectively perform their strategic role to its fullest potential. Specifically, they wanted to be able to intervene in a poorly performing academy; approve academy admission arrangements; direct that a child not on a school’s admissions register is admitted to an academy; name an academy in a school attendance order; and charge an academy for pupils attending council-funded alternative provision.

The secretary of state is unlikely to surrender these powers easily, but it’s time to make these sorts of details the subject of urgent debate. Education reform is a central part of the government’s agenda and the language on all sides tends to be rather overblown. Academies and a local authority role in education are often presented as incompatible alternatives. In truth, events have moved us past that argument. The real question is how we now ensure proper regulation and accountability of a more diverse school system.

This squabble is part of the wider debate over the Local Finance Bill – currently making its way through the Commons.

Local government finance has a relatively low profile but the plans put forward in the Bill could affect radical changes to the political geography of this country

The Government has also heard concerns about the equalisation of local business rates with proposals for top-ups, tariffs and levies. I understand that some people within local government are anxious about how the scheme will work over time and whether the top ups will retain their value.

This is why LGiU have teamed up with the MJ to run an opinion pool to find out what you think about the plans in the Bill and the future of council finances in general.

The survey consists of 17 questions and should take no longer than 5-10 mins to complete. To take part, please follow the link below.

https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/LGiUlocalfinancesurvey

The survey will be closed on 15 February and shared in the following week’s edition of the MJ.

Feel free to contact me on rob.dale@lgiu.org.uk if you have any questions or queries.

——–

The Community Organisers programme aims to nurture a home-grown movement of community organising for the 21st century, emerging directly from the strengths, concerns and hopes of all kinds of neighbourhoods across England. The programme will recruit and train 500 senior community organisers, along with a further 4,500 part-time voluntary organisers, over four years to 2015.

Community organisers are usually recruited and hosted by local community host organisations, often in deprived areas of the country, in teams of 2-5. The organisers are independent – they do not work for the local host or contact, or for the government.

Organisers are dedicated, motivated people who build trust, respect and networks through dialogue and a systematic, broad-based local listening process that ignites the impulse to act. They are trained by RE:generate using their ‘Root Solution Listening Matters’ approach.

With this grassroots approach we are finding that organisers are reaching way beyond ‘the already involved’ and hearing from those with the quietest voices. It is important that the information gathered – in terms of networks of contacts and the issues and ideas emerging – belongs to the community itself. It is almost always shared at some point with councillors, agencies and others, but only when the community is ready and chooses to do so. 

The work aims to ‘ignite the impulse to act’, encouraging people to take action to build on what they love about the area, address the issues that make them angry, sad or frustrated, and take personal and collective responsibility to achieve their own vision of what they would like the area to be like.  This approach does not threaten representative democracy but rather complements and can strengthen it, particularly through recognising that a simple action people can take is to vote. Of course it is not a magic bullet and it requires people to trust the process. As one councillor from an area where RE:generate have been working for some time noted “you need to leave the bread to rise and not keep opening the oven door”.

The Community Organisers programme is delivered by Locality in partnership with RE:generate and the Office for Civil Society. The programme board includes elected representatives of the community organisers and the local host organisations.

Local authorities interested in the programme could encourage local community partners to apply to be a host. While the main route into the programme is through hosting, if there is a particular reason why this kind of work is a priority in your area and you would be interested in the direct deployment approach email us directly at corganisers@locality.org.uk describing the situation.

To sign up to updates from the Civil Society Innovation Network, please click here.

The LGiU encouraged councils to use their new preventive health role to target three big killer diseases; diabetes, heart disease and dementia. Each of these conditions imposes significant costs on the government and society. Councils could reduce these costs by running a health screening programme.

For greater detail a blog describing our preventive health proposals is available. The scale of the potential savings depends on whether the government will share them with councils. We outlined a transformative approach based on savings to both government and local authorities. We included an incremental approach based on savings to the council alone.

Identifying those most at risk of getting these diseases will allow us to deploy targeted preventive programmes. The images above show the importance of targeting preventive measures. Both feature Birmingham. The image on the left shows that heart disease screening is occurring in the outer part of Birmingham but not the centre of the city. The image on the right shows incidences of heart disease. You will see they are mainly concentrated in the centre of Birmingham. This is the result of current NHS practice.

Those who argue council provision leads to a postcode lottery need to realise that our national health service is not delivering uniform care at the moment. Council’s knowledge of their communities will allow them to target services better. Where differences exist they will occur because of local democratic choices. Preventive health will allow innovative approaches to be tried in different areas. We can find out what works and apply it more widely. Everyone will benefit from more localised health services.

There has been some quiet moaning about the news that O2 Telefonica has struck a deal with Westminster and Kensington and Chelsea councils to bring free Wi-Fi access to residents and visitors to the boroughs.

One officer called the scheme “a waste of money”. I don’t understand this negativity, especially as, according to the provider, the cost of creating Europe’s largest Wi-Fi hub is precisely zero to the taxpayer and the two councils. Of course, money will have been spent on arranging the deal, but the cost of this is almost irrelevant when compared with the potential boost to the local economy.

As I have argued before, the building of IT infrastructure must be about communities, businesses and local authorities working together to reach a desired result. Westminster council says the Wi-Fi service will open up new possibilities for west end businesses. We know that councils have to adapt to stay relevant to the way their residents live their lives, and this is especially urgent in technology, media and communications.

The vast majority of mobile phone sales in the UK are now smartphones. The technology has become affordable and useable for new demographics, including my grandma, who is nearly 90. So as increasing numbers of people are using Google, email and even accessing council information on the go, these innovative partnerships with service providers should be welcomed.

The current infrastructure for mobile internet (3G) is already creaking under the weight of use. From a purely practical view, we need more free Wi-Fi areas just to keep supply up with demand – especially if we are tounleash the power of British cities.

The O2 project will also help more people work with greater flexibility. Next summer, you could leave your desk and send emails while sitting in the local park. Or employees could wait out the rush hour by working the first part of the day down the greasy spoon. You may choose not to – but wouldn’t it be nice to have the choice?

Rather than being restricted to mainstream coffee shops, general WI-FI access turns every cafe, library, bench and waiting room in to a possible work space. Better access to the internet could help bring people back to the high street.

The deal could also help battle some of the problems caused by the digital divide. There are still nine million people in the UK without online access. This partnership could offer children a greater chance to go online outside of school, or allow older people to receive health advice without making a trip to the doctor.

There is great potential for Westminster and Kensington and Chelsea councils to better understand who is in their borough, what they’re doing and how to design services more in line with end users. Users of the service will have to provide registration details, which should be no more demanding than when registering to use any network in a coffee shop. If the council uses this point of engagement effectively they could also offer further online services, such as updates on bin collections, school closure and local community events – even council meetings and consultations.

Going where the eyeballs are, a white paper published by the Local Government Information Unit (LGiU) last year, showed that significant cost savings can be achieved through proactive communication models that cut down on avoidable contact time by up to 35%.

By then monitoring users over time, councils can build a picture of movement patterns around the borough that are much more detailed than any traditional survey could produce. This means that valuable data can be gathered at any time and taken into council meetings to help make better decisions.

If we’re lucky, this data may even be freed up for developers to turn into websites and apps that will help people live their lives more easily.

Some may worry that this is bit too big-brother-like for comfort, but it’s really no different to the way Google, Apple, Facebook and lots of other organisations collect information every day; just look at how many people now find their services indispensable. I hope local government does all it can to encourage more of these relationships.

LGiU and CCLA are delighted to announce the 2012 shortlist for the C’llr Achievement Awards.

With over 250 entries, it was the strongest field of candidates to date. We were inspired by all the entries –particularly to see so many great examples of where councillors have made a huge difference to their communities. But, we couldn’t shortlist everyone. Here is who we thought were most inspiring.

Winners will be announced at a ceremony on February 27^th.

AGE UK PRIDE OF PLACE AWARD

Sue Cooley (Manchester City Council)

Edward Davie (London Borough of Lambeth Council)

Olwen Foggin (Devon County Council)

Robert Johnston (Winchester City Council)

Howard Murray (Poynton Town Council)

CCLA AWARD FOR OUTSTANDING CONTRIBUTION TO FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE

Randal Brew (Birmingham City Council)

David Malcolm Finch (Essex County Council)

Alan Jarrett (Medway Council)

Kelly Smith (Lincolnshire County Council)

Sean Woodward (Fareham Borough Council)

COMMUNITY CHAMPION OF THE YEAR

Sir Peter Brown (Cambridgeshire County Council)

Bob Cope (South Staffordshire Council)

Fiona Cross (Torfaen County Borough Council)

Zahida Abbas Noori (London Borough of Ealing Council)

Evelyn Westwood (South Lakeland District Council)

JUDGES’ SPECIAL AWARD FOR OUTSTANDING CONTRIBUTION TO LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Godfrey Allanson (Scarborough Borough Council)

Joan Barton (Sheffield City Council)

Rodney Lister Bass (Essex County Council)

David John Stark (Plymouth City Council & Devon County Council)

Tricia Turner (Central Bedfordshire Council)

LEADER OF THE YEAR AWARD

Philip Atkins (Staffordshire County Council)

Tony Ball (Basildon Council)

David Burbage (Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead)

Pat Fawcett (Corby Borough Council)

Stephen Greenhalgh (London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham Council)

Kate Hollern (Blackburn with Darwen Council)

Colin Lambert (Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council)

Sir Richard Leese (Manchester City Council)

Vivien Pengelly (Plymouth City Council)

Steve Reed (London Borough of Lambeth Council)

ONLINE COUNCILLOR OF THE YEAR AWARD

Mike Harris (London Borough of Lewisham Council)

Alison Hernandez (Torbay Council)

Fraser Macpherson (Dundee City Council)

Alan Stanton (London Borough of Haringey Council)

Steve Tierney (Cambridgeshire County Council)

PARTNERSHIP ACHIEVEMENT OF THE YEAR AWARD

Derek Antrobus (Salford City Council)

Eunice Campbell (Nottingham City Council)

Matthew Ellis (Staffordshire County Council)

Joint Application: Spencer Flower (East Dorset District Council) and Ray Nottage (Christchurch Borough Council)

Joint Application: James McInnes (West Devon Borough Council) and John Tucker (South Hams District Council)

SCRUTINEER OF THE YEAR AWARD

Edward Davie (London Borough of Lambeth Council)

Pauleen Grahame (Leeds City Council)

Samantha Hoy (Cambridgeshire County Council)

Andy Hull (London Borough of Islington Council)

Gale Waller (Rutland County Council)

SUSTAINABILITY CHAMPION OF THE YEAR

Joe Goldberg (London Borough of Haringey Council)

Jon Rogers (Bristol City Council)

John Stanton (Stroud District Council)

Paul Tilsley (Birmingham City Council)

Susan Wise (London Borough of Lewisham Council)

YOUNG COUNCILLOR OF THE YEAR AWARD

Victoria Fowler (Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council)

Rania Khan (London Borough of Tower Hamlets Council)

Michael Payne (Gedling Borough Council)

Tafheen Sharif (Luton Borough Council)

Paul White (Pendle Borough Council)

The Bruce-Lockhart Member Scholarship is a particularly special award. In its first year, this award is part of the Bruce-Lockhart Leadership Programme which was established in memory of former Kent County Council Leader and LGA Chairman, Lord Bruce-Lockhart. The programme aims to develop the next generation of council leaders and chief executives by finding international best practice that can be applied locally. The winner of this category will be awarded a £10k bursary to complete a project to promote the case for localism. The shortlist is:

BRUCE-LOCKHART MEMBER SCHOLARSHIP

Paul Corazzo (Kettering Borough Council)

Lindsey Hall (Westminster City Council)

Shona Johnstone (Cambridgeshire County Council)

Henry Murison (Newcastle City Council)

Ruth O’Keefe (East Sussex County Council)

Harry Phibbs (London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham Council)

Sign-up here to be first to know who the winners are and follow us on the evening on the #cllrawards hashtag.