Implementing the LAA within structurally different local environments

Although the format of any LAA was uniform, due to the complex nature of local government in the UK, and the way that local authorities are organised, there are two differing sets of environments in which the LAA was agreed upon and delivered: the presence of either a single or two-tier local authority.

3.7.1 Single-Tier

Single tier authorities comprise Unitary and Metropolitan Boroughs. In this structure, there is only one LSP. This LSP was responsible for producing the SCS for that area only. The LSP, along with statutory partners was then responsible for producing the LAA, again relating to that specific area only. Therefore, single tier local authorities have arguably the least complex task in defining and enacting their Local Area Agreement. This is because the LSP has to produce, and conform to, one set of documents, produced by one group of actors, concerning only one administrative area.

3.7.2 Two-Tier – County and District

There are many local authorities in the UK which operate on a two-tier, county and district system. Under these governance arrangements, the process can become considerably more complex.

In these instances, all the district local authorities within a county council structure were still required to have LSP structures in place, as well as a SCS for the area. In this, a two tier structure does not differ from a metropolitan or unitary authority. However, the notable difference arises when producing the LAA. Unlike their single tier counterparts, each LSP was not required to produce an LAA for their individual area. Instead a single LAA was produced covering the entire county council area. This process took into consideration all the various community strategies produced, to make one coherent set of priorities to serve the entire county council area.

In its first advice note the ODPM acknowledged that the two-tier system could make the production of an LAA more complex (ODPM: 2004b, Annex 1), although it was felt that the process would improve dialogue between a county and district level. The effectiveness of this dialogue and the way difference in priorities are managed is one of the main causes of complexity. First, the act of consolidating several Community Strategies which have been carefully prepared to reflect local aspirations, into one coherent agreement representing an entire county area is not easy. This must be a careful balancing act which considers all the needs of an area rather than simply focusing on headline challenges which may only affect a small part of the county.

The second issue is closely linked to this - priorities. It is plausible that the County Council authorities may have a different political will or agenda compared to some of its district counterparts. This may mean that aims which have been identified at a district level as being important to an area may not be afforded the same consideration. This may create resentment amongst the districts if they feel that their priorities are neither sufficiently represented, or that they are overlooked in terms of receiving support from the LAA, which, in turn, then has the potential to reduce their willingness to cooperate with the document and its goals.

This process is not without its benefits. The act of producing one LAA across several district authority areas has the potential to both drastically reduce, yet simultaneously improve the potential for involvement of key partners, particularly agencies such as the Police and Primary Care Trust, whose influence may cover the entire area in question. If they only have to become involved with only one LAA, agreeing and delivering on one set of targets, albeit covering a larger geographical area, then they could be potentially more likely to involve themselves owing to a decrease in bureaucratic output and conflict with their own targets.

In the 2004 advice note, it is envisaged that the county-wide LSP would lead negotiations for the countywide LAA, after consulting extensively with its constituent district LSPs (ODPM: 2004b). The county LSP therefore faced a crucial task in both effectively consulting and involving the district LSPs, reflecting their aims in an appropriate manner while simultaneously producing a document which reflects countywide aims and aspirations.

3.8 LAA Rollout

The LAA model was implemented over three stages, developing from a pilot stage involving a few actors before finally being adopted by every local authority in England by 2008 (Figure 3.1). A fourth stage instigated by a partial reorganisation of local government took place in 2009, causing a few changes to the number of LAAs.

Each stage of the rollout modified the LAA slightly, with some of the changes discussed earlier including the adding of the ‘Economic Development and Enterprise’ thematic block during stage two, as well as the addition of statutory education targets.

Stage One: Following the publication of the LAA prospectus in 2004 (ODPM: 2004a), LSPs were invited to enter into negotiations to produce a pilot LAA. 21 Authority areas took part in the pilot (see inset).

Stage Two: In 2006, following the

successfully signing off of the 20 pilot LAAs, DCLG produced amended guidance for LAAs, modifying the process based on lessons learnt from the pilot stage. This included the expansion of the thematic blocks as discussed earlier. This period saw a further 66 areas produce and sign off on their LAAs.

Stage Three: The third rollout of Local Area Agreements saw the remaining areas sign up

to produce an LAA, bringing total geographic coverage across England and resulting in 150 LAAs.

Stage Four - Reorganisation (2009): On April 1st 2009 many of the two tier authorities were abolished, becoming unitary authorities. In the areas that underwent this change, the district areas, which in turn contributed to make up the county merged to form one administrative unit. In most cases the new authority accepted the boundary of the former county to become a unitary authority. However, in two examples, the county was split into two areas which would function separately as two unitary authorities. Table 3.3 below outlines which counties were affected by these changes, and how.

LAA Pilots: 2004  Barnsley  Bradford

 Brighton and Hove  Cornwall  Coventry  Derbyshire  Devon  Doncaster  Dorset  Gateshead  Greenwich LB  Hammersmith and Fulham  Kent  Knowsley  Peterborough  Sheffield  Stockton on Tees  Suffolk  Wigan  Wolverhampton  Telford and Wrekin

Table 3.3 - Local Government Reorganisation 2009 (Administrative Changes)

Original Authority Districts New Authority

Bedfordshire County Council Bedford Mid Bedfordshire South Bedfordshire Bedford UA Central Bedfordshire UA

Cheshire County Council

Chester

Ellesmere Port & Neston Vale Royal

Cheshire West & Chester UA

Congleton

Crewe and Nantwich Macclesfield

Cheshire East UA

Cornwall County Council

Caradon Carrick Kerrier North Cornwall Penwith Restormel. Cornwall UA

Durham County Council

Chester-le-Street Derwentside Durham Easington Sedgefield Teesdale Wear Valley Durham UA Northumberland County Council Alnwick Berwick-upon-Tweed Blyth Valley Castle Morpeth Tynedale Wansbeck Northumberland UA Shropshire County Council Bridgnorth North Shropshire Oswestry

Shrewsbury and Atcham South Shropshire

Shropshire UA

Wiltshire County Council

Kennet North Wiltshire Salisbury West Wiltshire Wiltshire UA Source: CLG: 2009b

This process of reorganisation, including the creation of four new LAAs in Bedford, Central Bedfordshire, Cheshire West & Chester and Cheshire East resulted in the number of LAAs increasing from 150 to 152. By consolidating five of the County and District style councils into Unitary Authorities, this meant that the process of consolidation of several SCSs into one LAA would no longer apply in any future LAA negotiation. Following the reorganisation, each new unitary authority was subsequently charged with creating a new LSP representing its area and with producing a new LAA. While this process would take place along the lines of existing Unitary Authorities as outlined earlier in this chapter, the new LSP would be responsible for producing and implementing a SCS and LAA that would (theoretically) adequately reflect the aims of each of the areas that comprise the new authority, as opposed to only one area.

However, throughout this process Chisholm and Leach (2011) pointed towards what they perceived as ‘dishonest’ behaviour on the part of central government. In particular they highlighted disagreements over how different parties defined technical language and the methods of both reporting and dealing with responses to consultation which, Chisholm and Leach contended, failed to accurately reflect public opinion. Ultimately they questioned the extent to which the reorganisation was in the best interest of the local authorities, which raises even more questions about the top-down control of the local government process.

Understandably, this change in the organisational structure raises several important questions about the LAA process in the new authority areas. In many cases these questions are similar to those that could be asked about the old two tier structure. The first issue is one of compatibility: how does the SCS for a wider area reflect all the pertinent issues for a number of areas which may have widely differing situations (i.e. economic issues, health, education)? Immediately linked to this, is the extent to which the LAA is capable of implementing these needs using a limited number of indicators?

There are also several questions which can be asked of each level of the various partner agencies within this process (local, regional and central). At the local level, it can be asked as to whether this consolidation of authorities provided them with more scope to take action against the most relevant issues? If it is the case that this reorganisation weakened the power of the localities to make decisions on issues that affect them, then an immediate follow up question would be to discover where this power went?

The many statutory partners also have questions which can be asked of them as a result of this process. Did being involved with one LSP, rather than multiple LSPs, improve or hinder their ability to deliver their main policy initiatives? While the commitments to the LAA (since it remained a one area document) remain similar, did the reduction on responsibilities represent a reduction in local responsiveness and as such a shift in power towards the centre?