Agbrigg & Belle Vue Community Association

The Wakefield South Ward Agbrigg and Belle Vue Councillor Fact File: December 2009 talks about the Neighbourhood Management Pilot Scheme.

Despite taking half a page, councillors only raise one bogus objection and spend the rest of the text repeating the history of the scheme as if that were a reason for not changing, and apparently attempting to persuade residents to take a lucky dip in place of something that is working well.

I'll cover the objection first:

The bogus objection

Councillors state:

To roll out similar schemes across the whole District would almost certainly exceed in excess of £2 Million in staff costs. The financial constraints on the council are such that the budget stand stills (sic) and cuts are likely next year. That is why your Councillors cannot support retaining NMT whose specific task was to prepare you for their departure by March 2010.

...

Agbrigg and Belle Vue cannot be a special case above all others when the Council, like the rest of the country is facing a tough financial future.

There is quite a bit of trickery here, so I'll address them bit at a time; but note that the strategy seems to be to undermine the democratic voice of residents by convincing them and attempting to shame them into keeping their mouths shut. Lets look and see how that is done:

To roll out similar schemes across the whole District would almost certainly exceed in excess of £2 Million in staff costs. The financial constraints on the council are such that the budget stand stills (sic) and cuts are likely next year. That is why your Councillors cannot support retaining NMT...

Note the trickery in that previous statement - if the whole of the District were truly asking for NMT I would hope that councillors would truly give it more thought and consideration than this, and consider how they could re-organise priorities to meet the demands of the whole District.

However, luckily for them, the whole district is not asking for NMT, so they don't need to find £2 Million and therefore we are not a special case.

I stress: why bring up the impossibility of finding £2 Million as a reason for not continuing the scheme here? The answer is that it is an attempt to make our request for only £60,000 to seem quite impossible, and to make us ashamed to ask for special treatment.

But we are not asking for special treatment, we are asking that a sucessful service be continued. If other areas in the district want NMT, let them ask for it.

In fact councillors back-fire in their point, if £2 Million is impossible even if there were demands from the entire district, then £60,000 is certainly more affordable...

And we haven't even asked for £60,000 - my original question to Cllr Graham before we launched the campaign was: If money isn't a problem, and if residents want it, will you support continuation of NMT? We haven't asked for any money at all, that's a discussion that can only follow after we have support for continuation of the scheme in principle.

And instead of Councillors saying (as would be understandable): Well... we would support residents but if as a group we fail to get the £60,000 then residents will be dissapointed, they seem to be saying: No. Because we can't afford £2 Million for the whole district who don't even want the scheme.

It just doesn't make sense.

And get this: Our Councillors seem to have made a budget decision without presenting it to the Council. Rather than let the Council finance department see if the money could be found, they seem to have made their own decision that it will not be found.

It seems to me that councillors are excercising quite a degree of autonomy acting against us, refusing to represent us based on their guess of what the outcome would be.

The councillors go on to say:

That is why your Councillors cannot support retaining NMT whose specific task was to prepare you for their departure by March 2010.

I find it funny that the founders of the campaign to keep NMT are all the six residents of the Neighbourhood Management Board and the Chair of the Community Association (who will be supporting the Board after the pilot finishes). (Note: they all signed in a private capacity as residents).

So what was the lesson learned from NMT whose specific task was to prepare you for their departure by March 2010 ? It was clearly this: We need the NMT; and many residents agree.

The fact that the Councillors hoped NMT would prepare us to do without is hardly the point in a democracy.

Agbrigg and Belle Vue cannot be a special case above all others when the Council, like the rest of the country is facing a tough financial future.

I've covered the point that would only be a special case if the whole district were asking for NMT and only we got it, but here it  sounds like councillors are trying for a little sympathy and asking us to forgo our democratic rights of self government because the council is having financial difficulties (just like everywhere else).

But if the council is facing a tough financial future, they ought to take more care to spend what little taxes they get on the services that citizens are actually asking for.

The NMT helped deliver 60 major projects and resolve over 2,500 issues for little more than salary costs, by helping the other service partners to work better with residents. Beat that for value for money if you can! (I stress again that the benefits were obtained through working WITH the service providers).

All the other points

Most of the other points repeat history to remind us that the scheme was not intended to continue. We already know this, that's why we are asking for a continuation! That the scheme was originally intended to last three years is not a reason to ignore the benefits and not a reaspm to stop the scheme if it was worthwhile - and the Councillors did not dispute this, the only objection has been on the assumed impossibility of finding an unncecessary £2 Million!

They say:

Agbrigg and Belle Vue Neighbourhood Management (NMT) is just one of three Pilot Schemes funded by Central Government for a three year period only. The others being Fitzewilliam and Kinsley; and, Airedale and Ferry Frytson.

We know, thats why we are asking for it to be extended.

Together these three schemes cover less than 5% of the population of the District. 

This is the first recognition of why they have worked - because they've been implemented on a small enough scale to be personal.

Councillors acknowledge that there is some concern as to what the Council intends will happen once the Pilot Scheme comes to an end.

Well they have to acknowledge it now that support for continuation exceeds the majority at the last local election - and we have another election coming up early next year. But they are yet unmoved.

The councillors are sympathetic to some of the anxieties that have been expressed, however they recognize that Agbrigg and Belle Vue has been fortunate to have benefited because of the improvements introduced because of the Pilot Scheme.

My mother is also sympathetic, but I didn't vote her to represent me in WMDC. We also recognize that we are fortunate - accidentally fortunate, and thats a reason to continue the scheme.

The experience gained by the Pilot Scheme will be assessed to inform the Council as it moves forward towards introducing Area Based Management, which, while covering larger areas, will have a more focussed concentration of Service delivery and decision making at local level.

That one was a doozy, so I'll take it a bit at a time:

The experience gained by the Pilot Scheme will be assessed to inform the Council as it moves forward towards introducing Area Based Management,...

What experience? Whose experience? Clearly not residents experience which is steadfastly ignored, and not sought as part of the pilot scheme evaluation.

Ask yourselves:

1. Why did residents have to form a campaign in order to inform Councillors of community feeling?
2. Why are residents having to represent themselves to inform the Council as it "moves forward" to something which residents are not asking for?

which, while covering larger areas, will have a more focussed concentration of Service delivery and decision making at local level.

I don't know what this means and I'm darn sure that residents aren't asking for focussed concentration of Service delivery. I don't suppose that this focussed concentration means what they have called making Agbrigg & Belle Vue a special case so I'm not sure what it does mean.

And then we have:

...and decision making at local level

hah hah hah ha hah ha ha; ho ho ho ho; hee hee hee decision making at a local level ... but only if it is the decision that has already been made by our fine overlords! and get this - we will have decision making at a local level under an area arrangement covering larger areas. This is hardly believeable now!

When the new Area based arrangements are in place, you can be confident that your councillors will ensure that Agbrigg and Belle Vue has a level of service across the board, so that community aspirations are promoted alongside the needs and exectations of individuals and families.

You have to read that last one carefully to see how scarey it really is:

When the new Area based arrangements are in place, you can be confident that your councillors will ensure that Agbrigg and Belle Vue has a level of service across the board,

Skipping quickly over the fact that "a level of service" could be a good or a bad service, am I the only one who sees a hidden nugget behind this statement? are the councillors thinking: "but we want it to be us that does it" ?

We already have a good level of service across the board (whatever across the board means), we have regular public consulations through week of action, public meetings, house to house surveys, street surveys, telephone and personal callers to the community centre. These lead to action plans which are carried out by the various service partners in conjunction with the NMT. We have over 2,500 residents issues resolved.

And the Councillors want to replace this success story with new Area based arrangements (does anyone know anything about this other than that there wuill be seven areas based on the policing areas? I don't and I've been trying to find out for six months) and we are asked to take assurance that then our Councillors will ensure that we have "a level of service across the board"?

I can hardly believe what the Councillors seem to mean by the above statement, but it's what hit me in the face when I read it. And then:

...so that community aspirations are promoted alongside the needs and exectations of individuals and families.

and I don't even know what this means? Has anyone reading this been hoping that community aspirations would be promoted alongside their needs and expectations? Who thinks like this: I want my expectations promoted alongside community aspirations?

I tell you what: I want Neighbourhood Management! It's done more in 2 and a half years than anything else, and involved more residents in the doing of it than ever before.

... but the councillors I voted for (so now you know) turn me down on their opinion that the council won't find £2 Million to give the entire district something the district hasn't asked for.

And yet, they are willing to promote my needs and expectations along with community aspirations - I don't even know what that means, it clearly doesn't mean what I think it's supposed to sound like.

The situation

What we have is a power struggle between residents and the elected councillors who should be their representatives; who desperately want to provide something which isn't asked for, and remove something that is wanted - and seemingly because it fits nicely with a three year old plan; and on the pretext that they think the council won't find £2 Million to make it district wide.

And what they were asked to do (before the campaign launched) was to support the continuation of Neighbourhood Management in principle - if they money could be found.

Councillors seem to have totally failed to understand the reasons why residents want NMT to stay - it's because they fill a role that cannot be filled by volunteers, and has not been filled by councillors; and the team do it so well. They are a hub of communication between residents and over 25 service partners, maintaing good relations with all, who regularly evaluate community wants and draw up plans to meet them.

Before the Compaign was launched, my spies gave me that the word against us was "They don't need the scheme if they are empowered" but now, still without properly evaluation of residents views I hear the word is "They have become too dependant on Neighbourhood Management" - and who will represent us when such things are said in council meetings?

And how dependant is too dependant anyway?

Let me guess: too dependant is enough to want it, and just dependant enough is to not need it any more!

Either way it supports the refusal to hear residents democratic voice, justifies a three year old decision without a need to evaluate outcomes from the point of view of the community that it was meant to serve and has served so well.

But thats ok, because it's going to be replaced by a new Area Arrangement which really will support local decision making (this time)and (this time) our councillors really will ensure that we have "a level of service".

Lets compare this to Flanshaw library which was set to close because it cost too much to repair [http://www.wakefieldexpress.co.uk/news/39Rundown39-city-library-to-close.5841632.jp] - even though the repair and maintenance was offered for free [http://www.wakefieldexpress.co.uk/news/Wakefield-Council-says-no-to.5883199.jp]

There's something fishy when the councillors of a "listening council" [Cllr Denise Jerrery] try to stop something with widespread  support - both for Flanshaw Library and for our Neighbourhood Management Team.

I suspect that in both cases, the real reasons are not yet made know.

In case anyone things I'm down on the councillors - I'm not. But the last 2 and a half years have shown me that some things are more effectively managed through the Neighbourhood Management Team. Why should the councillors act as third line customer support for Waste Services in dealing with issues? They are busy enough working for us doing council work, if issues like this can be better handled by Neighbourhood Management then surely lets do it that way so that they can go on with the things that only councillors can do, such as: working with the Environment Agency on flooding, establishing services like youth clubs, neighbourhood nurseries and the community centre (a council building), and representing our views within the council. It's commendable to spend time painting the community centre and other community projects, it's very generous, but in my view: it's not what a councillor is elected to do.