(Report by Mr Dance, Cabinet Member for Regeneration &
Economic Development, Mr Cockburn, Corporate Director Business
Strategy & Support)
(Mr K Harrison, Chief Executive, Actions for Communities
in Rural Kent was present for this item)
1.
The Chairman welcomed the Chief Executive of
Action for Communities in Rural Kent (ACRK) Mr K Harrison, to the
meeting and invited him to give his presentation.
2.
Mr Harrison welcomed the opportunity of speaking to the Cabinet
Committee. He gave his presentation
using overheads and raised the following points:-
- Action for Communities in Rural Kent
(ACRK) was a charitable organisation with 17 staff and 50
volunteers [2012 - ACRK had 22 staff 22 associates and 100
volunteers].
- ACRK’s role was to influence and give
information so that the County Council can make
decisions and form policies.
- The work of ACRK covered
approximately 600 projects per year.
- ARCK’s main clients were Parish Councils,
community organisations, small business, Social Enterprises,
informal community bodies and sometimes combinations of those five
bodies.
- ACRK would need to review its level
of activity if the investment it received remained the same.
- ACRK was working with KCC officers
in new external investments coming into the Kent to help deliver
for rural communities.
- Work had been undertaken to quantify
the economic impact of ACRK’s
work [ACRK’s two agreements with
KCC was listed in the Economic Development draft Business Plan in
the latter part of the agenda].
- ACRK had two “rural
proofing” contracts with the Government. This was where the Government had given private
sector companies the opportunity to deliver a rural quota or they
would be fined and ACRK gave the company that rural
reach. Mr Harrison considered that that
may be something that was replicable in Kent.
- Over the past five years ACRK had
underpinned £420 million of activity in Kent’s
economy. More work would be carried out
to evidence this later in the year.
- ACRK’s running costs for 2007-12 were
£3.6 million of which KCC invested 11%. This represented a return on KCC’s investment of
£1:£1,050. Mr Harrison
advised that the average investment per council was
26%. He calculated that for every
£1 of KCC’s investment ACRK
attracted £1050 worth of spend in Kent every
year. He was unable to say how much of
that figure would have been spent without ACRK.
- ACRK was involved in a local needs
housing scheme in Gunston Park to
develop 80 housing units. ACRK had a
database of all the housing schemes that it had worked on and
explained that at present there were 2.5 million unbuilt local needs houses in Kent due to either
problems in finding sites. Work was being undertaken with the districts and
Housing Associations which was
underpinned by the Housing protocol which KCC had a key role in
producing. He then spoke on the work of
the ACRE in the network of village halls across the country keeping
them safe and legal.
- ACRK was currently running eight
European funded projects all bar one were run with partners in
other countries across Europe. They were improving the quality of
social entrepreneurship and what it takes to make a sustainable
rural community and placing young people in non profit
organisations to see whether that was a viable career option for
them etc. ACRK also played a role in
writing the first bid of the LEADER programme administered by KCC,
detailed within the Economic Development Business Plan. It was also involved in the National Monitoring
Committee for the LEADER programme worth £3.9
billion. Mr Harrison sat on the Board
of the National Association of ACRK and was able to represent what
happened in Kent, this would also inform the Rural Investment
Plan.
- Community led planning was the core
business of ACRK. There was currently
one in Northfleet with plans for one in
Dover and one in Ramsgate. ACRK had
carried out 140 Community plans in Kent. The Department for Communities and Local
Government advised that £155,000 worth of economic benefit
was gained from those plans.
- ACRK delivered projects to get 200
people back into work.
- ACRK ran a European Social Fund
Grant Scheme targeted at assisting small bodies who assist people
getting back into work.
- ACRK carried out a limited amount of
work in rural tourism. It co owned
“Hidden Britain” that worked with Visit
Kent.
- ACRK sponsors included Europe,
DEFRA, Avanta and Southeastern.
- Mr Harrison advised on the
relationship between KCC and ACRK. KCC
appointed a governor to the Board of Trustees, Richard King was
currently the Vice Chairman of ACRK.
ACRK received support financially and “in
kind”. There were three funding
sources received from KCC; two from Economic Development, a
£37,000 core service level agreement and £16,000
contribution to ACRK retail sales and one through the Highways and
Transportation section of £25,000 that dealt with the
Community Rail Partnership.
- KCC’s policy setting and delivery worked well
for ACRK.
- For the future ACRK wanted to do
more of the same activities but better.
This would be achieved through
continuing to create a positive context for rural communities to be
able to address and identify their needs, tackling disadvantage,
supporting the creation of new enterprise neighbourhood planning,
innovation work eg Broadband being
targeted at homes where were real poverty issues and expanding
its activity in rural retail through
supporting pubs and garages etc.
- For the immediate future ACRK would
be working with KCC on the Rural Investment Plan. As part of the national network ACRK would be
working beyond Kent on economic growth in recognition of activity
that had worked in Kent.
- Negotiations with KCC would be
undertaken to secure the work that needed to be carried out in
2013.
3.
Members were given the opportunity to make comments and ask
questions which included the following:
a)
In reply to a question, Mr Harrison advised that he had seen signs
of people using the Localism Bill through the ‘Right to
Challenge’. ACRK had received
queries on local people wanting to take over local
services. He referred to the
“Handyman Service” in Ashford Borough.
b)
In response to a question, Mr Harrison explained that a decision
was still to be taken on which local growth services would be
reduced if funding was not increased.
The community led planning and neighbourhood planning areas were
the most vulnerable. He advised that there had been discussion in
principle with Sussex and Essex on buying in expertise. There may need to be a reduction in the village
support work, which may impact of the work undertaken for KCC on
grants to village halls.
c)
In reply to a question, Mr Harrison advised that anything less than
triple the current funding received by ACRK would mean a reduction
in the activity. At present it was not
known what could be achieved with more, less or no funding. Work
would need to be undertaken with KCC officers to provide this
information.
4.
RESOLVED that the responses to comments and questions by Members
and the information provided by Mr Harrison be noted, with
thanks.