“The less power a man has, the more he likes to use it.”
J. Petit-Senn.
This article appears in the September issue of The Trumpit. It is a piece attempting to understand a part of what most of us know as the Third Sector –the part of an economy or society comprising non-governmental and non-profit-making organisations or associations, including charities, voluntary and community groups, cooperatives, etc.
As a volunteer myself I confess to be sceptical about much that I see here and direct recent experience of this organisation suggests good reason.
The Wright Watson Centre is situated on the edge of Idle village and opened in 2015. A conversion of the old Thorp Methodist Church – previously the Idle Wesleyan Chapel est. 1810 – it houses the local library plus rents out business space. The name reflects the burial place of Wright Watson, a prominent local author and historian.
The centre is owned – or at least mortgaged to – a body called Inspired Neighbourhoods (IN) established in 2009. The background to IN is rooted in the age of austerity and the impact on libraries and other community facilities. In part to appease public opinion, David Cameron’s coalition introduced Community Asset Transfers (CATs) through The Localism Act 2011. You can easily find examples of these on council websites.
CATs are defined as “the transfer of management and/or ownership of public land and buildings from its owner (usually a local authority) to a community organisation (such as a Development Trust, a Community Interest Company or a social enterprise) for less than market value – to achieve a local social, economic or environmental benefit.”
For councils seeking to shed the financial burden of operating community facilities then one route to preserve these has been via CICs. But if money is so stretched, how can CICs do what local government cannot?
IN are one of several so-called community anchors in Bradford but look closer and they simply appear extensions of the public sector so surely there is duplication? Where they do differ is their ability to gain access to major funding pots such as the Lottery and Sport England. But who determines what and for who? Certainly not the people we elect nor the public purse pays.
The Chair of IN is local Lib Dem councillor Jeannette Sunderland. Its CEO is Nasim Qureshi who receives the following testimonial via the Power To Change website which itself is funded by lottery cash.
Nasim comes with vast experience in economic regeneration, housing and neighbourhood management, CEO of Inspired Neighbourhoods, a social business for seven years. In the last fifteen years he has delivered a £150 million regeneration programme in Bradford East and a £5 million social housing programme resulting from the Laisterdyke Neighbourhood Plan.
His other programmes include a new-build Enterprise Centre after raising £1.4 million and converting a disused council property into a health, sport and community hub with programmes to benefit the local community.
Some testimonial.
IN were able to raise a seven-figure mortgage through the Nat West to fund the build of the Wright Watson Centre, no small feat during the credit crunch for a fledgling body. But why do we need CICs and how are they accountable?
Consider IN’s current major project, The Greenwood Centre, situated in nearby Wrose. Why is a CIC based in Idle and chaired by a local Councillor, engaged in such a huge project out of the immediate locality? Where is the benefit for Idle and Thackley?
Their Annual Report boasts some blue chip “supporting partners” and claims that they are “bringing inward investment of £3.2m” here but what need are they satisfying? They promise cricket and football pitches but there is an abundance of underused facilities locally. A health centre is included but there is already one just around the corner.
They label this “Inspired Neighbourhoods’ newest community hub”. How odd that we have a local authority divesting itself of just the same types of facilities that IN can access oodles of cash for? Heaven knows how much the new sporting facilities alone are costing but if you offered local clubs a tiny fraction of the money, they would have far more impact than social tinkerers.
IN also act as an intermediary for Power To Change – see above – who administer applications for a small business grant called Seed Funding. The Trumpit made an application via Nasim Qureshi and were promised a reply within two weeks. It took over two months for us to be declined and the best I could describe the process would be shambolic bordering on the incompetent. How they approach a multi-million pound project is anybody’s guess.
Looking at their last published accounts (31/3/17) IN makes a modest profit on a tiny balance sheet but has debt of £427k, presumably the mortgage. Expenses rose to £310k (£261k) most likely salaries. My concern here is how we measure whether bodies like IN actually do any good for local communities especially as they appear to be doing just what a local authority should be. Surely, we need one or the other?
Finally, whilst we can hold to account the work of public servants and elected councillors can we say the same for a CIC? Who actually ends up in control of assets like the Wright Watson Centre is also not clear? And how can a small number of people, not necessarily attached to a community they now have influence over, wield significant local power circumventing the ballot box?
Leave a Reply