Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
rev- 10.4.16
spreading the workload and bringing a wider area of enthusiasm and expertise to the matter. A group of
like-minded people would need to be coordinated and this could well be provided by community amenity
assessors. His or her task would be to assess the quality of the provision of a particular service and, with
their colleagues assess whether the service provided meets local community aspiration and need. The
assessor would need to understand the issues surrounding the provision of a particular service where the
costs are incurred, the trends in demand, how the service is measured, and how decisions are made to
enable effective provision. Island Roads do have a somewhat similar system in place for monitoring the
performance of road maintenance although their effectiveness is unknown, and the link between the
assessor and resident community seems somewhat tenuous.
What is required to get such a system off the ground is to identify those areas of local authority service
provision which impact upon the community most, and could benefit from wider resident support and
involvement. It may be that each service area may have an assessor and a support team of say 4 whose
job would be to understand the component facets of a service and how these may limit or enhance service
delivery. For example roads are currently an emotive issue, composed of connected elements of potholes,
surface, drainage and flooding, hedging and verges, road signs, speed limits etc. In this case we would
have a Mr Roads (the Community Amenity Assessor for Roads) supported by Mrs Hedges and Verges, Mr
Drainage etc. The entire team would be in a strong position to integrate their enthusiasm with Island Roads
experts bringing a local understanding to roads problems upon which Island Roads could draw and
particularly provide a sound communication link with the community which at present seems pretty fragile at
best.
The same principles could apply to most areas of local authority service provision, particularly
those not meeting local needs, and could include health, public transport, education, housing,
environmental health, street cleaning etc. each with their own community amenity assessor and team.
This may all seem quite reasonable and achievable, but so far ignores the reality of demand outstripping
resources to meet it which is where we started. Prioritisation in the use of resources is one of the primary
functions of the Council but often does not reflect local sentiment. Decisions, and particularly where the
principles employed, adversely affect a whole community do not create community cohesion which is
another aspect of Council responsibility. This is where another aspect of the residents group has value
and that is in lobbying. This pressure group role can be quite powerful in getting our elected
representatives, as the link between the community and the service provider, to apply real measures of
scrutiny on the service providers they employ. If properly conducted the above can provide a win-win
system which benefits all.
The above is very much a cursory look at the issues where residents may feel they are too remote from
decision making affecting the services they need and are not being heard. Considerable discussion needs
to be undertaken to arrive at a sensible way forward but, as stated at the beginning, if we want the sort of
services we believe are necessary to achieve the quality of life we should be able to expect, then we have
to get involved ourselves.