Agenda item

The Director of Corporate Services submits a report setting out the details of the Government’s Pride in Place Programme (PiPP), including information on compliance, mobilisation, governance, and early groundwork actions required for this long-term initiative.

The Director of Corporate Services submitted a report setting out the details of  the Government’s Pride in Place Programme (PiPP), including information on compliance, mobilisation, governance, and early groundwork actions required for this long-term initiative.

Key points to note were as follows:

• The Pride in Place Programme (PiPP) was distinct from the Pride in Place Impact Fund.
• A government initiative had been launched at the end of 2025, and an understanding of what was required had been developed.
• The programme looked to focus on creating thriving places, stronger communities and community democracy (giving residents a say over what was needed in the area).
• Up to £20m over 10 years had been identified by the government.  This would be split into 63% Capital (i.e. buildings) and 37% Revenue (i.e. services).
• Deprivation data was used to identify areas that needed investment.  The government also used a Community Needs Index, although the Council did not have access to this.
• Three areas were considered in the report, these were Middle Layer Super Output Areas (MSOA).
• The money would not be received in one go, it would be received over three periods.  The first would be received between now and the 2029/2030 financial year, the second between 2030 and 2031/32, and the last between 2033/34 and 2035/36.
• The Council had a responsibility to an outside body to ensure spending was consistent with financial spend rules.  Procurement was taken into account.  Transparency on spending was needed.  It was necessary to ensure that each area was spending within government guidelines.
• It was necessary to support programme delivery.  Part of this was recruiting an independent Chair with the local MP.  A job profile had been identified for this and it was now out to expressions of interest.  There were specific rules on who qualified around local connections and the skills and capabilities to fulfil the role.
• It was necessary to create a plan for each area on how to spend the money over a ten year period.
• Neighbourhood Boards would be resident-led with between eight and fifteen people on each board.  The bards would contain at least one Ward Councillor, and MP, as police officer and representatives from anchor institutions, but the majority would be residents.
• It was necessary to collect information as the accountable body and then it would be necessary to go through the process of engagement and to go through designs for areas and spending plans.  Each plan needed to be submitted by the end of November.

In response to member discussion, the following was noted:

• It was clarified that areas were based on MSOAs rather than Wards.
• It was acknowledged that there could be logistical problems for MPs and it was being asked as to whether MPs could send representatives.  The programme needed to be community-led, but the MP would have a role in the recruitment of the Chair.
• With regard to questions about how this differed from historical schemes, it was noted that there had been lots of investment in buildings and spaces previously, but he focus was different here as it was on the areas given to work towards.  Local organisations would be engaged with to learn from them.
• There would be clear Terms of Reference for board which would outline who needed to be there and whether substitutions would be allowed.
• It was important to recognise that other areas were in need.  It was necessary to be careful on the perspective created.  The Council did not have control over the areas.
• It was important to understand that whilst the Council could encourage things to be looked at, the Council did not want to tell communities what they wanted.
• Conversations could be had with boards about extending boundaries, for example if there was a facility on the edge of a boundary, but this would need to be evidenced and put to the government.
• The independent Chair and the board would set the needs for the area, therefore it was necessary to ensure that meetings were as accessible as possible, including to younger and working-age people.
• With regard to queries raised about disparity in food retail offerings, it was noted that community pantries were an example of what could be done, but it was up to areas to decide what to do.
• Issues were raised about how Councillors were selected.  The method of selection was not the Council’s decision.

The Director of Neighbourhoods and Environment gave an update on the Pride in Place Impact Fund (PiPIF).

The following points were raised:

• This was a complementary fund of £1.5m of capital for investment in the City and was not limited to MSOAs.
• It was focussed on quick investment opportunities which were low-cost and high-impact.
• There was a need to set out the investment process.  This gave the option to focus on investment in the community and in public spaces and highstreets.
• The process of shortlisting was being undertaken to try and pick out projects that were known to communities and neighbourhoods and Ward Councillors.  Members would be guided through the intentions on this shortlist of schemes, with an emphasis on high-need areas or the areas alongside them.
• The money needed to be spent in equal proportions over two years and it was necessary to show how the money was being spent.
• The government had talked about engagement with local representatives such as Ward Councillors and constituents.
• People could be guided on what were thought to be suitable schemes.
• There was a focus on high-need deciles and on parks and open spaces, also looking at where it might be complementary to the LCNA
• A briefing would be given to members before Full Council.

AGREED:

1)    That the reports be noted.

2)    That comments made by members of this commission to be taken into account by the lead officers.