Agenda item

The Director of Corporate Services submits a report providing an outline of the Pride in Place Programme to the Commission, indicating where current action is underway and the expected milestone actions and deadlines for later in the year.

The Director of Corporate Services submitted a report providing an outline of the Pride in Place Programme to the Commission, indicating where current action is underway and the expected milestone actions and deadlines for later in the year:

The Community Engagement and Pride in Place Delivery Lead joined the meeting to help present.

Key points included:

• It was explained that the Pride in Place Programme was a Central Government initiative enacted through MHCLG. It would last 10 years and invested £20 Million each into 3 separate areas. It was split between 63% Capital and 37% Revenue. The aims of the programme were to create stronger communities, thriving places and promote local empowerment. 
• The areas selected were Eyres Monsell, Braunstone Park West and Thurnby Lodge. It was commented that these areas were not the same areas covered by the City Council’s wards. It was noted that Braunstone Park West sat within the Braunstone Park and Rowley fields ward and Thurnby Lodge covered parts of Thurncourt ward and the Humberstone and Hamilton ward. The Eyres Monsell area was selected as an MSOA rather than as a ward.  
• These areas were to have an appointed independent Chair and Neighbourhood Board, that reviewed and decided what the money was spent on. It was emphasised that the Chair was not a paid role. The boards were to consist mainly of local residents and community organisations. Each board also had the involvement of the local MP, who signed off on the appointment of the Chair and a single appointed Councillor. While there was some political involvement, Central Government wished to reduce the influence of party politics in the programme and maintain a grass roots nature. 
• The Council’s involvement in the programme was also limited. Its main role was to assist in the initial set up of the independent chair and neighbourhood board and following this, to act as an accountable body. As the Accountable Body, the Council was legally responsible for all funds and for ensuring compliance and providing support to the programme.
• The recruitment process for the Chair was detailed. It was confirmed that the Chairs were appointed but they had not yet been announced as the goal was to have a wraparound support network in place for them first.
• The Chair and Neighbourhood Boards were to be in place and set up by 17^th July 2026 to meet the deadline set by MHCLG. To meet this deadline, an initial small membership was to be set up to ensure that the spine was in place for this date. The membership was to be subsequently reassessed and expanded as needed.    
• It was stated that an engagement process with the local communities needed to be conducted by the Chairs and Neighbourhood Boards by 28^th November 2026. The aim of the engagement was to develop ideas of what projects to spend the money on. These project ideas were then to be submitted back to Central Government in the form of a neighbourhood plan.  

The Committee were invited to ask questions and make comments. Key points included:

• Several members praised the prospect of the new programme and welcomed the extra funding that was coming into the city.
• Members enquired about the level of interest in the role of Chair. It was detailed that there had been 37 applicants for the role, 9 for Eyres Monsell, 11 for Thurnby Lodge and 6 for Braunstone Park West. Several applicants did not state a preference of area in their applications.
• Concern was raised about the lack of Councillor involvement in the programme. While it was noted that each of the three areas would have a Councillor on the board, certain members of the Commission felt that this was too restrictive and that elected representatives of the people were being excluded. The Director for Corporate Services explained that this was a requirement of the programme as outlined by the Ministry for Homes, Communities, and Local Government (MHCLG). Central Government had stated that they wished the programme to be a grass roots and community democracy initiative, led by local people and with party politics playing a limited role.   
• Further discussion was had around the role of the Councillors on the neighbourhood boards and if there was any flexibility regarding potential job sharing of the role. The Director for Corporate Services explained that there was the potential for this as it would improve the flexibility and resilience of the board. However, further clarification was needed from Central Government regarding this. It was noted that the Thurnby Lodge area had a case for there being more than one Councillor on the board. This was due to it covering more than one ward and the party-political split of the wards.    
• Building from the previous point, Members asked about the Chairs and if there were any substitutes in place. An Officer explained that two of the Boards had a Chair and Vice Chair system, while the other had 2 Co-Chairs. Therefore, contingencies were already in place.

AGREED:  

1)     The Commission noted the report.

2)    The forward plan to examined regarding future updates on the programme.