Agenda item

The Chairman introduced the next agenda item, Pride in Place, and advised that the report was presented for noting only, as it had previously been considered and approved by the Prosperous Communities Committee on Tuesday, 4 November 2025. The Director of Planning, Regeneration and Communities was invited to present the update.

An overview of the Pride in Place programme was provided. Gainsborough West had been selected to receive £20 million of funding over the next decade through the government’s initiative. The allocation had been based on deprivation and community needs data and was not subject to a bidding process. Approximately £2 million per year would be provided, with around 37% allocated to programme management and delivery.

The Government had published a list of pre-approved interventions, enabling delivery without a full business case. A neighbourhood board would be established to develop a regeneration plan, including a 10-year vision for the area. The board was to include residents, businesses, community representatives, faith leaders, workplace representatives, the local MP, and other stakeholders, and would be chaired by an independent person appointed by the local authority in consultation with the MP. Support would be provided by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, and the first meeting with the community delivery unit was scheduled for Thursday, 22 November 2025. Further documentation and details of the interventions would be circulated to Members following the meeting.

Funding priorities would be determined through community engagement across three objectives: building stronger communities, creating thriving places, and empowering people to take back control. West Lindsey was considered to have a strong baseline due to previous regeneration work. The pre-approved interventions covered themes such as regeneration, high street and heritage investment, housing quality and provision, work and skills, community cohesion, health and wellbeing, transport, safety and security, and education and opportunity. Gainsborough West was confirmed as an area comprising several middle-layer super output areas with a population of approximately 10,500.

The Government was expected to provide a data pack to identify local challenges, and full guidance on governance was anticipated before Christmas 2025. By July 2026, the Council were to confirm the neighbourhood board membership, chair, and any boundary proposals. The regeneration plan was to be submitted by winter 2026–27 for approval, covering a 10-year vision and an initial four-year investment plan.

The Council would act as the accountable body for the funding, ensuring compliance with government requirements. The neighbourhood board would co-produce the plan, with the local community playing a central role. The board would have an independent chair and include the MP, a Councillor from each tier of local government, a senior police representative, and other stakeholders such as businesses and community organisations.

An initial communications plan was being developed to begin engagement, with early steps including forward-looking questions in surveys and discussions at recent business events.

In terms of next steps, a meeting with the MHCLG advisor was scheduled, and guidance was expected by Christmas 2025. Key actions from the communications plan had commenced, and Officers were learning from early adopters, with support from colleagues in Gedling, Bassetlaw, and East Lindsey. Consideration of the neighbourhood board and its membership was identified as a priority, and Members were encouraged to share ideas on its operation and potential candidates for chair.

The Chairman thanked the Director of Planning, Regeneration and Communities for the update and invited questions.

A Member raised two points. Firstly, it was asked whether Gainsborough Town Council had been approached to provide a representative, as their engagement was considered vital given their close involvement with the local community. Secondly, the Member expressed concern that central Gainsborough had already benefited from the Levelling Up Fund and would now receive further investment, while the Uphill area appeared to have been overlooked. It was suggested that improvements in transport and health provision would help ensure benefits were spread more widely across the town and district.

The Director confirmed that Gainsborough Town Council would be expected to play a role in the programme, although no approaches had yet been made pending publication of the guidance. It was emphasised that inclusivity would be a priority. Regarding the boundary and the Uphill area, the Director acknowledged the concern and explained that the guidance required a tight boundary However, it was noted that interventions could be designed to support the wider town and district, with Gainsborough acting as the primary district centre. The Director stated that the forthcoming data pack would clarify the targeting required and that the programme would aim to deliver multi-layered interventions to spread benefits more broadly.

A Member expressed support for earlier comments and raised concerns regarding the likely introduction of a unitary authority and the potential for delays during the shadow year. It was suggested that any arrangements should ensure continuity and avoid disruption caused by changes in governance. The Member also noted that the Council would appoint the chair of the neighbourhood board and requested clarity on the process for selecting board members, including whether they should be drawn from within or outside the area. It was emphasised that representation should reflect both the designated area and the wider community, and that criteria for selection should be brought back to Committee for consideration. The Member stressed the importance of appointing individuals who could take a balanced view rather than those who were simply the most vocal.

The Officer confirmed that further guidance was expected to include criteria for selecting representatives and that there was an expectation for a clear and transparent process. It was anticipated that this would be presented to Members in an early paper for input.

Another Member welcomed the programme and acknowledged concerns about the focus on Gainsborough, noting that the Government’s criteria had determined the allocation. It was emphasised that benefits could extend beyond the immediate area, for example through improved transport links. The Member stressed the importance of engaging young people, as they would be the future beneficiaries of the programme, and suggested working with schools both within and outside Gainsborough.

The Member expressed hope that the programme would foster pride in the town and encourage positive engagement, despite some negative perceptions. It was noted that the programme should be robust enough to withstand future changes in local government and continue regardless of political priorities. The importance of appointing an inspiring chairperson to lead the neighbourhood board was also highlighted. The Member concluded by stating that the programme represented a significant opportunity for Gainsborough and the wider district.

The Officer thanked Members for their comments and confirmed that key points had been noted. It was highlighted that the fund provided an opportunity to bring partners to the table and leverage additional influence and funding, particularly in areas such as transport. Engagement with children and young people had been discussed, including those educated outside Gainsborough, and the importance of appointing a chairperson with strong leadership qualities was acknowledged.

The Chairman echoed earlier concerns regarding the boundary and expressed a desire to explore ways to extend benefits beyond the designated area. The importance of involving Town Councillors was emphasised. The Chairman raised concerns that funding might become concentrated in the town centre and stressed the need to address community priorities, such as play areas and green spaces, particularly in Southwest Ward. It was noted that the area included locations identified by the police as hotspots for crime and antisocial behaviour, and improvements in safety would be welcomed. The Chairman reiterated the need for an inspiring chairperson and suggested that candidates from education or health backgrounds could bring valuable strategic insight.

A Member asked for clarification on the funding profile, querying whether the £20 million allocation would be paid as four instalments of £5 million or £2 million annually over ten years. The Director advised that the profile had not yet been confirmed but was likely to be tapered, with a smaller initial payment to support programme setup. It was noted that the endowment-style approach would allow flexibility for borrowing or forward funding, and that 37% of the allocation was earmarked for revenue, directing most expenditure towards capital projects. Further details were awaited.

Another Member raised concerns about the certainty of the full £20 million allocation and the potential for political influence. The Director acknowledged the uncertainty and confirmed that clarity would be provided once contracting arrangements and the four-year investment plan were agreed.

Another Member raised two points. Firstly, it was suggested that the Council should use this opportunity to promote the positive impact of previous regeneration schemes across the district, not only in Gainsborough, and to celebrate achievements such as the banking hub and high street improvements in Market Rasen. Secondly, the Member emphasised the need for a long-term investment strategy to ensure continuity beyond the initial funding period. It was noted that £2 million per year was not a large sum when inflation was considered, and the Council should prepare projects and explore additional funding sources to build on the programme and avoid reliance on uncertain promises.

The Enterprising Communities Manager responded that the endowment-style funding approach was increasingly common and confirmed that the Council had experience with similar models, such as the Local Access programme in Gainsborough, which supported social enterprise investment over a ten-year period. This experience would be used to inform the delivery of the Pride in Place programme.

With no further comments or questions, the Pride in Place report was DULY NOTED.