Agenda item

To consider the presentation on the Plan for Neighbourhoods 2025-2035.

At the Chair’s invitation, the Cabinet Member for Transport, Jobs & the Local Economy, Councillor Williams, introduced the update presentation and explained that the Plan for Neighbourhoods was a rebranding by the current government of the former Long Term Plan for Towns - the funding and the geographical areas under consideration remained the same. The Plan was part of the government’s wider strategy for ensuring that no area was left behind and to help revitalise local areas to fight deprivation. Councillor Williams explained that there were three specific goals identified by the plan, namely:-

 

1)    Thriving neighbourhoods;

2)    Stronger communities; and

3)    Giving residents more control.

 

Councillor Williams confirmed the funding available to be £20 million over 10 years. Careful thought would need to be given as to how best to spend this significant amount of funding to provide maximum impact for neighbourhoods. At the heart of Rotherham’s plan for this funding is the town centre and outlying urban areas of deprivation. The areas to be included in the Plan for Neighbourhoods had been determined by a government analysis of urban features.

 

Councillor Williams encouraged members, when considering the Plan for Neighbourhoods, to avoid zoning in on their immediate areas of interest in their specific wards, but to consider the boundary of the area within the plan as one entity and community for the benefit of the whole Borough. The focus of Rotherham's Plan for Neighbourhoods would be supporting and strengthening communities identified from the inside and building up the offer in the town centre to serve those communities and beyond.

 

Councillor Williams explained that the allocation of the funding would be led by the Neighbourhood Board, in consultation with the community. Extensive consultation had been undertaken under the Long Term Plan for Towns and this would be continued into the Plan for Neighbourhoods. The Council’s key role would be as the accountable body for this funding.

 

Megan Hinchliff, Regeneration Programme & Strategy Manager, gave a presentation on the Plan for Neighbourhoods which covered the following points and issues:

 

·            A timeline of the Regeneration Programme from 2017 onwards, with details of specific projects and their funding streams. This demonstrated how Rotherham had been successful in securing and channelling regeneration funding.

 

·            An explanation that the fund aimed to focus on neighbourhoods and communities with the most need, with the emphasis on social cohesion and social connection, raising living standards and increasing opportunities for young people. This would be a place-based investment approach, tackling all areas of life.

 

 

·            An explanation of the area prescribed by the Government to benefit from this funding – the “built up area” – and how the boundaries had been determined, using date from the Office of National Statistics.

 

·            An explanation that the map provided within the presentation had been provided by the government and the boundaries on it were not sufficiently clear. The service would look to redraw the map and make it more readable for publishing. The boundaries incorporate a number of communities which immediately surround the usual town centre footprint. How exactly the funding would be be spent would be determined by the Neighbourhood Board but the overarching theme would be that it should be for the benefit of the whole borough.

 

·            Details of the consultation process carried out to date and confirmation that the work and evidence gathered over the lifetime of the Long Term Plans for Towns scheme would be used and further built upon over the next 10 years of the Plan for Neighbourhoods scheme. The most recent consultation completed on 11 August 2025 and service had evaluated the data.

 

·            An examination of the key themes which came out of the consultation undertaken in 2024 and 2025. This had been based on the Place Standard Tool methodology, whereby neighbourhoods and places were evaluated using 14 themes and participants provided a score between 1 and 7 – with 1 being low and 7, high. The Council partnered with Voluntary Action Rotherham, who led on the stakeholder consultation with communities. This consultation had led to the identification of the top 5 areas of priority, namely:-

 

1)    Influence and sense of control – residents don’t feel listened to;

2)    Feeling safe – concern about anti-social behaviour;

3)    Care & Maintenance;

4)    Traffic & Parking; and

5)    Work & Local Economy

 

This feedback together with the Government data would inform where the funding should be allocated. Interventions would be prioritised where they had clear collective benefits and met the needs of the geographical areas as a whole.

 

·            More information on the make-up of the Neighbourhood Board, which would be required to lead on the fund. The Board would aim to put local people at the centre of defining the area’s future so would need to bring together, for example: residents; local businesses; grassroots campaigners; workplace representatives; faith and community leaders; and those with a deep connection to their area. There would also be a number of statutory members, which would include the local MP, two ward members and a representative from South Yorkshire Police.

 

·            A timeline of key dates moving forward. The plan would be taken to Cabinet on 17^th November 2025, prior to the deadline to submit a Regeneration Plan to MHCLG on 28^th November 2025. The first tranche of funding would be due from April 2026.

 

The Chair invited members of IPSC to raise questions and queries on the presentation and in the ensuing question and answer session the following points were raised:

 

Councillor Allen expressed her disappointment that her previouslyminuted request at the IPSC meeting on 8^th July 2025 had not been fulfilled. She had wanted an overview of how the different regeneration and funding streams fit together like a jigsaw to provide a cohesive approach. However, she felt like she had just been provided with a list. The Chair agreed and informed the Commission that he had reminded officers of Councillor Allen’s request when papers were submitted, but due to timings had not been able to check if the response was sufficient before publication.

 

In response, Andrew Bramidge, Strategic Director for Regeneration and Environment, apologised that the information provided had not delivered what Councillor Allen had requested and explained that with many different, disparate programmes, it was difficult to present a coherent pattern. However, he assured Councillor Allen that service would work on providing something that addressed the issues she had raised.

 

Councillor Allen also expressed concern over the potential make-up of the Neighbourhood Board and the challenge of ensuring that the board would be made up of people who are deeply connected to their areas. Councillor Allen felt that there was a risk of the voices of the communities competing with each other and getting lost and that the Neighbourhood Board could end up being more of the same, from the same people.

 

In response, the Strategic Director for Regeneration and Environment agreed that it would be challenging to ensure the correct balance on the Neighbourhood Board of voices from those who are deeply connected to the borough and the communities within the area. Particularly when there was a level of prescription from the government in terms of geography and the requirement for statutory members. The Strategic Director for Regeneration and Environment confirmed that service are hoping to involve the voluntary community sector to tap into wider contacts.

 

Simon Moss, Assistant Director of Planning, Regeneration & Transport, commented that he felt that this programme did feel different and not just more of the same. The ethos of the scheme was not just regeneration and capital but up to 25% of the funding could be used for revenue, which would bring in a different range of potential activities. The Regeneration Programme & Strategy Manager emphasised that the Council was aware of the risks with Neighbourhood Board and would work closely with the Chair of the Board to curate an appropriate membership and make sure that it represented the priorities that the community had set. Upon further questioning, officers clarified that no Chair of the Board had yet been appointed.

 

The Chair asked whether the Neighbourhood Board of 20 members would be made up of entirely new members and replace the current Town Deal board? The Regeneration Programme & Strategy Manager clarified that the advice from the government had been utilise the existing Town Board in order to get moving with the plan but that this should evolve into an appropriate Neighbourhood Board. The Town Board would continue with its functions of overseeing the Pathfinder programme.

 

The Chair asked if there were any restrictions imposed on how the £20 million over 10 years could be spent – would it have to be spread across the years or could it be spent in chunks or even all at once? The Regeneration Programme & Strategy Manager confirmed that the Council would have flexibility to set the spending profile over the 10 years.

 

Councillor Thorp expressed frustration with the consultation process and that the lowest score (and therefore highest priority theme) on the consultation had been that residents don’t feel listened to. Councillor Thorp commented that this was a common outcome of every consultation and was of the opinion that questions are presented to residents in a way that makes it difficult for them to respond openly.

 

IPSC Co-optee, Mrs. M. Jacques, shared her personal experience of taking part in the consultation and felt that it had asked what residents wanted to see or what was lacking in their neighbourhoods. The Regeneration Programme & Strategy Manager commented that the consultation had been an open consultation based around themes, with no leading questions.

 

Councillor Thorp also expressed disappointment with the focus on the town centre. Councillor Thorp felt that, whilst part of his ward comes within the boundary of the scheme, it would be unlikely to feel any benefit from the funding.

 

In response, the Cabinet Member reminded members that the geography of the boundaries of the Neighbourhood Plan area had been set by the government. He encouraged members to take a holistic approach and stressed that whilst the physical interventions might be in a specific area, they must be for the benefit of the whole borough, so that people who come into the town centre from other areas, also feel that benefit.

 

Councillor Jones commented that he agreed with Councillor Allen’s concerns regarding the potentially predictable make-up of the Neighbourhood Board and the potential for duplication.

 

Councillor Sheppard commented that it was positive to receive funds that could be spent flexibly and queried whether the funds could be used as an enabler for projects that could attract other streams of funding. He further commented that it would be good if members of wards within the scheme boundaries could interact with the Neighbourhood Board to put schemes forward that match their local priorities. This may enable match funding with the capital award budgets that could help smaller schemes to get more help. The Regeneration Programme & Strategy Manager confirmed that the scheme encouraged the Council to attract match funding for this programme and that it could work the other way in terms of matching other funding.

 

The Chair asked whether the Neighbourhood Board would decide on the ambitions of the plan and whether this would be a single ambition or lots of smaller ones. The Regeneration Programme & Strategy Manager commented that it would be difficult to confirm at that point in time, but that the key areas of intervention that had been identified were youth provisions and tackling health inequality. The detail would be worked out with the Neighbourhood Board, once in place.

 

The Strategic Director for Regeneration and Environment proposed that this item be brought back to IPSC’s October meeting to provide members with further opportunity to contribute to the development of plans prior to submission to the government in November, and to facilitate further regarding the appropriate membership of the Neighbourhood Board. Members agreed with this suggestion.

 

Resolved:-

 

(1)  That the contents of the presentation on the Plan for Neighbourhoods 2025-2035 be noted;

 

(2)  That Councillor Allen’s previously minuted request (at Minute 16 of the Improving Places Select Commission meeting held on 8 July 2025) for a detailed analysis of how the various different regeneration plans and funding streams fit and dovetail together to create a whole borough approach, be provided;

 

(3)  That Improving Places Select Commission receive a further update on the Plan for Neighbourhoods 2025-2030 in the meeting on 21 October 2025, to further explore point 2 above and to receive further information on the potential make-up of the Neighbourhood Board; and

 

(4)  That Improving Places Select Commission be given further opportunity to review and comment on the Plan for Neighbourhoods 2025-2035 at the meeting on 21 October 2025, prior to a spending proposal being submitted to Cabinet in November 2025.