Decision

1.     Agreed that Plymouth City Council will act as the Accountable Body for the Pride in Place Programme and all of its requirements;

 

2.     Delegated authority to the Service Director Team Plymouth to sign all associated contracts, funding agreements, where necessary in consultation with relevant officers, including the s151 Officer and the Monitoring Officer, and approve Pride in Place claims;

 

3.     Agreed to accept and ringfence the capacity funding for Pride in Place and provides delegation to the Service Director Team Plymouth to use the capacity funding in line with government guidance and eligible activities;

 

4.     Delegated authority to the Strategic Director for Growth, in consultation with the Leader, to undertake the necessary recruitment processes for the selection of the Independent Chair and members of the Neighbourhood Board, working in close collaboration with the MP for the area;

 

5.     Agreed that the Service Director Team Plymouth shall act as Plymouth City Council’s representative for all matters relating to the Pride in Place Programme;

 

6.     Delegated authority to the Service Director Team Plymouth, to act as the Council’s representative, completing any associated documentation required as part of the Council’s participation in Pride in Place, including funding MoU to draw down funding from MHCLG.   Any  Civic,  Pride in Place Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) will be signed by the Leader;

 

7.     Delegated authority to the Service Director Team Plymouth, working in consultation with the MP and the Chair of the Neighbourhood Board to:

 

a)     Finalise the boundaries and governance arrangements for the Plymouth Pride in Place Neighbourhood Board;

 

b)    Ensure appropriate local oversight, community involvement and decision-making structures are established in line with Pride in Place requirements;

 

8.     Delegated authority to the newly appointed Board, once constituted, in consultation with the Service Director Team Plymouth, to develop the Pride in Place Regeneration Plan on behalf of Plymouth City Council, to include public consultation and to submit to Government in line with the Pride in Place guidance;

 

9.     Delegated authority to the Service Director Team Plymouth, in consultation relevant officers, including the S151 Officer and the Monitoring Officer, to review and formally accept the Pride in Place full funding allocation and any associated grant conditions;

 

10.  Delegated authority to the Service Director Team Plymouth to distribute the funding in line with the programme requirements.

 

Reason

The Pride in Place programme represents an investment of £19.6m in St Budeaux and £19.6m in Devonport, Morice Town and Mount Wise over the next ten years, supporting neighbourhood-led regeneration and delivery of local priorities. To ensure timely and compliant mobilisation of the Pride in Place Programme. Delegating authority to the Service Director Team Plymouth enables Plymouth City Council to meet the demanding programme timetable set by Government, including tight deadlines linked to Board establishment, boundary confirmation and Regeneration Plan development. Government Guidance states that the Local Authority must act as the Accountable Body for the Pride in Place Funding at the start of the programme, with responsibility for ensuring that public funds are distributed fairly and effectively. Therefore, Plymouth City Council must ensure there are appropriate governance structures and controls in place to fulfil this role.

 

Alternative options considered and rejected

 

1.     Do nothing: This option would mean the Council does not proceed with the Pride in Place programme. As a result, Devonport, Morice Town and Mount Wise and St. Budeaux would lose access to approximately £40 million of government investment, significantly undermining community empowerment and regeneration opportunities. This option was rejected because it would materially disadvantage the neighbourhoods.

 

2.     Do not delegate authority: key operational and financial decisions would require repeated Executive or Cabinet approvals. Given the scale and pace required for Pride in Place delivery this approach is unworkable in practice. It would create unnecessary bottlenecks, slow down implementation, risk missing government deadlines, and compromise the Council’s role as Accountable Body. This option was therefore rejected.

 

3.     Passporting funding to an external organisation: This option would involve transferring responsibility for managing and delivering the programme to another organisation. It was rejected because the Pride in Place model requires the Council to fulfil Accountable Body duties, including due diligence, monitoring, assurance and financial oversight. These responsibilities cannot be delegated to an external body under the Pride in Place requirements. For these reasons, the preferred options are the recommendations that this report in seeking in the above section.

Councillor Evans OBE (Leader of the Council) introduced the item and explained:

 

a) The item related to the Government’s Pride in Place programme, providing funding for two Plymouth communities, Devonport and St Budeaux (including parts of Ham);

 

 

b) Previous discussions at the meeting had focused on pride in Plymouth city centre and the city as a whole, with this item concentrating on pride within specific neighbourhoods;

 

 

c) The programme emphasised partnership working, with the Council acting as a participant and facilitator rather than leading delivery directly;

 

 

d) Government expectations positioned the programme as a “do with” rather than “do to” approach, placing communities at the centre of decision-making.

 

 

Amanda Ratsey(Service Director for Team Plymouth) reported:

 

 

e) The Pride in Place programme having been announced in the previous year and reported;

 

i) An offer up to £20 million per area, resulting in a potential total of £40 million for Plymouth;

 

ii) Funding being allocated over a 10-year period, with a non-flat profile and early years focused on governance and planning;

 

iii) An allocation of £150,000 being available in 2026/27 to establish governance arrangements, recruit a community-led board and develop a long-term delivery plan;

 

iv) Subsequent funding increasing progressively, including approximately £390,000 in the following year, rising to around £1.2 million, and then approximately £2 million per year thereafter, subject to performance;

 

 

f) Government expectations linking continued funding to strong delivery, effective governance and demonstrable ability to spend funding well;

 

 

g) The programme board being required to be community-led, with membership drawn from people who lived and worked in the target communities and who met minimum eligibility criteria;

 

 

h) Plymouth City Council being asked to act as the Accountable Body, providing assurance on governance, financial management and compliance on behalf of Government;

 

 

i) The Council’s role including safeguarding public funds, supporting evidence-based decision-making, advising the board and assisting with development of the delivery plan;

 

 

j) A significant proportion of the funding being capital funding (approximately 63%), creating additional challenges around planning, delivery and community led decision-making;

 

 

k) Early planning being essential to enable effective capital delivery in future years, particularly given the scale of anticipated investment;

 

 

l) The paper set out how the Council would support communities anddraw down the maximum available funding and add value for the city.

 

 

In response, Councillor Evans OBE (Leader of the Council) commented:

 

 

m) Responsibility for signing formal documentation traditionally resting with the Leader once Cabinet approval had been given;

 

 

n) A request for a minor amendment to the recommendations to allow the Leader to sign relevant documents when required, with officer-level delegations remaining unchanged;

 

 

o) Formal agreements and memoranda of understanding being anticipated later in the year, once community boards and delivery plans had been established;

 

 

p) Confidence that governance arrangements would avoid conflicts during the pre-election period due to the expected timetable;

 

 

q) Recognition of the complexity of Government funding processes and the importance of careful profiling and early preparation;

 

 

r) The importance of ensuring all available funding was drawn down, including having contingency plans should underspends arise elsewhere nationally;

 

 

s) The programme’s purpose being to add value, make a meaningful difference and remain genuinely community-led.

 

 

Glenn Caplin-Grey (Strategic Director for Growth) added:

 

 

t) Eligible interventions listed within the report providing a clear indication of the types of projects that could be supported;

 

 

u) Potential interventions including improvements to local facilities and spaces, and initiatives supporting health and wellbeing;

 

 

v) Some projects potentially being delivered by the Council on behalf of the community-led boards, subject to board decisions;

 

 

w) The Council likely engaging with the programme in multiple capacities, including both as accountable body and potential delivery partner.

 

 

 

Further discussion highlighted:

 

 

x) The opportunity for the Council to plan ahead for delivery over a multiyear period, including consideration of long-term infrastructure and community assets;

 

 

y) The importance of maximising the impact of the funding and using it to unlock additional investment;

 

 

z) Previous regeneration programmes demonstrating both the challenges of large-scale community funding and the importance of capacity building;

 

 

aa) Past experience in Devonport and St Budeaux providing valuable learning and confidence in working effectively with local communities;

 

 

bb) The rarity and value of long-term, flexible funding and the importance of maximising outcomes for residents;

 

 

cc) A shared commitment to ensuring the programme remained embedded in the community and avoided top down approaches.

 

 

Cabinet agreed:

 

1.     To approve Plymouth City Council acting as the Accountable Body for the Pride in Place programme in Devonport and St Budeaux;

 

2.     To approve the governance, delegation and partnership arrangements set out in the report, subject to a minor amendment enabling the Leader to sign formal documentation following Cabinet approval;

 

3.     To note the funding profile, risks and opportunities associated with the programme;

 

4.     To support ongoing engagement with local communities, Members and partners to maximise the impact of the Pride in Place investment.