- Pride in Place Board Meeting Minutes
- 11th February 2026
- 10:00am – 12:00pm
In attendance
| Name | Organisation | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Andria Birch (AB) - Chair | Bassetlaw Community and Voluntary Service (BCVS) |
CEO |
| Sally Gillborn (SG) – Vice Chair | North Notts BID | Chief Executive |
| Julie Beresford (JB) | Bassetlaw District Council (BDC) |
Head of Growth & Economic Prosperity |
| Rebecca Bibby (RB) | Bassetlaw District Council (BDC) |
Admin Support Assistant |
| Michelle Cleaver (MC) | Bassetlaw District Council (BDC) |
Interim Programme Officer |
| Tony Ward (TW) | S80 Partnership | CEO |
| Karen Whitlam (KW) | Citizens Advice North Nottinghamshire |
CEO |
| Philip Jackson (PJ) | Worksop Business Forum | Chair |
| Helen Azar (HA) | NHS/Talk Zone | Senior Transformation Manager, and Head of Health Inequalities at the Bassetlaw Place |
| Jo Bradley-Fortune (JBF) | YMCA | Group Director |
| Joelle Davies (JD) | Notts County Council | Economic Growth and Regeneration |
| Tracey Mace-Ackroyd (TMA) | RNN Group | Deputy CEO |
| Dee Sissons (DS) | Aurora Wellbeing | CEO |
| Chris Grocock (CG) | Futures | Head of Business Development & Partnerships |
| Cllr Kevin Dale (CKD) | Nottinghamshire County Council |
Councillor |
| Georgia Crossland (GC) | Centre Place | CEO |
| Michael Hirst (MH) | BPL | CEO |
| Peter Gaw (PG) | Inspire | CEO |
| Stephen Marwood (SM) | Environmental Agency | Sustainable Growth Manager |
| Becky Law (BL) | Member of Public | |
| Tina Masters (TM) | Bassetlaw District Council (BDC) |
Media Officer |
| Dave Skepper (DSK) | Stagecoach | Commercial Director |
| Paul Stuart (PS) | East Midlands Chamber of Commerce |
Head of Business Support |
| Jo White (JW) | Member of Parliament for Bassetlaw |
Member of Parliament |
Apologies
| Name | Organisation | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Craig Taylor (CT) | Bassetlaw District Council (BDC) | Assistant Chief Executive & Director of Regeneration & Neighbourhood |
| Karen Tarburton (KT) | Harworth Town Council | Community Development and Funding Manager |
| Cllr Walker-Gurley (CWG) | Nottinghamshire County Council | Councillor |
| Cllr Steve Scotthorne (CSS) | Bassetlaw District Council Councillor | Councillor |
Action Table
| Previous Actions | Undertaken by | Timeline |
|---|---|---|
| 3.3 Events programme shared with wider network. | MC & JB | 30/01/2026 |
| 5.1 Update wording on slide 4 to reflect clarity around Assurer for £1,000,000 +. | MC | Complete |
| 5.2 BDC IT to investigate issues with teams. | JB | Complete |
| 5.3 Research further for capital bids tolerance and send out to board for approval | MC | Complete – with Legal Team at present |
| 5.4 Board members to email MC with their sub-group choice. | All members | Complete |
| 5.5 Set up sub-group meetings. | MC | Complete |
| 5.6 Pick up with JB and MC on approach to route to market on consultation. | AB | 30/01/2026 |
| 6.1 send Ship Inn interested parties to JB and AB. | PJ | 30/01/2026 |
| 7.1 check availability for meeting dates provided and let MC know confirmed dates | AB and SG | 16/01/2026 |
| New Actions | Undertaken by | Timeline |
|---|---|---|
| 4.1 Send GC a Conflict of Interest Form | MC & RB | Complete |
| 6.1 Update Specifications for Children & Young People and Community & Business Engagement | MC | Complete |
| 7.1 Update grant applications - planning permissions | MC | Complete |
| 7.2 Update three business support grants | MC | Complete |
| 7.3 Review documents relating to Business Fit-Out-Grants and early exit from lease. | JB | - |
| 8.1 Look at additional funding which can be accessed and deadlines | Board | ASAP |
| 9.1 Draft Specification for Street Cleansing and send to full board | MC | Before April meeting |
| 10.1 Update the Event Form | MC | Complete |
| 12.1 Update Business Support specifications once feedback received from sub-group | MC | Complete |
| 12.2 Arrange date in March for Worksop walk-around | JB | End Feb |
Minutes of last meeting and matters arising
AB/JB/MC/SG: summarised Pride in Place (PiP) conference in Leeds. It was a mixture of both phase one and phase two areas that have been allocated the funding previously before it became PiP.
Action: JB offered to type up and circulate notes from this.
Conflict of interest
GC – Query about COI form
Action: Send form to GC
Governance and Assurance & Capacity Funding Update
MC confirmed: language changed as requested at the last meeting for differentiation between the assurance process of £1M or above required to have AT LEAST ONE Assurer and Projects between £250,000 and £1,000,000 are required to have ONE Assurer.
Thresholds to be agreed; spend and outcomes slide confirms different thresholds and not 25% across the board where monitoring needs to be implemented. For minor scale contracts, we will use a quarterly monitoring report same as UKSPF with follow-up meetings and when the interventions would take place. Small scale contracts there will be a 25% threshold with outcomes and outputs and in terms of spend. Intervention would be monthly meetings. Medium scale contracts, changed to a 10% threshold in terms of outputs and outcomes and any under spending interventions with monthly meetings. Large scale contracts, 5% threshold for outputs and outcomes and in terms of spend and more regular meetings there until performance was in line with what expectations were. Local contract terms, expectation for them to fit in line with what's outlined in the contract in terms of statutory performance reporting expectations and in standard contracts for any grants that we give or contracts for services.
JB asks would the board find it useful for the board to have a meeting with BDC procurement team and discuss the process and ensure it is as accessible as possible for commissions that need to go out through the tender process?
AB comments the decision on whether the procurement item should come to a full Board meeting or be addressed in a separate session, noting that it is likely to be a substantial topic and not all members may need to be involved.
AB confirmed that MC should continue engaging the procurement team, and that the Board would return to the question of meeting format at a later stage.
JB mentioned procurement workshop that's being run on the 17th of March at Retford Enterprise Centre from 10am – 2pm These are workshops we have commissioned through the UK Shared Prosperity funding.
Capacity Revenue Funding
JB updated: spend to date through capacity funding approx. £126,000. There is £450,000 up to 31/03/2026 and an additional £150,000 for 2026/27. £600,000 in totality. Healthy budget remaining for around £474,000.
Post-Meeting Addendum
Following a review of the Capacity Funding Spend, the amount of £4460 for the initial engagement carried out by CANNS had not been included. This now means spend to date is £129,427 leaving money remaining as £470.573
AB noted: comms work will come out of capacity building funding. To be aware that some of the budget will need to be allocated for that.
Engagement RFQ
(a.) Children & Young People
AB question: Does the development and delivery of an events program sit within this engagement RFQ? MC answer: No - I can make that clearer.
AB comments: actively removing the word consultation. Now we are out of the consultation phase moving forward we are using the words community engagement and involvement.
GC question: Is the £35k pot designed for one organisation, or can it be split? To get a wider reach, just different categories or different organisations?
AB comments: Previously declared a conflict of interest and will do again – KW and AB excused from those discussions when it came to assessing the submissions. Previously two separate contracts for BCVS and CANNS, were submitted but worked together as one programme. BCVS will declare a conflict of interest. BCVS will be proposing to apply and lead to partnership applications on this.
DS comments: We've done some previous engagement but for the ongoing engagement we need to think about our population and hard to reach vulnerable people.
JW comments: I welcome that we'll be looking at the previous two sets of groups of young people that were engaged. More young people than that that should be included in this consultation. We should be looking including young people who attend the 6th form centre, look at the young people who attend the youth club at Valley so that we have a much wider breadth of understanding and so that they feel have that sense of engagement of what's happening in their town centre. I think it's so important that we include as many young people as we possibly can, who live in Worksop and ask what they want to see.
MC questions: If you want to give a percentage, I can work it into the specification?
JW commented: Look at the numbers of young people, look at the census and then, you know, and then use that to try and get that that demographic breakdown reflected in the consultation.
(b.) Community & Business Engagement
AB provided feedback to the Board regarding the positive discussions held at yesterday’s VCSE meeting. We are fortunate in Bassetlaw to have a strong and established network of organisations, including a large and successful BID, the Business Forum, and wider support from the FSB and Chamber.
The discussion emphasised the importance of involving existing organisations and residents in shaping future work. There was notable enthusiasm from the sector, with a strong sense of excitement and positivity about the opportunities ahead. It was also highlighted that Worksop already benefits from several excellent community assets, and that further investment—particularly in improved communication—would help ensure residents are fully aware of what is available to them.
BL further commented one of the strongest themes that emerged was the shared ambition to create a central hub — a dedicated community space in the heart of the town centre with regular activities taking place. The vision is that what happens inside this hub would naturally flow out into the town, becoming visible and engaging for residents and visitors.
JB question: Could the Board advise on the preferred approach for review and approval for the two proposed engagement RFQ’s Children & Young People and Community & Business Engagement?
- Would you like us to engage with a small subset of Board members who do not have any conflicts of interest to review the updated RFQ’s? content?
- Should it be a full board decision and those with COI to remove themselves?
Board Vote: Decision made – should be a full board decision regarding the two RFQs.
AB noted that a decision was needed regarding the specification documents. Proposal that officers refine and strengthen the specifications in line with the feedback provided by Board members, including clearer detail on the expected profile and number of people required for each piece of work.
- Can board confirm whether they were OK for officers to make these amendments and proceed to publication without coming back to board?
- Or whether the revised specifications should return to the Board for approval? If the latter was preferred, she suggested using a written procedure to avoid any delays.
Board Vote: Decision made – specs can be updated by officers without coming back to board.
MC Action: Update 2 specifications.
Business Support Programme
JB provided an update on progressing the commissioning for the business support programme. Officers have undertaken a review of what has been delivered through the UKSPF over the past four years, which has operated successfully in Worksop and the wider district. A proposal is being brought forward for the Board’s consideration. The recommendation is to continue with a High Street Business Support Programme, a budget of £80,000 over a two-year period has been proposed for this.
JB noted that the Board has already earmarked £120,000 of capital funding in Year 1 of 2026/27. This has been divided into three separate grant areas (Fit-Out Grant / Shop Frontages / High Street Support Grants).
JB explained that the proposed support would include both one-to-one and groups. This would involve in-person, on-the-ground engagement, with staff visiting businesses directly to provide tailored one-to-one support. Alongside this, the programme would offer a series of webinars and regular online sessions, as well as some in-person workshops.
DS leaves
JB noted that engaging High Street businesses can be challenging, as many have limited staffing capacity and business owners often struggle to take time away from day-to-day operations. To address this, the proposal includes developing a resource directory, offering toolkits and making recordings of workshop sessions available for businesses to access in their own time. The support offer would cover a wide range of practical operational topics, including customer experience, health and safety, marketing, financial management, and day-to-day business operations.
PJ raised a point regarding the proposed shopfront grant, emphasising the importance of ensuring that conservation requirements remain central to the process. He noted that the Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) sets out clear expectations for signage and shopfront design within conservation areas.
MC Action: Make it more explicit in the guidance as part of the grant process about seeking these planning permissions
PS stressed the importance of identifying problems with planning regulations earlier in the application process. Previous experience that there had already been significant time invested in gathering quotes and completing paperwork, only for conservation or planning officers to advise that the proposed works could not proceed.
PS also confirmed that MC had shared the relevant guidance documents with him, which he had reviewed in detail last week. He noted inconsistencies across the three grant application forms—for example, variations in the number of quotes required and whether applicants were asked to provide health and safety policies. PS advised that he had prepared a summary document highlighting these inconsistencies and would send it to MC.
HA leaves
JBF leaves
MC Action: To update the three grant application forms.
Board Vote: Board supports Business Support program.
JB confirmed once the information is published, it can be circulated across the Board and shared more widely at a local level.
CG leaves.
JB shared information about the Business Fit-Out Grant. This grant was introduced in recognition of Bassetlaw’s role as an early adopter of the HSRA programme. The Business Fit-Out Grant supports businesses once a premise has already been brought up to standard. It focuses on helping the incoming business with the costs of fitting out the space. The Council has operated the grant using a threshold approach, with the maximum grant amount linked to the length of the lease or rental agreement. This provides greater confidence that the supported business will occupy and contribute to the High Street for a meaningful period. JB confirmed that this approach has worked well so far but welcomed any feedback from the Board.
PJ question: a key concern relating to the lease-length criteria used for the Business Fit-Out Grant. He noted that while some leases may specify a term of several years, a few landlords are allowing tenants to exit early. PJ suggested checking lease check to ensure either there are no early-exit opportunities, or penalties are in place to discourage businesses from leaving before the end of the lease period.
JB confirmed: businesses need to provide a copy of lease as part of their application and a letter of support from landlord. But offered to check on that to see if there's been any changes since the grant was introduced.
JB Action: Review documents relating to Business Fit-Out-Grants and early exit from lease.TW question: asked whether there would be any requirement for applicants to be VAT-registered?
JB answered: current guidance already covers VAT, including what is and is not eligible for reimbursement. Where a business is VAT-registered, VAT cannot be claimed as eligible expenditure. However, many applicants are smaller start-up businesses that are not VAT-registered, and the programme currently supports a mix of both VAT-registered and non-registered businesses.
JB noted that if the Board wished to introduce additional checks and safeguards, officers could incorporate these into the process. Mindful that if the grant was only offer to those that were VAT registered it would exclude some small businesses that need the support.
DSK question: Will the grant be paid all in one go or if it will be paid in stages?
MC answered: That's included in the guidance. Process is to have a 50% paid up front and then the rest of the remainder paid later.
PS commented: One of his suggestions is removing the requirement to provide a VAT number, as not all businesses—particularly smaller or start-up enterprises. Including this as a mandatory field could disadvantage or exclude those smaller businesses that the grants are designed to support.
PJ commented: that consideration should also be given to preventing situations where a leaseholder, having received grant support, subsequently sells on their lease at a profit.
AB suggested the Board may need a separate, focused meeting with relevant specialist organisations. This would allow the Board to explore additional checks and due diligence to prevent the funding going to inappropriate or unsuitable businesses.
SM question: is one of the pre-requisites that the businesses have adequate insurance? What’s the impact if there is investment in fit-outs but that businesses could be vulnerable to risks such as flooding. Confirmed that he would reflect on potential resilience advice or measures that could be incorporated into the wider support offer. SM noted that this is a broader topic and offered to discuss it further with JB outside the meeting.
JB confirms it will be useful to pick this up.
JW expressed significant concern about the presence of organised crime on the high street, noting that certain types of businesses—such as vape shops, barbers, and some nail bars—can sometimes act as fronts for criminal activity. She confirmed that she has raised this matter in Parliament, where ministers have emphasised the intention for Pride in Place structures to have a central role in determining which businesses operate in town centres.
JW notes that the current specification does not clearly set out what powers the PiP will hold in this regard. She suggested that the Board should provide feedback to government seeking clarification on the extent of these powers? The Board can influence the types of businesses it chooses to support through clear and robust grant specifications; wider controls are also needed.
TW question: who makes the decision of the grant’s approval?
JB answered: under the current UKSPF arrangements, an internal panel within the council assesses and approves applications. However, PiP the intention would be to involve a subgroup of the Worksop Together Board (WTB) and internal officers in the decision-making process.
JW leaves
SM shared a link in the chat to a recently published Independent Commission report (released yesterday), which examines issues relating to neighbourhoods, High Street regeneration, town centre decline, and wider deprivation etc Provides a series of useful recommendations which align with PiP. (See References).
Community Safety
MC shared an update a list of priority issues had been collated from the subgroup meeting and subsequently shared at the wider Community Safety Partnership meeting, which includes a broad range of stakeholders. MC highlighted several areas for potential action, noting the associated budget to help identify which items could be delivered quickly and which would require longer-term planning. Martin’s Law was identified as a significant and more complex project, likely needing substantial time and resource. In contrast, improvements to lighting and an audit of street furniture were highlighted, with suggestions for a coordinated walk-around to identify unsafe or problematic assets.
SG disclosed a conflict of interest - Night Angels successfully patrol the town centre on a Saturday evening. Now Worksop has had an uplift in the nighttime economy, we could offer this service on a Friday evening potentially?
The Council’s Safety team also suggested options such as employing additional town centre wardens and providing them with enhanced security training. The idea of purchasing a mobile CCTV unit was also raised, noted as relatively affordable and flexible. Issue highlighted was the call for increased police visibility in the town centre and need for homeless organisation linkages.
AW disclosed a declaration of interest. S80 would be interested in providing the mobile CCTV unit.
CKD mentioned that they meet regularly with the local police and acknowledged ongoing concerns about crime in the area. Officers had indicated they are often instructed not to give chase in certain circumstances to avoid the risk of injury to the public.
CKD question: whether there was anything the Board could do to apply pressure at a national level for greater operational flexibility, enabling frontline police to take a more hands-on approach to tackling crime?
AB answer: we can revisit this at a later stage and explore alternative ways the board can support.
JD commented: that any audit of street furniture or activity on the public highway would require the involvement of the Highway Authority. As part of county-wide PiP work, additional support and guidance is being offered to local areas, and a similar offer had recently been made to Greater Carlton.
JD will contact JB separate about identifying ways to leverage additional funding from the Mayoral Combined Authority (MCA) for highways and transport-related improvements.
AB highlighted the ongoing importance of securing additional funding. Flagged the board should revisit these to avoid missing deadlines. Proposed that this work progresses before the next meeting.
Street Cleansing
MC summarised a meeting with Environmental Services to discuss Year 1 funding for street cleansing (£15k revenue and £90k capital) – this also includes public realm finances. Environmental Services recommended issuing an RFQ for two deep cleans in an identified area, delivered by an external contractor due to the Council’s limited capacity. Deep cleans would need to take place in the evenings and could include graffiti removal, deep grime cleaning, specialist equipment for chewing-gum removal, and pavement treatments.
The RFQ specification will be drafted in consultation with the Street Cleansing team and issued as soon as possible so that the work can take place between April and March, ensuring two deep cleans during the year. Environmental Services also said they would like to purchase additional equipment to enhance routine cleaning.
Board Vote: Board supports.
MC question: once the spec has been drafted is it going to full board for review or send it only to a smaller group?
AB advised that specification should be shared with the full Board, accompanied by a short deadline for comments, so that anyone who wishes to contribute can do so. Specification should incorporate as much social value as possible and seek to use local providers.
MC Action: draft spec and send to full Board.
Events
TMA feedback on the form: Some of the team have tried to input in and they found it really difficult to input in. The boxes don't work.
MC response – In regard to the address, put a postcode, the nearest postcode you can find and then one of the other boxes just put where it's going to take place because that will then enable you to fill in the rest of the form.
MC Action: Update form with reference to postcode issue.
PG comments: The Board may wish to explore whether a technical solution could help - such as software capable of pulling (or “spidering”) event listings from multiple organisations’ calendars to automatically generate a comprehensive Worksop town events calendar. This could benefit both the sector and the public, particularly given feedback that many residents are simply unaware of what is happening in the town.
Meeting dates for 2026
- 14th April 10am-12pm Ceres Suite, Worksop Town Hall – in person
- 15 May 10am-12pm Hybrid – Bridge Skills Hub
- 23 July 10am-12pm Hybrid – Bridge Skills Hub
- 18 September 10am-12pm Hybrid – Bridge Skills Hub
- 19 November 10am-12pm Hybrid – Bridge Skills Hub
Any other business
JB sought clarification following the earlier vote on the business support proposals. The discussion had focused primarily on one of the three grant schemes and asked whether the Board wished to revisit the remaining two grants at a later meeting, or whether officers should proceed with the full business support package?
MC commented she would like feedback from members who have had the drafts. Subgroup can then feed back.
MC Action: Once feedback received from subgroup then grants can be shared
JB question: Would the Board like officers to identify a date in March for a town centre walk-around?
AB answered: Yes do suggest a date for early March.
JB Action: organise a date for a walk-around Worksop Town Centre in March.
PJ commented the repainting of street-name signs fixed to property walls (e.g. Wrighton Street, Newgate Street). He highlighted that this is a relatively simple intervention that could deliver a visible and positive impact on the town centre environment.
JB answered: that repainting street signage could be incorporated into the planned work. The proposed town centre walk-around would provide an opportunity to gather information on the condition of existing signs. Depending on the scale of work required, this could either be delivered internally or through a small, commissioned piece, ensuring a comprehensive approach that examines what can be retained, repaired, or repainted. Shared similar exercise in Retford has been successful.
References
Last Updated on Wednesday, March 4, 2026