Attendance
- Maggie Easton
- Lucy Elsdale
- Sally Gillborn
- Paul Stuart
- Karen Whitlam
- Phil Jackson
- Craig Taylor
- Natalie Cockrell
- Tracey Mace-Akroyd
- Michael Hirst
- Karen Tarburton
- Jo Bradley
- Helen Azar
- Tina Masters
- Stephen Marwood
Introductions
Declarations of interest
Karen Whitlam and Andria Birch both stated that consultation responses were from their organisations, and they would leave the room where necessary.
Craig Taylor declared an interest in S80 and stated he would leave the room where appropriate.
Agenda run down
Members agreed they had been circulated and received beforehand.
NC states that there are no limits on the number of applications the board can approve.
Jo Bradley enters the meeting.
SG restates that 4 applications have been received, and if they meet the standard, there are no rules to prevent all applications from being received.
Centre Place / Talkzone application:
- Consensus reached amongst members that they represent local young people, which have been identified as a gap in the board.
- AB states that she encouraged Georgia Crossland to apply due to oversight of lack of young people and LGBTQ+ representation on the board at present. This was agreed as acceptable by the board.
Put to vote:
- Agreed by voting members that accepted on to board.
S80 Antony Award:
- Agreed that CT would stay silent on the matters due to DoI.
- Understood that many members have worked together and crossed paths with other organisations in the area.
- SG states that it is a standalone company owned by the Council. With Anthony employed at S80
- JB states that good business acumen would benefit the board.
- AB states that there is low private sector representation on the board, and so would provide representation otherwise lacking on the board.
Put to vote:
- Agreed by voting members that the application be accepted.
Becky law:
- AB DoI; Becky is applying as a resident of Worksop, but does work in BCVS, and became aware of the application due to AB.
- Agreement that the applicant promotes the town, knows lots about the communities, organisations and would be a strong member. She declared her interest and therefore she is aware of the board regulations, as well as providing beneficial insight into the needs of the community.
Put to vote:
- Voted yes to accept
Dee Sissions CEO of Aurora Wellbeing:
- Agreed to be a strong applicant, board thought beneficial to bring in the health and wellbeing component missing on the board
- HA states that Dee is slightly new to the post - 12 months in post but the experience and work Aurora is doing is strong, as well as the shift in a heritage focus.
Vote:
- Members voted to accept
SG stated many of the members fill gaps.
There is a letter drafted to go out to them, and there are plans for an update meeting for new members. NC stating these are ready to go ahead.
AB: Coalfield Regeneration Trust CEO contacted AB yesterday about being interested in joining/ working with Neighbourhood Boards.
1. Action - AB to obtain consent and then share letter with board to ensure due process is followed.
MH stating they have worked with Coalfields before - they could be useful in attracting match funding. Now having national capital programmes, which may be of relevance to Worksop, but a focus on how Coalfields merges in.
Consultation Quotations
AB and KW leave the meeting to allow discussion of consultation quotations.
Board members receive proposals to read.
NC details gaps the board identified in previous meetings, with board agreeing to open consultation to target the demographics that were missing from the initial consultation. No limit on which options board members can take forward.
Consultation request was put out on BDC and partnership websites.
Discussion over previous consultation from Focus; what was provided and what the board felt was missing
- Online survey alongside focus group.
PJ leaves meeting to discuss with NC and CT outside of meeting. Rejoin. - Primarily survey based but taking this to engagement sessions for identified gaps.
Discussion around the compatibility of both consultations together. Questioning whether board can advise which groups each consultation targets, due to potential duplication issues.
JB raised question of digital inclusivity; whether in person consultation would be better received, if able to match up electronic surveys to ensure duplication is not present.
SG raised possibility of meeting between both parties to better understand targeting and delivering a coherent overall consultation. NC agreed.
JB raised potential of project cost breakdown for larger consultation. Incorporating smaller engagement into larger consultation to ensure cohesion and a comprehensive final report.
Template for final report.
SG questioned timelines; agree in principle now, subject to a meeting to streamline and combine proposals.
2. Action - NC to arrange meeting with both applicants this week, and update board accordingly.
AB and KW invited back into meeting.
CT thanks both organisations, states board are minded in proceeding with both, with considerations around duplication lending weight to a meeting between both organisations to avoid duplication and promote a closer working approach.
In mind with a single report being produced by BCVS incorporating the work of both parties and building on the Focus consultation.
AB states BCVS would not compete against other local organisations and would be happy to step back to allow the preferred organisation. Questioned what proportion of funding would be forthcoming.
SG restates intention for board to agree with proposals, with a coordination meeting with organisations this week.
NC reiterates all relevant BDC procurement rules have been followed.
Noted that the differences between proposals allows for a resource rich consultation with underrepresented groups, and collaboration stops duplication whilst retaining both proposals reach.
TM – states BDC communications department can put a package together when consultation has been agreed, if wanted.
ME confirms Timelines. States that the application is predominantly online, and that it includes a 10-year Regeneration Plan and a 4-year Vision.
ME confirms future board meetings. 3. Action - ME to circulate meeting schedule.
ME provides update on PfN visit, noting key points on regeneration plan, regional lead, the scope of vision, and future proofing board with options to constitute in their own right as a CIC or like.
Open Questions
Videos - TMA stating that if students are wanting to build a video for the vision, this needs to be voted on and built into the curriculum in advance. Affirms they could produce a video or take part in time for the November deadline.
AB raises that consultation results will not be available until very close to deadline, may be more useful to include young people as a voice instead of creating the vision.
NC reminded board of LUP video, and possibility of using it as community engagement.
4. Action - Meeting to iron details about video: possibility of Task and Finish group: produce brief for September.
5. Action - TMA to enquire about possible costs of including video or production aspects in curriculum.
SG puts forward October board meeting for students to present video to board.
TMA questions if it is too tight and will report back once the brief has been agreed.
6. Action - BDC team to draft a brief by end of the week and send round for board approval.
JB questions demographic percentages and whether there was a number prescribed by Government.
NC states PfN team did not want to be overly prescriptive on consultation and instead focus on longevity.
LE notes ZenCity data from across UK neighbourhoods, as well as small sampling from Worksop
AB notes that deep community engagement was pushed.
CIC
JB in favour of idea of becoming a CIC if board chosen, as allows for broader funding to be brought into programme, as well as focussing and centralising local voices and needs, and attracting other organisations in the community to plan for the future.
CT notes LGR, for members to think about CIC in relation to BDC no longer being a single entity from 2028.
Future Agenda
Flow and form of vision needs to be in scope with investment plan. Working to money we have with PfN but don't want to limit this.
Comms; no external facing comms about PfN, what is it that the board want to communicate, how, and where from.
Website. ZenCity data shows Worksop residents not too aware of the funding or the plan. BDC comms timeline depends on when information goes out.
AB questions a two-stage approach. 7. Action - All members to engage their comms teams to promote new prospectus message once available and established.
Website
Worksop Together domain bought, Board needs to create specification, design, pages so that quotes can be sought and work procured.
Holding page to inform about what is coming. Need to be able to build on basic page and update ourselves – accessibility of page to low-skilled. Board can obtain quotes - it’s up to the board to decide how much could be spent on it. CM (BDC) could update but would be recharged as time, however, could incorporate that into the project management role when that person is sought to be hired.
8. Action - Financial standing and costings: future standard agenda item. NC updates on money held and PfN team advice.
9. Action - Board to obtain advice from other PfN towns to understand how they are progressing their website and comms.
10. Action - Future agenda item for vision scope and CIC plans etc.
[Meeting closed].
Last Updated on Tuesday, March 3, 2026