Attendance
- Tracey Mace Akroyd - (RNN Group)
- Andria Birch (BCVS, Chair)
- Cllr Steve Scotthorne (BDC)
- Paul Stuart (EMC)
- Karen Tarburton (BDC / H&B)
- Sally Gillborn (North Notts BID)
- Joelle Davies (NCC)
- Stephen Marwood (EA)
- Lucy Elsdale (BDC)
- Julie Beresford (BDC)
- Karen Whitlam (CANN)
- Michael Hirst (BPL)
- Phil Jackson (WBF)
- Peter Gaw (Inspire)
- Tina Masters (BDC)
- Helen Azar (NICB)
- Dee Sissons (Aurora)
- Anthony Ward (S80)
- Becky Law (Resident)
- Craig Taylor (BDC)
- Kevin Dale (NCC)
- Ed Hicky (MHCLG)
Apologies
Jo White - MP for Bassetlaw.
Welcome
Introductions:
- Ed Hickey - representative from MHCLG
- Delivery Lead for Pride in Place across the East Midlands
Presentation
Last meeting was on the 17th of October; presentation from Darren at BCVS was delivered on the consultation work and a report that was shared with the Board. This has informed the priorities in the 10-Year Vision and Regeneration Plan.
The deadline is 28 November for submission.
The submission has been driven by key priorities identified in the consultation exercise, with discussion and a vote to ensure board member views were considered.
Indicative funding profile
There is flexibility in the pipeline projects and funding profile.
Agreed priorities:
- The Consultation Report identified 20 key recommendations which have been aligned with the three overarching objectives (building stronger communities, creating thriving places, empowering people to take back control) for Pride in Place, and mapped with investment priorities.
- Importance of top 5 priorities was discussed.
- Financial profile -there is a degree of flexibility from government, and the task now is formulating individual projects that fall underneath each objective. Funding is allocated based on initiates under the key themes, with understanding of allocations that might be necessary to achieve them.
- Profiled across the programmes identified in the table - Pride in Place is a priority that came out of Consultation Report, with improving the public realm, which is reflected in the overarching programme across the full 10 years.
- At this point, annual amounts have been allocated for the events programme, which will work across children and young people, business and community.
- Allocations for local neighbourhoods, include both revenue and capital
- Skills and workforce development has been allocated as a programme.
- Capital schemes – the group feel as though there needs a good proportion of funding allocating across the ten-year vision, as they are likely to be ongoing and cross cutting with other themes. Ensuring the funding is accessible year on year to ensure the longevity of interventions taken under each programme.
- Understanding of feasibility and scoping studies needs to occur under the capital schemes. This is needed to ensure development of projects, especially as funding is ready to be used.
- Some programmes are more difficult to profile, such as skills, which is quite reliant on revenue, and partnership working is therefore crucial to ensure all possible match funding or in-kind opportunities are sought. Skills ad workforce i.e. such as in UKSPF there are creative ways of bringing capital in to ensure development of effective programmes – the heritage construction programme was given as an example.
10-Year Vision
- Sent to the Board directly. This is broken down into funding streams and revenue and capital, reflective of the key priorities.
- Proposing to allocate 7% of overall fund to support ongoing programme management, admin and delivery costs. This figure has come from experience of other similar large programmes, and to ensure all aspects needed to support board and delivery of programme is realised.
- This will allow for monitoring and evaluation to enable the full scope of the ten-year timeline to be taken advantage off to ensure improvement of project delivery and outcomes for residents.
10-Year Vision and 4-Year Investment Plan
- A ten-year Vision been shared with the board, it includes the 9 sections covering the background, visions for the future, strategic case for change, community and stakeholder engagement and governance.
- The 4-year Regeneration Plan details the interventions that the Board want to prioritise and how the funding is planning to be spent.
- Vision summary encapsulates what WTB is striving and aiming for, for Worksop by 2036.
Summary from MHCLG (EH)
- Flexibility in funding costs, concerns have been raised about the revenue and capital split – this comes from the Treasury.
- MHCLG will be publishing new guidance soon, which may give a more concrete steer on what will happen further down the line, this will be of a refresh rather than new information. This should be published before Christmas and will be alerted when it comes through.
- No guidance has been published yet on the monitoring and evaluation of data - this will be coming soon and will be available over email.
Questions
Peter Gaw: Spending profiles include good indicative detail, will funding streams need to have contingency identified, which may be useful for funding streams which haven’t been released a top-up yet?
- Next steps - Developing a project pipeline for 26/27- and four-year period. Contingency will be featured in the next stage of project development. Contingency will also be built into the capital projects based on expert advice. It is important to check and challenge risk profiles and deliverabilities.
Joelle Davies: Reflections and comments as an officer. The approach is similar to other PiP areas across Nottinghamshire. There are opportunities to leave room for further funding, which needs to be at the forefront, as they will attend from EMCCA and offer the counties continued support. EMCCA is considering a 50% cut to inward investment and 80% cut to business support, this is potentially something to flag going forward in terms of where support may feel more needed.
- From a UKSPF perspective – this has been hugely effective in Bassetlaw. However, there are no assumptions that lifting and moving UKSPF projects into the PiP programme. However, where they have been successful in Worksop, it would be important to consider incorporating any projects – especially with filling void spaces on the High Street (a high priority which is something the UKSPF was targeting). Business support also requires wrap-around support to ensure new skills are built and growth will be ongoing. BDC is also an early adopter of High Street Rental Auctions, which means we can build on what we already know is working and keep the funding profiles flexible to ensure allocations are targeted.
- Project / intervention discussions will be picked up at the next Board meeting.
Michael Hirst: This ten-year Programme is committed to BDC, are there risks associated with local government reorganisation, and what does this mean regarding programme delivery?
- EH - Plans for LGR are not set yet. This money is ringfenced and will be there as set out - LGR should not impact the way funding is used or being received but will be managed by the new unitary authority with the same condition/terms as set out.
- Craig Taylor - Timescales - LGR submission will be sent to government next week and we will await feedback from ministers and government; statutory consultation will take place early next year and final decision will be received around July next year. Anticipated timeline is 3-5 years if it runs to programme. It’s important to note there are some things that merge quickly and easily, but others will take longer. We will remain prudent for an agenda update about LGR around every 6 months - ACTION for BDC Team.
Board Discussion
Decisions: Indications are based on documents and shared presentations – are WTB members happy to put those documents forward for submission? DS, SG, AW, KW, PS, MH, PG, TMA, BL, SS, AB, SM, HA, PJ agreed. Priorities have been woven well into the Plan and Vision. All documents have been shared with all Board Members and relevant parties.
Next steps for PiP Team
Meeting again on 18th December (DS, MH and JD submitted apologies). Expectations from Board for officers to bring to next meeting:
- Develop a project pipeline, including high level project scope, profiles, and commissioning processes that are likely to be followed and board can develop further. This will allow time to put necessary processes in place following Christmas Break and work toward April 26 timeline.
- Question - is the Board happy for BDC to shape project specifications in line with main themes, against financial profile streams and put them to board next meeting? Board are supportive and agreed.
- Documents are to be circulated before the meeting to ensure members have time to read.
- Gather intelligence on streetscaping, some data is held already, some scoping can potentially begin soon.
- Large procurement exercises can be lengthy, board highlighted and reiterated identifying and acting on quick wins where possible.
- Consultation highlighted young people’s wishes for events and activities, with more engagement needed to understand what that would be in practice and how to bring that to life.
Any other business
Steve Scotthorne: Highlighted young people and events, extending what we already have and/ or creating new? How are we going to get information about what young people want, and how to control any expectations?
- Do want to build on what is working well already? However, there is an appetite for more, which came out of the Consultation. A mixture of approaches to help things happen quickly are required, whilst ensuring that requests for more are honoured and understood.
- This is a particular specialism, also supported by board with many groups that work with young people.
- The process of engagement is as important as the product.
PG: There is a small college programme held at the Library; we can hold some engagement with young people there. There are some issues around not knowing about what could be provided – i.e. bringing in youth services provided in other areas and not Worksop.
- We need to be mindful that young people's services are under stress and reflect arising issues.
- KW: We need to manage expectations and revisit groups to ask if they would like to help shape outcomes, CANNs is willing to offer in-kind support for this.
- TMA: We need to carry out a mapping exercise of what we already have, to help understand what is working, what we aren’t aware of etc. It would be good to link in with the Student Council and Student Unions, and also look at how we can get collaboration between PiP and these groups to enhance networks.
CT: A process related question for EH. Do we need a picture of needs, issues, and themes that the board are taking forward? When we make the submission are MHCLG looking for further clarification on these submissions? When are we likely to hear back? When will that be able to be made public?
- EH: No further information is required to process, but if there are requests they will come via portal notification and it is not a lengthy process to check in. A triage and further in-depth look may be required. A submission may also be passed with comment and feedback (no impact on money or timelines), or by requesting additional information (only exceptional circumstances). A submission will ultimately be sent to the Minister for a final rubber stamp. We will probably be more specific in the new year on timelines, but not before then.
- AB: BDC are changing the respondent email address to ensure correct contact is maintained. BDC will be working on final submission tomorrow, so any further comments must be sent ASAP.
- Comms: Agreed that once submission made, PR will be released. A Task and Finish Group for communications will be created going forward.
- ACTION – TM to share comms plan with Ed Hickey when ready.
- ACTION – AB to send Task and Finish Group information to new board members.
Last Updated on Tuesday, March 3, 2026