🌱 Plan for Neighbourhoods

Commons Chamber

🌶️ 🌶️ 🌶️ 🌶️ 🌶️

The UK Government unveiled a £1.5 billion plan to revitalize 75 overlooked neighborhoods, pledging up to £20 million over a decade to each area to boost growth and living standards. The initiative, a stark departure from past Conservative efforts, empowers local neighborhood boards—comprising residents, businesses, and social housing representatives—to decide how funds are spent on priorities like housing, skills, and community cohesion. Critics, including opposition members, argue the plan recycles old promises without sufficient new funding, and question the accountability and effectiveness of the proposed boards. Despite these concerns, the plan aims to foster community-led development and tackle deprivation, with Ministers committed to honoring previous funding commitments while promising a future focus on need-based allocations.

Summary

  • The UK Government announced a £1.5 billion plan for neighborhoods, targeting 75 undervalued areas to boost local growth and living standards.
  • The plan shifts away from previous Conservative policies by removing competitive bidding and offering more flexible spending options for local communities.
  • Local communities will receive up to £20 million over ten years, managed by new neighborhood boards composed of residents, local businesses, and other community stakeholders.
  • These boards will focus on community-chosen priorities such as modernizing social housing, improving skills support, enhancing childcare, and more.
  • The government aims to empower local communities to make informed decisions aligned with broader national missions, including building thriving places and strengthening community ties.
  • Critics from the opposition expressed concerns about the plan’s accountability, lack of clear purpose, and potential misalignment with local needs due to its broad criteria.
  • The government reiterated its commitment to transparency in decision-making and to supporting local councils’ efforts, despite acknowledging financial challenges faced by these entities.
  • Various MPs expressed gratitude for their areas’ inclusion in the plan, while others pushed for its expansion and urged the government to address unmet community needs in non-selected areas.
  • The plan draws inspiration from previous community-focused initiatives, aiming to foster long-term community development and engagement.

Divisiveness

The parliamentary session on the ‘Plan for Neighbourhoods’ exhibited a moderate level of disagreement, thus warranting a rating of 3. The disagreements were primarily around the implementation and effectiveness of the plan, funding allocation, and the role of local authorities, though the overall tone remained relatively consensual and focused on constructive critique rather than outright opposition.

  1. Implementation and Effectiveness: The opposition, particularly from David Simmonds (Con), questioned the clarity of purpose and effectiveness of the new plan. He criticized it for being a ‘rebadging and rehashing’ of a previous scheme, suggesting it lacked new direction or added value. This concern about the effectiveness and novelty of the plan is indicative of a disagreement over how the plan would address the issues it aims to tackle.

    ‘While we welcome this rebadging and rehashing of a scheme that we progressed when we were in office…we have some questions to put to the Minister…it is a serious concern that the Government again choose refurbishment and modernisation of social housing, which is already allocated for in other areas of local government funding.’

  2. Funding Allocation: There were disagreements regarding the allocation of funding. For example, Gideon Amos (Liberal Democrat) expressed concerns about the previous methods of allocation but also emphasized the need for more substantial funding to match the increased responsibilities placed on local authorities.

    ‘No community can flourish without proper powers and resources, so we welcome the plan’s commitment to ensuring that new neighbourhood boards work with local authorities to implement new funding. However, we urge the Government to confirm that local authorities will be funded and resourced substantially to take on this additional workload.’

  3. Role of Local Authorities and Community Involvement: The opposition highlighted concerns about the accountability and composition of the new neighbourhood boards. There was a particular focus on whether these boards adequately included democratically elected representatives and how they would interact with existing local governance structures.

    ‘It is a significant concern that the Minister finds time to say that the boards will include trade union representatives, but not to mention the democratically elected representatives of those local communities—a trend that sits alongside the changes in the proposed planning White Paper.’

  4. Previous Government’s Policies: The Minister, Alex Norris, frequently referenced the unfunded commitments made by the previous government, indicating a point of contention regarding the legacy of past policies and their impact on current initiatives. This reflects a broader disagreement on the continuity and funding of such programs.

    ‘However, when I entered the Department on my first day in government, and talked to civil servants, it was astonishing to find out that the programme—a £1.5 billion commitment made by the previous Government—was unfunded.’

Despite these points of disagreement, there was also a significant amount of consensus. Many members from different parties welcomed the overall aim of the plan to empower local communities and improve living standards. The constructive nature of the questions and the Minister’s willingness to respond to concerns also suggest that while there are disagreements, they are not severe enough to completely derail the plan but are rather focused on refining and improving its implementation.