From Programs to Stewardship: Why English Local Authorities Should Adopt PLACE’s 12 Elements for Place‑Based Change
- truthaboutlocalgov
- Dec 15, 2025
- 23 min read
English Local Authorities Face Interlocking Challenges
Councils today are grappling with complex, overlapping issues that rarely fit neatly into a single directorate or budget line. Health inequalities intersect with housing insecurity; child poverty links to school readiness, family support, and employment pathways; net zero ambitions require coordination across planning, transport, and community engagement. These challenges are systemic, not siloed and they demand a fundamentally different approach.
The PLACE framework, developed in Australia, offers exactly that: a governance and practice architecture that moves beyond short-term projects to community-led systems stewardship. Instead of treating problems as isolated service failures, it builds structures and relationships that enable councils and communities to co-create solutions, share accountability, and adapt together over time.
At its core, the framework rests on three principles:
Subsidiarity: Decisions made at the most local level possible, where people have the greatest stake and knowledge.
Accountability: Communities can hold systems to account through transparency, shared decision-making, and mutual responsibility.
Partnership: Councils, funders, services, and communities work collaboratively across siloes, grounded in trust and reciprocity.
These principles come to life through 12 mutually reinforcing elements from community-governed structures and shared vision to transparency in resource use and continuous feedback loops. Together, they create the conditions for adaptive, place-based governance that learns and evolves with people and place.
What This Blog Delivers
This blog translates the PLACE framework for England’s local government context, showing how councils can:
Devolve authority to communities in ways that are legitimate and sustainable.
Embed mutual accountability across sectors and partners.
Build durable cross-sector partnerships that move beyond transactional collaboration.
You’ll find:
A 12–18 month implementation roadmap tailored for English councils.
Metrics that go beyond KPIs to measure legitimacy, trust, and adaptability.
Common pitfalls and how to avoid them.
Practical tools from governance templates to feedback loop schedules that you can adopt now.
The goal? To help local authorities shift from delivering programmes to stewarding systems creating governance that is inclusive, transparent, and capable of tackling the complexity of modern public service challenges.
Why This Matters Now for English Local Authorities
1. Complexity Beats Siloed Delivery
The challenges councils face today are multi-dimensional and interdependent. Temporary accommodation isn’t just a housing issue it intersects with health inequalities, employment, education, and community safety. Similarly, school readiness links to early years provision, family support, and public health, while public realm safety touches planning, youth services, and policing.Traditional siloed approaches where each department or agency tackles its own piece often result in duplication, gaps, and frustration for residents. Communities experience these issues as one lived reality, not as separate service lines.Joint stewardship is the only way forward: councils, NHS partners, VCSE organisations, and communities working together around shared priorities, pooling resources, and aligning accountability. The PLACE framework provides the governance and relational infrastructure to make this happen.
2. Devolution and Place Leadership
The policy landscape is moving decisively toward place-based governance. Combined Authorities, Health & Wellbeing Boards, Integrated Care Systems (ICS), and Local Area Partnerships are designed to break siloes and integrate services. But integration without shared purpose and shared accountability risks becoming a bureaucratic exercise.Local authorities are expected to lead this shift acting as conveners and stewards of collaboration. The PLACE model gives councils a practical way to operationalise this mandate: co-create a common agenda, establish community-governed structures, and embed mutual accountability across partners. This isn’t just compliance with national policy it’s a route to better outcomes and stronger legitimacy.
3. Trust and Legitimacy
Public trust in institutions is fragile. Communities have seen countless consultations that lead nowhere, and programmes that feel imposed rather than co-designed. People want more than a voice they want a vote. They want to see visible change that reflects their priorities and values.The PLACE framework moves beyond tokenistic engagement to shared decision-making, transparent resource use, and continuous feedback loops that show communities how their input shapes action. This builds the social licence councils need to deliver complex change and strengthens democratic legitimacy at a time when confidence in governance is under pressure.
4. Funding Volatility
Short-term grants and compliance-heavy reporting create a culture of project churn. They discourage adaptation, penalise innovation, and exhaust staff and communities alike. Councils need authorising environments that allow flexibility, learning, and long-term investment in local capacity.PLACE’s emphasis on mutual accountability, shared measurement, and continuous learning provides a framework for funders and councils to move from rigid outputs to adaptive outcomes. This is essential for tackling systemic issues like poverty, climate resilience, and health inequalities where progress is iterative and relational, not linear.
The Bottom Line
The PLACE model offers practical answers on governance, power-sharing, and learning infrastructure without adding bureaucracy. It helps councils:
Devolve authority to the most local level with legitimacy.
Embed shared accountability across sectors and communities.
Build trust through transparency and reciprocity.
Create adaptive systems that learn and evolve with people and place.
This is not a new layer of meetings it’s a new way of working that turns fragmented programmes into coherent, community-led systems change.
PLACE in Brief: Principles and Elements
The PLACE framework is built on three foundational principles that redefine how local systems work with communities. These principles are not abstract they translate into practical governance and partnership behaviours that councils can adopt immediately.
The Three Principles
Subsidiarity
Decisions should be made at the most local level possible where people have the deepest knowledge of context and the strongest stake in outcomes. This principle challenges traditional top-down models and empowers communities to shape the services and systems that affect their lives.
Accountability
Communities must be able to hold systems and services to account. This goes far beyond consultation. It means embedding community voice and oversight in decision-making, ensuring transparency in resource use, and creating shared responsibility for results.
Partnership
Complex challenges cannot be solved by one actor alone. PLACE calls for governments, funders, service providers, and communities to collaborate across siloes, grounded in trust, reciprocity, and a shared agenda. Partnership here is not transactional it’s relational and long-term.
The 12 Elements of Place-Based Change
These principles come to life through 12 mutually reinforcing elements, grouped under Subsidiarity, Accountability, and Partnership. Together, they form a practical architecture for systemic change:
Subsidiarity
Community-Governed Structures
Formal and informal governance arrangements that give communities real authority in shaping priorities and decisions.
Responsive to Local Context
A commitment to listen deeply, understand local histories and cultures, and adapt plans to fit the place.
Valuing Local Knowledge
Recognising lived experience and cultural authority as legitimate expertise, equal to technical or professional knowledge.
Investing in Local Leadership
Building the capacity and legitimacy of local leaders and organisations to act as stewards of change.
Accountability
Shared Decision-Making
Structures that enable communities to co-own decisions about design, delivery, and adaptation of services.
Transparency in Resource Use
Clear, accessible information about how resources are allocated, decisions are made, and outcomes are measured.
Mutual Accountability
A reciprocal system where responsibility for results is shared across communities, councils, funders, and service providers.
Continuous Feedback Loops
Ongoing mechanisms for communities to track progress, raise concerns, and trigger change when systems underperform.
Partnership
Shared Vision and Purpose
A co-created common agenda that reflects community aspirations and aligns partners around a shared goal.
Cross-Sector Collaboration
Governments, funders, services, and communities working together to break down siloes and align efforts.
Trust and Reciprocity
Partnerships built on respect, shared learning, and a commitment to long-term relational work not transactional exchanges.
Equitable Contribution and Influence
Ensuring all partners bring something of value knowledge, resources, relationships and have a genuine say in shaping the path forward.
These elements are not a checklist. They are an interconnected system: when one is weak, the others struggle; when all are strong, they create the conditions for adaptive, community-led governance that learns and evolves over time.
How Effective Is the Model? (A UK Lens)
The PLACE framework’s power lies in its systemic coherence the way its 12 elements interlock to create a governance ecosystem that learns and adapts with communities. This is not about adding layers of bureaucracy; it’s about re-architecting relationships and decision-making so that councils, partners, and residents can tackle complexity together. When councils devolve decisions (Subsidiarity), make resource use transparent (Accountability), and invest in relational partnership infrastructure (Partnership), they unlock a virtuous cycle:
Trust grows because communities see their voice shaping real decisions.
Duplication falls as partners align around shared priorities.
Adaptation accelerates because feedback loops make learning routine.
This is what systemic change looks like: moving from fragmented programmes to joined-up stewardship of place.
Four Critical Enablers for Success
PLACE works best when these enabling conditions are present. Without them, even well-designed structures risk becoming tokenistic or short-lived.
1. Authorising Environment
Councils need policy and funding frameworks that genuinely empower community-led governance. This means:
Moving away from short-term, compliance-heavy grants toward multi-year, flexible investment.
Embedding variation clauses in contracts so services can adapt as learning emerges.
Aligning statutory duties with co-production principles, so community voice is not an optional extra but a core requirement.
Without this authorising environment, local partnerships remain stuck in a cycle of project churn, unable to build the trust and continuity that systemic change demands.
2. Backbone Capacity
Cross-sector collaboration doesn’t happen by accident. Councils need dedicated roles place conveners, partnership coordinators, and data stewards to:
Keep partners aligned and accountable.
Facilitate governance meetings and community engagement.
Manage shared measurement and feedback loops.
Think of backbone capacity as the engine room of place-based change. Without it, partnerships stall because no one is resourced to hold the centre.
3. Cultural Safety
Inclusion is more than representation. Councils must create spaces where:
Lived experience is respected as legitimate expertise.
Cultural identity and local norms are honoured.
Data sovereignty is upheld especially for marginalised groups and ethnic minorities.
Cultural safety builds trust, and trust is the currency of collaboration. Without it, engagement becomes extractive, reinforcing the very inequities place-based work seeks to dismantle.
4. Learning Systems
Adaptive governance depends on feedback. Councils need:
Shared data protocols that define what is collected, who owns it, and how it is interpreted.
Continuous feedback loops structured opportunities for reflection and course correction.
Visible “you said → we did” updates to demonstrate responsiveness and build legitimacy.
This shifts accountability from a tick-box exercise to a living practice of reflection and improvement. It also creates the conditions for innovation: when learning is routine, partners can take calculated risks and adapt quickly.
Why This Matters for English Councils
Applying these enablers isn’t just good practice it’s transformative. Councils that embrace the PLACE framework will see tangible benefits:
Fewer duplicated efforts as partners align around shared priorities instead of running parallel programmes that compete for resources.
Faster course correction when initiatives aren’t working, because feedback loops make learning routine and adaptation possible without bureaucratic delays.
Stronger public legitimacy as communities see their voice shaping real decisions not just being consulted for show.
Better outcomes because systems adapt to local realities rather than forcing one-size-fits-all solutions that fail to reflect cultural, social, and economic diversity.
The Bigger Picture
In short, PLACE creates the conditions for adaptive systems stewardship a governance model urgently needed in England as councils navigate:
Rising demand and shrinking budgets: Traditional service models are collapsing under financial pressure. Councils need approaches that leverage community assets and reduce duplication.
Complex challenges like climate resilience, child poverty, and health inequalities: These issues cut across siloes and require integrated, place-based responses.
Public expectations for transparency, co-production, and visible impact: Communities are demanding more than consultation they want shared power and accountability.
PLACE offers a practical roadmap for councils to meet these challenges head-on: devolve authority, embed mutual accountability, and build partnerships that endure.
The 12 Elements What They Mean for English Councils
Each element includes what it is, why it matters, and how to apply it in the English local government context. These are not abstract principles they are practical levers councils can pull to transform governance.
Subsidiarity
1) Community-Governed Structures (Enabling Structure)
What it is:Formal and informal structures such as community partnership boards, neighbourhood assemblies, councils of faith/elders, and tenants’ forums where communities organise, make decisions, and hold partners to account.
Why it matters:Moves governance from consultation to co-stewardship. Creates legitimate, trusted spaces for shared decisions and conflict resolution. Without these structures, engagement risks becoming tokenistic.
How to apply:
Begin with relationship-building, then co-design structures with local leaders.
Publish clear decision protocols: remits, quorum, conflict handling, transparency standards.
Fund local coordination and culturally safe venues; pay community participants for their expertise.
Review annually to adapt as trust and capability grow.
Example: A borough establishes a Place Board where residents approve commissioning priorities alongside council officers and NHS partners.
2) Responsive to Local Context (Practice)
What it is: Deep listening to local histories, cultures, and systems; honest acknowledgement of past harms; adapting plans and pace to fit the place.
Why it matters: Increases relevance, uptake, and legitimacy. Aligns services with local rhythms and priorities not rigid funding timetables.
How to apply:
Use neighbourhood walks, story-gathering, and community mapping before setting strategy.
Create flexible commissioning windows and variation clauses for adaptation.
Share leadership in joint tables with equal voting rights.
Build learning rhythms: plan → act → reflect → adapt each quarter.
Example: A council delays programme rollout to accommodate cultural events identified during community mapping.
3) Valuing Local Knowledge (Practice)
What it is: Treat lived experience, community insight, and cultural authority as equal to professional expertise, with remuneration and ethical data protocols.
Why it matters: Dismantles barriers, increases cultural safety and credibility, and improves design and delivery.
How to apply:
Pay lived-experience roles; appoint community connectors and knowledge stewards.
Co-design data agreements: ownership, consent, sharing, interpretation.
Blend quantitative indicators with stories, art, yarning circles, and local validation sessions.
Train staff in facilitation, negotiation, and systems thinking.
Example: A council funds parent leaders to co-author early years strategy alongside professionals.
4) Investing in Local Leadership (Practice/Structure)
What it is: Strategic support for both people and institutions with local legitimacy; remove barriers like short funding cycles and role overload.
Why it matters: Local leaders and organisations anchor continuity, steward trust, and hold the vision when politics or funding shifts.
How to apply:
Identify existing and emerging leaders through deep listening and open nominations.
Fund backbone roles: place conveners, partnership coordinators, data stewards.
Co-design a leadership development offer focusing on relational and cultural competencies.
Broaden leadership beyond a handful of visible voices.
Example: A council invests in a VCSE anchor organisation to host governance meetings and coordinate engagement.
Accountability
5) Shared Decision-Making (Structure)
What it is: Governance that gives communities real authority over priorities, design, delivery, and adaptation not just advisory input.
Why it matters: Normalises two-way accountability, shifts from deficit narratives to strengths-based, co-designed solutions.
How to apply:
Start with community-defined priorities; avoid pre-packaged programmes.
Phase transfer of control over budgets and responsibilities as capability grows.
Align commissioning and contract monitoring to enable co-design and adaptation.
Fund core costs: governance training, participation stipends, community coordinators.
Example: A council pilots a shared decision-making board for youth services, where young people approve funding allocations.
6) Transparency in Resource Use (Process)
What it is: Visible, inclusive decisions on resource allocation and performance. This includes participatory budgeting, co-commissioning, open data dashboards, and accessible reporting formats that communities can understand and trust.
Why it matters: Transparency builds legitimacy and shifts power from institutional control to joint stewardship. It also fosters adaptive learning because partners can see where resources flow and challenge inequities early.
How to apply:
Publish terms of reference, decision rationales, and theories of change so everyone understands the “why” behind decisions.
Use participatory budgeting at ward or neighbourhood level for discretionary spend let residents decide priorities for local investment.
Co-design shared measurement and data protocols, including cultural considerations and data sovereignty for marginalised groups.
Hold public reflection forums and issue “you said → we did” updates to demonstrate responsiveness.
Example: A council publishes a live dashboard showing how pooled budgets for homelessness prevention are allocated and updated quarterly based on community feedback.
7) Mutual Accountability (Practice)
What it is: Shared ownership of actions and outcomes across communities, councils, NHS partners, police, VCSE organisations, and funders. Accountability becomes reciprocal, not top-down.
Why it matters: Mutual accountability reduces duplication, aligns effort to community priorities, and reframes success around locally defined outcomes rather than institutional KPIs.
How to apply:
Match resources to shared outcomes through joint commissioning pools and pooled budgets.
Recognise communities as rights-holders, not beneficiaries embed this in governance language and practice.
Normalise open sharing of challenges and learning; problem-solve together in public forums rather than behind closed doors.
Example: A Place Board publishes a joint learning report where all partners including the council acknowledge what didn’t work and how they will adapt.
8) Continuous Feedback Loops (Process)
What it is: Ongoing, structured information flows upward, downward, and across that keep accountability responsive and turn data into collective sense-making.
Why it matters: Feedback loops convert compliance reporting into learning that sustains adaptation and trust. They make governance dynamic rather than static.
How to apply:
Clarify the purpose of feedback before collecting data what will be done with it?
Build regular reflection rhythms: quarterly review sprints, community validation workshops, and learning sessions.
Ensure feedback is community-owned and culturally safe use methods like storytelling, yarning circles, and participatory mapping.
Close the loop: show what changed because of input; resource coordination roles to make this happen.
Example: A council issues a quarterly “you said → we did” bulletin summarising changes to early years outreach based on parent feedback.
Partnership Elements
9) Shared Vision and Purpose (Practice/Structure)
What it is: A co-created common agenda that articulates the community’s aspirations and how partners will work together to achieve them anchored in culture and identity.
Why it matters: Prevents fragmentation and duplication; provides the social glue for collaboration and long-term commitment.
How to apply:
Facilitate inclusive workshops and roundtables with cultural safety and accessibility.
Establish governance aligned to the shared agenda, giving communities genuine authority.
Revisit the vision through continuous dialogue and feedback treat it as a living document.
Example: A borough co-creates a “Healthy Futures” agenda with residents, ICS partners, and schools, reviewed annually through community forums.
10) Cross-Sector Collaboration (Structure)
What it is: Formalised partnerships that add value by leveraging complementary assets distinct from mere coordination because they commit to shared purpose and joint work.
Why it matters: Addresses interlocking challenges, reduces gaps where people fall through cracks, and unlocks pathways aligned with local priorities.
How to apply:
Put community at the centre; value lived/local knowledge alongside technical expertise.
Invest in relationship infrastructure: facilitators, conveners, and backbone roles that keep collaboration moving.
Learn together; track progress; practice collective accountability and shared delivery.
Example: A council, NHS, housing association, and VCSE partners sign a shared outcomes agreement for tackling fuel poverty and health inequalities.
11) Trust and Reciprocity (Practice)
What it is: The relational infrastructure built through consistency, fairness, cultural safety, and shared power that enables partners to walk alongside each other.
Why it matters: Without trust, participation erodes; with trust, partners share data, co-govern, and sustain collaboration through uncertainty.
How to apply:
Work in relational (not transactional) ways; demonstrate responsiveness and reliability.
Share power, data, and accountability; embed mutual benefit in agreements.
Invest in long-term relationships, not just project lifecycles fund continuity roles and community anchors.
Example: A council honours commitments by funding a community hub beyond the initial project cycle, signalling reliability and reciprocity.
12) Equitable Contribution and Influence (Practice)
What it is: All partners especially communities bring assets (knowledge, relationships, cultural authority, resources) and genuinely shape strategy, priorities, and learning.
Why it matters: Creates shared ownership, strengthens legitimacy, and builds community-owned transformation that lasts.
How to apply:
Create shared governance with equal authority and clear remits for all partners.
Resource community capability and participation: budget lines for training, stipends, and coordination roles.
Integrate lived/local knowledge with technical expertise in strategy and evaluation.
Align funding and systems to community-defined outcomes, not just institutional KPIs.
Example: A council funds parent leaders to co-author early years strategy alongside professionals, ensuring decisions reflect real family needs.
A 12–18 Month Implementation Roadmap (Designed for English Councils)
Transforming governance is ambitious but achievable with a phased approach. This roadmap breaks the work into four practical stages, each building the foundations for the next. It’s designed for councils that want to move from program delivery to system stewardship without overwhelming teams or partners.
Stage 1, Listening & Legitimacy (Months 0–3)
Purpose: Build trust and establish a shared understanding of place before designing structures. Actions:
Map local histories, assets, and relationships: Understand the cultural, social, and institutional landscape. Identify trusted leaders and connectors across neighbourhoods.
Run community conversations and co-design workshops: Use inclusive methods yarning circles, story-gathering, walkabouts to surface priorities and aspirations.
Draft a shared vision and purpose (common agenda): Ensure this is led by community voices, not imposed by institutions.
Outputs:
Engagement report summarising insights and priorities.
Draft common agenda with agreed outcomes.
Shortlist governance options tailored to local context.
Why it matters: Legitimacy is earned, not assumed. Councils that skip this stage risk tokenism and mistrust.
Stage 2, Governance & Authorising Environment (Months 3–6)
Purpose: Formalise power-sharing and create enabling conditions for collaboration.
Actions:
Establish community-governed structures (e.g., Place Partnership Boards) with equal authority for residents and partners.
Agree shared decision-making protocols: Define voting rights, quorum, conflict resolution, and transparency standards.
Secure flexible, multi-year funding: Include pooled budgets with NHS, VCSE, and other partners to support integrated delivery.
Publish data protocols: Co-design agreements for shared measurement, ethical use, and cultural safety (including data sovereignty for marginalised groups).
Outputs:
Terms of reference for governance structures.
Investment framework with flexibility clauses.
Data sharing agreements and public dashboard specification.
Why it matters: Without an authorising environment, governance becomes symbolic. This stage gives community power real teeth.
Stage 3, Delivery & Learning (Months 6–12)
Purpose: Move from planning to action while embedding learning systems.
Actions:
Launch co-designed initiatives: Ensure equitable contribution across partners community, council, NHS, VCSE, and business.
Embed continuous feedback loops: Quarterly reviews, validation workshops, and “you said → we did” updates to demonstrate responsiveness.
Build capacities: Invest in leadership development, cultural competence, and systems thinking for staff and community leaders.
Outputs:
Delivery plans for priority initiatives.
Feedback loop calendar and reporting templates.
Capability-building curriculum for governance participants.
Why it matters: Delivery without learning locks councils into rigid models. This stage makes adaptation routine.
Stage 4, Adaptation & Scaling (Months 12–18)
Purpose: Consolidate learning, refresh priorities, and expand collaboration.
Actions:
Use evidence + community narratives to adapt investments and programmes document what changed and why.
Expand cross-sector collaboration: Bring in additional partners (e.g., housing developers, universities, cultural organisations).
Broaden leadership base: Avoid dependency on a few individuals; nurture emerging voices.
Celebrate wins and learning: Share stories of impact to maintain momentum and legitimacy.
Outputs:
Annual learning report combining quantitative data and qualitative insights.
Adapted commissioning plan reflecting new priorities.
Refreshed common agenda for the next cycle.
Why it matters: Scaling without adaptation risks repeating old mistakes. This stage ensures growth is grounded in evidence and trust.
Key Principles Across All Stages
Transparency: Publish decisions, budgets, and progress updates in accessible formats.
Cultural Safety: Honour local norms, language, and identity in every interaction.
Flexibility: Treat plans as living documents adapt as learning emerges.
Shared Ownership: Communities are not consultees they are co-stewards of change.
Metrics That Matter (Beyond KPIs)
Traditional performance frameworks often rely on narrow KPIs service throughput, cost per case, compliance rates that tell us little about legitimacy, trust, or adaptability. PLACE challenges councils to measure what really matters for systemic change: power shifts, inclusion, learning, and sustainability. These metrics go beyond outputs to capture the health of the governance ecosystem.
1. Legitimacy & Inclusion
Ask: Who is at the table, and whose voice shapes decisions?Indicators might include:
Diversity of governance participation: Representation across age, ethnicity, lived experience, and geography.
Number of remunerated lived-experience roles: Paying community members signals respect and makes participation equitable.
Cultural safety indicators: Are spaces trauma-informed? Are cultural protocols observed? Are meetings accessible (language, timing, childcare)?
Why it matters: Without legitimacy, partnerships lack authority and risk tokenism. Councils should track whether governance structures reflect the real diversity of the place and whether participation feels safe and meaningful.
2. Power & Accountability
Ask: Who controls resources and decisions?Indicators might include:
Share of budget decisions made in community-led forums: Not just advisory input actual sign-off authority.
Co-authored evaluation reports: Evidence that communities shape interpretation of data, not just provide raw feedback.
Frequency and completion of feedback loops: How often do councils report back (“you said → we did”), and what changed as a result?
Why it matters: Power is the ultimate test of co-production. If communities influence priorities and spending, accountability becomes mutual not top-down.
3. Trust & Reciprocity
Ask: Do partners and communities believe in the process?Indicators might include:
Community trust surveys: Perceptions of fairness, responsiveness, and respect.
Partner retention: Are organisations staying engaged over time, or dropping out due to frustration?
Qualitative narratives evidencing reciprocity and repair: Stories of how partners shared risk, resolved conflict, or honoured commitments.
Why it matters: Trust is the currency of collaboration. Without it, even well-designed structures fail. Councils should treat trust-building as a measurable outcome, not a soft extra.
4. Impact & Sustainability
Ask: Are we making a difference and can it last?Indicators might include:
Uptake of co-designed services: Are residents using what they helped create?
Reductions in duplication: Fewer overlapping programmes, more aligned investments.
Continuity of community institutions: Are local organisations stronger and more resilient?
Evidence of adaptation: Documented changes linked to feedback (“We changed X because community said Y”).
Why it matters: Sustainability is not just financial it’s relational and structural. Councils should measure whether local capacity and governance endure beyond project cycles.
How to Measure: Mixed Methods
PLACE advocates a mixed-methods approach:
Quantitative: Service data, population indicators, budget allocations.
Qualitative: Community narratives, case studies, yarning circles, participatory evaluation.
Ethical and locally interpretable: Co-design data protocols, respect cultural sovereignty, and ensure findings are shared back in accessible formats.
This is about creating learning systems, not compliance dashboards. Metrics should drive reflection and adaptation, not punishment.
Common Pitfalls in England (and How to Avoid Them)
Implementing place-based change is challenging. Many English councils start with good intentions but fall into predictable traps that undermine trust and impact. Here’s what to watch for and how to fix it.
1. Tokenism in Governance
The Pitfall: Communities are invited to the table but lack real authority. They become “consulted” rather than empowered, which erodes trust and reinforces cynicism.Why It Happens: Councils fear losing control or struggle to reconcile statutory duties with shared decision-making.The Fix:
Give equal voting rights to community representatives in governance structures.
Require co-sign off on priorities, budgets, and evaluation reports.
Formalise this in terms of reference and partnership agreements so power-sharing is not optional.
Example: A Place Board where residents approve commissioning decisions alongside council officers and NHS partners.
2. Rigid Funding and Compliance
The Pitfall: Short-term grants and compliance-heavy reporting lock councils into inflexible delivery models. Adaptation becomes impossible, even when evidence shows a change is needed.Why It Happens: Traditional procurement and audit cultures prioritise risk avoidance over learning.The Fix:
Move to multi-year, flexible commissioning frameworks.
Embed variation clauses so services can pivot based on feedback.
Shift reporting from outputs to learning-focused narratives that capture adaptation and impact.
Example: A three-year pooled budget for early years that allows reallocation between outreach and speech therapy as needs evolve.
3. Heroic Leader Dependency
The Pitfall: Partnerships hinge on one charismatic individual often a council officer or community activist. When they leave, momentum collapses.Why It Happens: Councils invest in people but neglect institutions.The Fix:
Fund VCSE anchor organisations and neighbourhood groups to provide continuity.
Broaden leadership through peer networks, mentoring, and succession planning.
Recognise leadership as collective and cultural, not just positional.
Example: A local authority funds a community hub to host governance meetings and coordinate engagement, reducing reliance on one person.
4. Data Extraction and Deficit Narratives
The Pitfall: Councils collect data from communities without consent or reciprocity, often framing findings in deficit terms (“what’s wrong here”). This breaches trust and perpetuates harm.Why It Happens: Pressure to evidence need for funding or justify interventions.The Fix:
Co-design data protocols that define ownership, consent, and interpretation.
Centre strengths-based narratives alongside needs analysis.
Ensure return value: share findings in accessible formats and show how data informs decisions.
Example: A council publishes a community insights dashboard co-authored with residents, highlighting assets as well as challenges.
5. Partnership Fatigue
The Pitfall: Endless meetings with little visible progress. Partners disengage, and communities lose faith.Why It Happens: Lack of clarity on purpose, poor coordination, and no early wins.The Fix:
Anchor collaboration to a common agenda with clear outcomes.
Track joint work and publish progress updates.
Celebrate early wins even small ones to maintain momentum.
Remove barriers to delivery (e.g., simplify decision-making, align reporting cycles).
Example: A quarterly “you said → we did” bulletin showing tangible changes, like new play equipment or improved housing repairs.
Bottom Line
These pitfalls are not inevitable. Councils that share power, resource backbone capacity, and embed learning systems avoid tokenism and fatigue and build partnerships that endure. The PLACE framework provides the architecture to do this well.
What This Looks Like in Practice (Scenarios)
The PLACE framework is not theoretical it translates into tangible actions that councils can implement now. Here are three real-world scenarios showing how the 12 elements work together to deliver systemic change.
1. Temporary Accommodation & Homelessness
Imagine a borough struggling with rising homelessness and spiralling costs for nightly-paid temporary accommodation. Instead of siloed interventions, a community-governed Place Board co-designs a common agenda that links:
TA standards (quality, safety, dignity).
Upstream prevention (debt advice, mental health access, tenancy sustainment).
Property supply (working with housing associations and private landlords).
Shared decision-making gives the board authority over a pooled budget drawn from housing, public health, and VCSE partners. Transparency ensures spending shifts are published e.g., moving funds from nightly rates to prevention services.Continuous feedback loops report:
Monthly moves into stable accommodation.
Community-validated improvements in TA quality (e.g., repairs completed, safety checks passed).
Impact: Costs fall, trust rises, and families experience a system that works with them not to them.
2. Early Years & School Readiness
In a district with low school readiness scores, cross-sector partners children’s services, ICS, VCSE, and parents create a shared vision:“Ready to learn, ready to thrive.”
Equitable contribution embeds parent leaders and childminder networks in governance, ensuring decisions reflect lived experience.Continuous feedback adapts outreach to local rhythms:
Library story hours for families who prefer informal settings.
Faith-based playgroups for communities with cultural sensitivities.
Data protocols mix:
ASQ scores (quantitative developmental measures).
Parent narratives (qualitative insights) to steer investment in speech & language support and family resilience programmes.
Impact: Uptake of early years services rises, gaps narrow, and parents feel ownership of the system shaping their children’s future.
3. Net Zero & Warm Homes
A council aiming for carbon neutrality co-produces neighbourhood retrofit plans with residents.Community connectors map:
Trusted local trades.
Employment pathways for green jobs.
Cultural preferences (e.g., aesthetics of insulation in heritage areas).
Participatory budgeting prioritises insulation for families facing the highest energy insecurity.Quarterly learning sprints adjust delivery and communications based on feedback:
Simplifying grant applications.
Translating materials into community languages.
Scheduling works around school holidays.
Impact: Retrofit uptake accelerates, satisfaction improves, and local jobs grow while emissions fall.
Why These Scenarios Matter
Each example demonstrates the PLACE flywheel in action:
Subsidiarity: Decisions devolved to those closest to the issue.
Accountability: Transparency, feedback loops, and shared responsibility.
Partnership: Cross-sector collaboration grounded in trust and reciprocity.
This is not about adding complexity it’s about creating joined-up governance that delivers better outcomes, builds trust, and strengthens local democracy.
Leadership Call to Action
If you’re a Chief Executive, Director, or Portfolio Holder, the invitation is clear: re-architect governance. Move beyond delivering isolated projects to stewarding systems with communities. This is not about adding complexity it’s about creating clarity, trust, and adaptability in a world where static models fail. Start small, but start properly. Here’s how:
1. Name the Place
Define the geography that matters whether it’s a ward, neighbourhood, or town. Clarity on the “place” anchors collaboration and prevents drift. This is where subsidiarity begins: decisions made closest to the people they affect.
2. Convene the Table
Bring together the actors who shape outcomes:
Community leaders and residents with lived experience.
VCSE anchors who hold trust and continuity.
ICS partners for health integration.
Police, housing associations, schools, and local businesses. This is your governance ecosystem diverse, inclusive, and capable of seeing the whole picture.
3. Co-Create the Common Agenda
Facilitate a process to define:
Shared vision: What future do we want for this place?
Shared outcomes: What will success look like for everyone?
Shared priorities: What matters most now? This is not a council-led plan it’s a community-owned agenda that partners commit to.
4. Authorise Shared Decisions
Power-sharing is non-negotiable. Embed:
Equal voting rights for community representatives.
Co-sign off on priorities, budgets, and evaluation.
Transparent protocols for decision-making and conflict resolution. Without this, governance risks tokenism and trust collapses.
5. Embed Feedback Loops
Make learning routine:
Quarterly sprints to review progress and adapt.
Publish “you said → we did” updates to show responsiveness.
Use mixed methods data plus stories to track impact. Feedback loops turn accountability into a living practice, not a compliance exercise.
6. Resource Backbone Capacity
Partnerships fail when no one holds the centre. Invest in:
Coordination roles to convene and align partners.
Data stewardship to manage shared measurement and insights.
Facilitation capacity to keep dialogue constructive and inclusive. This is the engine room of place-based change without it, momentum stalls.
The Payoff
Do this and you’ll see:
Trust deepening as communities experience real influence.
Coherence emerging as partners align around shared priorities.
Better outcomes because systems adapt to local realities. Most importantly, you’ll create a culture that learns and evolves with the community a foundation for resilience in the face of complexity.
The question is not whether you can afford to do this. It’s whether you can afford not to.Start with one place. Convene the table. Share the power. Build the feedback loops. Stewardship begins now.
Conclusion: Stewardship Over Programs
PLACE’s 12 elements are not a checklist they are an architecture for enduring change. This framework redefines what success looks like for local authorities: not a series of disconnected projects, but a living system of governance that learns, adapts, and evolves with people and place.
When authority sits closer to communities, decisions reflect lived realities rather than distant assumptions. When accountability is mutual and responsive, trust deepens and partners share responsibility for outcomes. When partnerships are grounded in trust and reciprocity, collaboration becomes more than a meeting it becomes a movement for systemic change.
This is the shift from program delivery to system stewardship. It’s about councils acting not as service providers alone, but as conveners, facilitators, and enablers of collective action. It’s about creating governance that is inclusive, transparent, and adaptive so that complex challenges like housing insecurity, health inequalities, and climate resilience can be tackled in ways that endure.
The Question: Where should we pilot first and who needs to be around the table? The future of local governance is not about doing more of the same. It’s about doing different, together. Stewardship starts now.
