Last weekend saw the unveiling of the UK Government’s Long-Term Plan for Towns. A media blitz, at the beginning of the Conservative Party Conference in Manchester gathered the intended headlines. A 27-page document, supported by a methodology on how the towns were selected (Local Authority rather than town data it seems) provided some details. 

In Scotland, seven towns are to receive cash, which came as something of a surprise to the Scottish Government. Surprisingly (or not, depending on your levels of cynicism), two of the seven towns are in the small handful of Conservative held Westminster seats. 

The Prime Minister’s statements on this launch rather focused on the ways towns had been overlooked for cities in the last 15 years, and on the significance of towns to people and their often-current depressing feel. He emphasised local people making local decisions. 

‘But politicians have always taken towns for granted and focused on cities.

‘The result is the half-empty high streets, rundown shopping centres and anti-social behaviour that undermine many towns’ prosperity and hold back people’s opportunity — and without a new approach, these problems will only get worse.

‘That changes today. Our Long-Term Plan for Towns puts funding in the hands of local people themselves to invest in line with their priorities, over the long-term. That is how we level up.’

So, what does the ‘long-term plan’ provide? 

Fifty-five towns will share just over £1.1bn over a period of 10 years i.e. c£2m per town per year. For this they need to set up a Town Board drawing in the good and the great, consult with the community and produce a Long-Term (ten years) Town Plan. If the plan is accepted by the Department for Levelling Up Housing and Communties (DLUHC) then money will become available from summer 2024 (That is a short time scale to pull a community inspired and agreed ten year strategic and operational plan together). It is all intended to be locally driven, light touch but allow a focus on high streets, heritage and safety/security. For me, it reads a lot like an attempt to deliver some of the ludicrous Build Back Better High Streets report of the other year. Some of the proposed actions and the focus on high streets looking good and reacting to anti-social behaviour are clearly the same. But there is silence on some fundamental issues such as business rates.

On the money, I don’t understand what an ‘endowment-style’ fund is (as opposed to endowment for example), nor the split of 25% resource/75% capital (what does resource mean in this context?). But the lack of towns having to bid for money and the potential ability to roll-over cash across financial years seem positive. More generally it is very English in tone, with many aspects not contextualised for Scotland (or not legal) e.g. the MP, but not the MSP as well, a toolkit, elements of which do not legally apply in Scotland and the use of the UK Internal Market Act (which is divisive at various levels). 

So, whilst no town is likely to say no to more money, this does feel hugely cosmetic. It is not a long-term plan for towns but a (comparatively to need) small amount of money focused on 55 places. And then there is the claim in @CLES tweets that this is possibly not new money and is a reduction over the ten-year period; I am not able to assess that. We are meant of course be thankful if it is new money, but does it address the fundamental issues? Of course not. 

I hope these towns use the money well and a small part of their problems gets eased. But, until we get serious about the causes of the state of our towns (and not just retail, hanging baskets, dustbins and anti-social behaviour) then we are reduced to applying a salve to the symptoms in order to feel good about ourselves for a few minutes (or to get some publicity). This is not leadership, nor is it long-term; it is not at scale and it won’t work at a town or place level. 

A final thought: the town plans needs to be agreed by the DLUHC to open up the purse. I wonder what will happen if the town plan proposes 20mph zones in towns for safety/security reasons and a focus on bringing facilities together to create facilities in a neighbourhood that residents can access within 15-minutes active travel? Will that be accepted and funded?