The Officer introduced the report and explained that it provided an overview of the Pride in Place (PIP) programme. The Officer advised that PIP would deliver £20 million of investment to Sheppey East over a 10‑year period, noting that the programme had been announced in September 2025, with initial guidance issued in December and further guidance still awaited.

It was reported that the paper had been brought forward at an early stage and summarised the spend rules, parameters and opportunities associated with the programme. The Committee was advised that the report contained three key recommendations: acknowledging the Council’s various roles within PIP, including as accountable body and secretariat; agreeing the use of capacity funding to support those roles; and approving initial preparatory steps, particularly in relation to recruitment and community engagement, including the establishment of a community panel, appointment of a Chair and the subsequent formation of a neighbourhood board.

The Officer emphasised that the funding was not controlled by the Council and that decisions on expenditure would be made by an independent neighbourhood board. It was further noted that the report was process‑focused and did not set out spending proposals, but instead outlined how the Council could support the community and board in developing proposals in an inclusive and effective manner. Members were also advised that the first tranche of funding was not expected until Spring 2027, allowing a preparatory phase before delivery commenced.

Members were invited to make comments and these included:

• Concerns were raised that the Pride in Place programme was intended to be community‑led, but that engagement to date had not reflected this, with limited involvement from residents, parish councils and ward Members for Sheppey East.
• Members expressed concern that the report placed a stronger emphasis on the role of the local MP than on community representation, and that requirements for consultation with the MP were clearer than those for engaging local residents or Councillors.
• It was noted that the minimum requirement for 51% of board members to live or work in the area could allow a significant proportion of decision‑makers to lack a direct connection to Sheppey East.
• Members commented that the absence of early public meetings and local engagement risked undermining trust and creating a perception that decisions were being made about the community rather than with it.
• Ward Members for Sheppey East stated that they had not been informed of, or invited to, early meetings or events, and that information about the programme had been received late or indirectly.
• Concerns were raised about the eligibility criteria for the Chair and board members, including the exclusion of elected representatives, and whether this adequately recognised the role of ward and parish councillors as community leaders.
• Members questioned how community commitment and local knowledge would be assessed through the proposed recruitment process.
• Suggestions were made that the community should have a more direct role in selecting the Chair, including opportunities for residents to comment on or support shortlisted candidates.
• Further questions were raised about transparency, accountability, communication with the community, and how progress and financial matters would be reported over the lifetime of the programme.
• Clarification was sought on remuneration, officer resourcing, and whether the additional workload arising from the programme would have budgetary implications.
• While concerns were expressed about the process, Members acknowledged the significance of the £20 million investment and the potential benefits for Sheppey East.
  
  

The Officer responded and advised:

• It was confirmed that many aspects of the programme, including board composition, eligibility criteria and the minimum requirement for local representation, were prescribed by Government guidance and had been replicated in the report.
• Officers emphasised that the report was intended to set out the initial process and next steps, and that wider community engagement was planned to take place at an early stage, including open events to identify potential Chairs, board members and community panel participants.
• It was explained that early meetings with the MP had been arranged by Government to clarify roles and responsibilities, particularly in relation to accountability and governance.
• Officers acknowledged concerns regarding communication and access to events, including limited capacity at a London briefing session, and confirmed that these issues had been raised with Government.
• It was clarified that board members would not be remunerated, although legitimate expenses could be claimed.
• Officers explained that the Council’s role as accountable body carried statutory responsibilities, including financial oversight and assurance, and that funding could not simply be passed directly to the community without appropriate controls.
• It was confirmed that detailed transparency and reporting to the community would be the responsibility of the independent neighbourhood board, rather than the Council, although the Council would be required to confirm that funding had been used in accordance with the agreed purposes.
• Officers recognised the strength of feeling expressed and confirmed that lessons would be taken forward to improve engagement with ward Members, parish councils and the wider community as the programme progressed.

The recommendations were proposed by Councillor Baldock and seconded by Councillor Moore.

Resolved:

(1)  That members note Swale Borough Council’s role in the Pride in Place programme, including as Accountable Body and initially at least as Secretariat, as set out in paragraphs 2.21 to 2.32.

(2)  That members note the indicative proposals for the use of capacity funding as set out in paragraphs 2.34.4 – 2.34.6 including appointing appropriately-skilled fixed-term staff to fulfil required local authority functions effectively.

(3)  That members agree to launch the recruitment process for the Chair of the Neighbourhood Board in line with paragraph 2.34.1, and with the draft role description (as provided by MHCLG) and terms of reference as set out in Appendices I and II