Introduction
On 23 October, 2025, we hosted people from councils across England to discuss what the English Devolution Bill’s neighbourhood governance duty means for local government. In total, the event had 54 participants. In this brief report, we bring together what we heard from participants
Participants SWOT analysis
The breakout discussions on strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT analysis) and chat reflections during our recent learning event on neighbourhood governance painted a clear picture that councils see neighbourhood governance as an opportunity to renew local democracy, but also as a test of realism and capacity. Here is a summary of what they said.
What’s strong
Across the sector there is already a deep foundation of partnership working, local networks and community energy to build upon. Many participants pointed to existing frameworks (see Appendix 2 for practice examples) which demonstrate what’s possible when place-based decision-making is taken seriously. Political buy-in, shared priorities and the breadth of local assets were also recognised as major enablers.
What’s fragile
The biggest weaknesses were resourcing and capacity. Participants described overstretched teams, limited funding, and the risk of consultation fatigue. Political churn, turnover of officers and the loss of local expertise were all seen as destabilising factors. There were also concerns about duplication, particularly where parish and town councils already exist and a desire to avoid new bureaucracy or top-down control.
Emerging opportunities
There was genuine optimism about the chance to design something meaningful. Participants saw value in using the Bill to formalise local decision-making, support co-production, and empower ward councillors as community activators. Many wanted to see participatory methods (such as co-design and digital engagement) embedded in governance, and examples shared across the sector to show what success looks like.
Biggest risks
The discussion was realistic about what could go wrong: unfunded mandates, political instability, and tokenistic approaches that fail to shift real power. Geography also matters, models that make sense in dense urban areas may not work across dispersed rural ones.
Appendix 1: Raw SWOT data
The below lists readout the raw contributions for each aspect of the SWOT analysis from participants: strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats.
Strengths
- Local delivery of services could be devolved on an area basis
- Areas with high levels of town or parish councils have a track record of community and neighbourhood work
- We do work well in some sectors already
- There is already experience and good examples to build from
- Opportunity to co-produce
- People will be keen to get involved
- Partnership working across different services and sectors
- Strong community networks and connections
- Political buy-in and identification as a corporate priority
- Work already begun on how this can function with town and parish councils
- Building upon a lot of experience and best practice
- Huge asset base in farms, community centres, parks, miles of beach and country paths
- Identified strengths in youth engagement and local activism
Weaknesses
- Resource implications – a lack of capacity can hinder implementation of good ideas
- Effectiveness depends on skills and engagement at a local level
- Uncertainty with local government reorganisation makes it hard to visualise how neighbourhood governance would work
- Internal political tensions regarding the extent of reorganisation
- Other partners may not be set up to facilitate this (including statutory and voluntary partners
- Top-down approaches.
- Consultation fatigue
- Capacity gaps and funding precarity
- Representation issues and inclusion challenges
- Resilience issues in terms of personnel
- High staff turnover — loss of expertise
- Community engagement facilitators need training and funding
- Unregulated social media algorithms driving hate and misinformation
- Poor public engagement and connection
- Political churn could disrupt well-developed area councils
- The system requires at least one member from each ward, which could lead to boycotts to block decisions
- Inexperienced councillors (0–2 years in post).
- Historic poor relationships between unitary and town/parish councils.
Opportunities
- Formal opportunity for meaningful decision-making on a local level
- Legislation could bring clarity in areas with high levels of political tension if it’s clear and prescriptive
- Mayors and scrutiny – how that might fit into the process
- Existing local governance frameworks can be evolved
- Embedding key partners in the arrangements
- Participatory governance agenda, co-design and digital participation tools
- Transparent decision-making
- Good international examples (e.g. Brazil’s participatory budgeting, Porto Alegre model)
- Empowerment of ward councillors and parity of access to neighbourhood governance
- Youth engagement through schools, universities etc
- Democratic engagement and community development.
- Building trust and social capital through proactive communication
- Prevention as a long-term investment
- Creating chances for local input and creative ideas
- Clarifying delegated powers and responsibilities
Threats
- Seen as ineffective if not given appropriate levels of delegated authority
- Rural areas are very spread out; how will this interact with existing representation?
- Risk of duplication, particularly in areas with town and parish councils.
- Financial pressures on local authorities – risk of becoming an unfunded mandate
- Political instability or lack of continuity (especially in NOC councils)
- Economic downturns reducing local capacity
- Community mistrust and institutional dominance
- Competing agendas and lack of integration into regional strategies
- Absence of key skills or confidence locally — risk of new burdens
- Mapping challenges: determining correct areas that reflect communities
- Digital divides and unequal access to participation
- Resource, finance and time constraints
- Risk of tokenistic engagement if there’s no real delegation of power
Appendix 2:
During the session, participants and speakers highlighted practical models already operating across the country that illustrate how neighbourhood governance can work in different contexts:
- Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council
Longstanding Township Committees that give elected members real decision-making powers at local level. Read more - Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council
A two-tier arrangement of Area Councils and Ward Alliances supporting devolved delivery and community participation. Read more - Somerset Council
Local Community Networks (LCNs) connecting town and parish councils, residents and partners to shape priorities collaboratively. Read more - Frome Town Council
A locally driven approach focusing on community activation, devolved asset management, and partnership with the new unitary council. Read more - Adur & Worthing Councils
A relational governance model built on system leadership, co-production and cultural change within the organisation. Read more - Test Valley Borough Council
An asset-based approach where communities define their own neighbourhoods and priorities before structures are designed. Read/listen more
All resources