The North Meets South Big Local area was situated on the northern edge of the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham, positioned between Ilford and Romford (approximately a nine-minute drive from Romford). The two areas – Marks Gate and Chadwell Heath – were divided by the A12 road. Marks Gate, on the northern side, encompassed most of the Big Local area, and included farmland, industrial buildings, and a large council estate. The southern side formed Chadwell Heath, which consisted of a small enclave predominantly composed of privately owned homes. The overall area name, North Meets South, reflected the partnership’s intention of uniting these two parts of the area.
Within the area, there was a community centre operated by the local authority, along with a couple of green spaces. North Meets South Big Local fell within the 20 per cent most deprived areas in England, with local children particularly affected by poverty (MHCLG, 2019a; 2019b). Between 2011 and 2021, the area saw a 20 per cent increase in population, rising from 6,775 to 8,289 (ONS, 2012; 2022).
Community engagement was important to the North Meets South partnership from the start. They employed various methods – including events, workshops, and meetings – to identify the issues and priorities most important to residents. This work informed their Big Local vision: “Together we work to strengthen and grow our community through partnership and sharing of aspirations and innovations”. Specific priorities included making physical improvements to the local environment, creating positive attitudes and opportunities, and cultivating more social activities and local cohesion. The partnership also focused on creating and nurturing local capacity as a cornerstone of their projects.
The North Meets South partnership faced early challenges around a lack of shared identity between Marks Gate and Chadwell Heath. The areas held differing opinions on how the Big Local funding should be spent, and Chadwell Heath residents were more represented than Marks Gate residents in the partnership. However, consultations ensured broad community engagement across both areas, and partnership members (themselves primarily longstanding, active community volunteers) ensured that all Big Local activities were made available to all residents, including hosting events in Marks Gate.
Progress on delivering the area’s Big Local plan was initially slow, as the partnership felt they lacked the skills around Big Local processes to translate their ideas into action. Roles and responsibilities were also somewhat unclear in the early stages. However, the programme’s long-term nature allowed for experimentation, and support from paid Big Local workers alongside the work of a few key partnership members facilitated the progression of plans.
The rotating chair model was implemented for some time, distributing responsibility across the partnership. While members appreciated the collaborative nature of this approach, the lack of consistency also led to a lack of clarity around leadership, and some issues around decision-making. To address this, the partnership eventually decided to revert to a single-chair model, which returned structure to meetings and decision-making processes, while maintaining a collaborative and distributive approach geared towards achieving consensus.
At the end of the programme, the partnership reflected on the legacy of Big Local in their area. They noted the improved community facilities, including Tantony Green which continued to be well-used by residents. The partnership also felt they had changed attitudes towards community development in their area, by demonstrating how ideas can be turned into action. They described this as a “can do” mentality, where residents had the confidence and capabilities to continue leading work themselves, in turn leaving a legacy of resident-led activity beyond the end of the Big Local programme.
A Big Local partnership was a group made up of at least eight people that guided the overall direction of delivery in a Big Local area.
A Big Local Plan set out what changes the partnership planned to make, how they planned to deliver on this and how funds were to be allocated. It was written for themselves, their community and Local Trust, as a guide and action plan.
Many Big Local partnerships funded workers to support the delivery of Big Local. They were paid individuals, as opposed to those who volunteered their time. They were different from Big Local reps and advisors, who were appointed and paid by Local Trust.
Tantony Green, a local outdoor space and playground, was significantly renovated through the collaborative efforts of the North Meets South Big Local partnership, the Veolia Environmental Trust, and the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham. As one of very few green spaces in the area, the partnership felt that enhancements were essential for residents to have access to a well-maintained outdoor space. Joint funding of £200,000 – half from Big Local and half from Veolia – breathed new life into the green, which had previously been underused and in need of maintenance. Pooling resources with external partners allowed the partnership to maximise the impact of Big Local funding. The collective investment facilitated the creation of an outdoor gym and the installation of new play equipment, with ongoing maintenance taken on by the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham Council.
The official unveiling of the updated Tantony Green took place in July 2019. The event was jointly organised by North Meets South and the council, and supported by the local Co-op, and drew a crowd of 200 attendees. The green was acclaimed by residents, who saw it as both a safe space for children to play and a useful spot to keep fit. North Meets South further utilised the revitalised space for Big Local activities, including community planting initiatives, and a sports scheme for children during the summer holidays.
North Meets South faced a challenge around the absence of a dedicated physical space for their activities. This impeded efforts to elevate their profile and engage residents in their work. The partnership therefore invested time and resources in exploring options for establishing a local hub. Among their considerations was the feasibility of transforming garages in a state of disrepair (known locally as Roles Grove) into community space, though this was eventually judged to be unfeasible. As the Big Local programme progressed, changes within the local authority landscape presented new opportunities. Leveraging the positive relationship the partnership had cultivated with the local council, North Meets South found a practical solution by utilising an existing council-owned community hub: the Marks Gate Community Centre. The centre came to serve numerous purposes for the partnership and their wider community – from being a base for the Big Local worker to accommodating Big Local-funded activities, including ‘Community Cuppa’ coffee mornings and a job club.
Through strategic small-scale investments, the North Meets South partnership supported residents to establish a diverse range of programmes that aligned with the Big Local plan. Funded projects catered to all age groups, providing support, advice, and activities, as well as helping to address isolation and loneliness within the community. The community was invited to events to pitch project ideas, and to collectively vote on which they wanted to see funded. To enhance participation and broad engagement in the voting process, the partnership provided food for these events. The partnership felt this was a particularly effective approach to distributing grants, as it was a dynamic means of engagement, ensuring that funded projects had the backing of the community. Funded activities included carpet bowls, knitting groups, board game meetups, and chair exercise sessions. Notably, three volunteers overseeing these activities were honoured with the Mayor of London’s Volunteering Awards 2019 in Activity & Wellbeing.
Grants were generally kept small, though larger ones of up to £30,000 were awarded in unusual cases. The partnership sought to avoid repeated funding of the same groups or activities, and encouraged grantees to seek alternative sources as they went on, feeling this would foster sustainability beyond Big Local. For example, North Meets South supported a local boxing club that had initially received Big Local funding to become self-financing, by helping them set up a business bank account and access sponsorship opportunities. Partnership members felt that these examples of how Big Local funding was used fostered trust within the community. They felt their small-scale investment strategy had been preferrable to larger-scale funding (often towards things like administrative support or insurance for major projects), which lacked this potential for community trust-building.
Through a range of community engagement initiatives, the North Meets South partnership worked to ensure they were consistently meeting local need. This included addressing a gap in youth provision within the Big Local area, through outreach activities targeting young people. A notable example was a ‘football and chips’ scheme, where outreach workers engaged young people in friendly games in the local park, accompanied by casual conversation over chips. Valuable information – such as young people’s desire for a youth club – was gathered through this hands-on approach. In response, Big Local funding was invested in establishing a youth club, providing a dedicated space for local young people to meet, access support, and join various activities.
The partnership also engaged the community in a range of Big Local funded events. These included family fun days, community planting on Tantony Green, and ‘Community Cuppa’ coffee mornings. Efforts were made to ensure that all Big Local activities were made available to all residents, even though events were typically hosted in Marks Gate, where most facilities were situated. Partnership members emphasised the importance of these events in fostering connections and enjoyable experiences within the community, even if the immediate impact was not always tangible.
Nurturing local capacity was a crucial aim of the partnership’s work and partnership members felt that the projects funded through Big Local gave residents a voice and sense of stake in the area, while also providing skills-building and training opportunities. For example, one grant supported the pilot of a successful personal development and social enterprise project. This initiative aimed to boost participants’ confidence in devising solutions to social issues, alongside creating supportive networks to combat isolation. Other examples of capacity-building projects included money and debt-management workshops and IT learning sessions.
By the end of Big Local, the partnership felt there had been a substantial increase in community-led action over the preceding years. Although members felt that more support from Local Trust during the early stages of the programme could have expedited skills-development, they acknowledged several successes. For example, volunteers stepping forward to organise activities (including a men’s group, messy-play sessions, and holiday trips), showcasing community engagement. Members also acknowledged the development of their own collective capacity. Through delivering their work, they felt they had developed the skills to pose the right questions, facilitating better-informed and effective decisions regarding Big Local funding.
Each Big Local area received approximately £1.2 million (ranging from £1.199 mil to 1.209 mil) to spend over 10–15 years, depending on how much additional funding they accessed from Local Trust to address specific needs. For example, to bring people together at the start of the programme or to access training and support. This has been categorised for areas and at the programme level based on reports received from areas.
Partnerships chose their own priorities and categories for reporting, and were encouraged to use broad categories so they could use the funding flexibly. All areas spent a significant amount of money on ‘Big Local delivery costs’ such as workers’ salaries, stationery and IT equipment. You can find out more about programme level spend in this article. This is how North Meets South Big Local told Local Trust they used their Big Local funding.
Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government (MHCLG) (2019a) ‘English indices of deprivation 2019’. Available at: gov.uk/government/statistics/english-indices-of-deprivation-2019 (Accessed 16 October 2024)
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) (2019b) ‘English Indices of Multiple Deprivation 2019 – Income Deprivation Affecting Children Index (IDACI)’. Available at: gov.uk/government/statistics/english-indices-of-deprivation-2019 (Accessed 16 October 2024)
Office for National Statistics (ONS) (2012) ‘UK Census 2011: All persons’. Available at: ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/datasets/2011censuspopulationandhouseholdestimatesforenglandandwales (Accessed 16 October 2024)
Office for National Statistics (ONS) (2022) ‘UK Census 2021: All persons’. Available at: ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/datasets/populationandhouseholdestimatesenglandandwalescensus2021 (Accessed 16 October 2024)
