How did Local Trust close the Big Local programme?

The Big Local programme was based on the principle of putting communities in control. However, this created something of a tension when it came to closing the programme. The programme was long-term (at least 10 years), but it did have to have an endpoint, as it was set up through a time-limited endowment (a legal funding agreement with a predetermined end date).

The deadline for spending Big Local funds was not the communities’ choice. Further, in line with the Big Local Trust Deed, any money which had not been spent would return to the National Lottery Community Fund.

Therefore, ensuring each area received all its funding became an urgent priority in the closing years of the Big Local programme.

The deadline for spending was March 2026. This was set in 2016 and communicated to all partnerships from this point. All partnerships had completed their first plan by 2016 and had at least 10 years to deliver.

Local Trust has explored the timeline of Big Local, showing when different areas began their journey, on another page.

In practice, areas finished their spending at different times, starting in 2022. Multiple factors were at play during the process of closing, including emotions about ending and the financial sustainability of ongoing community action. Some of the long-term results of the support and policies described below will not be known until beyond the close of Local Trust in February 2027. 

It was a priority for Local Trust that each area should receive its full allocation of Big Local funding. The National Lottery Community Fund (NLCF) chose Big Local areas on the basis that they had not previously received significant funding (James et al., 2014). So, NLCF felt it was very important that each area receive the full allocation of £1m+, and that support and other costs would come from elsewhere. To make this possible, a multi-pronged and tailored approach was needed in the years leading up to the final programme deadline.

From early 2022, partnerships at risk of not spending the full Big Local fund got more intensive support from Local Trust staff and other support providers (Wilson et al., 2023; 2025). In 2024, a process of structured visits by Local Trust staff was implemented. The visits focused on reviewing progress, and agreeing achievable goals, contingencies, budgets, and key milestones with dates. Where goals looked unachievable in the time remaining (for example, where asset projects could not realistically be completed) staff worked with partnerships to agree alternative plans.

Local Trust has explored the balance and tensions between maintaining community control and ensuring spending in another article.

The increased focus on completing delivery did not apply to all areas. Many partnerships closed out well in advance of the 2026 deadline, and would not have experienced the shift in the approach.

Across the programme, there were reduced resources for monitoring whether delivery continued to be led by residents, as Local Trust prioritised completion. After 2023, Local Trust stopped monitoring if partnerships were meeting the requirement to be majority residents and at least eight in number. However, some staff reflected that they continued to expect a resident-led approach in areas still actively involved.

In 2023, Local Trust began implementing a close out policy. In keeping with the programme’s non-prescriptive approach (passing minimal bureaucracy down to volunteers), the policy enabled partnerships to close, with no further reporting requirements, with up to £75,000 left to spend. Locally Trusted Organisations (LTOs) remained financially accountable, and clear plans had to be in place for how the remainder of the funding would be spent.

Reporting requirements were only removed if certain criteria were met – for example, robust accounting and protection for Big Local-funded assets. Where there was recent or ongoing conflict, Local Trust would not close out an area, keeping support in place until spending reached £0 (Fisher, 2024). 

In 2025, Local Trust trustees approved criteria to grant extensions beyond the March 2026 deadline, potentially for a maximum of five areas. Trustees then delegated decisions about this on a case-by-case basis to the chief executive. This was a contingency plan, mostly focused on areas with capital projects that were delayed due to factors beyond the partnership’s control, or areas where there had been a substantial period of no delivery. Three out of 150 areas were given a short extension to spend Big Local funds beyond the programme deadline, for between three and six months (more detail is below, in the ​‘approach in practice’ section).

Trustees also considered if additional money was needed, for up to three areas, with a focus on preventing communities from losing assets that were supported by significant Big Local funding. Fairness across the 150 areas was important, and trustees decided that additional money would need to be approved by the board, case-by-case. As it turned out, no additional money was needed.

Planning for these contingencies (even when they were not used in the end) helped reduce a certain degree of pressure, staff reflected — making delivery across the whole programme in the run up to the deadline more effective. An alternative to ​‘Plan A’ was considered essential in a community-led, long-term programme.

Many Big Local partnerships planned to continue community action – something Local Trust perhaps did not predict early on. And so, much of Local Trust’s capacity and attention in the closing years focused on maintaining financial sustainability and community control, and supporting partnerships to plan for the future of their areas.

Big Local partnerships were involved in setting up or investing in at least 123 organisations, including community interest companies, constituted groups, and charities (Local Trust, 2026). Most of these were legally incorporated. Although not all were set up with the intention to continue indefinitely, the sustainability of these organisations was considered. For partnerships which planned to incorporate legally, Local Trust support addressed factors like setting up legal organisations, governance, trustee roles, business planning, staff management, and fundraising. Some staff saw building organisational capacity (through for example board engagement and organisational policy development) as equally important to developing a fundraising strategy. 

Related to incorporation was the long-term legacy of community buildings. As of April 2026, 60 Big Local-funded assets (many of which were hubs) were owned or run by organisations set up by partnerships. Local Trust was conscious of the risk of these buildings eventually falling out of community control if there wasn’t a robust ownership model, effective governance, and strong plans for financial sustainability. To address this, targeted support and detailed guidance were essential. 

Local Trust has explored the kind of support and guidance provided for partnerships managing assets in another article.

Staff were aware that new organisations were moving away from the proactive support provided by Local Trust and partners, into a local ecosystem which these organisations may not have been familiar with. In response, there was a programme of support to build local connections in areas. In receiving Big Local funding, partnerships had not necessarily needed to fundraise locally and there was a risk that they were isolated from local networks and funders. So, the support in the programme’s final years aimed to help partnerships embed themselves in local systems. It was described by a staff member as a ​“facilitated introduction to what’s there locally”, helping partnerships familiarise themselves with new networks.

To further support partnerships in applying for funding outside of Big Local, Local Trust worked with national organisations skilled in fundraising to provide bespoke support (from 2023). Local Trust also offered areas membership of national advice and support organisations in the community action space, such as Locality, for two years after they closed out of Big Local. 

With all this said, many partnerships had built strong local networks and successfully applied for match-funding throughout the Big Local programme. 

The approach to closing included celebrating the volunteers who were the driving force of Big Local. The most visible example of this, although by no means the only one, was a final celebration event in March 2026. All Big Local area volunteers were invited to this event, although some had closed well before this point and not all continued formal community action. Smaller-scale forms of acknowledgement were also expressed, including staff attending areas’ own final celebratory events, and emails acknowledging achievements on completion (Fisher, 2024). In some cases, workshops to inform the development of area summaries for the Learning from Big Local website served as a chance to reflect and recognise achievements. 

The first Big Local area closed in March of 2022, having spent the entirety of their funds. Areas continued to close out over the following years, with 50 having closed by September 2024, 100 by July 2025, 120 by November 2025, and 130 by February 2026. By the end of March 2026, the programme had finished. A total of 90 Big Local areas were represented at the ​“We are Big Local” final celebration event, with 228 residents attending.

Although Local Trust’s policy was to close out areas with up to £75,000 remaining, many partnerships needed support to complete spend out. Areas which had a higher-than-average risk of problems remained in the Big Local programme until expenditure was £0. On the other hand, some areas closed out with more than £75,000 left, when partnerships and Local Trust felt the work was complete and the remainder of the funding had been assigned to a significant capital project. 

Of the 150 areas:

• 25 closed having spent the complete amount of their grant
• 52 closed with less than £50,000 remaining
• 69 closed with between £50,000 and £100,000 remaining
• Four closed with over £100,000 remaining to spend. 

Local Trust identified 43 out of 150 Big Local areas as needing structured visits to focus on setting milestones to achieve full spending before the deadline. For about a quarter of these areas, multiple meetings between the Big Local partnership and Local Trust were needed. The process was seen as complete once the meeting had happened and the agreed milestones and actions had been achieved. In practice, this was a flexible approach where actions and milestones were likely to be adjusted as the end of Big Local approached, with the aim of reaching close out by the March 2026 deadline. 

Three out of 150 areas were given a short extension to spend Big Local funds beyond the programme deadline, for between three and six months, with oversight from their Locally Trusted Organisation (LTO) as Local Trust’s support offer had ended. Extensions were agreed based on the set of criteria agreed by Local Trust’s trustees (mainly that the area had experienced a significant period of non-delivery at some point during the programme, or that the delay in spending their final payments was as a result of factors or decisions outside the partnership’s control).

The clear direction from trustees on prioritising each area receiving all its funding, helped frontline delivery staff with planning and resourcing to ensure areas closed out. Prioritising spending out determined where focus and energy were directed.

With this focus, Local Trust became more likely to intervene. This was not about prescribing goals, but about ensuring urgency around putting a plan in place and having contingency plans to deal with things going wrong. While some partnerships pushed back and questioned this shift away from the previous approach of moving at the community’s pace, many appreciated the increased focus to ensure they would successfully spend-out (Wilson et al., 2025). 

In some cases, Local Trust staff acknowledged that closer tracking of spend earlier in the programme may have resulted in an earlier cut-off point for certain spending. A common example was large capital projects which would take time and would put an area at risk of not spending out by the March 2026 deadline. An earlier cut-off point may have led to greater clarity and reduced anxiety around spending out, but needed to be balanced with the aim to maintain resident-led values.

In a small number of extreme cases, Local Trust staff and trustees decided that partnerships were not in a position to deliver their Big Local plans. In these cases, an alternative delivery approach was taken.

Local Trust will explore alternative delivery approaches in an upcoming article.

Having enough staff to deliver targeted and bespoke support to Big Local areas and to identify issues early was important throughout the Big Local programme, but it became vital in the final years. Directly employing staff (known as area coordinators) to work closely with Big Local partnerships from 2022 increased knowledge of areas, allowing for quicker actions and improved support.

Local Trust has explored area support provided by external contractors and internal area-based staff in another article.

Sufficient staffing was also required to support partnerships towards their legacy goals. While partnerships had to finish their Big Local journey, for many, work in their communities had not yet finished. Local Trust staff reflected that placing greater emphasis on building local support and connections earlier in the programme could have helped ensure that partnerships would not feel isolated after the end of Big Local.

Transitioning away from the programme, and the support offered by Local Trust, was challenging for some Big Local volunteers and workers. The withdrawal of the familiar, relational support provided by advisors, area coordinators, and Locally Trusted Organisations (LTOs) could be tricky to navigate. Although partnerships knew when the programme would end, in some instances the pressures and challenges of day-to-day delivery limited their capacity to plan for close out.

The work to embed Big Local partnerships more firmly in local systems happened later in the programme, prompting reflection from Local Trust staff about whether earlier engagement with local infrastructure might have been beneficial. On the other hand, Local Trust’s support offer was intentionally responsive rather than prescriptive, and so a strong emphasis on building local connections may not have aligned with the programme’s position that continuing was optional rather than expected. 

There were important considerations around the wellbeing of people involved in Big Local. There were various emotional responses to the programme ending: many volunteers had dedicated a lot of time and energy to delivering Big Local and were deeply invested both in the programme and their communities. Feelings ranged from pride and relief, to sadness, uncertainty, and questions about what might come next.

While Local Trust taking a role of thanking volunteers could be seen as paternalistic (acting as an approving parent), many volunteers rightly wanted recognition for their efforts. Staff presence at final celebrations in Big Local areas helped acknowledge achievements, and these events provided opportunities to process feelings about ending by providing space to reflect, share experiences, and mark the significance of the work.

By providing specialist support, such as HR guidance on managing redundancies, Local Trust could also help ensure that people were treated fairly and endings were handled responsibly. However, that support could feel at odds with the ethos of Big Local, which was about shifting power to communities. Helping areas to close raised questions about how to balance practical considerations without undermining local ownership.

The priority that every area should receive its full allocation of funding was a guiding element for decision-making, and a different priority might have led to a different close out pathway. This priority led to a specific approach for some Big Local areas and partnerships.

Many partnerships valued the structure that the approach brought, while more oversight would have been unwelcome and unnecessary in other Big Local areas – bearing in mind the diversity in pace of spend, ambition, and expectations.

Communication was a key issue across various aspects of close out. To ensure areas met the programme’s deadline, repeated messaging from multiple sources was required. An approach prioritising relational skills was also important – in this case meaning sometimes frank conversations with Locally Trusted Organisations (LTOs), partnerships, and other local stakeholders, to develop plans that were achievable.

Internally at Local Trust, structures and staff priorities tilted towards ensuring complete spending by March 2026, alongside contingency planning for a few areas at risk of not meeting the deadline. Some staff felt that planning for contingencies helped maintain morale and reduce pressure to achieve complete delivery by a fixed date. Contingency plans for closing resident-led programmes of community change need to look at the key factors of money, support, and time. 

The Big Local programme represented a new way of working, and the support for close out evolved alongside the diverse and changing needs of Big Local areas. With hindsight, a few things could have relieved some of the pressure in the final years and given partnerships more space to experiment. For example, earlier cut-off points for major asset projects, more guidance to develop local connections, and earlier support to create legal organisations and develop fundraising skills. Ultimately, closing well required having achievable timescales; providing clear and relational communication; and supporting volunteers and workers through the practical and personal elements of their next steps, whatever they may have been.