Big Local was the UK’s largest ever non-state, place-based funding programme. It was created and funded by the National Lottery Community Fund (TNLCF), the UK’s main national lottery distributor. The programme gave 150 communities £1m each to spend or invest over 15 years. TNCLF established Local Trust to deliver the programme and provided Local Trust with an additional £67m (taking the total endowment to £217m) to fund a comprehensive programme of support, training, networking, and other advice to help residents in the 150 Big Local areas.
Under the Trust Deed, the £217m endowment from TNCLF had to be fully spent by February 2027. Although Local Trust was not legally required to close once funds were spent, in 2022 its Trustees decided to close operations after spend-out.
Local Trust has explored its management of the Big Local Trust endowment in another article.
Creating Local Trust was both strategic and expedient. It was also a product of the 2010 to 2012 period when, in the aftermath of the global financial crisis, TNLCF could not be seen to be hoarding unspent Lottery income while so many communities faced financial distress. TNLCF wanted a model that addressed learning from earlier place-based initiatives such as Fair Share Trust, City Challenge, the Single Regeneration Budget, and New Deal for Communities. The timescales of those initiatives were often too short to build resident capability, and it risked money being spent by intermediaries before reaching communities.
Establishing an independent trust with an upfront endowment (all money transferred from TNLCF to Local Trust) and a spend-out requirement (all Big Local areas must receive the total £1m) served several purposes.
First, it supported trustworthiness and protection of funds. TNLCF publicly announced that each Big Local area would receive £1m. Treating the £1m as guaranteed meant Local Trust could not divert it to cover programme costs. The endowment sat outside TNLCF, with an independent board and a Protector to oversee governance of the Big Local Trust.
Second, it enabled a longer and clearer timeframe. A 10-year (later extended to 15) timeframe was chosen to allow time for resident partnerships to form, learn, and deliver, while still creating a visible end point. This contrasted with three- to five-year public programmes and even the 10-year Fair Share Trust.
Third, it provided a practical financial solution. There was a sense after the global financial crisis that TNLCF were not spending money on good causes fast enough, and that some areas of England where lottery tickets were being sold were not receiving their fair share. TNLCF transferred a lump sum to Local Trust (ultimately £217m – £150m for area allocations plus £67m for support and programme costs). Because Local Trust held the endowment, it could invest it, generating significant additional income over time. The transfer of money to a new independent trust moved money out of TNLCF, meeting public expectations that Lottery funds were being spent.
Fourth, it created clarity of purpose and governance. Local Trust’s mission followed the belief that there was a need to put more power, resources, and decision-making into the hands of communities, to enable them to transform and improve their lives and the places in which they live. This approach to resident-led change was a ‘how’ rather than a prescribed ‘what’, and guided the programme’s support and learning.
In short, the Local Trust model was built to lock in resources for residents, create time for community led development, and protect the programme from external change while making use of the practical benefits of an endowed, independent, time-limited trust.
Local Trust and Big Local’s time limit was not always at the forefront for those involved, but it mattered in several ways.
Only a spend-out trust could guarantee £1m per area over a defined period. A perpetual endowment (one without a defined endpoint) of the same size would have been unable to offer the same upfront commitment without tying allocations to future investment performance. The spend-out design strengthened the programme’s early confidence building with communities.
The 15-year window was long enough for funding patiently, forming partnerships, building capability, and making and revising plans, but short enough to reduce drift of mission. Having a defined endpoint was described as helpful to both Local Trust and Big Local partnerships in reducing complacency and inertia in relation to spending out. As the end of Big Local approached, it encouraged momentum without forcing rushed decisions.
Over time, both Local Trust and Big Local partnerships showed greater appetite for risk. Local Trust pursued learning and policy work more actively in later years (helped by higher-than-expected investment income and a Trust Deed change permitting broader spend). Many Big Local partnerships moved from caution to experimentation, especially through the Covid-19 pandemic and cost-of-living crisis, when spending decisions needed to be made quickly.
The time limit encouraged Local Trust to frame learning as legacy. Investment in research (like the Community Needs Index), peer networks, and policy alliances was intended to carry insights forward after the end of Big Local. Local Trust also planned for other stakeholders in the sector to be able to access research findings, through the dedicated Learning from Big Local website.
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.
There were limits to what a time-limited body could do. Big Local surfaced structural needs that had developed over decades (declining social and physical assets, limited economic opportunity, and constrained infrastructure). A time-limited programme could act as a catalyst for community development, encourage resident involvement and bring in more resources, but it was not suited to providing permanent support or creating a sustainable stream of resources. Local Trust’s adherence to its closing date protected independence and credibility. However, it also left a gap in funding for some communities who relied on Local Trust and the Big Local programme.
The time-limited (or spend-out), endowed, independent model shaped Big Local in different ways, both practically and culturally. It influenced behaviours (like urgency, experimentation, mutual support), choices (like asset focus and learning), and expectations (like a defined end, and a realistic view of what £1m could and could not do).
Each Big Local partnership had at least 10 years to deliver the programme from the completion of their first plan. This gave them room to plan and make considered decisions, while still signalling that the programme and £1m had a finite timeline.
The process of creating and reviewing the local Big Local plans also meant the partnerships could plan their work in manageable chunks. Some residents found the approaching deadline stressful, particularly where they aimed to complete significant assets projects. However, as the endpoint approached, many residents described feeling re-energised, noting that a clear deadline created momentum and offered a natural moment to conclude their involvement with a sense of completion.
Big Local partnerships were initially cautious with spending, often because the £1m felt significant and unfamiliar, and many residents were concerned about making mistakes. Over time, confidence grew and residents were more willing to test new ideas, learn from mistakes, and adapt in the 15‑year window. Some partnerships suggested that the fixed timeframe encouraged action, without it, they felt they might have delayed decisions in the hope of finding something better later.
Local Trust accepted risk by giving communities space to try new approaches and learn as they went. Partnerships and Local Trust staff reflected that they were able to make decisions quickly during the Covid‑19 pandemic and the cost-of-living crisis, working through risks quickly to meet urgent local needs. This responsiveness showed how partnerships were able to act decisively.
The model’s emphasis on resident capability and lasting change translated into asset-based spending and investment in some areas: community buildings, housing, shops, pubs, and energy. Big Local partnerships had to think about how assets could become self-sustaining. In the final years of the programme, Local Trust increasingly focused on influencing larger, more systemic issues through policy and legacy initiatives (including the Community Wealth Fund and the Independent Commission on Neighbourhoods). These were aimed at creating new models of community empowerment to have impact beyond the Big Local programme in terms of time and geography.
Local Trust invested time and money in supporting partnership members, and residents in Big Local areas also devoted time to engaging with support and supporting each other. Residents in Big Local areas felt the programme amounted to an extended family. This was due to sharing a common end date; navigating similar milestones, challenges, and decisions; and being in contact with peers who were further ahead.
In the later years, Local Trust introduced structured close out support, aligned to spending milestones. This included guidance on communications, fundraising, legal and financial wrap up, and options for legacy. Partnerships used the framework to plan for endings that felt proportionate to their ambitions. Some chose to wind down satisfied with their achievements, whereas others prepared to continue as independent organisations.
Residents often judged the programme by the opportunity it created, not by indefinite continuation. For some, the end point was welcome, because it provided a moment to mark contribution and avoid open-ended responsibility. For others, the ending highlighted unmet systemic needs that a single time-limited programme could not resolve.
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.
Independence from the National Lottery Community Fund and the time limit combined to make a powerful programme. Several distinctive features were present in Local Trust and Big Local because of the independence of Local Trust and the time limit. Independence helped Local Trust maintain focus on Big Local across political and fiscal cycles, while the time limit enabled up-front guarantees and an investment strategy geared toward impact in a fixed period. Either feature alone might have produced a different programme outcome and lifespan.
Local Trust’s support offer extended beyond grant administration: Big Local reps and advisors, peer learning, specialist advice, and later a policy and research portfolio (including the All Party Parliamentary Group on Left Behind Neighbourhoods and the Community Wealth Fund). Although this could have been a distraction from delivering Big Local, the policy and research work supported Big Local and other community-led programmes with similar intent.
Local Trust has explored how support was delivered in Big Local in another article.
As a time-limited organisation and programme, Local Trust and Big Local mobilised resident-led action and, alongside its many achievements, revealed long-term need, much of which was a consequence of structural factors beyond local areas. The final push by Local Trust to influence structural factors through its support for initiatives like the Community Wealth Fund, recognised this. But it raises a final lesson, or question – how do we combine the energy of a programme that is focused by geography and time, with steps to address structural issues which are much larger and longer term?
Reps were individuals appointed by Local Trust to offer tailored support to Big Local areas, and share successes, challenges and news with the organisation. These roles ended in 2022, replaced by Big Local Area Advisors. Advisors were a specialist pool of people contracted to Local Trust, who delivered specialist and technical assignments to support the partnerships.
