Owen Davies FIPM considers what the Evolution of Pride in Place Means for Placemaking Practice

A blog from IPM Fellow, Owen Davies FIPM

Over the past two years, Owen Davies Consulting have had the opportunity to work at the heart of one of the UK’s most significant regeneration programmes – supporting delivery on the ground in Wrexham as part of the original cohort of 75 towns chosen to become ‘pride in place’ places.

You can read the Wrexham ‘Pride in Place’ Plan here https://www.wrexhamcityboard.co.uk/keydocuments

What we have experienced first-hand is not just the rollout of a funding programme, but the evolution of a policy idea in real time. What began as the Long-Term Plan for Towns in 2023, rooted in a traditional “levelling up” response, has since transformed into Plan for Neighbourhoods, and now into what has become Pride in Place. On the surface, these may appear to be iterations of the same initiative. In reality, they represent a fundamental shift in how government understands place — and, critically, how it expects practitioners to respond.

The Original Idea: Town centres as the engine of change

The Long-Term Plan for Towns, as originally conceived, was recognisable to most place professionals. It focused on:

• town centres as the primary geography
• physical regeneration and visible interventions
• a relatively structured investment framework

This aligned with decades of policy thinking: fix the high street, stimulate footfall, and wider benefits will follow. There is logic in this. Town centres remain symbolic and functional anchors of place identity and economic activity. But in practice, many of us recognised the limitations:

• town centres alone cannot address systemic inequality
• benefits do not automatically “trickle out” to surrounding communities (although the reverse can be true)
• social infrastructure and lived experience were often underplayed

The Shift: from location to lived experience

As the programme evolved into Plan for Neighbourhoods – and now Pride in Place – the emphasis has shifted markedly. The most telling line I remember from the numerous iterations of guidance issued over the last two years was “We’ll support change that communities can see from their doorstep and feel in their town centre.” This is more than a change in wording. It signals a rebalancing of spatial priorities:

• from centre → to neighbourhood
• from physical → to social and economic outcomes
• from projects → to systems

The ambition has broadened:

“We need thriving places that support strong, inclusive, local growth, putting money into working people’s pocket… [to] raise living standards, reduce social exclusion, spread opportunities for young people, improve health and wellbeing, build stronger and more cohesive communities and reduce crime and anti-social behaviour.”

This is not a town centre programme anymore. It is a whole-place programme.

What this means in practice

From our experience supporting Wrexham through this transition, three implications stand out.

1. Boundaries Matter – and they are now contested

Under the original model, geography was relatively straightforward. Now, defining the “place” has become one of the most important – and challenging – early decisions. The shift to neighbourhoods raises critical questions:

• Which communities are prioritised?
• How are “doubly disadvantaged” areas identified?
• How do administrative boundaries align (or clash) with lived geographies?

This is not just technical – it is inherently political. Getting these wrong risks diluting impact. Getting it right can fundamentally reshape outcomes.

2. Governance is no longer a formality – it is the intervention

The move towards Neighbourhood Boards and community-led governance is one of the most significant changes. In earlier models, governance often sat a little more in the background. Now, it is front and centre:

• Boards are expected to be genuinely representative
• decision-making is expected to be shared
• local authorities must balance accountability with independence

In Wrexham, one of the most delicate – and important – tasks have been navigating this balance:

• ensuring compliance and assurance as the accountable body
• while enabling a Board that feels authentic, empowered, and credible

This is not easy. But it is critical – because in this model, how decisions are made is as important as what is delivered.

3. Engagement is continuous, not an event

Perhaps the most profound shift is in how engagement is understood. Traditional consultation models — often time-limited and transactional – are no longer sufficient. The expectation now is for:

• continuous, grassroots engagement
• working through trusted local networks
• building social infrastructure, not just gathering feedback

In Wrexham, approaches such as “Just One Thing” – engaging over 1,500 people, over 90% of them young people – demonstrated the value of simple, scalable, and repeatable engagement. The insight was clear:

• people want to be heard
• but more importantly, they want to see their input reflected in action

This creates both an opportunity and a challenge. Engagement is no longer a stage in the process – it is a permanent feature of delivery.

The risk: expanding ambition without expanding capacity

There is, however, a tension at the heart of this evolution and the programme’s ambition has expanded significantly:

• from high streets to health, cohesion, opportunity
• from capital projects to systemic change

But local capacity has not necessarily expanded at the same pace. This creates real risks:

• overstretching already pressured local authority teams
• creating governance structures that are difficult to sustain
• raising expectations that are hard to meet in the short term

The programme recognises this, with capacity funding explicitly available for expertise and support. In our experience, this has been essential — not optional.

The opportunity: a more honest model of placemaking

Despite these challenges, the direction of travel is encouraging. For many in the placemaking profession, this shift reflects what we have long understood:

• Place is not just physical – it is social, economic, and relational
• Town centres matter – but they are part of a wider ecosystem
• Communities are not stakeholders – they are partners

Pride in Place, at its best, is an attempt to align policy with these realities. It moves away from: short-term, project-led thinking, towards long-term, community-driven change

Final reflection: from delivery to stewardship

Perhaps the biggest shift required is not structural, but cultural. As practitioners, our role is evolving:

• from delivering projects
• to stewarding places

This means:

• holding complexity rather than simplifying it
• enabling others rather than leading from the front
• working across systems rather than within silos

The evolution from Long-Term Plan for Towns to Pride in Place is still ongoing. But one thing is clear: This is no longer a programme about town centres. It is a programme about people, place, and power. And that requires all of us – policymakers, practitioners, and communities — to think and act differently