Comment

Three key lessons learnt in unlocking Government funding to repurpose our urban centres

We know a thing or two about unlocking Government funding having supported our clients in successfully securing millions in central Government funding over the last 24 months. Read our three key take-aways to increase your chance of bidding success and help unlock the potential of our urban centres.

Central Government funding has always played a fundamental role in the redevelopment of our urban centres. Be it responding to long-term structural goals (e.g., economic growth, changing retail habits, demand for new housing etc), global events (e.g., post-pandemic recovery, commodity prices and inflation) or political programmes (e.g., Levelling Up), the need for Government funding and the opportunities it presents has never been greater. 

However, with increasing scrutiny on how ever-limited tax revenues are spent, the hoops to be jumped through to secure funding has never been so great. Be it demonstrating social value, viability, design qualities or sustainability credentials, projects have to satisfy a broad spectrum of criteria to even be considered for Government funding, and this is far from an easy task to achieve. 

As a multi-disciplinary planning and development consultancy working across the UK and Ireland, we support a wide range of public sector and private client interests. Over the last few years, this has included supporting their interests in the production of bids to secure public sector funding for a broad range of projects, including Southport Masterplan; Station Quarter, Telford; Marine Lakes Events Centre, Sefton; Centre for Alternative Technology, Powys; The Amelia Scott, Tunbridge Wells; Techfort and the Citadel, Dover. 

Across geography, social and economic context, scale and form, these projects varied greatly; however, we’ve also identified many similarities in securing success. Our three key lessons for successful bids are:

1. The art of front-loading

The bidding process can be brutal. A plethora of forms and technical data packs which need to be reviewed and completed, expansive lists of criteria which need to be satisfied and tight and immovable deadlines which have to be met. This is a time and resource heavy process in itself. Anything which diverts or distracts resource away from this process should be avoided to focus this resource to where it needs to be – in producing a winning bid.

Clearing the path for the bidding process is therefore key, and this includes any works associated with the project/proposition you are bidding for. The weeks and months build-up before the launch of a bidding process should be fully utilised in getting your project(s) into an “oven-ready” proposition. Whilst some flexibility in your projects is advised in order to permit last minute “tweaks” which might help better satisfy bidding requirements, this bidding process is not the time to be discussing the fundamentals of your project. Alas, the bidding process should not be a process of designing new isolated projects to secure funding, but instead a process to secure funding for existing meaningful projects which play a fundamental role with a wider agreed strategy. 

Establishing those projects and the wider strategy in which they contribute should therefore be a priority ahead of the bidding process – not during. Submitting a robust proposition which is supported by a wider long-term strategy, built on consensus between key stakeholders and the public, is going to be a much more compelling proposition to fund than those projects which don’t.

2. The need to be “output-led”

At the most fundamental level, the bidding process is there to provide funding to projects which best meets the bidding requirements as set out within a range of required outputs. Satisfying these requirements and providing these outputs should therefore be the key priority when submitting bids. If your project/proposition cannot clearly satisfy these requirements without fundamental changes to the project itself then that is most likely a sign that the projects and funding opportunity are not the right match and that your time and resource is better spent elsewhere.

Notwithstanding the above, when there is alignment between the project in question and the available funding criteria, attention needs to be focused on producing the output specifically requested to satisfy that criteria. When time and resource is limited, focusing any efforts on the production of outputs not required as part of the submission will distract from what is important – submitting a robust and compliant bid.

The production of an “output-led” logic map to inform the production of the bid is therefore key at the earliest opportunity within bidding process. Are the outputs you plan to produce relevant to the bid and the criteria to be satisfied? Do the bid inputs directly result in clear outputs that can be monitored and measured? Do the outputs link to longer-term impacts that the scheme will have on the location or the region to maximise the impact of the funds being applied for? 

3.  A well-planned co-ordinated approach

Ranging from the client and their internal sign-off processes to numerous specialist consultants and other key stakeholders, bid submissions will require several simultaneous processes and inputs from many sources to be pulled together in a single compliant bid. This is due mainly to the level of work that needs to be carried out within often tight timescales, the management of which needs a significant level of resource in its own right. Stress on this process can be relieved significantly by frontloading ahead of the submission process as stated above. However, where this isn’t possible or the work needed is in response to the bid itself, a clear and co-ordinated strategy with clear milestones and outputs is required. 

In addition to the above, as well as suitable provision being allowed to undertake any works, suitable time needs to be included within the program for the project or bid to respond to the findings of that work. In the event a project needs to hit certain design, viability, or sustainability criteria but the relevant appraisals flag up issues which need to be addressed, the program needs to allow suitable time for such changes to be made at the earliest opportunity. This risk highlights the value of frontloading where possible, but where not possible, such technical appraisals need to be undertaken at the earliest opportunity to identify any issues and a) make any amendments where necessary if possible or b) if not possible, determine if the bid should be progressed at all.

With funding bids often needing to demonstrate a range of economic, social, environmental and design qualities, any projects being put forward will have to robustly demonstrate such compliance. The reports and appraisal which aim to prove compliance should lead and inform a co-ordinated approach, rather than be a fait accompli bolted on in the final days of the bidding process.

Conclusion

As the development landscape becomes more complex with increasing costs, development restrictions and focus on the re-use of constrained brownfield land, readiness to respond to and secure funding will help bring critical schemes forward. With the Government’s Levelling Up Round 3 anticipated to be announced this summer, and various combined authorities being allocated funding as part of devolution deals, spotting opportunities and early preparation and planning can definitely contribute towards unlocking funding opportunities. 

For more information on our business cases and funding work, or our work across urban centres, please contact Neil Woodhouse or Bindu Pokkyarath. 

3 May 2023