Research and analysis

Community Ownership Fund evaluation: interim report

Published 14 January 2026

Applies to England

Executive summary

This report forms part of the evaluation of the Community Ownership Fund (COF), a £150 million fund set up to support the outright purchase or renovation costs of community assets across the UK. 

The evaluation was commissioned by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) to explore process, impact and Value for Money aspects, and consists of a mixed methods approach to eleven case study projects.  This combines a hyper-local survey quantitative approach across six case studies to collect data which is then compared to counterfactual data from the Community Life Survey using a ‘difference-in-difference’ approach; qualitative fieldwork in all eleven case studies through a combination of ethnographic fieldwork and online workshops; and a Value for Money assessment for each case study project, which uses inputs from the quantitative and qualitative strands, as well as the HM Treasury Green Book guidance on appraising projects.

This report has been compiled following the first of two waves of data collection, which ran from March 2024 to March 2025. At this interim stage of the evaluation, the evaluation team (consisting of the Institute for Community Studies, Verian and WPI Economics) can provide a methodology update, and early findings from analyses of data collected so far. 

Process evaluation findings

The interim process evaluation findings demonstrate that overall, the COF process has successfully enabled case study project teams to purchase, rescue or extend assets for community use.
 
As a uniquely positioned fund, the COF has addressed a need in the sector within a challenging economic environment. Through providing a high level of capital funding it has allowed community groups to save and restore assets that in many cases would have otherwise been lost from community use. 

The initial design and process of the COF provided effective support to communities which already had existing skills and capacity to apply for and deliver a community ownership project. Changes made from Round 2 onwards helped to improve the accessibility of the fund, such as in-depth support weighted towards disadvantaged areas, lowered match funding, and widened eligibility criteria.

In the earlier rounds, the process of receiving and implementing COF funding required improvement to better support communities to purchase, rescue, or renovate assets.  More consistent relationships, better communication, more advice, and greater flexibility from MHCLG were reportedly required by many of the case study projects to feel adequately informed and supported. Much work was undertaken by MHCLG to address challenges arising for project teams, with a support programme in place from Round 2, Window 3. Project teams nonetheless reported the need for ongoing support, notably around addressing the requirement for projects to be delivered within 12 months where they faced setbacks in renovations and other unanticipated delays. 

The evaluation evidence demonstrates that in addition to upfront capital funding, communities benefit from other types of support to purchase, renovate and sustain assets. This includes expert support provided by delivery partners including financial planning, organisational governance and legal advice. This type of support was in place and available for grantees from Round 2, Window 3 onwards.

Early impact evaluation findings

Early findings for the impact evaluation present a promising profile of short-term and anticipated impact, notably in respect of strengthening community capacity and capability. For example:

• despite the short-term strain on capacity, project teams were optimistic about the potential for longer-term capacity-building, although the pressure was more acute for smaller project teams and those already delivering services within the community
• the COF appeared to have a positive effect on wider community capacity, through the provision of physical space and through project teams operating in a convening role with local businesses and community groups
• there was strong evidence of the COF funding supporting diverse opportunities for volunteering, which may sustain the accumulation of skills and experience within project teams, benefitting both individuals and the wider community

These findings suggest the importance of the project teams themselves as ‘assets’ supported and funded by the COF. They also raise questions about the sustainability of the projects in this respect, given that voluntarism can fluctuate and may not be a dependable source of capacity.
 
In respect of improving local economic outcomes, there was early evidence of a positive direction of travel, with project teams creating employment opportunities and prioritising the hiring of local contractors for ad-hoc construction and catering.
 
There was also powerful evidence at this stage of beneficial impacts on the social connectedness of volunteers and community member users of the COF through facilitating access to community services and volunteering. Projects visited also demonstrated that even at this early stage, the COF is supporting intergenerational or multicultural mixing and learning through project teams delivering inclusive community events and engendering ‘pride in place’, especially in the case of heritage projects. Evidence also highlighted some tensions related to social connectedness: those related to the inclusiveness of projects (for example in respect of ‘communities of interest’) and also the objectives of the projects (for example in respect of encouraging greater tourism).

These findings suggest that there is potential for positive progress on some of the key outcomes for the evaluation in the longer term. They also indicate the huge diversity of ways in which outcomes from the COF are likely to be manifest – demonstrating the importance of the triangulation of the qualitative case study data alongside the quantitative difference-in-difference evidence at Wave 2.

 Early Value for Money findings

The Value for Money (VfM) evaluation intends to provide objective and evidence-based insights on how effectively the COF converts public resources into additional public value.

Valuing costs and benefits requires both quantification (how much of a cost or benefit there is) and monetisation (assigning a £ value to the cost or benefit).

A large portion of COF costs is straightforward to measure because the funding being given to the asset is known. However, desk research and fieldwork findings have identified two additional cost categories: administration and partner costs (e.g. scheme setup costs); external costs (e.g. contractor costs to evaluate the programme). Where possible, these costs will be quantified and monetised using a combination of data supplied by relevant stakeholders (e.g. amount of time taken to perform tasks) and publicly available data (e.g. salary costs).

An initial assessment of COF benefits finds several routes through which community assets can create additional public value. The outcomes identified in each asset’s theory of change (ToC) were used to assess benefits, grouping them into five headline categories: community (e.g. increased capability for community groups), economic (e.g. more employment opportunities), societal (e.g. reduced social isolation), environment (e.g. supporting sustainable practices) and wellbeing (improved physical wellbeing).

Part of the VfM analysis uses Willingness to Pay (WTP) survey data, where local residents were directly asked about the maximum amount that their household would be willing to pay for the benefits that a community asset provides. A large proportion of respondents were unwilling to pay for the assets, with £0.50 to £5 being the most common range of payment value for those willing to pay across all assets. While excluding the “don’t know” responses entirely is believed to be preferable, there are, however, different ways of interpreting the results, and variations in the results across assets, described in the main body of the report. Moreover, it should be noted that the final surveys for each asset will understand if WTP in communities has increased as the project matures.   

There are several key considerations and limitations that must be acknowledged in interpreting the VfM analysis and findings.  

The conclusion of the fieldwork and endline survey are critical parts of the VfM assessment and will have a full analysis of them in the final report.

1. Introduction

The £150 million Community Ownership Fund (COF) supports both the outright purchase or renovation costs of community assets across the United Kingdom. It was set up to help communities “save” buildings at risk of closure or loss to the community. The COF was launched in July 2021, and closed after 4 rounds of funding on the 6 January 2025.^{[footnote 1]} The COF has four strategic objectives:

• to provide targeted investment for communities to save and sustain community assets that would otherwise be lost to community use
• to strengthen capacity and capability in communities, supporting them to shape their places and develop sustainable community businesses
• to empower communities in left behind places to level up
• to strengthen direct links between places across the UK and the UK government

The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG)^{[footnote 2]} commissioned an evaluation to understand whether the COF had met its strategic objectives, consolidate learnings, and support future policy development. It commissioned the Institute for Community Studies at The Young Foundation, Verian^{[footnote 3]} and WPI Economics (‘the consortium’) to conduct this evaluation. At the outset of the evaluation, a feasibility study was conducted to examine the merits and viability of the proposed methodology in Community Ownership Fund: evaluation method (Institute for Community Studies, WPI Economics, and Verian, 2023). The results of the study were published in Evaluation of the Community Ownership Fund: feasibility study report (Institute for Community Studies, Verian, and WPI Economics, 2025).
The consortium has applied a mixed-methods approach to the evaluation, combining a hyper-local survey quantitative approach, qualitative research, and a Value for Money assessment across eleven case study projects, six of which are subject to the quantitative approach.  Impact, Process, and Value for Money of the COF. The methodology (detailed in the next chapter) consists of two phases (‘waves’) in the quantitative and qualitative fieldwork. Wave 1 of the survey fieldwork was completed in January 2025, and Wave 1 of the qualitative fieldwork was completed in March 2025.

Following the completion of Wave 1 fieldwork, the consortium has prepared this interim report which covers:

• an update on the methodology as applied during Wave 1
• place profiles for each case study included in the evaluation
• findings from the process evaluation
• early findings and emerging hypotheses from the impact evaluation
• early findings and emerging hypotheses from the Value for Money evaluation

The interim report aims to provide actionable insights to MHCLG for future policy development and update the department on the progress of the evaluation.

2. Evaluation methodology

The evaluation consists of a mixed methods approach to eleven case study projects, combining:

• a hyper-local survey quantitative approach, using Address-Based Online Surveying (ABOS) across 6 of the case studies to collect data which is then compared to counterfactual data from the Community Life Survey using a ‘difference-in-difference’ approach
• qualitative fieldwork in all 11 case studies through a combination of ethnographic fieldwork in-situ at case study sites, and workshops held with project teams online and in-person
• a Value for Money assessment for each case study project, which uses inputs from the quantitative and qualitative strands, as well as the HM Treasury Green Book guidance on appraising projects, to understand the costs and benefits through how public resources used by the programme translate to economic, social and environmental value

A full description of the proposed methodology can be found in the publication The Community Ownership Fund: evaluation method (Institute for Community Studies, WPI Economics and Verian, 2023). Primary data collection for the evaluation (the hyper-local survey and qualitative fieldwork) will be conducted in two ‘waves’: initial (Wave 1, now completed) and follow-up (Wave 2) research. 

During Wave 1 of data collection (March 2024 – March 2025), baseline survey data was collected for 6 case study projects, and qualitative data was collected for 11 case study projects. A full list of when quantitative and qualitative fieldwork was conducted during wave 1 for each case study project is found in Annex C. 

At Wave 2 of data collection (April 2025 – December 2025), a follow-up survey will be conducted in six case study project areas for longitudinal comparison, and follow-up qualitative data to explore change over time will be collected from all case study projects. At the time of writing, only Wave 1 data collection is complete and has been included in this report.

This methodology section therefore covers recent changes to case study project sampling, and the quantitative, qualitative and Value for Money methodology employed at Wave 1 fieldwork. 

2.1 Case study project sampling

In Evaluation of the Community Ownership Fund: Feasibility Study Report (Institute for Community Studies, Verian, and WPI Economics, 2025) 12 case study projects for the evaluation were identified for the evaluation, of which ten are described in depth in the report. Since the initial development of the evaluation methodology, there have been further changes to the case study selection:

• Three case study projects were found to be ineligible for the evaluation methodology.  For one of these this was due to extended delays to the project opening, for the remaining two this was due to changes in project scope meaning they were no longer eligible for the funding. One such project (Teach Uidhilín, Northern Ireland) will be included in the process evaluation only, with data to be collected at Wave 2.
• Two new case study projects (Stanwell Community Centre in Stanwell, England and the Brontë Birthplace in Thornton, England) have been added to the evaluation. Both of these projects will be subject to the quantitative, qualitative and Value for Money evaluation strands.

With these changes, the evaluation team remains satisfied that the selected case studies demonstrate “maximum variation” of the range of funded projects by the COF, with selected projects also being suitable for the evaluation methodology.  Full details of the underpinning rationale for the sampling approach selected are outlined in Evaluation of the Community Ownership Fund: Feasibility Study Report (ibid). Case study profiles of all the projects included in the evaluation are included in Annex C of this report.
The changes in the selected case study projects mean that the revised sample has stronger representation for England (four case studies) and Scotland (four case studies), than in Wales (two case studies) and Northern Ireland (one case study).  The stated aim of exploring the widest range of factors influencing the process and impact evaluation will not materially affect evaluation outcomes.  However, the changes also mean that sampling is biased towards projects which have been ‘successful’ in accessing and using funds.  To counter this potential source of bias, one of the projects found to be ineligible (Teach Uidhilín) has been retained in the case study selection for a follow-up interview as part of the qualitative strand (process evaluation) at Wave 2 of evidence collection. 

A pen portrait for each project included in Wave 1, outlining its key characteristics and high-level findings from the baseline survey where applicable, can be found in Annex C.

2.2 Quantitative fieldwork  

The quantitative methodology aims to estimate the impact of the COF-funded assets on outcomes such as community cohesion and wellbeing, drawing on two data sources:

• Firstly, surveys in each local “area of impact” surrounding case study assets (area of impact survey). Two surveys will be completed in each area: one before or shortly after the asset opens (a baseline survey) and another after the asset has been open for several months (an endline survey).
• Secondly, data from the Community Life Survey (CLS)^{[footnote 4]} at two time points will be used to estimate change in matched non-COF areas. A difference-in-difference approach will be used to estimate the impact of COF assets. The area of impact survey uses some of the same questions as CLS, so the CLS data will be used to estimate counterfactual outcomes, i.e. what outcomes would have been in COF areas if the assets had not received funding.

A non-probability (purposive) sampling approach to case study project selection has been employed, meaning that the evaluation will not generate findings which are generalisable to all assets. Rather, the evidence generated will be used to estimate whether the funding made a difference in a diverse selection of areas where the COF has been accessed.

Six out of the 11 case study assets were selected for the quantitative strand of the evaluation using the following criteria:

• each asset could not already be in operation or would be in the very early stages of opening
• each asset had to be opening at an appropriate time so that the endline survey could be run after it had been open for long enough for any potential impacts on the local area to materialise, but within the timeline of the evaluation
• the ‘area of impact’ of the asset had to be wide enough to allow for a sufficient sample for the survey, but not too wide that the local relevance was lost

The asset also had to be relevant to the majority of the community so that everyone could conceivably benefit from its opening i.e. it was not intended only for certain groups of people. To create a sample of households that would be impacted by the new asset, a geographical ‘area of impact’ was set around each one using ONS Lower Super Output Areas (LSOAs) and Output areas (OAs). Census population estimates were then used to ensure that each area contained a minimum of 5,000 households, meaning there were enough households to sample for the survey. Finally, project teams involved in the opening of the assets confirmed that the area matched their expectations for the impact of their asset. This ensured that the survey would pick up any impacts that have occurred because of the assets. Wave 1 baseline surveys ran in the original four areas between March and June 2024. These surveys were timed specifically to be run when the assets were either not open, or in the very early stages of opening, to establish a baseline of community life before the asset was present. The surveys are due to be repeated in the same areas in Wave 2 between July and October 2025 once the assets have opened to the public to measure any change.

After the original four baseline surveys, two additional areas were added to this part of the evaluation (see section 2.1). Surveys were conducted in these areas between October 2024 and January 2025. Wave 2 surveys will be run in these extension areas at the same time as the original four (July-October 2025) once their respective assets have been open to the public for a few months or more. Further details of the “area of impact” survey design, sampling and response rates, and timelines compared against the CLS can be found in Annex A.

Data from Wave 1 provides useful descriptive information about the areas of the six sampled case studies. However, it does not provide evidence of impact. Following Wave 2 data collection, impact analysis will be conducted using a difference-in-difference approach. The Community Life Survey will be used to construct a comparison group for each of the asset areas^{[footnote 5]}. This will allow for the estimation of counterfactual outcomes for people living in COF areas of impact, i.e., what their outcomes would have been if the COF had not funded the assets. 

Following this, a difference-in-difference analysis will be conducted for each asset area. This will involve comparing the change in key outcomes between the Wave 1 and Wave 2 surveys for the asset areas, to the change in the same outcomes between the counterfactual groups. The resulting ‘difference in difference’ models will identify what the change in outcomes would have been in the asset areas if no community asset had opened. This will provide estimates of the average causal impact of the community assets opening within the local areas.

2.3. Qualitative fieldwork  

The qualitative fieldwork seeks to develop an in-depth understanding of how the case study projects are having an impact in their places, identifying other unexpected impacts, and the process factors that are supporting or impeding this impact. Data collected from the qualitative fieldwork will also be incorporated into the Value for Money assessment to identify and quantify the costs and benefits of the project in monetary terms.

The qualitative data collection is centred around ethnography, an umbrella term which here encompasses ‘in situ’ (i.e. in place) observation as well as in-person interviews and discussion groups with project team members and users of community assets. Each case study will be visited in person at least once. Ethnographic data collected during fieldwork is triangulated with data collected through online workshops and interviews held with project teams (where relevant), as well as desk research and reviews of project documentation.

During Wave 1, in-situ fieldwork was conducted at four case study projects. Online workshops were conducted with project teams for six case studies, with one workshop remaining outstanding due to delays in opening faced by the project team.  Online workshops were arranged if in-person visits were not possible during Wave 1, typically due to delays in the opening of the assets. Fieldwork in one case study project area (The Queen’s Ballroom) was not completed at this wave due to the building experiencing a flood, but face-to-face fieldwork will be undertaken at Wave 2. The following table outlines the approach taken for each asset and key characteristics:

Table 1: Qualitative case study research conducted at Wave 1 (further details of the funding rounds are outlined in section 4.1 of this report)

Case study project	Location	Funding round accessed	Asset status at point of qual data collection	Wave 1 qual mode	Included in survey fieldwork?
Café Fifty Five	Thurnby, Leicestershire, England	Round 1	Open	Face-to-face	Yes
The Queen’s Ballroom	Tredegar, Wales	Wales, Round 1	Closed	Not completed	Yes
Rannoch Hub	Kinloch Rannoch, Scotland	Scotland, Round 1	Closed	Online	No
Vogrie Hall	Gorebridge, Scotland	Scotland, Round 1	Closed	Online	Yes
Plas Antaron	Penparcau, Aberystwyth, Wales	Wales, Round 1, Window 2	Open	Face-to-face	No
St Columb’s Hall	Derry, Northern Ireland	Northern Ireland, Round 1b	Open	Face-to- face	No
The Hop Pole Inn	Limpley Stoke, Wiltshire, England	Round 2, Window 1	Closed	Online	Yes
The Brontë Birthplace	Thornton, England	Round 3	Closed	Online	Yes
The Stanwell Community Building	Stanwell, England	Round 3	Closed	Online	Yes
Cove Sailing Club	Barons Point, Cove, Scotland	Scotland, Round 3, Window 2	Partially open	Face-to-face	No
Old Clyne School	Brora, Scotland	Scotland, Round 3, Window 2	Closed	Online	No

Face-to-face fieldwork at Wave 1 consisted of a 2-day visit by the project team. Prior to these visits, a ‘place profile’ of each area was created through desk research. During these visits, data was collected through:

• ethnographic observation whilst situated within the asset and through a walking tour of the surrounding area
• short ‘pulse’ interviews with visitors to the asset to gather feedback
• longer interviews with project team members and volunteers
• an in-person workshop with the project team, generating detailed evidence on the process of applying for the fund and how it affected impacts

Researchers kept detailed ethnographic fieldnotes notes during the visit to capture contextual information and reflective learnings. Data collected in-situ provided evidence towards the process evaluation and immediate outcomes from the COF funding, such as the opening or maintenance of an asset, as well as evidence of short to medium term impacts.  Visits were typically conducted shortly after the opening or re-opening of assets, meaning that it was not feasible to collect evidence of longer-term impacts. Interview data from community members who did not use the asset was not collected, thereby limiting understanding of wider impacts in the community.

Online fieldwork consisted of a 90-minute workshop with the project team. Prior to the workshop, a ‘place profile’ of each area was created through desk research. Activities in the workshop included creating a collaborative ‘place map’ to understand local context, semi-structured questions covering the process of applying and receiving COF funding, and collaborative review of project-specific theories of change. Data collected in the workshops enhanced and validated proposed theories of change, providing evidence for use in the process evaluation. However, the online workshops did not collect evidence about the impact of the COF funding because they took place in advance of the asset opening.

All research encounters were securely recorded and saved (where possible), with a selection also transcribed.  Data collected from Wave 1 fieldwork was analysed thematically, drawing on the existing evaluation framework as a thematic framework (see Evaluation of the Community Ownership Fund: Feasibility Study Report, section 7.2 for details of key thematic areas)and supported by generating evidence summaries from fieldnotes alongside detailed team discussions to explore the dataset in full.

2.4 Value for Money analysis

The objective of the Value for Money (VfM) analysis is to identify the costs of saving community assets and the benefits that those community assets bring. Where credibly possible, these costs and benefits will be quantified and monetised.

In broad terms, there are four sources of information that are being used to inform the VfM analysis:

• Theories of change for each asset. These set out the routes through which benefits are expected to arise in the short and medium term (and are informed by the qualitative fieldwork for each asset).
• The hyperlocal survey. Answers to the baseline survey have provided a sense of the current value attached to assets – or to the value of what the assets are expected to deliver if they have not yet opened – and will provide a quantifiable impact from the COF that can have a value attached to it once endline results are recorded. There are seven indicators from the survey that are being used for VfM analysis (see section 6.4 for an initial analysis of the survey results).
• Information from the assets and qualitative fieldwork. Where possible, providing collected data on the impact of the assets, such as number of visitors or number of training courses provided. Where collected data is not available, estimates from business plans will be used as a proxy but will be heavily caveated given that it is not observed data.
• Evidence-based methods of evaluation. For example, the established approach to valuing wellbeing gains within HM Treasury Green Book, or independent evidence on the value attached to volunteering.

Using the above information, the headline process for assessing VfM is as follows:

• Build a VfM Framework. A tool to conceptualise the categories of benefit that community assets give rise to (set out in section 6.3 of this document).
• Understand the specific benefits arising from each asset. By using the ToCs, business plans and qualitative fieldwork.
• Quantify and value the benefits. Using survey results and asset information.
• Sense check and presentation. To ensure no double counting, and no overclaiming of benefits with appropriate caveats where necessary.

Following these steps for each individual assets there will be an overall interpretation of what general conclusions are implied for the VfM of the COF.

3. Baseline survey data findings

During Wave 1 of the evaluation, ‘baseline’ surveys were conducted in six case study areas. A second sample in the same case studies will be taken in Wave 2, allowing for analysis of impact using the ‘difference-in-difference’ methodology. Findings from the baseline surveys are descriptive, providing useful understanding of the different areas selected in the case study project sample. This chapter contains details of the approach to analysing the baseline data, and an overview of findings from the Wave 1 baseline surveys. 

3.1 Analysis of the COF baseline survey data

The case study portfolio is not designed to be representative of the projects funded by the COF, but to represent the full variation of the portfolio by selecting case studies with the “most difference” or “maximum variation” from each other.

As the survey is sampled from the case study areas, direct comparison of survey results between areas must be made with some caution. There is a risk that differences arising between survey results in each area are a result of random sampling error (i.e. people who responded to the survey were more likely to respond a certain way than the actual population of the area).

To accommodate for the risk of sampling error, approximate margins of errors for survey responses have been calculated for each of the case study areas. These represent a 95% confidence margin.^{[footnote 6]}

Table 2: Margins of error for survey responses for baseline survey data

	The Hop Pole Inn	The Queen’s Ballroom	Vogrie Hall	Café Fifty Five	Stanwell Community Building	The Brontë Birthplace
Sample size	1004	784	753	913	698	826
Approx. effective sample size	617	472	442	593	576	541
Approximate margin of error for an estimate around…
50%	±3.9%	±4.5%	±4.7%	±4.0%	±4.1%	±4.2%
25%	±3.4%	±3.9%	±4.0%	±3.5%	±3.5%	±3.7%
10%	±2.4%	±2.7%	±2.8%	±2.4%	±2.5%	±2.5%
5%	±1.7%	±2.0%	±2.0%	±1.8%	±1.8%	±1.8%

These margins of error can be used as a conservative means to establish if there is a meaningful difference between areas. More robust statistical testing will be conducted on the final results of the follow-up survey as part of the final evaluation. Standard deviations for responses represented as an overall mean on a scale (e.g. “How satisfied are you with your life nowadays?”) can also be found in Annex B (key indicators from the survey).

To support contextualisation of the evidence, where possible, baseline findings are compared to national averages from the Census. For details on the survey methodology, see section 2.2 of this report.

3.2 Characteristics of the case study project areas

In terms of demographics, comparison to national averages from 2021 Census data demonstrates variation across the selected case study projects in respect of ethnic diversity, age and levels economic deprivation.  Some notable aspects are highlighted below.

Regarding economic deprivation, many but not all areas surveyed had a high proportion of respondents located in LSOAs with higher areas of deprivation in comparison with the average in their specific nation. Vogrie Hall in Scotland, The Queen’s Ballroom in Wales and The Brontë Birthplace in England were all situated in areas with above-average levels of deprivation for their nation.  Areas surroundingCafé Fifty Five and Stanwell Community Centre in England demonstrated evidence of some degree of within-place inequality, with a mixture of areas of low and high deprivation. A notable outlier was The Hop Pole Inn survey area (Limpley Stoke, England), where over four fifths (85%) of the sampled population lived in areas in the lowest quintile of deprivation for England (i.e. least-deprived areas).

Where ethnic diversity is concerned, it was notable that the areas surveyed around Stanwell Community Centre and Café Fifty Five both had significantly larger ethnic minority populations (primarily Asian or South Asian) than the averages from the 2021 England & Wales Census. In respect of age profile, residents in The Hop Pole Inn survey area (Limpley Stoke, England) were more likely to be older than the England and Wales average, with nearly a third (31%) of respondents aged more than 65 years old, compared to under a quarter (23%) in the 2021 England & Wales Census.

3.3 Perceptions of local communities and areas

Drawing solely on the baseline survey data, there was significant variation in how respondents felt about their places and local community. Residents for The Hop Pole Inn area had very strong feelings of belonging to their local area compared to most other case studies,^{[footnote 7]} with 70% feeling either very or fairly strongly that they belonged. The Hop Pole Inn also was a clear outlier for respondents feeling they could call on people for company or socialising (76% agreeing, compared to a range of 57 to 66% for other areas).

In general, The Hop Pole Inn respondents indicated the most positive feelings about their local place and community, although both The Hop Pole Inn and Brontë Birthplace areas scored highly for confidence that if the respondent needed help people would be there for them (85% and 82% agreeing respectively). Amongst the rest of the portfolio, The Queen’s Ballroom and Stanwell Community Centre respondents were less positive than Vogrie Hall, Café Fifty Five and Brontë Birthplace about community pride, hoping to live in the area in five years’ time, and recommending their area as a place to live.

Levels of awareness of local efforts to save or renovate the community asset varied widely between the different case studies. The Queen’s Ballroom, Vogrie Hall and Stanwell Community Centre all saw relatively low awareness in their local communities (15%, 17% and 15% of respondents having heard of the efforts to reopen the community asset respectively). Approximately a quarter (27%) of respondents for the survey in Thurnby, England had heard of Café Fifty Five. The Hop Pole Inn (63%) and Brontë Birthplace (61%) saw a significantly higher level of awareness, with over half of respondents knowing about the efforts to renovate the assets.

There was less variation around whether community members felt the asset would have a positive impact on the community, despite these differing levels of awareness. Most areas hovered around 50 to 60% of respondents feeling the asset would have a positive impact. However, respondents in the Brontë Birthplace survey area had a particularly strong feeling that the asset would have a positive impact (72%). Vogrie Hall area respondents had notably lower enthusiasm, with 39% of respondents thinking the asset would have a positive impact on the community.

Full details of key indicators from the baseline surveys and more detailed ‘pen portraits’ of each of the case study project profiles are included in Annexes B and C respectively.

4. Process evaluation findings

The following section presents process evaluation findings from Wave 1 of the qualitative fieldwork, which engaged 11 case studies through online and in person fieldwork. A full description of the methodology applied in Wave 1 can be found in section 2.3.
The objective of a process evaluation is to understand how an intervention is delivered and what factors support or impede its effectiveness. The COF process evaluation seeks to gain an understanding of: 

• the process of receiving and implementing the funds
• the factors that are supporting/impeding the process of the transfer, rescue or extension of the asset
• the factors that are amplifying/diminishing the impact of the asset on the community

Early findings presented in this chapter will cover the first 2 points. At the time of writing, most case studies included in the evaluation are not yet open or have only recently opened for community use. Therefore, the factors that affect the impact of the assets will be the focus of the next phase of the evaluation. 

The following chapter presents findings on the different stages of the COF applicant journey, with a focus on what went well and the challenges faced by case study project teams. The chapter presents evidence of research participants’ own perceptions of and perspectives on their experiences. All quotations in the chapter have been anonymised and are from interviews/discussion groups with participating project team members.

4.1 Background to the Community Ownership Fund bidding rounds 

The COF ran from 15 July 2021 to 6 January 2025, providing £135 million to 409 projects (Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, 2024). It included 4 bidding rounds and 10 bidding windows, with a bidding window approximately every three months. To accommodate the needs of applicants, MCHLG made changes to the COF application and delivery process at each bidding round with the aim of improving accessibility and applicant support.

As detailed in Chapter 2, case study projects were selected from Rounds 1, 1b, 2 and 3. This was due to the timing of the evaluation (beginning in early 2024). The process evaluation therefore focuses only on the first 3 rounds of the fund. Although MHCLG made continuous improvements to the delivery of the fund, most of the case studies selected for the evaluation were part of earlier bidding rounds. As a result, the evaluation provides limited insight into the impact of later process changes made by MHCLG to support applicants in later rounds.

To contextualise the experiences of the case study projects that received funding in different rounds of the COF, an overview of the first three rounds and the relevant changes made at each stage are summarised below:

Round 1: This was a pilot round seeking to test community appetite for the COF and trial the processes developed. Round 1 was particularly focused towards communities who were ready to take over assets (Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, 2024b). The programme provided up to £250k of capital funding (up to £1m for sporting assets), and up to £50,000 of revenue funding (or 20% of total capital costs). To receive funding, projects had to match COF capital funding with funding from external sources, capping programme funding to 50% of the total capital funding needed. Revenue funding did not need to be matched. Round 1 was launched rapidly with a short application window of four weeks. A high number of unsuccessful applications (81.4%) in this round made it clear that this process did not offer sufficient support to applicants. MHCLG therefore introduced changes to the fund design and eligibility to address these issues in subsequent rounds and to support a higher number of projects to successfully apply for the fund.

Round 1b: Round 1 reopened for a limited period (December 2021 – February 2022) to eligible unsuccessful applicants in Round 1 that were facing urgent time sensitivities to save their asset. MCHLG provided feedback and support to applicants to improve and resubmit their initial application.

Round 2: A number of changes were made in Round 2 based on lessons learned in the Round 1 pilot. To reduce workload for community groups and the number of ineligible applications, an Expression of Interest (EOI) stage was introduced where applicants received early initial feedback on whether their project was eligible before submitting the full application. The fund also moved to three bidding windows per year to allow for projects to accommodate the EOI submission and introduced a two-application limit per project (Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, 2024b).

The Community Ownership Fund Support Programme, a consortium of 10 community support organisations coordinated by Locality,^{[footnote 8]} was introduced from Round 2 Window 3 (15 February to 14 April 2023) to support projects at EOI and application stages. 

Based on feedback from stakeholders, changes were made to increase the inclusivity of the fund and make more projects eligible. The project delivery timeline was extended from 6 to 12 months, the criteria that assets had to have been used in the past 5 years was removed, and the required lease length for community groups with long term leases reduced from 25 to 15 years. The changes made in this round resulted in an improved application success rate.

Round 3: The delivery partner support was extended to include in-depth, tailored development support to help eligible projects with their application and business plans. In response to feedback that 50% match funding was challenging for many applicants, the match funding requirement was reduced to 20% of total funding or 10% for highest-need projects. The funding cap was extended to £1 million for all asset types in Window 1 and up to £2 million from Window 2. The fund was opened to applications from parish, town and community councils.

4.2 Choosing the COF

Evaluation participants typically reported that the COF was the only fund they encountered that provided the amount of funding that they needed to make their asset transfer, rescue or extension possible. Nine out of the 11 case study projects were already established community groups, many of whom had been planning their project for several years but had experienced difficulties in acquiring the funding to make it viable.

I think that generally you don’t get a lot of funders willing to commit large segments of money. They’ll do it in dribs and drabs. But actually, when it comes to a build that’s very, very difficult to manage.

Participants reported that the funding environment had become increasingly competitive due to the economic environment under austerity, Covid-19 and a cost-of-living crisis. Some project teams felt that this meant there were fewer funds available and that they were competing with a larger pool of organisations from both the public and private sectors. In addition, existing funds had not increased their value to reflect rising costs of renovating and running an asset: “a lot of funds haven’t changed with the times.”  For many project teams this environment meant considerable financial instability: they were uncertain if they could secure sufficient funds from multiple sources to make their project viable. The COF addressed a crucial need in the sector by making high levels of grant funding available to community groups, which gave many project teams the financial stability and confidence required to undertake their project.

Build costs have fluctuated so much since Covid, since the political landscape changed, our general economy’s changed and knowing that we had that [funding] secure was a huge relief to us.

In particular the provision of capital funding from the COF was a key draw for many project teams and seen as somewhat unique in the funding landscape.

The fact that it was capital funding for us was a massive help […] quite often you get funding to run a project as opposed to using that money to improve the asset.

The design of the COF was such that the fund did not cover the full cost of a project, requiring match and additional funding as supplements. Match funding sources for case study projects commonly included grants from local authorities, the National Lottery, community crowdfunding, loans, donations and grants for heritage, sports, or arts and culture. Based on a review of 55 projects from Rounds 1, 1b and Round 2 Window 1, the below indicates some general funding trends for different types of asset (note that assets could be multiple types at once e.g. Event Space and Community Hub):

• 7 out of 15 Community Pubs issued community shares (and 7 out of 11 assets funded via community shares are pubs)
• council grants or loans were mostly given to Event Spaces (9 out of 12) and/or Community Hubs (7 out of 12), with no council grants or loans provided to Community Pubs
• charitable reserves were used by 8 community organisations, 7 of which funded Community Hubs

The reduced match funding requirements and the increase in available funding introduced in subsequent bidding rounds increased the COF’s appeal and better supported later case studies. Some were able to purchase or renovate their asset without requiring them to apply for and manage as many additional funding sources. For example, one project withdrew an earlier application for £350,000 and reapplied in Round 3 for the new cap of £2 million. This provided them with the full amount required to renovate their asset and made their project viable sooner, support that they viewed as invaluable. Being able to purchase an asset outright also made project sustainability more feasible for some community groups because it lowered future running costs, for example by removing the need to make rental or mortgage payments.

Without the money, we wouldn’t be doing what we’re doing. So it’s as simple as that. We didn’t have enough money and now we do.

4.3 Application journey

What worked well to support project teams? 

Overall, most project teams taking part in the evaluation reported that the COF application process was more straightforward than other funding applications they had completed. Some participants felt the application form was long and required a lot of information in comparison to other grants applications, but also acknowledged that this was justifiable due to the large amount of money being applied for.

Almost all case study projects across rounds were already familiar with completing funding applications and had at least one project team member with the skills and experience required to do this successfully. A number of project teams included members with professional experience, such as in fundraising, accounting, architecture, construction and law. Many project teams acknowledged that without these experienced and highly skilled team members they would not have been able to apply for COF funding.

We were pretty lucky. We had experience on our board of people who’ve applied for funding before.

After being successful in Round 1 of the fund, two project teams reported that other community organisations approached them for support with applying to the COF, which they agreed to offer, demonstrating the impact of the COF in strengthening local community organisations. This is discussed in greater detail in section 5.3.

To enhance the inclusivity of the fund, greater support at the application stage was offered from Round 2, Window 3 (15 February to 21 April 2023), with the aim of helping community groups who lacked experience or expertise in funding applications. The Community Ownership Fund Support Programme was delivered by a consortium of 10 community development support organisations, coordinated by Locality. It included an enquiry service, a series of webinars particularly focused on writing strong applications in different contexts, and from Round 3 onwards, in-depth bespoke support for selected project teams.

Limited data is available on the impact of the support partners as most of the selected case study projects (7 out of 11) applied prior to Round 2 Window 3, and of the four projects that were eligible most did not utilise the offered support. Two reported that they were only aware of the support after they had submitted their application, reflective of the fact that the support programme was at an early stage at their time of application. One project team who did access a support partner described it as a positive experience, as it helped their originally unsuccessful project to reapply in Round 3. Some projects independently accessed external pre-application support, for example from the Plunkett Foundation and regional voluntary and community sector organisations, which was described as “vital”.  

Wider data on the impact of the support partners collected by MyCommunity shows that the pre-application support offered was largely considered to be valuable by community groups and, for many, was an important contributor to their success in applying to the COF (MyCommunity, 2025). In-depth support was weighted towards disadvantaged areas. For example, within England a higher proportion of pre-application support packages were delivered to areas ranked lower in the Index of Multiple Deprivation (42% of packages to IMD 1-3 areas and 63% to IMD 1-5 areas). Uptake was also generally high: 408 community groups received some level of support from a delivery partner, which is 67% of total applicants from Round 2, Window 3 onwards (My Community, 2025)

What challenges did project teams face?  

Case study project teams from all rounds reported that the application process required a lot of time and resource from team members, who were largely volunteers with limited capacity. For most, success at application stage relied on dedicated and skilled volunteers giving their time. The level of experience, skill and time required was an important barrier, especially for groups applying in Round 1. For example, one project team in Round 1 who found it demanding to complete their application form paid a consultant for additional support. This required them to find additional funding to make the application.

The funding application side of things can be quite challenging and quite time consuming but also there’s a lot of people who perhaps aren’t familiar with having to apply for funding.

Another project team who applied before the introduction of the support programme who did have the relevant skills expressed the view that that the process was likely to be burdensome for projects lacking team members with grant application and business development skills.

We found it quite demanding and we’ve done a lot of business plans in our time. I think a more deprived area would have really struggled to provide what was required.

As detailed above, this challenge was recognised and addressed by MHCLG with the introduction of the support partner from Round 2, Window 3 through the rollout of the Community Ownership Fund Support Programme in February 2023. At this point MHCLG also revised the application form and guidance in order to make the application process more straightforward.

An additional challenge for some project teams in Round 1 was the 4-week submission window, with one team describing the process as “manic” and finding it pressurised to meet requirements to secure their match funding. Again, this challenge was ameliorated by MHCLG in later rounds which had longer submission windows lasting several months. Inevitably, completing an application still required a fairly significant level of time and resource from project teams in all rounds, but these changes sought to reduce some of the burden and barriers for subsequent applicants.

Despite the high level of resource reportedly required to complete the application process, in some cases these efforts were felt to be helpful in applying to other funds. For example, one project team, a community organisation, had to create and update a number of policies for the COF application. This material which was then reused for other funding applications and helped to support and formalise some of their day-to-day work. Another project found the application process useful for generating and evidencing wider community support for their project. Some project teams found the application less onerous because they had prepared much of the material for previous fundraising applications and activities. For example, one project in Round 1 acknowledged that though the four-week window was tight, they felt they could apply within this time because they had much of the material ready from previously applying for a community asset transfer.

We actually had most information to hand, albeit we had to cut and carve it a wee bit.

Some project teams reported challenges with specific aspects of the application form. One project in Round 1 faced challenges with the functionality of the online portal, which was improved by MHCLG in subsequent bidding rounds. Another case study project that was unsuccessful in Round 1 reported that the requirements for the application felt unclear, and that only submitting documents that were explicitly requested, as they had done in other funding applications, then negatively affected their application.

I was upset because we could have submitted all this documentation at day one.

This team subsequently received feedback from MHCLG to support them to resubmit in a following round. Team members reported that the application questions had been changed for greater clarity, although they still described the process as complex and having “lots of hoops”. This was supported by another team who felt they needed to submit 95 documents to make a successful application, which they found onerous, although there was no requirement from MHCLG for projects to do this.

Some project teams reported broader concerns about the approach taken to the application process.  For example, one project team felt that it was unfair that the complexity and length of the application remained the same for any value of funding applied for. Another project team in Round 3 reported that the form requirements felt restrictive, with the application process not enabling them to showcase the extent of what their community group offered. 

4.4 Receiving and implementing funds

What worked well to support project teams?  

Two case study projects in Rounds 1 and 1b received their funding in one lump sum, which provided them with flexibility to spend their funds as and when needed on renovation work. They described the spending and reporting process in this case as easy and efficient. Neither project had specifically requested to receive the funds in this way but it was nonetheless the preferred approach for most project teams interviewed.

It’s been the simplest process when you’re dealing with big amounts of money.”  ”The fact that they gave us the money up front, even though it might have been an inadvertent thing that just happened, was very useful in terms of managing cash flow and getting the work done.

More broadly, project teams reported that successfully securing the COF funding improved their access to other funds. They felt it ensured the viability of their project, conferred credibility, heightened their profile and enhanced the confidence of the delivery team, all of which made securing additional funds easier.

So for a tiny little place like [area name] to be receiving grant funding of that magnitude, it gave us huge confidence because it meant that grant funders are confident in us, in our project and our ability to deliver it.

What challenges did project teams face?  

An inconsistent approach to funding delivery in the early rounds of the COF presented challenges to those projects which did not receive upfront funding. Whereas two case studies in Rounds 1 and 1b received their funding in a lump sum, 2 other case studies in Rounds 1 and 1b were required to pay for their renovation work and claim from the COF in arrears. These project teams reported that payment in arrears placed them in a precarious financial position where they risked losing their asset because they did not have the required funds available. This was exacerbated for one of the projects, which faced delays in accessing funds as they were unable to reach their grant manager or any other contact at MHCLG for the first 2 months of their claim period. The payment process was improved by MHCLG in subsequent bidding rounds to move away from the requirement to pay in arrears.

The timeframes allotted for spending the COF funding were reportedly a major challenge for all case study projects interviewed. Most requested at least one extension to their original spending timeline. Project team members reported that the process of setting timelines did not feel reasonable to them and required greater flexibility. Projects in Rounds 1 and 1b were given 6 months from the award date to spend their funding amount, and the subsequent increase to 12 months in future rounds still posed challenges for most project teams. In particular, the fact that the spending timeline began on the date of the fund award letter caused difficulty for team members because many were not ready to immediately operationalise. For example, team members needed to schedule contractors to begin building work, had legal tasks to complete, or were waiting to complete asset transfer agreements with their local authority. This was exacerbated for many projects because applicants were uncertain as to when funding would be awarded, with expected dates for the award sometimes moving, meaning they were therefore unable to begin work on the award date.

But you have this whole process you have to go through before you can ever start to spend it. So you actually don’t get a whole year or anywhere near it.

One project team in Round 3 reported that it took them five months to operationalise the renovation work on their asset, and therefore an overall completion timeline of one year was not realistic. Another also highlighted that upon being awarded grant funding, subsequent legal and documentation checks took around 2-3 months of the 12 months.

For some applicants, the award date fell very shortly before Christmas which also proved to be a challenging time to begin work on an asset.

They tell you on the 20 of December, then everything shuts down for 3 weeks or for 2 weeks you can’t activate anything. 

Project team members typically felt that clearer indication of the planned funding award dates from MHCLG would have helped to improve this process and enable them to operationalise their funding more quickly on being offered an award.

Once a plan was in place, case study projects faced multiple practical challenges in meeting agreed timelines throughout project delivery. Several projects, especially those renovating older buildings in rural areas, reported facing unexpected issues which caused delays to their timelines. For example, one rural project team discovered a bat colony in their building that required specialists to rehome before work could continue; another found asbestos in their asset. Other delays were caused by Covid-19 restrictions and extreme weather. One rural Scottish project team described that being in a very remote location generally created additional practical challenges.

It actually takes a lot more time and a lot more money to make things happen here.

Project teams stressed the need for greater flexibility in timelines that accounted for individual project circumstances, and understanding from MHCLG that delays outside of their control should be reasonably expected when rescuing and renovating older and often dilapidating buildings.  

Short project timelines could also constrain project teams’ ability to complete their asset rescue or renovation to the standard or under the circumstances they would have liked. Some teams reported having to rush renovation work to fit within tight spending deadlines, which additionally made them susceptible to high price fluctuations and reduced their choice of contractors. For one case study, this presented a barrier to appointing local contractors and therefore impeded one of their project goals to support the local economy. 

Almost all case studies across rounds applied for and had extensions granted to their delivery timelines after discussing challenges with MHCLG. For some project teams this had been a source of concern that funding may be withdrawn because they had not been aware that extensions were available. Extensions were only available to groups who faced unforseen delays or those who would be able to realistically deliver with an extension. Requests for extensions also needed time to be processed.

Another key challenge in implementing funds and delivering project work was managing multiple funders. All case studies received funding from other sources alongside COF, and team members described the challenge of managing competing requirements of multiple funders at once. Participants felt that greater acknowledgement of the impact of this on team capacity and resource, and therefore greater flexibility in timelines, would have helped to overcome these barriers.  

4.5 Collaborating with MHCLG

What worked well to support project teams?  

Two project teams in Round 3 reported having positive relationships with MHCLG and felt adequately supported by the grant management team. Both described the drawdown and reporting process as straightforward, particularly because they received the funds in one lump sum (see section 4.4 for details).

What challenges did project teams face?  

Participating cases studies across all funding rounds reported some difficulties in their relationship with the MHCLG grant support team. These challenges were most evident for those projects successful in earlier pilot funding rounds, a point at which MHCLG had not yet fully adapted to the demand for the COF and before external support to project teams was introduced (see details in section 4.1). For example, 2 project teams in Round 1 described receiving only “fragmented” communication from MHCLG staff.

The flow of information seemed to be one way from us to COF and nothing came back from COF.

Resourcing the grant management process sufficiently, especially as the fund continued to be scaled up, was an ongoing consideration for MHCLG. This issue was recognised and remedied through expanding the team of grant managers from the latter windows of Round 2. Nonetheless challenges around capacity were reflected in the experiences of some of the case study project teams, such as delays in receiving responses to queries, or receiving inconsistent or incorrect information. Staff attrition at MHCLG also created difficulties across all funding rounds. For example, when grant managers left MHCLG some of the case study project teams reported periods without a named contact. Such experiences could lead to perceptions that working with MHCLG involved complex processes that were not suitable for working with small community groups. 

The process of us working with government was extremely complicated and at times extremely frustrating.

Two of the Round 1 case studies faced specific challenges regarding co-ordination between MHCLG teams based in their nation and the MHCLG area teams in London.  Both projects found themselves unable to identify or communicate with relevant contacts in London and had no mechanism to escalate urgent issues to support them in accessing funds and resolving legal queries (as referenced earlier in section 4.4). As a result, both project teams were unable to pay contractors, which they reported put them at risk of bankruptcy.

We just couldn’t get an answer from the UK [central MHCLG team] on the legal side. Our legal people they’re not allowed to talk to the legal people in relevant department… It took almost a year and a half.

We had architects and quantity surveyors just not being paid because we couldn’t draw down any money.

Generally, project teams across all rounds had hoped to receive more support from MHCLG once funding had been awarded, for example through in-person visits. Not all case study projects wanted additional support, but some teams expressed their desire to have more direct relationships with MHCLG including to provide opportunities to share progress and successes. Offering light-touch support was a conscious decision by MHCLG initially to provide a low resource grant management approach and route more in-depth support via delivery partners. This in-depth support to project teams through external delivery partners was introduced in later rounds. Details on how MHCLG responded to the need to scale up the fund, including the introduction of support to case study projects, are outlined in section 4.1.

4.6 Accessing other support

What other support did project teams require to successfully complete asset transfer, rescue or renovation processes?  

In addition to COF funding, the process of asset purchase or renovation required other kinds of support for all projects to be successful. Though the COF provided essential capital funding, all project teams reported that they had to continue to apply for additional funding to complete or sustain their asset. The competitive nature of the funding environment required ongoing capacity to apply for and manage multiple funds, creating a degree of precarity around the long-term sustainability of assets. For example, funding was required to be able to hire and pay permanent staff, and in some cases additional funding was still needed to complete asset purchase or building renovation. One project that used the COF to purchase their asset had hired a member of staff solely to undertake funding applications for continued renovation work and asset sustainability.

Project teams that included highly skilled professionals generally expressed less of a desire for any additional support from MHCLG. As with the application stage, many project teams relied on having members with existing technical skills and strong professional networks to execute their project plans. For example, several project teams had members with building and construction skills, which made the planning and delivery of their renovation straightforward. Other projects had members with accounting backgrounds, and previous experience in architecture and renovating listed buildings. These project teams acknowledged that they were fortunate to have these skills and that their project would likely not have been possible without them.

I think that’s why [project name] does work, because we do have a lot of skilled members.

Case studies in Rounds 1 and 2 that lacked internal professional expertise were sometimes able to access the required support from elsewhere. For example, one project team sourced support with construction logistics, building regulations and community governance from a local community development trust, and another accessed support from the Plunkett Foundation to set up a Community Benefit Society.

The additional support offer through delivery partners was developed by MHCLG in later rounds of the fund in recognition of some of these needs. Support available included initial advice and targeted support for all applicants up to the EOI stage and tailored support to eligible applicants to develop a full application. This included access to advice on organisational governance and small revenue grants that could be used to secure specialist support such as building surveys (Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, 2024b).

What other support would have helped project teams to deliver?  

Certain case study project teams appreciated being trusted by the COF grant team to deliver their project independently. These tended to need to co-ordinate a large number of funders and were well-equipped to complete their project without additional support.  However, many project teams, especially those that were more newly established and in earlier rounds, did mention additional support or signposting that they would have liked in the delivery process.

One project in Round 1 wanted advice with building procurement and the process of building restoration for those undertaking this kind of project for the first time: for example, support with finding and appointing suitable contractors and working with other local stakeholders.

Another Round 1 project team expressed a need for financial expertise to help with budgeting: they later faced financial challenges because they had not included contingency or inflation in their budget. Some project teams in Rounds 1 and 3 would have liked support and advice around their organisational structure, for example on community governance or becoming a Scottish Charitable Incorporated Organisation.

Again, MHCLG’s introduction of delivery partner support in later rounds sought to address many of these issues for future applicants, although it was not taken up by all eligible case study projects. Targeted support available included financial planning, building a business case, governance, and accessing specialist support such as legal or building advice (Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, 2024b).

Project teams within all rounds expressed a desire for greater support with sustaining their project, which was a concern particularly for projects whose focus was on wider community benefits, such as community interest groups providing community facilities and activities. In these cases, sustainability not only required securing continuous future funding but also relied on a continuing team of skilled and committed volunteers. Ensuring the succession of their community group and retaining the necessary skills and expertise in the future, was a key concern.

We couldn’t survive without our volunteers.

These projects would have liked greater support during the COF process specifically focused on sustainability, including support with succession planning, volunteer management, retaining skills, signposting for additional funds and ideas to help them generate revenue. This may present an opportunity for MHCLG and delivery partners to build upon the existing support offer to include these areas and perhaps extend the support offer beyond the application stage.

4.7 Key learnings and implications  

The interim evaluation findings demonstrate that overall, the COF process has successfully enabled case study communities to purchase, rescue or extend assets for community use. This chapter highlights factors that both supported and impeded this process throughout the applicant journey.

The process evaluation provides several key learnings about the COF process and for future delivery of community ownership funding, some of which are outlined below. 

• The COF was a uniquely positioned fund that addressed a need in the sector, particularly in a challenging economic environment. Through providing a high level of capital funding it allowed community groups to save and restore assets that in many cases would have otherwise been lost from community use.
• The initial design and process of the COF provided effective support to communities which already had existing skills and capacity to apply for and deliver a community ownership project. Changes made from Round 2 onwards helped to improve the accessibility of the fund, such as in-depth support weighted towards disadvantaged areas, lowered match funding and widened eligibility criteria. There is an opportunity to build on this support to continue to make funding more accessible to communities who may lack existing resource and expertise.
• The process of receiving and deploying COF funding could be improved to better support communities to purchase, rescue or renovate assets. Much work was undertaken by MHCLG to address challenges arising for project teams, with a new support programme in place from Round 2, Window 3. This could be enhanced by taking steps to develop appropriate and realistic delivery timelines with project teams on a case-by-case basis where possible, accounting for project and place-specific circumstances.
• More consistent relationships, communication and ongoing involvement from MHCLG were reportedly required throughout the COF process for many of the case study projects to feel adequately informed and supported. MHCLG sought to remedy this through greater investment in grant management support following early funding rounds. A stronger sense of collaboration would also aid places to build a sense of connection to the UK government.
• It is essential to be aware of the community capacity, skills and, crucially, voluntarism which underpin successful community ownership projects. There is an opportunity to provide more targeted support to build community capacity and capabilities, both to support individual project delivery and longer-term sustainability.
• The process evaluation evidence demonstrates that in addition to upfront capital funding, communities benefit from other types of support to purchase, renovate and sustain assets. This includes expert support provided by delivery partners including financial planning, organisational governance and legal advice. There is an opportunity to provide greater support specifically towards the sustainability of assets, and potentially to extend this offer beyond application stage.

5. Early impact evaluation findings

The following chapter presents early impact findings from Wave 1 of the qualitative evaluation, drawing on evidence from 11 case study projects through online and in-person fieldwork. A full description of the methodology as applied in Wave 1 can be found in section 2.3. 

As noted in the introduction to this report, one of the key strategic objectives for the COF is to “strengthen capacity and capability in communities, supporting them to shape their places and develop sustainable community businesses”. This chapter presents some early evidence of progress towards this objective. In addition, Wave 1 fieldwork also generated useful early indicative evidence of the following long-term types of impact identified in Evaluation of the Community Ownership Fund: feasibility study report (Institute for Community Studies, Verian, and WPI Economics, 2025):

• improved economic outcomes
• reduction in social isolation and loneliness
• enhanced community cohesion and trust
• vibrancy of places
• improved environmental outcomes

Wave 1 fieldwork was conducted either shortly after or before the asset opening date in all cases. Given the medium- to long-term nature of the expected impacts, it is not possible to comment conclusively on the outcomes arising from the case study projects or on progress against the strategic outcomes of the fund.  Furthermore, due to the delays in assets opening, much of the fieldwork was conducted close to the drafting of this interim report meaning that that further analysis of the data is yet to be conducted.  Nonetheless, early impacts were evident, and it has been possible to identify some crosscutting and emergent themes.

This chapter therefore presents some early indications of potential ‘directions of travel’ for the relevant thematic areas drawing on a partial interim dataset. Findings and hypotheses presented in this chapter are subject to modification based on the evidence from Wave 2 fieldwork. The final report of this evaluation will contain a complete assessment of the impacts of the fund against the strategic objectives of the COF.

The chapter presents evidence of research participants’ own perceptions of and perspectives on their experiences. All quotations in the chapter have been anonymised and are from interviews/discussion groups with participating project team members and volunteers, attributed in the text.

5.1 Strengthening the capacity and capability of the project community organisation

In the short term (i.e. during the process of applying for funding, deploying the funding to renovate the asset and opening the asset) applying for and managing the COF created a strain on the capacity of project teams. Teams often relied on volunteer labour and on staff members working over and above paid hours to ensure project activities were completed.

The size of the project team was an important factor in experiences of the COF. Smaller project teams felt the pressure of delivering on opening their asset more acutely than larger ones, as did those with limited funding for staff time. For example, one heritage project was reliant on a single staff project team member working full time, supported by contractors and volunteers. Project team members, volunteers and contractors noted the pressure this created for this project team member, leading them to work very long hours.

A lot of assumptions are made about the capacity to deliver these projects. The reality of it is that the capacity is not always there, and we do struggle, we do fall behind and we do make mistakes. We don’t have anywhere to go with that in terms of “how are we going to do this, where can you give us expert advice on this?

(Project Team Member)

Despite facing capacity challenges in the short term, project teams were optimistic that increased capacity and capability would be possible in the longer term and/or following the opening of the asset (if it was not already open). For example, one case study project, a community centre, aimed to expand their provision of healthy and affordable food to the community through cooking lessons and cold storage which is only possible through renovations to the building. Another heritage project, already open, pointed to the extension of their community services over time. However, some projects noted that as the COF funding only covered a portion of necessary renovations, the capacity constraints they were experiencing could potentially expand into the medium term.

Project teams comprising existing community service providers found the early stages of accessing the COF particularly demanding as they had to divert organisational capacity to setting up the asset, which impacted on their capacity to provide services. This evidence therefore presents an opportunity to explore if there are differences in experiences of the COF between existing community groups providing a service to the community and seeking to own an asset in order to extend that service, and community groups set up for the sole purpose of renovating and managing a community asset.  This is an issue which will be explored further in the next round of data collection for the evaluation.

The evaluation also generated evidence that taking on ownership or long-term management of a building could fundamentally reshape the capabilities of some community organisations. For example, several organisations described having to adopt more formal governance policies and procedures, ‘professionalising’ their previously ad-hoc activities. In other cases, managing significant building construction alongside income generation required organisations to expand their number of paid staff and delivery approach. These changes, while potentially positive, also engendered some opposition from stakeholders such as volunteers, who felt that the urgency of fundraising for renovations and building maintenance activity meant that community service provision was a lower priority.

It feels sometimes like the building has become more important than the people who use it… people are happy to give for the charity (supporting vulnerable individuals in the community), they’re not so happy to give for bricks and mortar.

(Volunteer)

5.2 Strengthening the capacity and capability of other local community organisations

There was evidence that the case study projects had a positive effect on the capacity of other community organisations located close to assets. In some cases, project teams gained a physical space which could be provided to other local organisations to operate or run activities, increasing their capacity to deliver benefits to local people. For instance, one community café project provided a space for a local bereavement organisation and the local council to offer activities to local people, expanding the range of their service delivery to a new area.  Another community hub project rented areas of its building to local community organisations for storage and office space.

Additionally, some assets were found to be playing convening roles locally, increasing the capacity of local organisations to work together. For instance, project team members from one heritage site reported that they were part of a local consortium of culture organisations, coordinating activities and group procurement to reduce costs and duplication of activities, and attempting to increase benefits to beneficiaries in the community.

5.3 Strengthening the capacity and capability of the wider community

One of the strategic objectives of the COF is to strengthen the capacity and capabilities of communities who receive funding to manage and sustain a community asset. Community capacity can refer to the combination of human capital, organisational resources, and social capital used to solve collective problems and improve the wellbeing of a community and its members (Chaskin, 2001).

For more rural assets or areas that conceptualised themselves as being ‘periphery’ or ‘semi-periphery’ to core developed economic regions (see Krugman, 1991; Brülhart, 2009), project team members commonly expressed a desire to be less reliant on core regional funding, so that they could be confident that community members could continuously access services in the local area. This was especially the case in localities where government had ceased funding valued services. For example, in one area the closure of a local government-funded palliative care service was cited by community members as engendering greater commitment among volunteers to the case study project. This was because they felt more confident that the service would continue under community leadership, in contrast to a government-funded service.

Engaging wider community members as volunteers was one key way in which project teams increased their skills, capabilities and capacity during the early stages of project set-up.  Although many teams relied on existing skills and experience amongst staff, some teams reported that they looked to local volunteers for ad hoc skills, such as completing the financial planning for the application stage, or architectural design.

Some projects generated or expanded governance structures which provide opportunities for local people to be involved in the oversight of case study projects. For instance, one case study project, a sports club, set up a new board of trustees, including at least one young trustee, upon receipt of the funding. One board member reported that this was their first role of this nature, an important learning experience for them. A further project, a heritage asset, recruited local volunteers to help with renovation work and events, as well as working with local colleges to develop future volunteering and work placements for young people. Such evidence suggests that the creation of new volunteering opportunities may sustain the accumulation of skills and experience within project teams, benefitting both individuals and the wider community.

Nonetheless, at this point in the evaluation, several project teams were found to be highly reliant on volunteer labour to overcome issues in capacity. Although potentially positive, this trend may equally point to challenges regarding the long-term sustainability of the asset given that volunteer capacity can fluctuate.  This will be an area for further exploration at Wave 2 of fieldwork, when longer-term impacts will be more evident. 

5.4 Improving economic outcomes

Qualitative fieldwork during Wave 1 collected early evidence of activities which would support economic outcomes for places, notably some evidence of employment opportunities, including for local people and for people with vulnerabilities. The opening of a café by one of the project teams created at least seven new jobs, although not all new hires were residents. One heritage asset prioritised the hiring of local contractors with experiences of long-term unemployment and set up an apprenticeship opportunity to support the development of stonemasonry skills to maintain the building.

Additionally, several project teams opened new volunteering opportunities as a result of receiving COF funding or recruited local community members into the core project team (see sections 5.2 and 5.4 for details). Whilst these do not have direct economic impacts, they have the potential to support the development of skills and support individuals into other work opportunities, such as trustee posts or volunteering roles which would support the development of specific skills.

Some early evidence was collected of direct economic contributions from projects to places. Project teams reported they had prioritised the hiring of local contractors for ad-hoc construction and catering. For instance, a community café project worked with a local contractor on the refurbishment of their building, and a heritage project partnered with a local catering provider for their events.

Evidence was also collected of community benefit delivered through the projects and their partners, potentially reducing reliance on public services. For instance, one project team conducted an analysis which suggested savings to local NHS services of over £100k by supporting patients with terminal illness and their carers through a range of resources and services. The relative impact of these contributions on public services in places will be analysed as part of the Value for Money strand in the final evaluation.

5.5 Reducing social isolation and loneliness

All case study projects delivered activities and strategies that sought to overcome social isolation and build greater connectedness and cohesion within communities. In this way, the community assets and the organisation were better able to function as ‘social infrastructure’ supporting individual wellbeing and social connections as a result of the funding (see Nielsen, 2021). 

There is strong evidence at this interim point in the evaluation that in the short-term saving and sustaining these assets has had beneficial impacts on the social connectedness of volunteers and community member users. Visitors to the assets expressed the importance of social connection facilitated through the provision of spaces and activities for social mixing. Elderly visitors often expressed the importance of ‘getting out the house’ and meeting others for their overall health and happiness. For example, one heritage site relied on a vast network of volunteers to provide bereavement support, run their dementia café, and conduct home visits. Volunteers were often elderly and expressed the importance of volunteering to remaining active and social. 

The [guests] start arriving about 1:50 and you can see on their faces. Their faces tell you it all. It’s almost like some of them are running in here. That’s brilliant.

(Project team member)

This [art group] was a lifeline for me… I’ve continued coming because we’ve made friends.

(Community member) 

[The community organisation] is like a second home, a family.

(Community member)

5.6 Enhancing community cohesion and trust

Some activities undertaken by project teams were specifically focused on
intergenerational or multicultural mixing and learning. For example, an Africa Day event at one heritage site focused on celebrating and sharing the heritage of the local African and Caribbean community, was enormously successful with over 1,000 people in attendance from a wide range of ethnic and cultural groups. One community café project had organised events for parents and children, as well as bereavement groups for local people to create new spaces for social connection and mutual support.

The perceived inclusiveness to all members of local communities is an important consideration in understanding the impact of the COF in respect of community capacity.  At this point in the evaluation, the following themes emerged, demonstrating some of the tensions and challenges inherent in the objective around strengthening communities through the COF.

• Serving communities of interest: Some assets were perceived by local community members to be primarily serving specific communities of interest (e.g. people who are interested in sailing, church members), meaning it was unclear to them if people outside of that community of interest were welcome and able to benefit equally. However, personal identification with the community of interest was a strong source of motivation for volunteers and project teams.
• Integrating newcomers to an area: In areas experiencing demographic change, the project team positioned their asset as a means to integrate ‘newcomers’ into the existing community. This stated objective raises questions as to what project teams’ expectations were around integration – for example in the case of a faith community.
• Attracting tourism: Some community assets explicitly positioned their offer to attract tourism from the surrounding area or across the UK. In other cases, project teams did not intend to attract people from a wide area, but the evaluation team observed that the popularity a community café drew in visitors from the surrounding area, creating pressure on car parking spaces.

These themes all present opportunities for further investigation and analysis of the COF’s impact on the wider community at Wave 2 of fieldwork.

5.7 Vibrancy of places

Finally, several project teams hoped to enhance the ‘vibrancy’ of their place. In this evaluation, ‘vibrancy’ is taken to refer to places with multi-use, walkable, dense centres which act as a gathering place for economic and social activity (Kapp and Malizia, 2015). Project teams achieved this by playing a convening role and partnering with other local businesses. For instance, one heritage project reported being part of a local ‘culture corridor’ consortium of culture organisations, coordinating activities and procurement to reduce the cost of maintaining local heritage buildings, and attempting to encourage visitors to visit multiple places in the local area. Two projects which provided indoor community spaces were also both located next to large green spaces used by locals for sport and play, creating mixed-use spaces for families in particular.

When we talk about this as a place to meet it feels like that’s a really kind of silly or lame thing to say, doesn’t it? But it’s not, because there isn’t anywhere else to meet. You know, there isn’t. There isn’t a High Street or village square.

(Community Member). 

In respect of heritage assets, community members also commonly spoke positively of the value of these assets in creating a personal sense of belonging and pride in their area. Community members visiting or using assets often had personal links to the building or felt it had important heritage in the local area, expressing excitement at the new lease of life it had achieved. Individuals who volunteered for the organisation expressed strong feelings of pride and belonging in their work.

It’s a hidden treasure, this building, isn’t it?

(Community member)

5.8 Improved environmental outcomes

Projects often pursued strategies to support environmental sustainability in order to reduce costs. For example, one project will have a vegetable garden which aims to supply the kitchen with local produce, reducing emissions but also costs of transporting food long distances. Many projects also sought to install solar panels and insulation to reduce energy and heating costs. However, one project team reported facing significant challenges in local access to skills around ensuring environmental sustainability or ‘green’ practice for a heritage building.

5.9 Key learnings and implications

Early findings for the impact evaluation present a promising profile of short-term and anticipated impact, notably in respect of strengthening community capacity and capability:

• even with a short-term strain on capacity, project teams were optimistic about the potential for longer-term capacity-building, although the pressure was more acute for smaller project teams and those already delivering services within the community
• the COF appeared to have a positive effect on wider community capacity, through the provision of physical space and through project teams operating in a convening role with local businesses and community groups
• there was strong evidence of the COF funding supporting diverse opportunities for volunteering, which may sustain the accumulation of skills and experience within project teams, benefitting both individuals and the wider community

These findings suggest the importance of the project teams themselves as ‘assets’ supported and funded by the COF.  They also raise questions about the sustainability of the projects in this respect, given that voluntarism can fluctuate and may not be a dependable source of capacity.

In respect of improving local economic outcomes, there was early evidence of a positive direction of travel, with project teams creating employment opportunities and prioritising the hiring of local contractors for ad-hoc construction and catering.

There was also powerful evidence at this stage of beneficial impacts on the social connectedness of volunteers and community member users of the COF through facilitating access to community services and volunteering.  Projects visited also demonstrated that even at this early stage, the COF is supporting intergenerational or multicultural mixing and learning through project teams delivering inclusive community events and engendering ‘pride in place’, especially in the case of heritage projects. 

Evidence also highlighted some tensions related to social connectedness at this point: those related to the inclusiveness of projects (for example in respect of ‘communities of interest’) and also the objectives of the projects (for example in respect of encouraging greater tourism).

These findings suggest that there is potential for positive progress on some of the key outcomes for the evaluation in the longer term.  They also indicate the huge diversity of ways in which outcomes from the COF are likely to be manifest – demonstrating the importance of triangulation of the qualitative case study data alongside the quantitative difference-in-difference evidence at Wave 2.

6. Early Value for Money findings

The Value for Money (VfM) evaluation intends to provide objective and evidence-based insights on how effectively the COF converts public resources into additional public value.

The evaluation will compare the economic, social and environmental benefits that arise from each of the 11 case study assets with the fiscal costs incurred to sustain the assets.

Valuing costs and benefits requires both quantification (how much of a cost or benefit there is) and monetisation (assigning a £ value to the cost or benefit).

The VfM findings will provide insights at a case study level, but also to generalise conclusions about the indicative overall VfM of the COF. For this reason, case study projects are not anonymised in the presentation of evidence. The following chapter sets out what the evaluation has found so far about the VfM of the COF interventions, and the key considerations as the evaluation moves to its final conclusions.

Specifically, the following sections set out: how costs of the COF will be assessed, how the VfM assessment will consider benefits, some early insights from the hyper-local survey results, and considerations and limitations as the VfM assessment of the COF is further developed.

6.1 Cost considerations

A large portion of the COF costs is straightforward to measure because the funding being given to the asset is a known amount. However, desk research and fieldwork findings have identified 2 additional cost categories:

• administration and partner costs which include scheme setup costs and management; promotion and marketing; and the recruitment of delivery partners
• external costs which include leveraged match funding, time to prepare projects and/or applications, resources incurred by delivery partners that are not covered by MHCLG, and contractor costs associated with monitoring and evaluating the programme

Where possible, the valuation of these costs will use a combination of data supplied by relevant stakeholders (e.g. amount of time taken to perform tasks) and publicly available data (e.g. salary costs) to support quantification and monetisation.

6.2 VfM Benefits Framework

Initial assessment of the COF benefits found a variety of routes through which community assets can create and deliver public value. Because of this, a framework was developed to support a systematic VfM assessment of the benefits generated by each of the 11 case studies. The outcomes identified in the theories of change (ToCs) for each asset were used to assess themes of benefits across assets. 

Using this approach, benefits of the COF were grouped into five headline categories: community, economic, societal, environment and wellbeing. Table 3 sets out an explanation of how benefits are derived within these categories, using specific examples from the COF assets.

Table 3: Categories of benefits delivered by the COF case studies

Benefit category	Explanation and example
Community	Benefits include: - increased financial sustainability of the community asset - increased capacity and capability for community groups to take on local assets - the prevention of further dereliction or loss of assets For example, The Queen’s Ballroom undertook its redevelopment consultation using inputs from the local community, experienced local organisations and local authorities. This consultation process is expected to strengthen the skills, confidence and governance of community groups to manage and sustain local assets, while ensuring the asset meets local needs.
Economic	Benefits include improved economic outcomes for local people and businesses, in terms of: - increased gross value added - more employment opportunities - improved skills and employability For example, Plas Antaron will provide training and upskilling opportunities, increasing employability for those volunteering with skills including database administration, graphic design and website maintenance.
Societal	Benefits include: - preservation of heritage - reduced social isolation and loneliness - greater participation in community life - supporting vulnerable groups - increased volunteering opportunities - reduction in antisocial behaviours For example, Rannoch Hub will provide an inclusive space for socialisation and activities targeting young people and underrepresented groups.
Environmental	Benefits include: - supporting and promoting sustainable practices - better environmental outcomes For example, the refurbishment of Vogrie Hall will include solar panels being added to the building.
Wellbeing	Benefits include: - improved physical wellbeing - improved mental wellbeing - improved subjective wellbeing For example, Cove Sailing Club will enable participation in sport by providing recreational activities and facilities.

Examples of the full benefits to be considered for the analysis of the 11 case study assets are provided in the Annex D. It should be noted that this is a draft framework, which will be modified and refined as the data collection and qualitative research continues. A full and comprehensive VfM assessment will be conducted upon completion of the data collection process.

6.3 Early insights

Perceived value of the assets

To understand the perceived value of the assets, local residents were directly asked about their willingness to pay (WTP) for the benefits that an asset provides. This approach is useful in the context of community assets, where there is a lack of direct market value – it provides an insight into the monetary value that people place on assets beyond looking at financial transactions.

Respondents to the hyperlocal survey answered a stated preference question, where they indicated the maximum amount that their household would be willing to pay per month for the activities and services provided by the case study projects, with option values ranging from £0 to £100 and ‘don’t know’.

The results from the survey can be found in Table 4 below, with the following commentary:

• Unwillingness to pay. A large proportion of respondents were unwilling to pay for the assets, with the lowest proportion being 36% for Café Fifty Five and the highest proportion being 52% for the Queen’s Ballroom.
• Willingness to pay. Aside from £0 per month, £0.50-£5 was the most common range across all assets. Relatively few respondents were willing to pay £11 or more.
• Average willingness to pay. A relatively high proportion of respondents (between 28% and 38%) did not know what value to attribute to the assets. Assigning a value of zero to the responses where people said “Don’t know”, average WTP per month based on survey responses is £2.65 for the Hop Pole Inn, £1.64 for the Stanwell Community Building, £1.38 for the Brontë Birthplace, £1.54 for Café Fifty Five, £1.36 for Vogrie Hall and £0.74 for Queen’s Ballroom.

Table 4: Willingness to pay results from baseline hyperlocal survey

	The Hop Pole Inn	Queen’s Ballroom	Vogrie Hall	The Hub Community Centre and Café	The Stanwell Community Building	The Brontë Birthplace
WTP	Percentage of respondents by assets
£0	42%	52%	43%	36%	38%	38%
£0.50-£5	18%	16%	14%	21%	21%	24%
£6-£10	6%	3%	5%	3%	5%	4%
£11-£30	5%	0%	2%	1%	2%	1%
£31-£50	1%	0%	0%	0%	1%	0%
£51-£100	0%	0%	0%	0%	0%	0%
Don’t know	28%	29%	35%	38%	33%	31%

Note: The ranges presented in the table for WTP have been aggregated from those used in the original survey

Another way of framing the results excludes the “Don’t know” responses and presents a slightly different interpretation of the results. The results from the survey can be found in Table 5 below, with the following commentary:

• Unwillingness to pay. Across all assets most respondents expressed an unwillingness to pay.
• Willingness to pay. Again, excluding £0 per month, the most common response was in the £0.50-£5 bracket window with very few respondents willing to pay £31 or more.
• Average willingness to pay. The average WTP per month based on survey responses is £3.69 for the Hop Pole Inn, £2.47 for both the Stanwell Community Building and Café Fifty Five, £2.10 for Vogrie Hall, £2.01 for the Brontë Birthplace and £1.04 for Queen’s Ballroom.

Table 5: Willingness to pay results excluding “Don’t know” answers from baseline hyperlocal survey

	The Hop Pole Inn	Queen’s Ballroom	Vogrie Hall	The Hub Community Centre and Café	The Stanwell Community Building	The Brontë Birthplace
WTP	Percentage of respondents by assets
£0	58%	73%	66%	58%	57%	56%
£0.50-£5	25%	22%	22%	33%	31%	36%
£6-£10	9%	4%	8%	5%	8%	6%
£11-£30	6%	1%	3%	2%	3%	2%
£31-£50	2%	0%	0%	1%	1%	0%
£51-£100	0%	0%	0%	1%	0%	0%
Average WTP (£)	£3.69	£1.04	£2.10	£2.47	£2.47	£2.01

Note: The ranges presented in the table for WTP have been aggregated from those used in the original survey

Out of the 2 approaches for handling “Don’t know” responses, excluding them entirely is preferable. This avoids assuming that respondents who are unsure about their WTP have no intention of paying, as they could have selected the £0 option instead.

These preliminary findings suggest that these assets’ perceived value may not exceed the project costs. For instance, the Hop Pole Inn in Limpley Stoke needs £300,000 from the COF, in addition to other external funding. This means that it would need to serve more than 3,150 customers (or 2,250 customers if the “Don’t know” responses were excluded from the WTP analysis) annually to break even within three years – the duration of the COF funding – without considering any non-use value in the WTP estimates. This is significantly higher than the village population, which is the defined catchment area by the asset itself, of just 540 people, suggesting that in the short term, the project costs are likely to exceed estimated benefits based solely on the value estimated through willingness to pay.

However, the entire lifespan of the asset may mean that benefits outweigh costs when looking over a longer time horizon. For example, if the Hop Pole Inn stayed open for 10 years after the COF funding period – and its annual benefits exceeded annual costs within those 10 years – then the profile of returns on the COF investment would look more favourable. Exploring the different cost / benefit profiles of the assets over different lifespans of the assets will form part of the final analysis. 

It should be noted that there are some inherent limitations of WTP. While it is a valuable tool for estimating the value individuals place on non-market goods or services, it often relies on hypothetical scenarios, where respondents may overstate or understate their true willingness to pay compared to real-world transactions.  Moreover, if an individual does not have sufficient information or understanding about the assets, their stated WTP may not accurately reflect their true value.

A further consideration is that a household’s WTP for goods and services may be lower as their household income decreases. This ties to the concept of marginal utility of income, which states that the value of an additional pound of income is higher for a low-income recipient and lower for a high-income recipient. This is especially relevant to this evaluation, as low WTP may be influenced by income levels, potentially underestimating the value placed on assets in lower-income areas. The Green Book also acknowledges marginal utility of income and suggests conducting weighted analysis “where financial benefits for lower income households are given a higher social value than the equivalent benefits for higher income households.” However, this looks at a marginal increase in financial benefits that an individual or household receives. The Green Book does not specifically cover adjustments to WTP and there is no well-established method for doing so.  

Since the Green Book recommends presenting both unweighted and weighted estimates for transparency (instead of replacing an unweighted approach with a weighted approach), the intended approach is to keep the unweighted WTP results, but to acknowledge that the WTP might be different for different income groups. The WTP survey results show that assets with lower stated values tend to be located in areas with lower gross disposable household income (e.g. Queen’s Ballroom in Tredegar, Blaenau Gwent and the Brontë Birthplace in Thornton, Bradford), suggesting that income levels may influence respondent’s WTP. However, this comparison is not exact as different assets were assessed in different areas. Further analysis will be undertaken to understand the feasibility of using the income of survey respondents to gain insight into the relative weight of WTP responses.

It should be stressed that this analysis is based on baseline survey data only, and responses may evolve over time as awareness, engagement and actual benefits of the assets become more apparent.

Other important hyper-local survey questions for VfM analysis

In addition to WTP, the hyperlocal surveys also include questions that provide valuable insights to the VfM analysis. These cover experiences of antisocial behaviour, participation in sports, visiting community centres or hubs, engagement in arts and cultural activities, voluntary work, as well as life satisfaction, and feelings of loneliness or isolation.

The impact evaluation strand is using a difference-in-difference approach to identify causal impacts from the baseline and endline surveys. Based on this, it will be possible to assess the broader impacts these assets have on the individuals and the community. This will also provide an evidence-based evaluation of whether the impacts identified in the VfM framework are being realised.

This comparison will help to identify the extent to which these benefits are being achieved and their impacts on the community. The identified impacts will then be monetised (where possible) to estimate the monetisable benefits of the assets.

Below are some key observations from the baseline survey:

• Subjective wellbeing. The average subjective wellbeing score for the surveyed communities (7.2 for the Hop Pole Inn, 7.1 for Café Fifty Five, 7.0 for the Brontë Birthplace, 6.8 for Vogrie Hall, 6.7 for the Stanwell Community Building and 6.5 for Queen’s Ballroom) is notably lower than the national average (7.5). This suggests that residents in the areas where the case studies situate have lower life satisfaction in general.
• Feeling of isolation and loneliness. When asked how often they feel isolated from others, 12% to 24% of respondents indicated that they often feel isolated. The percentages were higher for the Queen’s Ballroom (24%) and Vogrie Hall (21%). This is higher than the 11% of individuals across the UK who report similar feelings.
• Antisocial behaviour. The perception of antisocial behaviour varies across the areas where assets are based, with some communities reporting this as a very big problem (33% for Queen’s Ballroom and 24% for the Stanwell Community Building), while others do not see it as a major concern (e.g. 92% respondents for the Hop Pole Inn said it was not a very big problem or not a problem at all). In contrast, national figures show that 12% of people consider antisocial behaviour a very big problem in their local area, while about 50% think it’s either not a big problem or not a problem at all.^{[footnote 9]}  This indicator will be particularly relevant when comparing assets that hope to reduce antisocial behaviour in their communities.
• Visits to community centres, hubs and community-run buildings. The frequency of visits to local community centres, hubs and community-run buildings varies significantly across the assets. A substantial number of respondents, ranging from 35% to 62%, reported that they had not visited these spaces in the last 12 months. However, in the communities around the Hop Pole Inn and Vogrie Hall a smaller number visit regularly, with 12% of respondents indicating that they visited at least once a week.
• Sports participation. Sports participation levels across the assets are relatively consistent, with over 60% of respondents indicating that they did not participate in sports teams, clubs or exercise activities in the last 12 months. Another measure of participation, the Active Life survey found that about 63% of adults in England reported doing at least 150 minutes of moderate-intensity physical activity per week.^{[footnote 10]} This could point to a gap in provision or access to such services, and more will be done to understand the seeming disparity in results.
• Arts and cultural activities. Participation in arts and cultural activities shows a similar pattern, with the majority of respondents across all assets reporting that they did not take part in arts and cultural activities in their local area in the past 12 months. Overall, the participation rates are generally low when compared to the findings of the Participation Survey, which reported that 45% of adults in England participated in an art activity in person in the last 12 months.^{[footnote 11]}

These findings provide useful insights into the current levels of engagement in various community activities. The endline survey will compare these baseline figures to measure any changes in participation to inform the VfM analysis.

6.4 VfM considerations and limitations

While the VfM analysis can provide insights on the costs and benefits of the COF, there are several key considerations and limitations that must be acknowledged in interpreting the analysis and findings.

• Costs and benefits that are unquantifiable/unmonetisable. For example, a lack of sufficient evidence may prevent a monetary value being assigned to a benefit; the timeframe of the evaluation may not capture the full extent of the benefits (particularly those that materialise in the long-term, such as a reduction in antisocial behaviour or petty crime). Where this occurs, the magnitude of impacts will be qualitatively assessed using evidence gathered from the process evaluation, monitoring data, and existing literature. Conclusions from this exercise will be summarised alongside any relevant figures – such as Benefit Cost Ratios and Net Present Social Value – in line with the Green Book guidance. One area that is particularly relevant to this is land value uplifts. The conclusion of this interim evaluation is that land value uplifts cannot be quantified or monetised. Changes in property values usually take time to materialise and are influenced by a range of factors, e.g. nearby infrastructure and broader neighbourhood development. Equally, there is some evidence that access to local services has only a modest impact on house prices, with no evidence on the link between the existence of community assets and local property values.
• Additionality and deadweight loss. One of the critical aspects in the VfM assessment is estimating additionality – the extent to which the assets’ impacts can be attributed directly to the funding provided by the COF. To do this, evidence collected from other work strands, similar projects, market’s best practice and the existing literature must be considered. Quantifying additionality may be difficult and may require the use of proxy deadweight loss ratios. For example, in a Power to Change report, such an approach was adopted to estimate the impacts that would have occurred without funding.^{[footnote 12]}
• Potential risk of double counting impacts. A key methodological challenge is avoiding double counting when valuing benefits. Some benefits captured in one metric may already be reflected in another. For example, WTP estimates may inherently reflect subjective wellbeing gains and/or improved local economic outcomes. Counting these benefits separately could overstate the total impact. Another example is the valuation of volunteering benefits, as estimated by Fujiwara et al. (2014), based on individual wellbeing gains.^{[footnote 13]} If both volunteering and subjective wellbeing benefits are included separately, there is a risk of inflating the overall benefit estimation. Careful adjustments or only including one but not the others will be required to mitigate this risk. In some cases, judgement will need to be applied – informed by consultation with stakeholders and HM Treasury Green Book experts – to avoid overstating the value of costs or benefits.
• Evolving nature of asset use. Another limitation is that the intended benefits of an asset may change over time. If an asset’s use changes during implementation, it may not deliver the originally anticipated benefits outlined in its business plan. This uncertainty presents challenges for accurately assessing outcomes of the asset and requires ongoing monitoring to assess actual versus projected impacts. Furthermore, the Green Book states that “Costs and benefits should be calculated over the lifetime of the proposal…Refurbishment of existing buildings is considered over 30 years.” Benefits of the COF can be illustratively modelled over 30 years if there is good enough data and rationale to do so, but the results will be caveated, as it cannot be definitively concluded that the assets will continue to generate the same level of benefits for 30 years after the COF funding ends.
• Case studies without quantitative evaluation. For assets that lack quantitative evaluation, the VfM assessment may need to rely on generalised findings from other case studies. While it can still provide some insights, it cannot take into account the specificity of the assets.
• Challenges in isolating the impact of COF. In cases where funding is used to support only a specific phase of a project (in the case of Stanwell Community Building), it becomes difficult to accurately gauge the impact of the COF. For instance, in survey-based assessment like WTP, it is difficult for respondents to distinguish their WTP for a specific phase of a project versus the overall asset. This complexity underscores the difficulty in determining how much of the asset’s success is directly attributable to the COF.

7. In-depth qualitative case studies

7.1 Case study: Café Fifty Five 

A café and multi-use space combatting social isolation and supporting community life. 

Project background 

Café Fifty Five, led by the Parochial Church Council of St Luke, is a welcoming café and multi-purpose space built in a formerly dilapidated public building in Thurnby, Leicestershire.  

St Luke’s Church is part of the Church of England in the Dioceses of Leicester, with a large and active congregation. For the last decade, the Church has looked to establish an outpost for community outreach in the form of a café. The church team and supporting volunteers identified a dilapidated public building in Thurnby village centre and negotiated a long-term lease with the owner, Harborough District Council. The project was imagined as a hub for community life, a place of welcome for residents of the village and a new home for local community organisations. The site selected for the project is adjacent to a park and sports field in Thurnby village centre. The name of the Café, a reference to a verse in the bible (“come all you who are thirsty”), is reflective of the Café’s mission and welcoming nature. 

Our vision is for Café Fifty Five to be a place of welcome and community, and of help and hope for all.

In 2021, the project team applied for the first round of the COF, successfully securing £250,000. The project secured an additional £1.15 million in funding from private donations, contributions from the National Lottery Fund, funding from the Church and other charitable funders. The café team shared that securing funding from the COF was particularly important as it allowed them to lease the asset and provided credibility to the project. The Café began operating at the end of March 2024, with an official launch event on 9 April 2024. The Café boasts a modern and light filled space with rooms at either end that can be used for group activities or hire. 

Place context 

Café Fifty Five is located in Thurnby, a middle-class village-cum-conurbation in the Harborough district in the county of Leicestershire. Thurnby was described by locals as a middle-class village, with “well-heeled but economically stressed” residents. The adjacent area of Thurnby Lodge is home to a relatively more diverse and deprived population, belonging to the second and third most deprived income decile. Thurnby village has a main street that hosts a pub, a village hall with limited activities and St Luke’s Church with its adjoining graveyard. Locals spoke of a lack of accessible spaces to meet and interact with neighbours. Although the village is in the outskirts of Leicester, poor transport links limit the connection of residents with social infrastructure in the city. 

When we talk about [the Café] as a place to meet it feels like that’s a really kind of silly or lame thing to say, doesn’t it. But it’s not because there isn’t anywhere else to meet. You know, there isn’t. There isn’t a High Street or village square.

Project impacts 

Employment and volunteering opportunities 

The Café is staffed on a day-to-day basis by at least two people in the kitchen, one to 3 people in the coffee bar, a café manager and an outreach officer. Additionally, the Café is supported by a board of at least 5 directors (3 of whom are volunteers) and a range of volunteers from the church.   

Community activities  

The Café is working to become “an asset to the community” by providing a range of activities hosted by the Church, as well as by other local organisations. The project employs an outreach officer who proactively establishes and maintains relations with local organisations, local government, volunteers and community leaders. Through these partner organisations, the Café delivers activities like a bereavement group, counselling, a play group for local children and their parents, a digital drop in for older people, toddler storytime, community pilates and crafting sessions.

Through its flexible spaces, the Café provides opportunities for community organisations and Harborough District Council to offer activities locally, in turn supporting the delivery of social outcomes. For instance, the café hosted a Harborough District Council play group which garnered an “amazing [response] with very minimal and short notice advertising”.

Older people 

The Café is particularly supportive of older people, with a convenient location across the street from a hospice. The Café was observed to host older people, sometimes with carers, for meals and drinks, socialisation, and a range of activities tailored to their needs (e.g. digital drop in and memory café).  

Social cohesion  

One of the Café’s stated aims is to provide a place to meet, which was previously perceived as lacking in the village. Customers of the Café were observed to be meeting others for hot drinks or food, and customers arriving alone were observed to greet people at other tables and/or café staff during their visits. Additionally, people who visit the Café have opportunities to participate in a range of activities that support socialisation.

Faith outcomes 

The Café was set up by the project team as a stepping stone where local residents can engage with St Luke’s Church. The project team is hoping to achieve “faith outcomes”, like a “surge in faith [and] participation in church”. There is evidence of increased opportunities to engage with the Church, such as pamphlets with religious content in the space, and the provision of a religious activity at the Café. 

The Café breaks down the barriers. It’s easier to invite people to a café than inviting them to a church. There’s more barriers to going church, the massive church door is scary.

Young people 

The Café was observed to be used by young people to meet with friends or alone. During pulse interviews, young people shared that this was the only locally available space for activities like studying, knitting or meeting with friends. The nearest accessible space for similar activities was reported to be half an hour away.  

7.2 Case study: St Columb’s Hall 

Restoring an iconic but neglected historic venue for community use. 

Project background 

St Columb’s Hall is one of Derry’s most historic buildings, which has been purchased and restored for use as a community venue. The hall was built in 1886 by St Columb’s Hall Total Abstinence Society as part of the temperance movement. It boasts 45,000 square feet of grandiose architecture combining Baroque, Italian and Gothic elements, earning Grade A Listing.  After passing hands between multiple owners, the hall was sold to a local developer in 2019, who in turn selected St Columb’s Hall Trust to manage and run the building. The Trust is a registered charity established in 2019, with the aim of bringing St Columb’s Hall back to life, for the benefit of tourists, citizens of Derry, and those who live and work in the city centre. The Trust applied for and secured £346,000 of COF funding to conduct repairs and reopen the hall, alongside donations and funding from the National Lottery Heritage Fund, for a total project fund of £1.1 million. With this funding, the Trust has signed a 30-year lease and will complete repairs and renovation of the Hall, alongside a conservation plan for the building’s future. Without this financial support, the Hall would have been unable to keep operating.

The money that the COF put in is literally the difference between this being here and not.

Place context 

St Columb’s Hall is located in Derry, the second-largest city in the Northwest of Northern Ireland and the fifth largest on the island of Ireland. It is referred to as both ‘Derry’ and ‘Londonderry’, reflecting its place in the British colonial project and ongoing sectarian tensions in the city. St Columb’s Hall is located in the historic centre of Derry, situated on the east bank of the river Foyle and surrounded by walls built in the early 1600s. Members of the project team described the Walled City as a hub of activity for Derry; both for tourists but also political events such as Trade Union events and ‘marching season’ between April-August.  The recent success of Derry Girls, a popular TV show, has also increased tourism to the area. 

Whenever people come from other places it can seem like - what’s happening? Is there a riot? It’s nothing, it’s just the way it is.

Despite the abundance of tourism and events, Derry faces significant economic challenges, even compared to the rest of Northern Ireland. In 2019, the council area had the lowest disposable income per capita and median wage in all Northern Ireland.  

Project impacts 

Community events

St Columb’s Hall offers a programme of events and activities that both generate income for the upkeep of the building and deliver benefits to participants. In order to reduce competition with other cultural institutions in Derry, St Columb’s Hall is differentiating itself by offering hire opportunities to minority groups including immigrant groups (e.g. Africa day), LGBTQ+ collectives, and feminist groups (e.g. YES day). Pulse interviews with the project team and local community organisations confirmed that St Columb’s Hall is offering a venue for organisations who might otherwise struggle to find one (for instance, the African and Caribbean Communities Network and playwriters with limited budget). 

It’s an old building but its hosting new ideas.

A cohesive cultural sector 

The project team recognise the importance of keeping historic venues in Derry operating, which in turn attracts activities that benefit other cultural institutions. They have set up a consortium with other historic cultural venues in the area to collaborate on commissioning maintenance works and co-ordinating cultural events. They seek to be ‘additive’ to the existing cultural hub in the Walled City, rather than another competitor. 

We need anchors that show people that things are happening. We need activity.

Sustaining a historic asset 

The hire of the hall for events generates income for St Columb’s Hall which is reinvested in continuing building restorations. Works to date have prioritised the conservation of historic elements of the building, increasing accessibility for people with limited mobility and remedial works to address damp and deterioration.  The project team described their efforts to safely open parts of the building to generate income, financially sustaining the upkeep and eventual repair of other parts of the building.

Even when [the building is] open a bit, that’s enough to keep them going. It’s whenever they’re closed that they deteriorate quickly.

Employment, apprenticeships and volunteering 

The Trust has prioritised the employment of local people, especially long-term unemployed. The core team is made up of an overall manager and a production director, alongside a board of trustees who are older local people. They’ve contracted a stonework apprentice and employ two local people as maintenance workers who were formerly long-term unemployed individuals. In the future, St Columb’s Hall Trust would like to employ people on probation and pay the Living Wage, but they don’t have the infrastructure and cash reserves to support this yet. Additionally, the Hall contracts a local catering service to supply food for events. 

Supporting local democracy 

The Hall has supported the delivery of a community and deliberative democracy programme, such as the Young Citizen’s Assembly. This is expected to provide greater opportunities for social mixing and learning, reducing isolation and improving social cohesion. 

Local heritage 

The Hall offers an online digital museum, which is expected to promote heritage activity, supporting a greater sense of belonging for the local community and greater pride in the rejuvenated high street. The museum is currently hosted on their website, but there is a plan to host the digital museum in situ, increasing opportunities for event attendees to engage with local heritage.  

Political neutrality

Given the historical and ongoing political tensions in Derry, venues run the risk of becoming associated with political factions, reducing their accessibility to some communities. The project team shared their efforts to make St Columb’s Hall a neutral space that is welcoming to a range of communities. Although direct evidence of neutrality was not collected, strategies building towards it were observed, including the recruitment of staff from different backgrounds, and a track record of varied events. This is helped by the Hall having been empty for a long period, creating distance with its past as a predominantly Irish venue.

Sometimes some of the venues in the city can be associated with one community or the other. Here is pretty neutral - people don’t perceive it to be belonging to Catholics, Protestants. We’re trying to keep that ethos and neutrality by not saying no to anything.

The hall has been empty for so long that it’s a blank canvas, people can project themselves onto it. The spaces lend itself to it, so does the location.

Bibliography

Bagnall, A.-M. et al. (2017) Social relations and wellbeing. Scoping Report. What Works Centre for Wellbeing. (Accessed: 25 April 2023).

Brülhart, M. (2009) Is the new economic geography passé?, CEPR. (Accessed: 21 March 2025).

Chaskin, R.J. (2001) ‘Building Community Capacity: A Definitional Framework and Case Studies from a Comprehensive Community Initiative’, Urban Affairs Review, 36(3), pp. 291–323.

Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (2021) Community Ownership Fund Round 1: prospectus (not in use), GOV.UK. (Accessed: 1 December 2023).

Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (2022) Levelling Up the United Kingdom, GOV.UK. (Accessed: 2 November 2023).

Hey, N. et al. (2022) What works social capital evidence review: Belonging, Cohesion & Social Support. Briefing. What Works Centre for Wellbeing, p. 7. (Accessed: 21 March 2025).

Kapp, P.H. and Malizia, E.E. (2015) ‘Vibrant Centers: Character and Context’, International Journal of Architecture, Engineering and Construction, 4(1).

Krugman, P. (1991) ‘Increasing Returns and Economic Geography’, Journal of Political Economy, 99(3), pp. 483–499. (Accessed: 21 March 2025).

Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (2022) ‘Community Ownership Fund round 2 - webinar for prospective applicants’, June. (Accessed: 31 March 2025).

Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (2024a) Community Ownership Fund: successful bidders, GOV.UK. (Accessed: 31 March 2025).

Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (2024b) ‘Community Ownership Fund round 2: prospectus (not in use), GOV.UK. (Accessed 23 April 2025).

My Community, (2025), Delivery Partner Impact Info Request - 28.02.25.

Nielsen, E. (2021) The impacts of social infrastructure investment. A report for Local Trust. UK: Frontier Economics, pp. 1–49.

Portes, A. and Vickstrom, E. (2018) ‘Diversity, Social Capital and Cohesion’, in Governing Diversity: Migrant Integration and Multiculturalism in North America and Europe. Belgium: Editions de l’Université de Bruxelles, pp. 41–62. (Accessed: 21 March 2025).

Shaw, J., Garling, O. and Kenny, M. (2022) Townscapes: Pride in Place. Policy Report. Oxford: Bennett Institute for Public Policy, p. 44. (Accessed: 21 March 2025).

Institute for Community Studies, Verian, and WPI Economics (2023) The Community Ownership Fund: evaluation method, GOV.UK. (Accessed: 1 March 2024).

Institute for Community Studies, Verian, and WPI Economics (2025) Evaluation of the Community Ownership Fund: feasibility study report, GOV.UK. (Accessed: 20 March 2025).

Annex A: Further details of the “area of impact” surveys

The surveys undertaken for this evaluation used an Address-Based Online Sampling (ABOS) approach which is a type of “push-to-web” approach. This method involved sending a random selection of households within each area of impact a letter inviting them to take part in an online survey. Residents could then log on to a dedicated survey website, enter a unique code and password, and provide their answers in return for a £5 gift voucher. The survey allowed up to four completed responses per household to maximise the number of residents who could take part. Two reminder letters were sent following the initial letter, with two paper surveys included in the second reminder for participants who may prefer to complete it offline. Results to the survey were quality assured during fieldwork, with a small number of responses removed due to data quality concerns, as shown table A1.

The questionnaire was designed in collaboration with MHCLG and covered attitudes towards the local community, involvement in community activities, awareness of the new community asset, and personal wellbeing. Several questions were taken directly from the Community Life Survey to allow for exact comparability.

Table A1: sampling and response rates of the baseline surveys

Asset	Survey dates	Households invited	Responses received	Responses removed	Final sample
The Hop Pole Inn	7/3/2024 - 30/5/2024	4,607	1046	42	1,004
The Queen’s Ballroom	7/3/2024 - 30/5/2024	7,000	841	57	784
Vogrie Hall	7/3/2024 - 30/5/2024	6,035	783	30	753
The Hub	7/3/2024 - 30/5/2024	5,983	980	67	913
Stanwell Community Building	28/10/2024 - 6/1/2025	5,000	771	73	698
Brontë Birthplace	28/10/2024 - 6/1/2025	5,000	885	59	826

Table A2 shows the timelines for the Community Life Survey and the provisional dates for the endline surveys. The endline COF evaluation surveys will run after assets have been open for a few months to allow for their impact to be measured, and close to the equivalent CLS to allow for the difference-in-difference analysis.

Table A2

Survey	Dates
2023/24 Community Life Survey	October 2023 – March 2024
COF Evaluation Original Baseline Survey	March 2024 – June 2024
COF Evaluation Extension Baseline Survey	October 2024 – January 2025
2024/25 Community Life Survey	October 2024 – March 2025
COF Evaluation Endline Survey	July 2025 – October 2025
2025/26 Community Life Survey (only available after the COF evaluation has ended)	October 2025 – March 2026

Annex B: Key indicators from the surveys

The table below shows the full results of the baseline survey, including ‘Don’t know’ responses and paper questionnaire responses where the respondent should have answered the question but did not. The percentage results shown in the report exclude these respondents and so in some cases the percentages shown are different.

Table B2: Full results of baseline survey

	The Hop Pole Inn	The Queen’s Ballroom	Vogrie Hall	Café Fifty Five	Stanwell Community Centre	Brontë Birthplace
How strongly do you feel you belong to your local area? (%)
Very strongly	26	20	20	20	15	22
Fairly strongly	44	38	40	40	34	43
Not very strongly	24	24	24	28	33	22
Not at all strongly	4	13	11	7	13	9
Don’t know	2	5	5	5	4	4
Not answered	0	0	0	0	0	0

	The Hop Pole Inn	The Queen’s Ballroom	Vogrie Hall	Café Fifty Five	Stanwell Community Centre	Brontë Birthplace
How much do you agree or disagree with the following? If I needed help, there are people who would be there for me (%)
Definitely agree	46	27	29	27	20	33
Tend to agree	39	44	45	50	46	49
Tend to disagree	11	18	12	13	19	11
Definitely disagree	3	8	10	5	10	4
Prefer not to say	2	3	3	4	4	2
Not answered	0	0	0	0	0	0

	The Hop Pole Inn	The Queen’s Ballroom	Vogrie Hall	Café Fifty Five	Stanwell Community Centre	Brontë Birthplace
How much do you agree or disagree with the following? If I wanted company or to socialise, there are people I can call on (%)
Definitely agree	36	23	22	18	17	23
Tend to agree	40	43	42	45	40	42
Tend to disagree	17	20	19	21	22	22
Definitely disagree	5	11	13	9	15	9
Prefer not to say	2	2	3	7	5	4
Not answered	0	1	0	-	0	0

	The Hop Pole Inn	The Queen’s Ballroom	Vogrie Hall	Café Fifty Five	Stanwell Community Centre	Brontë Birthplace
Overall, how satisfied are you with your life nowadays? (%)
Mean score (scale of 0-10)	7.06	6.20	6.54	6.63	6.42	6.68
Standard deviation	2.04	2.53	2.50	2.53	2.35	2.43

	The Hop Pole Inn	The Queen’s Ballroom	Vogrie Hall	Café Fifty Five	Stanwell Community Centre	Brontë Birthplace
Overall, how happy did you feel yesterday? (%)
Mean score (scale of 0-10)	7.23	6.27	6.73	6.94	6.69	6.73
Standard deviation	2.22	2.71	2.61	2.58	2.52	2.58

	The Hop Pole Inn	The Queen’s Ballroom	Vogrie Hall	Café Fifty Five	Stanwell Community Centre	Brontë Birthplace
Overall, how anxious did you feel yesterday? (%)
Mean score (scale of 0-10)	3.41	4.16	3.86	3.23	3.99	4.00
Standard deviation	2.78	3.13	3.23	2.91	3.02	3.06

	The Hop Pole Inn	The Queen’s Ballroom	Vogrie Hall	Café Fifty Five	Stanwell Community Centre	Brontë Birthplace
Overall, to what extent do you feel the things you do in your life are worthwhile? (%)
Mean score (scale of 0-10)	7.44	6.40	7.02	7.06	6.92	7.09
Standard deviation	2.09	2.64	2.51	2.49	2.35	2.38

	The Hop Pole Inn	The Queen’s Ballroom	Vogrie Hall	Café Fifty Five	Stanwell Community Centre	Brontë Birthplace
How much do you agree or disagree with the following? I am proud to live in my local area (%)
Definitely agree	49	17	22	30	17	25
Tend to agree	28	24	29	31	24	33
Neither agree nor disagree	17	26	30	26	32	30
Tend to disagree	3	14	9	5	12	7
Definitely disagree	2	17	8	4	14	5
Don’t know	1	1	1	2	1	0
Not answered	1	2	2	1	1	0

	The Hop Pole Inn	The Queen’s Ballroom	Vogrie Hall	Café Fifty Five	Stanwell Community Centre	Brontë Birthplace
How much do you agree or disagree with the following? In five years’ time I would like to still be living in my local area (%)
Definitely agree	45	22	26	29	18	25
Tend to agree	24	21	28	25	23	26
Neither agree nor disagree	12	18	17	19	16	19
Tend to disagree	7	11	11	9	13	11
Definitely disagree	7	19	10	9	24	12
Don’t know	4	3	3	5	5	6
Not answered	2	6	6	3	1	1

	The Hop Pole Inn	The Queen’s Ballroom	Vogrie Hall	Café Fifty Five	Stanwell Community Centre	Brontë Birthplace
How much do you agree or disagree with the following? I would recommend my local area to others as a good place to live (%)
Definitely agree	58	13	20	31	14	29
Tend to agree	28	22	35	34	29	36
Neither agree nor disagree	9	22	22	18	24	19
Tend to disagree	2	16	11	6	14	8
Definitely disagree	1	21	6	5	15	6
Don’t know	1	1	1	2	2	1
Not answered	1	5	5	4	2	1

	The Hop Pole Inn	The Queen’s Ballroom	Vogrie Hall	Café Fifty Five	Stanwell Community Centre	Brontë Birthplace
Were you aware of efforts to save/renovate the community asset before taking part in this survey? (%)
Yes	63	15	17	27	15	61
No	37	85	83	72	84	38
Not answered	0	0	0	1	1	1

	The Hop Pole Inn	The Queen’s Ballroom	Vogrie Hall	Café Fifty Five	Stanwell Community Centre	Brontë Birthplace
Do you think the community asset is having/will have a positive or negative impact on the community? (%)
Very positive	32	19	20	23	23	38
Fairly positive	29	20	28	26	32	34
Neither positive nor negative	12	18	21	10	17	15
Fairly negative	1	2	2	1	2	1
Very negative	0	3	1	1	1	1
Don’t know	26	38	28	38	25	10
Not answered	0	1	0	1	0	1

Annex C: Pen portraits of case studies

This Annex contains a short description of the 11 case studies undertaken for the evaluation as of the end of Wave 1 of data collection:

• Subject to quantitative, qualitative and VfM strands: Café Fifty Five (R1), The Hop Pole Inn (R2W1), Vogrie Hall (R1b), The Queen’s Ballroom (R1), Stanwell Community Centre (R3), The Brontë Birthplace (R3).

• Subject to qualitative and VfM strands: Brontë Birthplace, Rannoch Hub, Plas Antaron, St Columb’s Hall, The Old Clyne School and Cover Sailing Club.

A table setting out when data collection occurred across the different case studies is laid out below:

Case Study	Round	Nation	Quantitative	Qualitative
Café Fifty Five	R1	England	Mar 24 – Jun 24	Apr 24 (face-to-face)
The Hop Pole Inn	R2W1	England	Mar 24 – Jun 24	Mar 25 (online)
Vogrie Hall	R1b	Scotland	Mar 24 – Jun 24	Jan 25 (online)
The Queen’s Ballroom	R1	Wales	Mar 24 – Jun 24	N/A
Stanwell Community Centre	R3	England	Oct 24 – Jan 25	Feb 25 (online)
Brontë Birthplace	R3	England	Oct 24 – Jan 25	Jan 25 (online)
Rannoch Hub	R1	Scotland	N/A	Nov 24 (online)
Plas Antaron	R2W1	Wales	N/A	Feb 25 (face-to-face)
St Columb’s Hall	R1b	Northern Ireland	N/A	May 24 (face-to-face)
The Old Clyne School	R3W2	Scotland	N/A	Dec 24 (online)
Cove Sailing Club	R3W2	Scotland	N/A	Aug 24 (face-to-face)

The ‘pen portraits’ below present key statistics from the baseline survey data and a short written description of each case study before the COF funding was accessed.

Café Fifty Five (formerly The Hub Community Centre and Café, England, Round 1)

Location: Thurnby, Bushby and Scraptoft, England
Funding Round: Round 1
Key Demographic Details: Economic Inequality: 34% of population live in areas in the top three deciles of deprivation, but 25% live in the three least deprived deciles.
Ethnic Diversity: 41% of residents are of Asian ethnicity.

Key Survey Results

	%		%		%
Feel a sense of belonging to area	60%	Feel people would be there if I needed help	77%	Feeling satisfied with life (0-10 scale)	6.63
Proud to live in local area	62%	Still like to live in local area in 5 years’ time	54%	Would recommend living here to others	65%
Heard of asset	27%	Asset will have positive impact in community	49%

Café Fifty Five is a dilapidated public building on the fringes of Leicester that will be converted into an advice centre and café. The project is led by the Parochial Church Council of St Luke, and will serve the local community of Thurnby, a conurbation of Leicester. The total project cost is £1.1 million, with 31% (£250,000) of the funding coming from the COF and the rest through donations, the Church and a contribution from a local redevelopment project. The Hub will provide financial, social care and health advice as well as meeting spaces and a café. The advice offered is expected to improve access to services, leading to improved wellbeing outcomes. The provision of meeting rooms and counselling spaces is expected to increase opportunities for participation in community life, reducing social isolation. Additionally, the rescue of the dilapidated asset through refurbishment and maintenance is expected to reduce anti-social behaviour and improve the sense of community cohesion and pride locally. The provision of volunteering, employment and training opportunities is expected to improve economic outcomes for local people.  

Save the Hop Pole (England, Round 2 Window 1) 

Survey Area: Limpley Stoke, Freshfield, Claverton, Winsley, Monkton Come, England
Funding Round: Round 2 Window 1
Key Demographic Details: Relative affluence: Households in the area sampled are amongst the least deprived areas in England. Over four fifths (85%) of the sampled population live in areas (LSOAs) in the lowest quintile of deprivation.^{[footnote 14]}
Older: Nearly one third (31%) of the population in the area of impact are more than 65 years old, compared to under a quarter (23%) of the adult population of England and Wales (Census 2021).

Key Survey Results

	%		%
Feel a sense of belonging to area	70%	Feel people would be there if I needed help	85%	Feeling satisfied with life (0-10 scale)	7.06
Proud to live in local area	77%	Still like to live in local area in 5 years’ time	68%	Would recommend living here to others	86%
Heard of asset	63%	Asset will have positive impact in community	61%

The last remaining pub in the Limpley Stoke village, the Hop Pole Inn was closed five years ago by its former private owners due to low profitability. Residents of the village came together as the Limpley Stoke Community Benefit Society and bought the pub, reimagining it as a community space and basic service centre. The project, worth a total of £854,000, is financed through a combination of funding from the COF (35%, £300,000) and the issuance of community shares. The project is supported by the local authority, having designated the pub as an Asset of Community Value. However, the pub is severely dilapidated and requires significant refurbishment before reopening to the public. The project is expected to reduce social loneliness and isolation through a regular programme of social events as well as meeting spaces for local groups. Additionally, the pub will provide basic services including health and wellbeing activities, postal services, a library and some groceries, improving the accessibility and availability of basic services, and contributing to individual health and wellbeing and environmental outcomes. The provision of opportunities for employment, volunteering and performance (for local artists), alongside the issuance of community shares, are expected to improve economic outcomes for local people and increase the voice of local residents in how the pub is run.

Vogrie Hall Refurbishment (Scotland, Round 1b) 

Survey Area: Gorebridge, Arniston and Mayfield, Midlothian, Scotland
Funding Round: Round 1b

Key Demographic Details:
Economic deprivation: Most of the households sampled are in relatively deprived areas, with over three quarters (78%) within the three most deprived deciles in Scotland. The remaining residents (22%) live in areas of the median average level of deprivation. ^{[footnote 15]}

Key Survey Results

	%		%
Feel a sense of belonging to area	60%	Feel people would be there if I needed help	75%	Feeling satisfied with life (0-10 scale)	6.54
Proud to live in local area	51%	Still like to live in local area in 5 years’ time	54%	Would recommend living here to others	55%
Heard of asset	17%	Asset will have positive impact in community	490%

The refurbishment of a disused hall in rural Gorebridge will create a venue for St David’s Brass Band, fellow musicians, and community groups. The initiative, led by St David’s Brass Band, will modernise the former council-owned property with solar panels and improved accessibility. The total funding needed is £383,375, of which 33% (£127,251) is covered by the COF and the rest originates from donations and funding from the local Environment Trust, Foundation Scotland and People’s Postcode Trust. The hall will provide a permanent home for the brass band to rehearse, perform and record music, as well as low-cost brass and percussion tuition for young people. The expected impact is greater participation in expressive arts and increased potential for employment in music, leading to improved mental wellbeing and greater economic opportunities.

Additionally, hall spaces will be leased to other community organisations who are expected to provide opportunities for participation in leisure activities, improving wellbeing and boosting inter-group collaboration. The activities offered, alongside the restoration of the building, are expected to improve community pride and social cohesion, reducing petty crime related to dilapidation.

Refurbishment and Redevelopment of the Queen’s Ballroom (Wales, Round 1)

Location: Tredegar, Rhymney, Ebbw Vale, Wales
Funding Round: Round 1

Key Demographic Details:

Economic deprivation: Over half of the households sampled are in areas amongst the most deprived in Wales; 54% of the sampled population live in areas in the highest quintile of deprivation.^{[footnote 16]}

Key Survey Results

	%		%
Feel a sense of belonging to area	58%	Feel people would be there if I needed help	71%	Feeling satisfied with life (0-10 scale)	6.20
Proud to live in local area	41%	Still like to live in local area in 5 years’ time	44%	Would recommend living here to others	35%
Heard of asset	15%	Asset will have positive impact in community	39%

The historic Queen’s Ballroom in Tredegar, South Wales, will undergo refurbishment after falling into disrepair. Originally built as a cinema in 1910 and later serving a variety of purposes, the building will be turned into an accessible community hub that will host local organisations and events. The project is led by Creations of Cymru Film and Media, a local non-profit organisation that teaches young people skills in professional filmmaking. The project will cost £150,000, of which 60% (£90,000) will come from the COF and the rest from the National Lottery. The refurbishment of the dilapidated building is expected to avoid the loss of a historic asset and prevent further dereliction, while improving accessibility and energy efficiency. Restoring the building for use by local community organisations is expected to improve the high street and economic outcomes for local organisations and individuals.  Through the provision of a low-cost venue and a regular programme of community film events, the project expects to increase opportunities to socialise and reduce social isolation. The creation of volunteering and employment opportunities is expected to improve skills and employability, leading to improved economic outcomes. The consultation of the local community, organisations and local authorities in the redevelopment process is expected to increase local voice in decision making, leading to increased capacity and capability to take on local assets. 

Stanwell Community Building (England, Round 3)

Location: Stanwell, England
Funding Round: Round 2 Window 1

Key Demographic Details:

Economic inequality: Three quarters (76%) of households sampled are located in areas in the second-most deprived quintile, and the other quarter (24%) in the second-least deprived quintile.
Ethnic Diversity: nearly one quarter of residents are of Asian ethnicity (24%), compared to the average of less than one in ten (9%) in England and Wales (Census 2021).

Key Survey Results

	%		%
Feel a sense of belonging to area	50%	Feel people would be there if I needed help	67%	Feeling satisfied with life (0-10 scale)	6.63
Proud to live in local area	41%	Still like to live in local area in 5 years’ time	41%	Would recommend living here to others	43%
Heard of asset	15%	Asset will have positive impact in community	55%

The renovation of a former cricket pavilion in Stanwell, a village south of Heathrow Airport, will provide space for indoor community events and a permanent home for a local foodbank. The total project cost is approximately £1.5 million, of which £180,000 of capital funding is provided by the COF, alongside £36,000 of revenue funding (£216,000 in total). Other capital funding has been provided by Your Fund Surrey (a large capital grant scheme provided by Surrey County Council), the Spelthorne Borough Council Community Infrastructure Levy Fund, and donations as well as pro bono work from local business.

The project team organisation, Stanwell Events, initially held a short lease for part of the asset for storage and for Stanwell Foodbank (a sister organisation) to provide cooking and collection services. A longer term (25 year) lease was offered to Stanwell Events provided that the organisation undertook the improvements needed to make the building a sustainable community facility. The COF funding is specifically intended to support the second phase of these improvements, reconfiguring and renovating the ground floor changing rooms, storage areas and toilets to create a communal indoor area for youth and community activities, foodbank storage and a community pantry.

By making these renovations, it is expected that the asset will build community cohesion, pride and access to services through an extension of community events and activities as well as outreach sessions held by other agencies and charities. This will include holiday and after-school activities aiming to provide exercise opportunities, social engagement and healthy food to young people, addressing issues caused by child poverty in the area. Renovations to the kitchen will also allow for cold storage and greater capacity for the foodbank, as well as a subsidised community pantry and café. This will widen access to healthy food for people in Stanwell, improving the physical and mental health of residents.

Brontë Birthplace (England, Round 3)

Location: Thornton, Bradford
Funding Round: Round 2 Window 1

Key Demographic Details:

Economic deprivation: Three quarters (76%) of the population sampled are in areas above the average level of deprivation in England, with half of the population living in the three most deprived deciles (46%).

Key Survey Results

	%		%
Feel a sense of belonging to area	65%	Feel people would be there if I needed help	82%	Feeling satisfied with life (0-10 scale)	6.68
Proud to live in local area	57%	Still like to live in local area in 5 years’ time	51%	Would recommend living here to others	64%
Heard of asset	61%	Asset will have positive impact in community	72%

Brontë Birthplace Limited, a Community Benefit Society made up of community member shareholders, will purchase and refurbish the dilapidated Brontë Birthplace house, a closed building with historical significance in Thornton, England. The total project cost is £800,000, funded by the COF (30%, £240,000), Bradford 2025 Arts & Culture Capital Grant, the Architectural Heritage Fund, Bradford Gainshare, Power to Change Booster Development Fund and local fundraising activities.

The COF will be used to renovate and improve the building, which will offer a heritage centre, a café, holiday accommodation and community events space. This is expected to save and increase the lifespan of a listed building, to secure its future for community use, and to preserve Thornton’s literary heritage. The Society hopes this will increase Thornton’s attractiveness as a place to live, visit and invest in.

The project is expected to attract tourists and new businesses to the area as well as to create employment opportunities to generate local economic growth. The provision of education programmes for local schools is expected to address reading inequalities and increase the aspirations of children and young people in the area. The Brontë Birthplace will also offer a programme of tailored community events and activities, with the expected impact of increased cultural and arts participation in the local area and improved wellbeing. The restoration of the building and the provision of an inclusive, accessible community space is further expected to improve community pride, social trust and cohesion, and in turn reduce anti-social behaviour in the area.

As referenced in the methodology section, the following case studies are not subject to quantitative (survey) fieldwork.

Rannoch Hub (Scotland, Round 1) 

Located in Kinloch Rannoch, Scotland, an outdoor centre is being converted into a multi-purpose space including community office spaces, meeting rooms, public outdoor space connected to local walking paths, as well as café, restaurant and bar facilities. The project is being led by Rannoch Community Trust, a charity that owns a private company that can trade for income. The project received £250,000 from the COF, representing around 36% of the total funding needed to complete the work (£679,680). Rannoch Community Trust will reinvest any profits generated from the Hub, supporting future projects in favour of the Rannoch community. By providing an inclusive space for socialisation the project expects to reduce social isolation and loneliness, renewing a sense of community spirit. The project will target young people and underrepresented groups, with expected impacts including their increased participation in community life and their retention in the area. Additionally, the project expects to promote local economic development, reversing trends of economic decline through employment opportunities and business facilities, boosting entrepreneurship. Furthermore, the project hopes to widen access to and increase the use of local public services and assets, improving health and wellbeing while facilitating stewardship of services within the community, leading to increased community pride. The expected outcomes of the project correspond with Perth and Kinross Council’s plans for the local community.   

Acquiring Plas Antaron, a place for wellbeing and hope (Wales, Round 2 Window 1) 

The Aberystwyth and District Hospice at Home Volunteers (HAVAV) has purchased a converted hotel in Southgate, Aberystwyth, now renamed the Living Well Centre. The centre offers a welcoming space for people with terminal illness and their carers, providing emotional and peer support alongside a wide range of activities, including arts and sports.

The project received £179,730 from the COF, which was matched by the Welsh Government Community Facilities Programme and charitable donations, for a total sum of £579,730. The funding was used to purchase the formerly leased hotel, improving the financial sustainability of HAVAV’s activities and sustaining a community asset.  The hotels’ facilities and spaces allow HAVAV and other local partners, such as Hywel Dda Palliative Care Team and Credu, to run a range os ervices. This includes continued support for the terminally ill and those with life limiting conditions, as well as their carers. The expected impact is an improvement in the physical and mental health of beneficiaries, as well as reduced costs for the public sector. Additionally, the centre will improve the accessibility and availability of events and programmes, which is expected to improve participation in community life, arts and culture. This in turn is expected to reduce isolation and loneliness amongst beneficiaries, leading to improved social trust, cohesion and a sense of belonging. Lastly, the centre will provide volunteering opportunities alongside training and upskilling, with the expected impact of greater satisfaction and better employability for local volunteers.   

St Columb’s Hall (formerly Aurora, Northern Ireland, Round 1b) 

The purchase and restoration of St Columb’s Hall, one of Derry’s most historical buildings, will see the building brought back into use as a community venue. St Columb’s Hall Trust, the project leader, received £346,000 from the COF, alongside donations and funding from the National Lottery Heritage Fund, for a total project fund of £1.1 million. With this funding, the Trust has signed a 30-year lease and will complete repairs and renovation of the Hall, and develop a conservation plan for the building’s future. The Hall will offer a digital museum space, which is expected to promote heritage activity that will generate a greater sense of belonging within the local community and greater pride in the rejuvenated high street. Additionally, the Hall will provide a creative therapy unit and events space for live music and other cultural events, which is expected to improve mental health and wellbeing. Through the delivery of community and deliberative democracy programmes, such as the Young Citizen’s Assembly, the project expects to provide greater opportunities for social mixing and learning, reducing isolation and improving social cohesion. Additionally, a small business incubator space is expected to support economic development through the creation of jobs and apprenticeships. Lastly, the renovation is expected to support income generation, strengthening the sustainability of St Columb’s Hall Trust, and in turn generating job and apprenticeship opportunities.  

The Old Clyne School Redevelopment (Scotland, Round 3 Window 2) 

The Clyne Heritage Society received £1.95 million from the Community Ownership Fund to redevelop a semi-derelict building in rural Brora, northern Scotland, into a museum and heritage centre. Contributing to the overall project cost of around £4.5 million, the COF funds will be used to renovate the space and convert it into a permanent home for the Clyne Heritage Society. It is expected that this will increase the sustainability of the Society and secure the future of heritage services in the parish. The space will be improved through new accessibility features and a focus on creating a comfortable social environment. Expected impacts are increased use of the space, including by new segments of the community, and the development of new social relations. The Society will oversee volunteering and work opportunities, together with innovative community activities, which are expected to help people develop new skills and contribute to wider economic and social benefits. Additionally, the Society hopes to create a high-quality museum, achieving Museums Galleries Scotland accreditation and attracting visitors from other places, with the expected impact of disseminating local heritage and contributing to increased pride in place.  

Cove Sailing Club (Round 3 Window 2) 

Cove Sailing Club SCIO applied for COF funding to build a new, accessible sailing clubhouse where the community of Loch Long, Scotland, could take part in water sports and recreational activities. Approximately £688,000 of funding was required, £478,627 of which was received from the COF, to build a new clubhouse that is flood resilient, meets regulations and provides accessible facilities such as a kitchen and bar area. The new facilities are expected to sustain and enhance the provision of social events and sailing activities, such as regattas, competitive events, recreational sailing and training, and will be accompanied by a youth engagement programme. This is expected to make club events more inclusive and widely attended, contribute to the development of skills in sailing, and attract regional tourism. Additionally, the project will deliver a heritage project around the Loch Long sailboat as well as an environmental programme. It is anticipated that these will preserve and deepen local maritime knowledge and skills, while enhancing community pride. The project will be delivered by Cove Sailing Club SCIO, with community engagement in the management of the asset, for instance through consultations, surveys, advisory committees and collaborative decision making. The transfer of land and assets to Cove Sailing Club SCIO is expected to improve the organisation’s financial sustainability. It is also expected that the participation of local communities and Cove Sailing Club SCIO in the management of this asset will contribute to increased inclusivity, greater social cohesion, and strengthened capacity to take on assets. 

As described in the methodology section, the following case study is only subject to qualitative interviews to support the process evaluation:

Teach Uidhilín (Northern Ireland, Round 2 Window 1) 

Glór Uachtar Tíre (Teach Uidhilin) proposed to convert a former bank in Castlewellan into a language and heritage centre with community events and spaces. Teach Uidhilin  leased the former bank which, after being put up for sale, was at risk of being lost from community use. The project received £204,316 from the COF, representing around 54% of the total project cost (£380,632). The remainder was sourced from donations, loans and charity reserves.

Through Irish language classes and an Irish language community radio station, Teach Uidhilin hoped to increase opportunities for people to learn Irish and promote Gaelic culture and local identity. They expected to improve the sense of confidence and pride in the local community, enhancing local cohesion and sense of belonging. The project would have offered a regular programme of community events and rental space for events and social businesses, which was expected to increase participation in the arts and provide opportunities to develop skills, in turn reducing deprivation and improving economic and life outcomes for local people. Additionally, the project would have included a café space, a pre-school setting and youth club, creating opportunities for local people with different backgrounds to socialise. Lastly, the refurbishment of the asset was expected to improve the area and attract tourists, preventing further dereliction and anti-social behaviour.  

After being selected to receive the funding, the project ran into difficulties delivering on their proposed project plan. This meant that the project could not be delivered within the COF timeframe. For this reason, the funding award was withdrawn.

Annex D: Examples of full benefits framework

Category	Potential benefits of the assets	Café Fifty Five	Hop Pole Inn	Vogrie Hall	Queens Ballroom	Cove Sailing Club
Community	Improved capacity to run sustainable community businesses / increased financial sustainability	P				P
	Increased capacity and capability for community groups to take on local assets		P		P
	Avoided further dereliction and/or loss of asset				P
Economy	Employment and training opportunities	P	P	P	P
	Attraction of tourists
	Improved economic outcomes for local people	P	P	P	P	P
	Improved skills and employability			P	P	P
Environment	Supporting and promoting sustainable practices / better environmental outcome		P		P
Society	Reduction in costs for the public sector
	Reduction in ASB / petty crime	P		P
	Increased volunteering opportunities		P
	Preservation of heritage / promotion of heritage activity				P
	Support for vulnerable groups, e.g. people with dementia or limited mobility, or who are poor or terminally ill and their carers
	Promotion of language (e.g. Irish), culture (e.g. Gaelic) or knowledge (e.g. maritime)					P
	Reduced social isolation & loneliness	P	P		P
	Improved community cohesion, sense of belonging and social trust	P		P	P	P
	Greater participation in community life / development of new social relations	P	P	P	P	P
	Improved community pride and perception of local area			P		P
	Rejuvenation of high street
	Increased local availability of goods and services	P	P
Wellbeing	Improved subjective wellbeing	P	P		P	P
	Improved participation in arts and culture
	Increased participation in sporting groups / activities		P	P		P

1. Several rounds contained multiple ‘windows’ in which funding was applied for and granted. ↩

2. Formerly the Department for Housing, Levelling Up, and Communities (DHLUC). ↩

3. Formerly Kantar Public. ↩

4. Community Life Survey. ↩

5. For further detail, please see The Community Ownership Fund: evaluation method (Institute for Community Studies, WPI Economics, and Verian, 2023). ↩

6. This means that if the sampling method and survey was repeated many times, the ‘true’ population value will fall 95% of the time within the interval created around the sample value plus and minus the margin of error. ↩

7. Excluding the Brontë Birthplace, for which there was not conclusive evidence of a significant difference given the margins of errors. ↩

8. Support partners were Locality, Plunkett UK, Development Trusts Association Wales, Development Trusts Association Scotland, DTNI, AHF, Co-Operatives UK, Sporting Assets, shared assets, and compass. ↩

9. Home Office (17 May 2023), Anti-social behaviour: impacts on individuals and local communities. ↩

10. Sport England (April 2025), Active Lives Adult Survey November 2023-24 Report. ↩

11. Department for Culture, Media & Sport (13 February 2025), Main report for the Participation Survey (May 2023 to March 2024). ↩

12. Power to Change (2019) “Our assets, our future: the economics, outcomes and sustainability of assets in community ownership”. ↩

13. Fujiwara, D, Leach, M, Trotter, L, Vine, J (2014) “Measuring the Social Impact of Community Investment: A Guide to using the Wellbeing Valuation Approach”, HACT: ideas and innovation in housing. ↩

14. Measured through LSOA (lower layer super output area) level Indices of Multiple Deprivation ranking. ↩

15. Measured through Datazone level Scottish Indices of Multiple Deprivation ranking. ↩

16. Measured through LSOA (lower layer super output area) level Welsh Indices of Multiple Deprivation ranking. ↩