Research and analysis

Towns Fund evaluation: interim findings 2 - headline findings (accessible version)

Published 25 July 2025

Applies to England

© Crown copyright 2025

This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3 or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email: psi@nationalarchives.gov.uk.

Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned.

This publication is available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/towns-fund-evaluation-emerging-findings-from-the-process-and-intervention-level-impact-evaluations/towns-fund-evaluation-interim-findings-2-headline-findings-accessible-version

Headline findings from the Towns Fund process evaluation

The emerging process findings are based on evidence from seven case studies covering a mix of projects and geographies. All findings should be considered preliminary and subject to change as more evidence becomes available.

Local authorities reported that the structure of the fund for Town Deals and the Future High Street Fund enabled them to meet council objectives

Aspects that worked well

  • allocation-based funding approaches were effective for targeting areas with the greatest need
  • Town Deal Boards are felt to enhance inclusivity in local decision-making

Aspects that worked less well

  • Towns Fund revenue allocation was perceived as insufficient to cover project management and service delivery costs

Design and planning worked well for aligning with the needs and priorities of local areas

Aspects that worked well

  • collaboration on design processes ensured projects were aligned with local needs and priorities
  • Town Fund capacity funding was crucial for bridging expertise and resourcing gaps within local authorities

Aspects that worked less well

  • limited resources within local authorities for drafting investment plans/Expressions of Interest, project plans, and business cases
  • lack of expertise within local authorities to develop business cases and project plans made appointing consultants a necessity
  • limited availability of delivery partners highlighted the need for alternative procurement approaches

Delivery went smoothly overall, although contextual factors and a lack of funding for future project operation posed challenges

Aspects that worked well

  • strong local authority and delivery partner relationships were key to successful project delivery
  • beneficiary engagement targets were exceeded, with positive feedback on project delivery and services
  • project facilities were deemed fit for purpose when delivery partners were involved in the design

Aspects that worked less well

  • rising inflation and trade disruptions negatively affected project delivery
  • construction disruptions frustrated the public and businesses
  • Project Adjustment Requests were seen as overly technical
  • local authorities lacked plans to sustain Town Deal projects beyond the Towns Fund funding period

Local authorities had mixed views on the proportionality and value of monitoring requirements

Aspects that worked well

  • Town Deal Boards actively monitored project delivery to keep projects on track
  • monitoring reporting frequency was considered appropriate to avoid repetition
  • cascading approach to completing monitoring Returns ensured accurate and timely data

Aspects that worked less well

  • MHCLG monitoring returns are seen as too lengthy and not user-friendly
  • local authorities had mixed views on the usefulness that they derived from MHCLG monitoring returns
  • lack of understanding about the value of monitoring returns post project completion

Headline findings from the Towns Fund intervention-level impact evaluation

The emerging impact findings are based on evidence from seven case studies covering a mix of projects and geographies.

These findings focus on short-term outcomes due to the recent completion dates of the projects. All findings should be considered preliminary and subject to change as more evidence becomes available.

Key source of evidence

  • project and third-party data
  • interviews with over 50 stakeholders, including local authorities, project delivery teams, local residents, and community groups
  • resident surveys in five case study areas with an average of 310 responses per survey

Key messages

Pride in place and wellbeing

  • the projects have produced facilities and amenities that are well used and well received by the local communities
  • there is a quantitative correlation between increased usage of project facilities and higher pride in place and personal wellbeing
  • however, wider effects on pride in place and wellbeing are inconclusive at present, largely due to a lack of baseline data

Economic growth

  • evidence of changes in high street footfall is limited at present
  • qualitative input suggests that the projects have helped to improve business confidence and investment, by signalling government confidence and investment in the towns

Employment

  • a large and growing number of students have been educated through the new facilities
  • more time is needed to observe wider employment effects

Physical connectivity

  • there is some evidence of increased public transportation usage, for the only case study expected to affect this outcome

Key enabling mechanisms

Outcomes have been enabled by:

  • community consultation
  • the overall quality of facilities
  • the accessibility and flexibility of the facilities
  • collocation of multiple services in one space
  • business consultation, in particular for employment effects

Key barriers

Where outcomes have been limited, this appears to have been affected by perceptions of limited consultation and disruption from wider regeneration works.

Back to top