What are the options for improving place-based governance that will ensure better local decision-making following devolution and local government reorganisation in England?
That is a key question that Graham Galpin and I pose in our newly published viewpoint article for the Journal of Place Management and Development. Rather than fixing on one single model, in the viewpoint article Graham and I consider the perspectives of different layers of government, the learning from place management principles and their application through various local governance delivery options.
Governance models working together
Imagine if, post devolution, we got the various models for local governance and decision-making, working better together to meet the requirements of government and serve the needs of local communities?
In the article, we start from premise that whilst tried-and-tested place management, participatory techniques could be central to the local delivery of place policy, many people may wrongly perceive the discipline as limited to the stewardship and promotion of places.
Government perceptions
We then consider probable perceptions of the value of local governance by different layers of post-devolutiongovernment, as likely determinants of approaches that will become adopted. We consider that the ethos within reorganised unitary councils will be a key determinant, though recognise that this may be shaped by Strategic Authority guidance.
Five models of local governance
In the main substance of our article, we then seek to initially define five different models of local governance, framed by this thinking and an appreciation of varying levels of participation achievable. These are:
- Area committees: This might be considered the default mechanism for existing and proposed new unitary authorities that offers them some local representation and serves their needs for local consultation.
- Existing town and parish councils: Though the most local tier of democratic accountability, there is a need to address apparent central government ambivalence through the application of consistent standards of governance, community engagement and development.
- Place-based, systems approach: Common characteristics of local authority place-based approaches that have much in common with a place management perspective, include working with communities to develop collective priorities and building relationships based on balanced power and capacity.
- Place partnerships: At the core of place management initiatives there will normally be a coming together of key stakeholder representatives in some form of partnership. These are most effective when their role blends strategic influence and tactical delivery, whilst adopting a ‘people and place-led’ approach.
- Community anchors and covenant: These are voluntary, community and social enterprise organisations, rooted in their local area and that have a track record of responding to the needs of their communities by offering support, delivering activities and collaborating with others. A national campaign to create a ‘community covenant’ aims to agree standards for the relationship between such community anchors and councils.
Combining complementary approaches
Our initial analysis and thinking about options for improving place-based goverance reflected in the viewpoint article, is that, rather than advocating for any one of these models of local governance over the others, there is scope for them to co-exist and complement each other in the same area. This could, for example, involve place partnerships and council place-based systems approaches working hand-in-hand and in conjunction with town councils proactively gauging local priorities or established anchor organisations involved as equals on the basis of a ‘community covenant’. Unitary authority-led ‘area committees’ might still have a role in making evidence-based and locally-focused decisions about the allocation of their resources and improvement of council services.
Embedding place managemenmt theory and practice
We conclude our viewpoint article by suggesting that it would be beneficial for place management techniques to be understood and embedded in a variety of local governance systems, and in doing so seek to increase their influence and integration with a greater range policies and practices that impact on ‘people in place’.
As two wily, old place practitioners, it delights us to share our thinking in an academic journal for the first time. It also demonstrates the approach of the Institute of Place Management and Journal, to bridge the gap between robust academic theory and place-based practice.
Journal of Place Management & Development article
The reference for the full article in the Journal of Place Management and Development is:
Wade CGalpin G (2026), “Options for accommodating place management within devolved, place-based governance and delivery”. Journal of Place Management and Development, Vol. 19 No. 1 pp. 62–68, doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/JPMD-10-2025-0144
The article was freely available to everyone until early January 2026 and permanently to Institute of Place Management Members, via the Members Area.
We suggest that you also read our acompanying post on devolution’s different paces in different places that discusses practical dettails about the opportunities to influence local goverance as part of the creation of Unitary Auithorities.
You may find it informative to also read the People & Places Partnership’s related, recent posts on the ‘place policy puzzle‘, ‘boosting pride in place‘ or ‘creating a partnership behind a plan‘.
