Across sessions in this strand, members and partners explored this from different angles: which communities are genuinely benefiting from economic growth? What does it take to make place-based change endure? And how do we move from isolated projects to something more systemic? Over two weeks, we heard a consistent case for funders to rethink how they support place-based change, with a clear call for more long-term investment in community power, relationships, ownership and infrastructure.
From consultation to shared power
Speakers were united in saying that communities need to be in the driving seat, not simply consulted after decisions have been made.
“Communities on the ground… know what works. They know their communities well and they can do a brilliant job of making really good decisions”
We heard from We’re Right Here leaders about the Market Drayton Community Covenant, piloted by Fordhall Community Land Initiative with Shropshire Council, which offers a prime example of what this looks like in practice. It put 18 community groups on equal footing with the local authority in recurring decision-making spaces - not just as a one-off consultation. As a result, council service provision through the Family Hub doubled, and the council now proactively brings major plans to the community for input before deciding.
In Southwark, the 'Funding Differently' model handed grant decisions to community groups themselves, demonstrating how sharing decision-making directly with local groups creates stronger legitimacy, better insight and greater trust. Community Southwark described how working closely with local groups revealed the depth of insight those groups have about each other’s work, and into what the local area actually needs. This challenges traditional grant making, where funders alone tend to judge what and where the need is. Speakers were clear this is a genuine journey rather than a simple handover: funders need to support groups as they learn to make grant decisions themselves, without holding onto any final say over the outcome, and be willing to learn alongside them throughout. As a result, United St Saviour's has now channelled its small grants programme through ‘Funding Differently’, in recognition that this programme was best delivered in collaboration with local community groups rather than by them as a funder alone.
In a session hosted by Power to Prosper, we heard how "power precedes access" — the point being that many of the systems communities are asked to access, whether funding, assets or governance, are built on extractive foundations. Gaining access to a system like that doesn't change what it produces; it just gives communities a seat inside something that wasn't built for them. Real change means communities holding power rather than being invited in once decisions have already been made. Collaboration Circle offered a working example of what that shift can look like in practice. Its Board is split 50/50 between funders and equity and justice organisations, designed to embed that change in power from the outset: funders and communities designing and deciding together on equal terms, rather than community groups being brought in once funders have already shaped how a fund will work. Festival attendees pointed to this as a starting point for what a London coalition for community assets might look like.
Why equity cannot be an afterthought
Sessions in this strand touched on race equity as integral to building community wealth. Together, they surfaced four recurring constraints funders should interrogate in their own practice: race-agnostic funding approaches, the slow movement of money, short funding cycles, and a retreat from risk (linked by some participants to rising far-right political pressure, which they felt was making funders more cautious at a moment when their support matters most).
Power to Prosper’s session challenged race-neutral community wealth building models, arguing that without explicit attention to who owns assets, who controls finance and how governance is structured, racial wealth gaps are likely to be reproduced. In the session on Centring Race Equity in Community Wealth Building, we heard from speakers representing Power to Prosper’s Local Community Hubs. Reflections from the Nottingham Hub showed the consequences of long-term underinvestment, with virtually no Black or brown-led organisations owning buildings despite decades of regeneration investment.
Community ownership emerged throughout the strand as a major route to lasting change. We heard from the co-founder of a community organisation called HIMMAH who repositioned his organisations as an "ecosystem builder" by bringing together five Nottingham organisations representing Arab, African, Caribbean and Bengali communities. They now pool resources and share a building - though on a precarious temporary lease, a reminder of how hard asset ownership, and leasing in particular, remains for community organisations. Policy is starting to catch up: the new English Devolution and Community Power Act introduces a Community Right to Buy, giving local groups more time to raise funds before an asset can be sold.
Two case studies illustrated what's possible when funders and councils are at the table together. An East London trust secured a 250-year rent-free lease on a complex heritage building that had sat vacant for a decade after multiple private developers had tried and failed to redevelop. Another local partnership converted a former Salvation Army shop into a social enterprise bakery with housing above; further plans in the pipeline include a music venue and a green-skills site. But despite pockets of exciting community asset development, private ownership still dominates London’s high streets, leaving a significant imbalance.
In a session led by Pembroke House, we went on a place-based visit where speakers shared learning from an emerging cooperative model in Walworth. We heard how they are responding to inequality in the residential neighbourhood by building relationships and exploring local solutions. For example, rather than expanding and running a third site themselves, Pembroke House made a deliberate choice to turn Walworth Living Rooms into a community ownership initiative. The organisation used its institutional expertise to hold and negotiate the opportunity, and then worked on actively handing governance to the community rather than absorbing the site into their own portfolio. During this session, we also heard how £110 million is spent on food in the neighbourhood each year, most of it leaking out to supermarket profits rather than staying local — a driver behind the new community initiative which aims to reclaim the local food economy.
Investing in relationships and trust
“The relationship is sometimes more than the actual funding.”
In the session on the role of philanthropy in neighbourhood governance and devolution, led by We’re Right Here and Power to Change, we heard how building trust requires working at the pace of communities. This involves funders giving organisations the time and space to understand evolving socio-political developments. Several sessions pointed to this same need for care and long-term trust in place-based change. In the session ‘Learning from a new model in Walworth’, we heard how the food alliance became possible because of a decade spent building local relationships, convening food growers, chefs, residents and businesses, and earning credibility with both community members and external partners. In Walworth, this principle of trust helped the Neighbourhood Food Alliance land its 25-year lease.
Holding risk alongside communities
Risk doesn't disappear when a grant ends — it just moves onto the shoulders of community leaders. The "Braver Principles" framework (from Renaisi and the Curiosity Society) called this out directly as "exposure to risk": funders hold organisational risk, but community leaders absorb personal and social risk when funding is withdrawn.
We also heard how this burden shifts to communities when they are handed power to decide where funding goes - they now carry a weight of feeling accountable to their own communities, especially when resources are already scarce. Renaisi reminded us that funders should stay present throughout the journey of place-based work rather than withdrawing at the first sign of slow progress. Their six Braver Principles ask funders to move beyond short-term cycles, fund reflection, support aspirational community futures, shift voice and legitimacy to local people, rethink exposure to risk, and fund relationships and shared infrastructure.
What communities need from local government / Working with local government
Across conversations, local authorities appeared as both essential partners and, at times, challenging ones to engage with. Community asset projects often depended on councils sitting at the table, using tools such as Community Right to Bid, commissioning programmes, and providing support or advice for initiatives. At the same time, participants noted that councils are under severe financial pressure and may lack the capacity or culture to share power meaningfully.
In order to truly build community wealth and power, partnerships and coalitions across sectors and organisations are crucial. As one speaker put it, “we can't do this work on our own,” - it absolutely requires cross sector collaboration and convening. In the session on Building Community Wealth in London, Footwork and Platform Places shared how their peer support programmes broker partnerships with councils, funders, private owners, practitioners and support organisations across the ecosystem.
What we’re taking forward
Across the sessions, funders were asked to: share decision-making power genuinely rather than performatively; name race equity explicitly rather than assuming universal systems will close racial gaps; fund relationships and "breathing space," not just outputs; support community ownership of assets, not only service delivery; and be willing to hold risk so it doesn't fall entirely on community leaders.
Taken together, the discussions make a clear case that place-based change requires funders to move from short-term grantmaking toward long-term stewardship of community power, ownership and infrastructure. The most compelling examples were not those where funders simply awarded money, but where they helped create the conditions for communities to lead.