Most levelling up projects still unfinished years after funding allocated

The levelling up programme includes public projects intended to improve towns, high streets, transport, skills, housing, heritage and community facilities. The scale of unfinished work matters because the programme promised faster progress in places described as left behind.

Groundwork Research data found that 821 of 1,347 projects had not been finalised by May. The unfinished projects were funded through the Future High Streets Fund, Town Deals or the Levelling Up Fund. Some were broad programmes, so parts of them may already have been delivered.

The figures show that many communities are still waiting for promised improvements. The Guardian identified 59 projects completed after the data was collected, but 73 council areas still had not fully completed a single accepted project. Funding deadlines have also moved, with major funds now consolidated into a programme due to finish in March 2028.

The levelling up programme is a collection of local regeneration projects rather than one single construction scheme. Its purpose is to improve places and spread opportunity, especially in towns and communities described as left behind. Projects can involve physical spaces, local services, transport links or economic support.

The article identifies three main funding streams: the Future High Streets Fund, Town Deals and the Levelling Up Fund. Examples include Morley town hall, a learning and skills centre, a station gateway transport scheme, greener connections, housing retrofit, a community centre and heritage investment. Some projects are broad programmes whose individual parts may differ.

The range of projects explains why delivery can be complicated. Councils must manage construction, local facilities, transport, skills and environmental work within separate funding pots. These funds were later consolidated into the Local Regeneration Fund, while Labour also launched Pride in Place, which gives local boards longer-term control over spending.

Delivery was uneven across the UK, and the article does not provide a percentage for every region. Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland were slower to complete projects despite having fewer projects overall. This suggests that project numbers alone do not explain how quickly funding becomes visible change.

North-west England and Yorkshire also recorded low completion rates. They had received the largest numbers of projects, so their low rates affected many schemes and communities. Nationally, 821 of 1,347 projects remained unfinished, while 73 council areas had not fully completed even one accepted project.

The regional pattern points to a broad delivery problem rather than an isolated local failure. Inflation forced councils to pause, scale back or rethink schemes, while centrally controlled funding created additional frustrations. The later deadline of March 2028 gives projects more time, but the article warns that longer deadlines do not automatically create faster improvements.

Many projects were delayed because the money awarded when they were approved no longer bought as much. Inflation increased the cost of construction and other work, so councils had to make difficult choices. They paused schemes, scaled them back or continued with less ambitious plans.

The article gives this explanation for delays across the UK. Blackburn with Darwen had eight Local Regeneration Fund projects, none fully completed. Leeds also had eight unfinished projects, including a town hall refurbishment, a skills centre, transport work, greener connections, housing retrofit and community schemes. The Heritage Investment Programme was only partly completed.

Funding design added another pressure. Zoë Billingham described the Town Fund as a “begging bowl culture”, with councils approaching Whitehall for centrally controlled pots. Andy Haldane called the Levelling Up Fund “better than nothing” but criticised centralised decisions. Short-term grants can be difficult to match with complex, long-term regeneration work.

Long delays mean communities wait longer for the practical changes attached to regeneration promises. A town may continue without an improved high street, transport link, community facility, greener public realm or upgraded local centre. The article links unfinished delivery to a gap between the intentions of levelling up and what residents can see.

Leeds shows how this affects a place. Eight projects remained open, including Morley town hall, a learning and skills centre, a station gateway, greener connections, a housing retrofit and heritage work. In Blackburn with Darwen, none of eight Local Regeneration Fund projects had been fully completed.

The wider consequence is uncertainty about whether one-off commitments can create lasting improvements. Jack Shaw said too many commitments had not become substantive improvements in communities or local economies. The new Pride in Place model offers £2m a year for 10 years, while the government also needs investment to reach communities more quickly.

The Future High Streets Fund, Town Deals and Levelling Up Fund were central parts of the Conservative government’s plan to revive left-behind towns and spread opportunity. They aimed to reduce regional inequality by financing visible improvements in high streets, town centres, transport, skills, housing, heritage and community facilities.

The Future High Streets Fund launched in 2018, Town Deals in 2019 and the Levelling Up Fund in 2021. Their projects included refurbishing Morley town hall, creating a learning and skills centre, improving station access, making areas greener, retrofitting housing and upgrading community buildings. Councils received money for accepted local bids.

The approach produced many commitments but not rapid completion. The Future High Streets Fund was due to finish in March 2024, while the other two funds had a March 2026 spending deadline. Labour later consolidated the latter funds into the Local Regeneration Fund, with a new March 2028 deadline.

The way money is distributed affects both ambition and delivery. Short-term grants can fund visible projects, but councils must compete for limited pots and work within fixed deadlines. That can encourage isolated commitments instead of a long-term plan for a local economy, high street or public realm. Central decisions can also slow local action.

Zoë Billingham called the Town Fund a “begging bowl culture” because councils had to approach Whitehall for centrally controlled money. Andy Haldane criticised the Levelling Up Fund as centralised and vulnerable to “pork barrel politics”. By contrast, Pride in Place gives communities £2m a year for 10 years, with local boards deciding how to spend it.

Longer-term local control may give places more certainty to coordinate improvements and respond to local needs. Jack Shaw said it could support visible, lasting change. However, Sarah Longlands warned that Pride in Place could face similar pitfalls, so time and local control alone may not guarantee delivery.