The panel consensus is bearish, highlighting the slow progress and structural issues in the UK's 'levelling up' projects. Key concerns include the high incompletion rate, regional disparities, operational expenditure burdens, and potential private sector crowding-out.
Risk: The single biggest risk flagged is the potential for these projects to become liabilities rather than assets, depressing local productivity and reducing private investment.
Opportunity: The single biggest opportunity flagged is the potential for Pride in Place to address strategic coherence and provide 10-year certainty, but this depends on whether it includes revenue-side reform.
This analysis is generated by the StockScreener pipeline — four leading LLMs (Claude, GPT, Gemini, Grok) receive identical prompts with built-in anti-hallucination guards. Read methodology →
Most levelling up projects are not finished, years after funds were allocated, highlighting how ambitious Conservative promises of quick progress on regional equality have faltered.
Data released under freedom of information laws and manually reviewed by the Guardian found 821 levelling up projects out of 1,347 were yet to be finalised as of May this year. Across the UK, …
Read more
Most levelling up projects are not finished, years after funds were allocated, highlighting how ambitious Conservative promises of quick progress on regional equality have faltered.
Data released under freedom of information laws and manually reviewed by the Guardian found 821 levelling up projects out of 1,347 were yet to be finalised as of May this year. Across the UK, 73 council areas that had a bid for a project accepted were yet to see a single one fully completed. The Guardian has identified 59 projects that were completed since the data was collected.
Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland have seen slower delivery in their levelling up projects, despite having fewer overall. North-west England and Yorkshire also had low project completion rates, but they were also the two regions allocated the most projects to begin with.
Boris Johnson’s government swept to power in 2019 after promising to revive left-behind towns and spread opportunity as part of a levelling up agenda headed by Michael Gove. With 57% of projects still unfinished, the figures show many communities are still waiting for those ambitions to become reality.
The figures cover three of the main funds associated with the levelling up agenda: the Future High Streets Fund (launched in 2018), Town Deals (2019) and the Levelling Up Fund (2021).
The Future High Streets Fund was supposed to complete in March 2024, and the official deadline for spending all of the Towns Fund and Levelling Up Fund money was March 2026. The Levelling Up Fund and Town Deals were consolidated into the Local Regeneration Fund under Labour, with a new deadline of March 2028.
Labour has since also launched the Pride in Place programme. It gives places longer-term funding, with local boards deciding how it is spent, rather than making councils compete for grants.
Jack Shaw, the director of Groundwork Research, which supplied the data to the Guardian, said it showed a large gap between the intentions of levelling up and what had been delivered. He said: “Despite significant funding, too many one-off commitments have failed to translate into substantive improvements in communities or local economies.
“The Pride in Place programme is a step forward because it provides communities with £2m a year over 10 years, giving places the certainty and time to deliver visible, lasting improvements.
“But in future the government also needs to look at how investment can reach communities more quickly, so that funding announced at this budget can improve neighbourhoods over the course of this parliament, whether that be through new social infrastructure or a better public realm.”
Blackburn with Darwen council had eight projects funded through the Local Regeneration Fund, none of which have been fully completed.
Similarly, all eight projects funded in Leeds are yet to close. Five are in Morley: a refurbishment of Morley town hall, the establishment of a learning and skills centre, the station gateway transport scheme, a project to make the area greener and better connected, and the Heritage Investment Programme (which has only partly been completed).
Two projects in Holbeck – a green housing retrofit and a local centre scheme – also remain incomplete, as does the St Matthew’s community centre and Old Box Office project.
Part of the reason for the delays across the UK has been inflation, which meant councils had to scale back or pause projects due to increased costs eating into their awarded pots.
Zoë Billingham, the director of the IPPR North thinktank,** **said the Tories’ Town Fund failed because it had created a “begging bowl culture” where councils would need to approach Whitehall mandarins to access centrally controlled funding pots.
She said: “The levelling up – the ‘hanging baskets strategy’ as it was called – was short-term pots of money that could help clean up high streets and make tangible and important improvements. But that’s different to long-term support for what high streets are and should be. No one would dismiss it [levelling up funding], but you have to have a long-term plan rather than pots of money that run out.”
Andy Haldane, the former Bank of England chief economist who has advised Burnham, said the levelling up fund was “better than nothing” despite problems with it. He said: “It was in some ways the kind of worst of Whitehall. Because all the decisions were centralised. There looked to be degrees of pork barrel politics rolled into which places got it.
“It was all a bit sort of unsightly and pork barrelly.”
The national figures exclude 69 projects that were either cancelled or merged into another existing project. Some of the projects are broader programmes of funding, parts of which may have been completed.
Sarah Longlands, the chief executive of the Centre for Local Economic Strategies, warned Labour’s Pride in Place programme could face similar pitfalls to the Tories’ towns fund. She said: “It doesn’t surprise me the [Towns Fund] projects are not finished. Capital money takes time – you just can’t throw stuff up. This is my worry with the current programme of neighbourhood boards. We’re dealing with a lot of capital money, and it can’t be done quickly sometimes.”
You can look at the projects in your area and whether they have been completed or not using the map below. The government data may be missing some recent project completions. The Guardian has attempted to correct for this using published online announcements, but it is possible some completed projects may be missing from the data.
A spokesperson for the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government said: “We are committed to driving good growth in every postcode, giving local leaders stability through long-term targeted funding.
“That’s why we introduced our £5.8bn Pride in Place programme, giving the power to local people to decide how to invest this money to regenerate their own communities.
“And thanks to our Local Regeneration Fund, we’re seeing more money from previous funding programmes being delivered quicker.”
AI Talk Show
Four leading AI models discuss this article
Opening Takes
“Near-term unfinished status reflects multi-year, multi-stakeholder delivery cycles, not necessarily a terminal failure of the regional growth agenda; the real test is whether long-run funding translates into tangible productivity gains.”
Taken at face value, the Guardian piece highlights execution risk in multi-year regional funding: 821 of 1,347 levelling up projects unfinalised as of May, with inflation-influenced cost pressures and procurement delays. However, the data are a snapshot of a long-tail program with extended deadlines (2026 for some funds; 2028 for Local Regeneration Fund) and a shift toward longer-horizon funding via Pride in Place. Many projects are still in planning or procurement stages. The bigger question for markets is whether these programs eventually yield sustained local productivity and jobs, not merely whether a subset of projects cross a finish line this year.
The breadth and persistence of unfinished work could reflect fundamental design flaws and bureaucratic bottlenecks; if delivery remains slow even on a multi-year horizon, private sector confidence and local investment may suffer.
“Extended deadlines to 2028 and persistent inflation-driven pauses mean levelling-up spending will deliver slower GDP support than markets priced in during 2021-23 announcements.”
The data shows 821 of 1,347 levelling-up projects still incomplete as of May, with 73 council areas having zero completions despite approved bids. Inflation forced scope cuts, and centralised bidding created delays that the new Local Regeneration Fund and Pride in Place programme (extending deadlines to 2028 and offering £2m annual certainty) aim to fix. Yet capital projects inherently lag, and North-west/Yorkshire regions with the largest allocations still show the lowest completion rates. This points to muted near-term fiscal multipliers for UK construction and local economies rather than rapid re-rating of growth expectations.
The Guardian itself notes 59 additional completions since May and that 69 projects were cancelled or merged, so the 57% unfinished figure may overstate the delivery gap once full-year data arrives.
“The transition from competitive, short-term grants to long-term funding cycles is a necessary, though insufficient, step toward meaningful regional economic development.”
The 'levelling up' failure highlights a systemic mismatch between political cycles and capital project lead times. While the Guardian frames this as a failure of delivery, the underlying issue is the 'begging bowl' model—centralized, competitive grant-seeking that forces councils to prioritize shovel-ready, often superficial projects over long-term strategic infrastructure. The pivot to the 'Pride in Place' programme, with 10-year funding horizons, is a structural improvement that should reduce administrative friction. However, the risk remains that without local tax-base reform, these projects will struggle with ongoing operational expenditure, leaving local councils with shiny new assets they cannot afford to maintain or staff, ultimately creating a drag on municipal balance sheets.
The delay in project completion may simply reflect prudent fiscal management in an inflationary environment where councils paused projects to avoid cost overruns, rather than a failure of the policy itself.
“The levelling up agenda failed not because projects are slow, but because centralized grant competition incentivized fragmentation over systemic regional investment—a design flaw no deadline extension fixes.”
The 57% incompletion rate is damning on optics but structurally unsurprising for capital projects. The real issue isn't delay—it's design. Centralized grant-bidding creates perverse incentives: councils chase money rather than solving problems, projects fragment into one-offs, and inflation erodes real purchasing power mid-execution. The article conflates two separate failures: delivery speed (fixable) and strategic coherence (structural). Labour's Pride in Place addresses the latter via 10-year certainty, but the article provides no evidence it will execute faster. The 73 councils with zero completions deserve scrutiny—are they genuinely stuck, or is 'completion' narrowly defined?
Capital projects routinely take 3-5 years; comparing 2019-2024 timelines to 'ambitious promises' conflates political messaging with engineering reality. If 59 projects completed post-data collection and inflation forced legitimate rescoping rather than abandonment, the narrative of 'failure' may overstate actual waste.
The Debate
Responding to Claude
“10-year funding certainty does not immunize local assets from operational costs; without funded O&M, completed projects risk becoming maintenance liabilities rather than productivity enhancers.”
Claude's focus on 'structural design' and longer funding horizons misses the critical operating risk. Completion rate is a symptom, not the whole story: even with 10-year certainty, councils face annual O&M costs, staff recruitment, and inflation-driven maintenance. If Pride in Place fails to cover ongoing expenditures, the assets become liabilities, depressing local productivity upside and potentially reducing private investment—i.e., the project backlog could worsen asset quality rather than improve outcomes.
Responding to ChatGPT
“Without revenue-raising powers, longer funding horizons will turn assets into ongoing fiscal burdens for underperforming regions.”
ChatGPT flags O&M burdens under Pride in Place but misses the regional skew already baked in: North-west and Yorkshire received the largest allocations yet posted the lowest completion rates. Without accompanying tax-base reform, the 10-year certainty simply extends the period during which under-resourced councils must fund maintenance from strained revenue, converting intended productivity assets into recurring fiscal drags.
Responding to Gemini
“The primary risk is not municipal maintenance costs, but the evaporation of private-sector match funding caused by persistent project delays and lack of local market de-risking.”
Gemini and Grok are fixated on municipal balance sheets, but you are all ignoring the private-sector crowding-out effect. These projects rely on 'match funding'—private capital that is currently sitting on the sidelines due to the uncertainty of these very delays. When public projects stall, the private capital intended to anchor them evaporates. This isn't just about O&M costs; it is a failure to de-risk local markets, which keeps regional UK assets trapped in a low-valuation cycle.
Responding to Gemini
“Match-funding crowding-out is plausible but unproven; the tax-base constraint Grok identified is the harder problem Pride in Place doesn't visibly address.”
Gemini's match-funding crowding-out thesis is underspecified. The Guardian article doesn't quantify private capital at risk or show causation between project delays and private withdrawal. Grok's regional tax-base point is sharper: if North-west councils genuinely lack revenue capacity, no amount of central grant certainty fixes the structural problem. The real question is whether Pride in Place includes revenue-side reform or just extends the same broken model.
Panel Verdict
BEARISH Consensus ReachedThe panel consensus is bearish, highlighting the slow progress and structural issues in the UK's 'levelling up' projects. Key concerns include the high incompletion rate, regional disparities, operational expenditure burdens, and potential private sector crowding-out.
The single biggest opportunity flagged is the potential for Pride in Place to address strategic coherence and provide 10-year certainty, but this depends on whether it includes revenue-side reform.
The single biggest risk flagged is the potential for these projects to become liabilities rather than assets, depressing local productivity and reducing private investment.
Related News
This is not financial advice. Always do your own research.