Dr. Neha Sharma
Scientific Advisor (Independent)
Managing Director, Vedansh Ventures – A Unified Group of Companies
📧 Email: drnehasharma.uk@gmail.com
Abstract
This perspective highlights an evidence-informed critique of Leicester City Council’s proposed community asset transfers involving Belgrave Neighbourhood Centre, Rushey Mead Library, and Rushey Mead Recreation Centre. It highlights the lived consequences of displacing council-run services, including impacts on social inclusion, cultural wellbeing, and vulnerable populations, while reinforcing the ethical and systemic risks of the current approach.
Why This Matters
In early 2025, Leicester City Council announced plans to transfer several neighbourhood centres out of direct council control. The Belgrave and Rushey Mead centres—widely recognised as culturally rich, socially vital, and heavily used—are now set to become community-managed, volunteer-led, and partially digitized.
Though labelled as “not closing,” the removal of council-employed staff and essential programmes represents a functional withdrawal of core public services, especially for communities reliant on physical, face-to-face support.
Real Concerns: A Deeper Look
1. Undermining Culturally-Sensitive Services
Belgrave and Rushey Mead are deeply rooted in Leicester’s multicultural fabric, with significant South Asian, African-Caribbean, and Eastern European populations. Their neighbourhood centres go beyond functional space—they act as cultural anchors that host women-only fitness classes, language-specific services, community religious festivals, and intergenerational social events.
Research has consistently demonstrated that culturally tailored public services are linked to improved mental health, stronger feelings of belonging, and community resilience (What Works Centre for Wellbeing, 2022; BMJ Open, 2021). A government-commissioned valuation by Frontier Economics (2021) estimated that cultural participation contributes over £8 billion annually to national wellbeing. The withdrawal of such culturally sensitive offerings, even if not labeled as formal closures, directly erodes this value and undermines the health and cohesion of these communities.
2. Exclusion from Participatory Decision-Making
The consultation processes carried out by Leicester City Council have been widely reported as superficial and insufficiently accessible. Materials were provided only in English, and sessions were limited in time and scope. This stands in violation of the Equality Act 2010, which mandates proactive inclusion of protected groups and a thorough assessment of impact on community wellbeing (UK Parliament Equality Act Guidance, 2010).
Public participation in urban governance must be meaningful—not simply a tick-box exercise. Without multilingual formats, extended consultations, and targeted outreach, the restructuring risks becoming a top-down imposition rather than a collaborative redesign. Authentic community engagement, as outlined in public service reform literature (Lowndes & Pratchett, 2012), requires co-production and inclusive deliberation, neither of which have been adequately practiced in this case.
3. Digital and Language Barriers
National statistics show that approximately 4.7 million adults aged 65 and over in the UK face digital exclusion, with 2.3 million having never accessed the internet (Age UK, 2023; Lloyds Bank UK Consumer Digital Index, 2022). In ethnically diverse areas like Belgrave and Rushey Mead, digital and linguistic access gaps are even wider.
The council’s transition toward self-access and digital-first systems—while efficient on paper—excludes those who cannot navigate online systems, particularly elders, new migrants, and non-English speakers. Community centres offer a physical point of access where such groups receive in-person help, translation support, and emotional security. Removing this will not just reduce convenience—it will cut off critical lifelines for thousands.
4. Loss of Professional Staff and Governance Expertise
Professional staff play a vital role in safeguarding, programme delivery, cultural mediation, and operational continuity. Evidence from similar transitions shows that replacing paid, trained staff with volunteers leads to a reduction in service quality, safeguarding lapses, and inconsistent user experiences (The Guardian, 2023; Carents Policy Review, 2022).
For high-need neighbourhoods, especially those managing multiple risk factors (poverty, health inequality, migration stress), the presence of skilled workers is essential. A 2019 study by the Local Government Information Unit (LGiU) highlighted that volunteer-led models without formal oversight disproportionately failed within 18 months, largely due to burnout and inadequate infrastructure (LGiU, 2019).
5. Fragmented Governance and Increased Fragility
Since 2016, over 180 libraries and community centres in the UK have been transitioned to volunteer or charitable trust management. While some survived, many experienced severe setbacks—job losses, shorter opening hours, and reduced programming (The Guardian, 2024). Approximately 2,000 staff roles were lost, and in numerous cases, buildings fell into disrepair or were repurposed outside of public needs.
Research from Locality (2020) and the Third Sector Research Centre (TSRC, 2021) shows that the success of asset transfers depends heavily on pre-transfer planning, multi-year financial commitments, and technical support. In Leicester’s case, there is no public evidence of a strategic financial plan, risk assessment, or long-term viability structure, making the risk of failure high.
6. Threats to Social Inclusion and Dignity
Digitisation and volunteerism, when used as cost-saving substitutions rather than genuine enhancements, create systemic barriers. Age UK (2022) called the shift toward digital-only models “structurally ageist,” particularly disadvantaging those over 75 who often lack digital skills and equipment.
Moreover, these centres support intergenerational and interfaith activities—contributions that cannot be quantified solely in operational metrics. The ethical issue is not just what services are lost, but who is left out. Service design that deprioritises access for the most vulnerable fundamentally fails the public duty to uphold inclusion and dignity.
7. Ethical Concerns: Transparency and Consent
Perhaps most concerning is the communication strategy around the council’s plan. By framing these changes as “redefinitions” rather than “closures,” there has been an avoidance of the full implications—both practical and emotional. Ethical governance requires clarity, transparency, and informed consent.
Without a clear outline of what programmes will end, which staff will be retained or removed, how community groups will be supported, and how quality will be monitored, the council’s strategy falls short of ethical standards established in public sector leadership (Beetham, 2011; Institute for Government, 2020). It leaves both residents and community partners uncertain and unprepared.
Conclusion
The restructuring proposals affecting Belgrave and Rushey Mead represent more than administrative changes—they signal a potential unraveling of culturally rooted, community-anchored public services. While the council may not define these transitions as closures, the withdrawal of professional staffing, the shift to digital-only access, and insufficient community consultation collectively amount to a significant erosion of access, inclusion, and trust.
These neighbourhood centres have long served as lifelines for Leicester’s diverse communities—offering not just services, but safety, familiarity, language accessibility, and intergenerational belonging. The risks of fragmentation, exclusion, and operational failure are not theoretical; they are well-documented in recent UK asset transfer histories.
At stake is not merely a building or budget line—but the wellbeing, visibility, and rights of entire communities. The path forward lies not in abandonment masked as innovation, but in shared responsibility and evidence-led inclusion. Let this be a turning point toward truly equitable public service reform.
Acknowledgements
The author acknowledges the use of AI language assistance (ChatGPT, OpenAI, 2025) for language refinement, grammar improvement, and proofreading during the preparation of this manuscript. The AI model was not used for the generation of original scientific content or interpretation of findings. All substantive content, analysis, and conclusions are the sole responsibility of the author.
References
- Age UK. (2023). Digital Inclusion and Older People: Evidence Review. Retrieved from https://www.ageuk.org.uk/globalassets/age-uk/documents/reports-and-publications/reports-and-briefings/active-communities/digital-inclusion-review-2023.pdf
- Beetham, D. (2011). Ethical Standards in Public Life. Joseph Rowntree Foundation. Retrieved from https://www.jrf.org.uk/report/ethical-standards-public-life
- BMJ Open. (2021). Cultural engagement and mental health: A systematic review of the evidence. Retrieved from https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/11/7/e045882
- Frontier Economics. (2021). Valuing Culture and Heritage Capital: A Framework Towards Informing Decision Making. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/culture-and-heritage-capital-framework-2021
- Locality. (2020). Community Asset Transfer in Practice: Lessons from England. Retrieved from https://locality.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Community-Asset-Transfer-in-Practice-report-June2020.pdf
- Lowndes, V., & Pratchett, L. (2012). Local Governance and Public Participation: Normative Models and Empirical Evidence. Retrieved from https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/political-studies/article/abs/local-governance-and-public-participation/150BEF2F0A7A49D090F7275F294504E3
- LGiU. (2019). The Fragility of Volunteer-Led Public Services. Retrieved from https://lgiu.org/publication/the-fragility-of-volunteer-led-public-services/
- The Guardian. (2023). Library closures are gutting the UK’s community life. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/books/2023/feb/25/library-closures-uk-community-life
- Third Sector Research Centre. (2021). Asset Transfer and Community Resilience. Retrieved from https://www.birmingham.ac.uk/research/tsrc/publications/asset-transfer-and-resilience.aspx
- UK Parliament. (2010). Equality Act 2010: Statutory Guidance. Retrieved from https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/contents
- What Works Centre for Wellbeing. (2022). The Social Value of Community Culture: Evidence Review. Retrieved from https://whatworkswellbeing.org/resources/social-value-of-community-cultural-engagement/
How to Cite This Work
Sharma, N. (2025). Belgrave & Rushey Mead at Risk. Community Evidence Repository. Retrieved from Belgrave & Rushey Mead at Risk – Community Evidence Repository