The effects of a 40% cut in local authority spending

40 percent funding reduction would devastate local services and communities, councils warn
LGA media release 19 October 2015

“A further 40 per cent real terms reduction in local government grant funding in the Spending Review would deliver the £10.5 billion knock-out blow to cherished local services, the Local Government Association warns today.

Non-protected government departments have been ordered to draw up savings plans worth, in real terms, 25 and 40 per cent of their budgets ahead of the Spending Review on November 25, which will set out government spending plans for the next four years.

Analysis by the LGA, which represents more than 370 councils in England and Wales, reveals a 40 per cent real terms reduction to core central government funding would be worth £8.4 billion. The same cut to separate local government grants would see a further £2.1 billion lost from council budgets.

This would mean local government losing 64 per cent of its grant funding between 2010 and 2020.

In its Spending Review submission to the Treasury, the LGA has already predicted councils will face almost £10 billion in separate cost pressures, through government policies, inflation and demand, by 2020 even before another penny is taken out of council budgets.

Together with another 40 per cent reduction to funding from central government, this would leave councils facing £20 billion in funding cuts and increased cost pressures by the end of the decade. Local government leaders say this would devastate local services and communities.

To put those figures into context, annual council spending on individual services in 2013/14 include:

Bin collection and recycling – £3.3 billion;
Arts and leisure (libraries, leisure centres, museums) – £2 billion
Road maintenance – £1.3 billion;
Subsidised bus services and free travel for elderly and disabled – £1.7 billion
Street cleaning – £717 million;
Parks maintenance – £690 million;
Street lighting – £530 million
Trading standards, noise, environmental health – £480 million.

The LGA said even if councils stopped providing all of these vital services for their residents, it would still not be nearly enough to plug the potential £20 billion hole in their finances by the end of the decade.

Lord Porter, LGA Chairman, said:

“Councils are under no illusions about the challenge that lies ahead. We know we face almost £10 billion in cost pressures by 2020 even before the prospect of further challenging funding reductions over the next four years.

“What is clear is that another 40 per cent real terms reduction to local government grant funding on top of these cannot be an option on November 25.

“It is a false economy to reduce funding to local government while attempting to prop up other departments.

“Providing councils with fairer funding is the only way to avoid the unintended consequence of other parts of the public sector, such as the NHS, being left to pick up the financial pieces. When making its spending decisions government must consider the huge pressure funding reductions to councils would have not just on vital local services but on the public sector more widely.

“Councils have worked tirelessly to shield residents from the impact of the 40 per cent government funding reductions they have been handed since 2010. However, the resilience of local government services cannot be stretched much further.

“It would be our residents who would suffer as councils are no longer able to deliver some of their statutory duties, like street cleaning and providing the free bus travel that is a lifeline to our elderly and disabled.

“Closing every children’s centre in England would save £700 million but this would only be enough to plug the funding gap facing adult social care for one year. Councils could stop fixing the two million potholes they fill each year to save £600 million by 2020, but this would still not be enough to keep providing free bus travel to elderly and disabled residents.

“These are the difficult decisions councils will be forced to face. Many of the things people take for granted, like clean and well-lit streets, maintained parks and access to leisure centres, will become a thing of the past as a result.”

Additional information

Breakdown of local government core spending (figures in £000s and exclude expenditure on schools and housing benefit).

2013/14
Education
£4,249,676

Highways
£1,591,039

Public Transport
£1,850,344

Children’s Social Care
£6,914,607

Adult Social Care
£14,565,464

Housing
£2,003,473

Cultural Services
£2,708,616

Waste Management
£3,324,260

Other Environmental Services
£798,707

Regulatory Services
£888,334

Planning and Development
£1,262,183

Central services
£2,618,551

All other services, capital financing and other costs
£4,693,501

Public Health
£2,507,832

Total net expenditure
£49,976,587″

http://www.local.gov.uk/web/guest/media-releases/-/journal_content/56/10180/7534443/NEWS#sthash.NUWHvIN4.dpuf

Lords asked to block Conservative plans to disenfranchise up to 1.9 million voters

Tory plans to wipe 1.9m names off the electoral register are set to be blocked by a House of Lords revolt, following advice from Britain’s voting watchdog. Liberal Democrat and Labour peers are poised to vote to halt Government plans to slash the electoral roll ahead of next May’s elections for local councils, the Scottish Parliament and London Mayor.

Despite warnings from the Electoral Commission about the dangers of disenfranchising legitimate voters, ministers believe many of the names are bogus and have speeded up by 12 months plans to “modernise” the system with individual registration. The independent watchdog has now issued a briefing note urging peers to vote against the Government next Tuesday, in what will be the second crunch clash between the Commons and the Lords, after the row over tax credits cuts.

The note, seen by The HuffPost UK, states that acting before the outcome of its annual canvass of voters before the outcome of “means the Government has acted without reliable information on how many redundant entries will be removed at the end of this year and how many eligible electors will need to re-register ahead of May 2016.”

“Taking into account…the scale and importance of the polls scheduled for next May, we continue to recommend that the end of transition should take place in December 2016 as currently specified in legislation” It concludes: “We therefore recommend that Parliament does not approve this order.”

HuffPost UK understands that both Labour and the Lib Dems will order a three-line whip to ‘annul’ the Tory statutory instrument on the changes – and with an in-built anti-Tory majority they are set to win the day.

Labour’s Lord Kennedy has today tabled an amendment to Lib Dem peer Lord Tyler’s motion to annul the legislation, “on the grounds that it goes against the advice of the Electoral Commission”. In his Labour conference speech last month Jeremy Corbyn warned: “We know why the Tories are doing it. They want to gerrymander next year’s Mayoral election in London by denying hundreds of thousands of Londoners their right to vote.”

The new Individual Electoral Registration (IER) process will particularly affect those in rented accommodation and urban areas, who are less likely to register, and students, because universities and colleges no longer ‘block register’ students living in halls of residence.

Campaign groups have complained that in areas such as Hackney in London, one in four voters could lose their rights to be on the electoral roll. But writing for Huff Post UK, Cabinet Office minister John Penrose said that the changes would bring Britain into line with ‘every other serious democracy in the world’.

In its briefing note, the Electoral Commission makes clear that it would be wiser to stick to original plans to complete the reforms by December 2016 rather than December 2015. “The earlier timetable puts the greater onus on electors as they will need to take action in order to ensure they are able to remain registered and participate in the May 2016 polls,” it says.”By contrast, the later timetable puts the greater responsibility on EROs (Electoral Registration Officers) to identify and take steps to remove redundant or inaccurate entries.”

Ministers usually accept the advice of the independent watchdog and in September decided to fully adopt its recommendations to change the question in the EU referendum.

Source: Huffington Post UK online, today

Exmouth Save our Seafront Spotlight item

The protest at Full Council by Save Our Seafront campaigners, was aired on Spotlight tv yesterday, on the morning and the evening news.

See:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b06j6pdv/spotlight-22102015

from 12:45-12:53.

How developers should smooch local authorities

A couple of solicitors writing on the “Local Government Lawyer” website give advice to developers on how to get the best out of their dealings with local authorities. Here are a couple of paragraphs of their article:

“… Huge cuts in public sector funding means that councils are looking to engage ever more in property development to generate place-shaping, capital receipts or longer term income streams. If developers know how to engage properly with councils, understand what makes them tick and talk the right language then great (and profitable) things can be achieved. Conversely, far too many developers shoot themselves in the foot both reputationally and financially and miss out on deals with the public sector because they just don’t know how to put it together. …

… Councils are a lot more innovative and willing to explore collaborative arrangements with developers than developers often realise. Not every council is going to have the right approach and, indeed, councils need to improve and continue to develop their own commerciality and freedom of thought. For the most part, however, in our experience they are open to listening to and engaging with developers who have something different say and an attitude which chimes with that of the council. Whether it is at the soft market testing stage or during the procurement it is worth exploring the options. …”

http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=24829:a-question-of-place&catid=58&Itemid=26

Devon one of worst places to live for quality of life

Worst places to live:

Bradford
Kingston Upon Hull
North of Northern Ireland
Eilean Siar (Western Isles)
West & South of Northern Ireland
Blackpool
Devon
Central Valleys
East of Northern Ireland
South Teesside

Devon came in at 132 out of 138, a drop of 46 places from last year.

“The uSwitch.com study assessed 138 local areas (NUTS3 regions) for 26 factors such as salaries, disposable household income, and the cost of essential goods including food bills, fuel costs and energy bills. The study also factored in lifestyle issues like hours of sunshine, working hours and life expectancy to ensure a full picture of the quality of life in each NUTS3 region.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/retailandconsumer/leisure/11948329/The-best-and-worst-places-to-live-in-the-UK-ranked-by-quality-of-life.html