Danger of Exmouth’s “temporary” attractions

Letter in Exmouth Journal:

“There is very important meeting at the Town Hall on Tuesday 6th March at 10 am.

The future of Queens Drive is at stake. Do not be deceived by the description that the planning application is for 12 months only and is “temporary”.

Our Town Council has been bullied and harassed by EDDC paid officials and members of the Regeneration team to try and force this through using the threat of dereliction if they don’t get their way.

This plan reduces the play and recreation of this area to about a quarter. The bulk of the site is to be cheap food outlets and a big screen and spurious as yet unnamed and untested events. To this end to also force the issue EDDC has signed a contract for some play equipment and hired an events manager without consulting our elected representatives.

This area up to now has been protected by the Masterplan for Play and Recreation. Even in the wonderful, could now say fantastical, plans in Reserved Matters last year there is a huge area put aside for water play and other recreational activities. All this can now be lost forever if this so called “temporary attractions“ application goes through in its current form.

If you care about our Seafront, send someone to this meeting. We must stand up to bullying. We must stand up for democracy and above all we must continue to stand up for our lovely Seafront.

Sally Galsworthy, Exmouth”

The business rate retention scam

“Allowing English councils to retain more of their business rates revenue could lead to damaging shortfalls in funding and drive divisions between different areas, the Institute for Fiscal Studies has warned.

Councils that enjoy the biggest increases in such revenues are unlikely to be those with the biggest spending needs, the think tank said. Levelling the playing field by redistributing the money would address regional disparities but would undermine the goal of encouraging councils to use business rates to boost regional growth.

The government turned the business rates system on its head in 2013 as part of its devolution strategy, when local authorities were allowed to keep half of any real-term growth in revenues or bear half of any real-term fall. Until then, business rates were pooled by central government and distributed back to local authorities as grants.

Five years ago, the ambition was for councils to keep 100 per cent of the change from 2019. That has been revised down to 75 per cent from 2020. The idea was to give local authorities an incentive to boost their revenues and local economies by increasing commercial property development or by cutting rates to attract more business.

The IFS said that the plan may backfire and “lead to divergences in English councils’ funding without promoting growth”. Its analysis of councils’ revenues and spending since 2006 showed that the policy may be flawed.

“The report shows that significant divergences could arise in just a few years under 100 per cent rates retention,” the IFS said. “This is because those councils, which would have seen the biggest increases in their retained business rates revenues, were often not the councils that experienced the biggest increases in their relative spending needs, for example, because their population became older, poorer or sicker.

“It is also not clear that the incentives provided by rates retention will translate into faster economic growth. The report finds no relationship between changes in the councils’ business rates tax bases and local economic growth, or indeed employment or earnings growth, in recent years.”

David Phillips, associate director at the IFS, said: “Areas seeing lots of new developments aren’t guaranteed strong economic growth. And growth doesn’t necessarily rely on large-scale property development.”

Source: The Times (pay wall)

So, how is the “Misconduct in Public Office” consultation going?

Here’s the current state of play:

Click to access cp229_misconduct_in_public_office_summary.pdf

Here’s a summary:

Click to access cp229_misconduct_in_public_office_summary.pdf

Owl says: chances of reform – zero. Why: there is no will for change from a government that has too much to lose from such reforms!

Millenium baby boom coincides with school funding cuts in recipe for disaster

“… A baby boom in the 2000s created a “population bulge”.

Primary schools have been feeling the effects of this for years. Now, secondary applications are beginning to rise as children born during this population boom move up through the school system. …

… The increase in demand for school places has meant fewer pupils across England are being offered their first or any of their top choice schools – last year the proportion (83.5%) was the lowest since 2010. And more are being offered a school that they didn’t choose at all. …”

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-43216483

Privatisation: the Carillion Comedy Show!

This sounds like the sort of “comedy” Ricky Gervais might write! Except that these people were being paid hundreds of thousands if pounds while bringing the company to its knees.

“Carillion’s former chairman Philip Green had only a “tenuous grasp” on the crisis in the construction firm’s finances, and was working towards an “upbeat announcement” to the City just five days before unveiling a £845m writedown, board minutes of the collapsed group reveal.

The board also rejected advice from its brokers that the company would be unable to raise emergency funds, describing their pessimistic view as “not credible” and then hiring alternative advisers.

The details are contained within the company’s board minutes, which were released on Wednesday by a joint select committee investigating the construction group’s collapse in January.

The business, energy and industrial strategy (BEIS) committee, along with the work and pensions committee, have been publishing extracts of the official Carillion corporate record each day this week.

Frank Field, the chair of the work and pensions committee, said: “Carillion’s chair appeared to lack even a tenuous grasp on the reality of the company’s situation. Five days before the profit warning that heralded the firm’s public spiral into insolvency, Philip Green stands like the mayor of Pompeii – smoke billowing from the volcano behind him, lava cascading down the slopes – trumpeting the forthcoming revelries of the village fete. It is difficult to believe the chairman of the company was unaware of its position, but equally difficult to comprehend his assessment if he was.”

Rachel Reeves MP, the chair of the BEIS committee, added: “Philip Green’s assessment of Carillion as ‘a compelling and attractive proposition’ shows either a woeful lack of leadership or no grip on reality.”

The minutes of the board meeting of 5 July 2017 record Green, who had been chairman since 2014, stating that the company should continue to work “toward a positive and upbeat announcement for Monday [10 July], focusing on the strength of the business as a compelling and attractive proposition, and mentioning the self-help and disposal position”. Five days later, Carillion announced the £845m profit warning that marked the beginning of the company’s death spiral.

The meeting was also partly attended by Peter Moorhouse of the investment bank Morgan Stanley, which was an adviser to Carillion. He told the meeting that the bank was “not able to underwrite the proposed equity issue” and had withdrawn as sponsors.

The Carillion directors rejected his view, the minutes show, concluding that it had “discussed the rationale given by Mr Moorhouse, reflecting that it was not credible”.

Green did not return phone calls.”

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/mar/01/carillion-chair-planned-upbeat-message-before-845m-writedown

“Parish [council] wins permission for judicial review over decision under delegated authority”

“A parish council has been granted permission to apply for judicial review in their challenge to a grant of planning permission by a district council under purported exercise of delegated authority, barristers’ chambers Francis Taylor Building (FTB) has reported.

FTB, whose Meyric Lewis is acting for Newton Longville Parish Council, said members at Aylesbury Vale District Council had resolved to grant planning permission for residential development “delegated to officers… subject to such conditions as are considered appropriate and to include a condition requiring that a reserved matters application be made within 18 months of the date of permission and that any permission arising from that application be implemented within 18 months”.

The set said that in exercising their delegated authority, officers took the view that there was insufficient justification for shortening the period for applying for reserved matters and for requiring implementation within 18 months. “But that matter was neither raised with members nor addressed in the delegated report published by the Council.”
FTB added that in committee, members had wished to impose these short timeframes “because they were concerned about the length of time that the site had remained undeveloped notwithstanding the existence of planning permission granted in 2007 and then renewed in 2011 and so they wished to encourage the building out of the site more swiftly than if longer timeframes were allowed”.

The set said permission to apply for judicial review had been granted by the High Court on the ground that the decision went beyond the terms of the delegated authority because it conflicted with the confined terms of the members’ resolution.

Permission was also granted on a ground concerning the related section 106 agreement and in respect of officers’ failure to provide adequate reasons, as required by under reg. 7 of the Openness of Local Government Bodies Regulations 2014, in that they did not address the matters relied on as justifying a departure from the terms of the members’ resolution in the delegated report.

The parish council has made representations based on the terms of the judge’s grant of permission to see if a full hearing can be avoided, FTB said.

Meyric Lewis is instructed by Bob McGeady of Ashtons KCJ.”

http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php

New coastal communities fund open

“A further bidding round has opened for the government’s fund to promote regeneration and economic growth in coastal towns.

Successful projects in round 5 of the Coastal Communities Fund will share £40m among them. The money will be available to spend from April 2019 to March 2021.

The fund has allocated £174m to 295 projects since it began in 2012. It is for projects over £50,000 that will directly or indirectly lead to safeguarding and creating sustainable jobs.

Communities minister Jake Berry said: “Coastal communities up and down the country from Barrow-in-Furness to Brighton have been boosted by this funding which has spurred inward investment, sustainable growth, new jobs and exciting economic opportunities for local businesses.”

The fund has generated £8 for coastal area economies for every £1 invested, the minister said.

Successful projects have included a £1.95m grant to Cornwall to repair and re-launch the Grade II Listed Art Deco Jubilee Pool in Penzance as a year-round visitor attraction, a £2m allocation for Blackpool’s Lightpool project to improve its seafront Illuminations and Northumberland’s £1.8m award to turn Amble into a destination for devotees of seafood. …”
http://www.publicfinance.co.uk/news/2018/02/coastal-communities-benefit-ps40m

Swire’s questions

Swire has put in another Parliamentary question about East Devon – this time saying wouldn’t it be a great idea if tourism could attract less VAT.

However, Owl isn’t printing it. It’s been asked before, appreciative noises made and, of course, nothing changed.

So why isn’t Owl more positive about Swire’s bid to help the East Devon economy?

Well, it’s coming up to local election time (though not in East Devon this year, the closest being Exeter) and ALL Tory MPs are (coincidentally, of course) popping up all over the country asking similarly closely-targeted questions in THEIR constituencies …..

Next question?

“Tory ministers decide not to spend £72 million set aside for affordable homes despite housing crisis The money will now be spent on building houses for sale worth up to £600,000”

“Tory ministers decided not to spend £72 million set aside to build affordable homes because it was “no longer required”, despite the housing crisis gripping Britain.

Communities Secretary Sajid Javid was forced to “surrender” the cash and send it back to the treasury, as part of £817 million his department failed to spend last year.

Some 115 million people are on council waiting lists in England, almost a quarter of whom are in London.

But a government memo, explaining the department’s underspend to the Treasury, states: “Part of the funding allocation for the Affordable Housing programme has not been required in 2017/18.”

The document also notes that the £817 million figure – much of which would have been intended for social or affordable homes – will now be spent on funding the Help to Buy programme.

In 2016-17, just 41,530 affordable homes were built, the second lowest figure for a decade.

The majority of affordable homes are so-called ‘affordable rent’, where the monthly rent is set at up to 80% of private market rent.

The number of cheaper, “social rent” houses built each year has plummeted from 39,560 in 2010-11 – the year the new “affordable rent” definition was introduced – to just 5,380 last year.

Labour’s Shadow Housing Secretary, John Healey said: “Feeble ministers are selling families short by surrendering much-needed cash for new homes.

“If the Secretary of State can’t defend his Department’s Budget from the Treasury he should give the job to someone who can.”

A DCLG spokesperson said: “We are delivering the homes our country needs and since 2010 we have built over 357,000 new affordable properties.

“But we are determined to do more and we are investing a further £9bn, including £2bn to help councils and housing associations build social rent homes where they are most needed.”

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/tory-ministers-decide-not-spend-12098770

“The plan to cut MPs looks suspiciously like a power grab”

“Are we witnessing a power grab?

Six months ago, reports suggested that the Prime Minister had dropped plans to force through a cut in MPs, a cut linked with the ongoing review of constituency boundaries.

It turns out there has been a u-turn on the u-turn, with news emerging that the PM is set to reduce the number of MPs.

That’s despite the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee warning that moves to cut numbers to 600 are unlikely to secure the backing of MPs.

But why the fuss?

The issue comes down to a very ill-thought plan for new constituencies – alongside some clear democratic dangers when it comes to reducing voters’ representation.

The cut in MPs actually represents a cut in backbenchers if there are no plans to cap/cut the size of the executive or ‘payroll vote’ correspondingly.

Parliament will gain more powers after Brexit yet will have less capacity to scrutinise legislation. At the same time voters lose their representatives in Europe. That places a greater burden on the Commons and a lack of capacity poses significant risks.

The democratic dangers are clear. ERS research in 2016 showed that in a smaller, 600-seat Commons, nearly one in four (23%) MPs would be on the government payroll if the parties’ proportion of MPs – and the total number of ministers and whips – stayed the same – an all-time high, and up from the 21% at present (figures as of November 2016).

The more you look at it, the more cutting backbenchers at the same as bolstering the executive looks to many like a worrying power-grab.

But there’s another factor – the unelected Lords. It’s just common sense that the cut in democratically elected representatives cannot go ahead while the House of Lords remains the second largest chamber in the world, with around 800 members.

If the government are concerned about reducing the cost of politics, they would do well to deal with the over-sized second chamber.

Voters need real representation in the Commons to provide the essential scrutiny and capacity we need: both for now and when we gain new powers after Brexit.

But there are problems with the boundary changes regardless of the cut in MPs. For a start, the new boundaries will be based on highly incomplete as well as out of date data. For example, people who registered to vote for the EU referendum won’t be counted for the new boundaries – skewing representation.

At the same time, the government has set an arbitrary 5% maximum difference in the size of the new constituencies. That risks awkwardly splitting up communities or grafting very different towns/counties onto each other – just look at the controversial Devonwall proposals.

Finally, unregistered but eligible voters are not being considered when drawing up these constituency boundaries – even though they will still need support and representation from their MP. This disadvantages poorer constituencies – they end up with lower representation, often despite greater need.

Far from reducing political representation and weakening voters’ voices, the Prime Minister should cancel the proposed cut in MPs – and move forward with fair boundaries based on a properly resourced Commons.

Read the ERS’ full views on the boundary changes here:

https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/campaigns/upgrading-our-democracy/fair-boundaries/ and here https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/cutting-the-number-of-mps-will-have-consequences-lets-get-this-right/

Privatisation: National Audit Office calls out academy schools

“The National Audit Office has issued a report questioning the Department for Education’s ability to continue converting large numbers of maintained schools to academies.
The watchdog said that the DfE was “taking longer than intended to convert a sizeable proportion of the underperforming schools it believes will benefit most from academy status”.

At January 2018 the Department had converted 6,996 maintained schools to academies. The process has cost it an estimated £745m since 2010-11, of which £81m was spent in 2016-17.

The NAO report – Converting maintained schools to academies – highlighted how a much higher proportion of secondary schools than primary schools were academies. Some 72% of secondary schools, including free schools, were academies compared with 27% of primary schools.

“This leaves local authorities with responsibility for most primary schools and specialist providers, but few secondary schools. In areas where a high proportion of secondary schools are academies, it is more difficult for local authorities to take an integrated, whole-system approach to the education of children in their area,” the NAO warned.

The watchdog also found significant geographical variation in the proportion of schools that were now academies. This varied across England, from 93% in Bromley to 6% in Lancashire, Lewisham and North Tyneside. There were 23 local authorities (15%) that had 150 or more maintained schools, while 55 local authorities (37%) had fewer than 50 maintained schools, it said.

The report also found that:

Almost two-thirds of schools rated as inadequate by Ofsted and directed to convert, with the support of a sponsor, took longer than the nine months the DfE says it should take to open as academies. The NAO estimated that, at January 2018, there were 37,000 children in maintained schools that Ofsted had rated as inadequate more than nine months before but that had not yet opened as academies.

The Department had found it difficult to find sponsors for some of the most challenged schools. “In particular, small, sometimes remote, primary schools can find it challenging to attract local sponsors and integrate into multi-academy trusts.” There were 242 sponsored academies that were more than 50 miles from their sponsor. …”

http://www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=34335%3Awatchdog-doubts-ability-of-dfe-to-pursue-large-numbers-of-academy-conversions&catid=54&Itemid=22

Two unitary councils for Dorset: whither Devon?

With permission now granted for Dorset to move from nine regional authorities to two unitaries, politicians across Dorset are hailing it as the way forward to cope with continued austerity and income losses.

Which begs the question: if unitisation is so good, why are we stuck with a myriad of district and city councils in Devon?

Is Dorset right or wrong? Should we be following their lead? Are we following their lead in secret?

Or is our Local Enterprise Partnership Joint Committee our de-facto unelected, unaccountable, unscrutinised unitary authority already – with heavily-weighted Somerset taking the majority of its funds?

http://www.midweekherald.co.uk/news/go-ahead-for-two-unitary-councils-for-dorset-1-5410515

The swamp, the sleaze … coming to a government very near you

“The vetting process by which Toby Young was appointed to the board of the new higher education regulator was flawed and rife with political interference, according to the results of an investigation by an official watchdog.

The commissioner for public appointments’ report castigates the Department for Education (DfE) and regulator the Office for Students (OfS) for failing to delve into Young’s controversial writings and social media postings, and uncovers a high degree of direct meddling by ministers and No 10 Downing Street.

The commissioner concludes that the OfS’s board appointments, including Young, showed a “clear disparity” in the treatment of different candidates, and that parts of the process “had serious shortcomings in terms of the fairness and transparency aspects” under the code governing public appointments.

The report reveals Jo Johnson, who was then the universities minister, contacted Young about applying for the post and that his nomination was later queried by Justine Greening, the education secretary at the time.

The commissioner also detailed the involvement of Downing Street special advisers in blocking nominees for the “student experience” role on the OfS board, who were blacklisted because of previous involvement with student unions and their expressed opposition to the government’s Prevent counter-extremism programme.

“The evidence presented to the commissioner indicates that the decision on whether or not to appoint one candidate in particular was heavily influenced, not by the panel but by special advisers, notably from 10 Downing Street,” the report concluded.

Emails and memos “show that there had been a desire amongst ministers and special advisers not to appoint someone with close links to student unions, such as the National Union of Students”.

Young’s appointment was announced by the DfE at midnight on New Year’s Eve, when the powerful new higher education regulator was formally launched.

Young’s inclusion on the board immediately attracted sustained public controversy, with critics highlighting Young’s Twitter account, containing salacious and crude comments about women, and Young’s writing in support of what he dubbed “progressive eugenics”. Eight days later Young announced he would withdraw.

The commissioner found that while the DfE said it conducted online vetting of the candidates, “by its own admission, it did not delve back extensively into social media so it was not aware of the tweets by Mr Young”. The report adds: “However, the social media activity of the initially preferred candidate for the student experience role was extensively examined.”

The commissioner also revealed that departmental emails referred to “No 10 Googlers” in highlighting social media comments by the student candidates. “Notably, no such exploration or research was made on other possible appointees, including Mr Young,” the report states.

“Mr Young’s reputation as a controversialist, in itself hardly a secret, should have prompted further probing to examine whether what he had said and done might conflict with his public responsibilities and standards expected on the OfS board.

“Second, the rapid disclosure of what were described as offensive tweets in the days after his appointment suggests that it was not that hard to find them, that not much delving was required,” the report added.

The OfS and its chair, Sir Michael Barber, also came in for criticism for their part in the proceedings. Barber sat on the appointments panel, alongside two DfE officials. “Regrettably, and contrary to best practice, the panel for the generic non-executive roles was all male,” the commissioner noted.

The report also details the DfE’s repeated efforts to minimise or delay requests for information about the appointment process from the commissioner’s office.

Peter Riddell, the commissioner for public appointments , said: “My investigation uncovered a number of areas where important principles in the governance code were breached or compromised in the appointments to the board of the Office for Students.

“In my experience, this episode is unrepresentative of the hundreds of public appointments that take place each year, but it is important that lessons are learned – not least so that talented people from a wide range of backgrounds are willing to put themselves forward to serve on the boards of public bodies.”

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/feb/26/no-10-advisers-meddled-in-toby-young-getting-ofs-role-finds-report

What happens when developers pay planners for pre-planning “advice”?

Guardian letters today. We also have this “premium service” – our prices go from £150 (inc VAT) to £900:

Click to access pre-app-charging-schedule-jan-2017.pdf

The letter:

“Further to Simon Jenkins’ article (Wine and dine democracy is now on trial – and about time, 23 February), there is another facet of this situation. Milton Keynes council now offers its residents and prospective developers the possibility of a premium planning service. If we wish to ease the planning and development process we can peruse the biographies of its planning staff on the council website and pick a suitable one. Prices on the site range from £150 to £7,500 plus VAT. The council is “dedicated to building relationships with our customers and therefore have found that some Applicants and Agents like to have the continuity of working with specific Planning Officers”.

This may work very well in some cases by improving planning efficiency, but where is the oversight if Milton Keynes residents find that neighbourhood plans are ignored? The ethos of our initially well-planned town is disappearing while developers who ignore the unique character of the place are helped to get planning permission by a planning authority that has enjoyed a close, paid-for relationship with them.

No doubt the planners show impeccable integrity but, if there is insufficient oversight, the temptations must be there.
Gill Boothy
Milton Keynes, Buckinghamshire”

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/feb/26/the-dangers-of-paid-access-to-council-planning-officers

No vote allowed on May’s “cash for votes” for DUP

“Theresa May will hand out the £1bn in her “cash for votes” deal with the Democratic Unionist Party without MPs’ prior approval, The Independent can reveal, putting the Government at risk of legal action.

The Commons will only vote after slices of the funds have been allocated to Northern Ireland, and will be denied a single vote on the overall £1bn – despite the Government conceding last year that Parliament’s “authorisation” is needed.

The decision has been condemned for leaving MPs “cut out of approving the deal”, which gives Northern Ireland a huge spending boost in return for Ms May being propped up in power.” …

“South West ‘could suffer more than other regions’ after Brexit”

Good luck with that doubling of productivity, Local Enterprise Partnership! (see post below)

“The South West could be hit harder than other parts of England when the UK leaves the EU, according to panel members at a one-off Brexit discussion convened by CIPFA in Bristol.

High numbers of EU workers could be lost from industries in the region, which must get better at ‘fighting its own corner’, attendees at the event on Friday last week heard.

Kate Kennally, chief executive of Cornwall Council, pointed out the South West had a growing number of tech start-ups but it was not good at promoting its own industries.

“We have a big part of the UK that doesn’t have a big voice,” she said.

She added Cornwall voted leave because of “a sense of profound insecurities about public services” and that “this could be a moment where there needs to be a good deal of bravery”.

Kennally also pointed out: “Exeter, Bristol, Plymouth are the cities most reliant on exporting to the EU.”

Nigel Costley, regional secretary of the trade union federation the TUC, said: “I don’t think we are well equipped to respond to [Brexit].

“I fear we are going to be the losers in the South West. I do not see us fighting our corner very well. …”

http://www.publicfinance.co.uk/news/2018/02/south-west-could-suffer-more-other-regions-after-brexit

Our LEP expects our productivity to double – something never done anywhere else in the UK!

“… The Productivity Strategy aims to double productivity in the area over 20 years, focussing on themes including leadership, housing, connectivity, infrastructure, skills and training. It looks at growth, capitalising on the area’s distinctive assets and maximising the potential of digital technology.

Cllr Fothergill said: “We can do some of this ourselves but some aspects will need the support from Government which is why the Joint Committee is so important. …”

https://www.devonlive.com/news/devon-news/south-west-aims-double-productivity-1265805

Right! So, that’s ok then – the government will achieve something here they can’t achieve anywhere else!!!

Last legs for Thelma Hulbert gallery?

Owl says: The gallery, in Honiton, has swallowed up around £500,000 of our council tax money over the last few years. Could The Beehive (also a gobbler of funds in the past) perhaps house the gallery’s art and activities?

Or, here’s a thought: display it in the new £10 million HQ currently under construction in Honiton!

“Unprecedented increases in council tax starting in April will not offset cuts to services including children’s centres and libraries, local authorities have warned.

The Local Government Association (LGA) said councils in England would raise an estimated £1.1bn through higher council taxes in 2017-18, but this would not cover the £1.4bn lost through cuts to central government funding plus the higher wage bill of £1bn.

Nearly half of English councils with responsibility for providing social care for adults and children will increase council tax by the maximum 5.99% allowed – 2.99% for general council tax plus a further levy of up to 3% to pay for the care of older and disabled adults – but this will not prevent further cuts to services, according to the LGA.

Councils will continue to reduce or close services such as children’s centres, libraries, leisure centres, parks, museums and road repairs to plug growing gaps in adult and children’s social care and homelessness services, it says.

The widespread emergence of what some councillors have dubbed “pay more, get less” budget settlements comes as town halls struggle to balance the books after years of cuts in core government funding.

Northamptonshire county council effectively declared itself bankrupt earlier this month after admitting that rising costs and shrinking income made it unable to set a legal budget.

The council must set out revised plans for cuts at a meeting this week after an auditors report warned that its existing proposed budget plans were “not credibly achievable”.

Northamptonshire’s predicament highlights how councils are increasingly reliant on one-off measures such as dipping into reserves, or selling buildings and land, to meet the spiralling cost of social care. Those pressures are being compounded in some cases by the failure to deliver savings with existing cuts.

The LGA said 147 of the 152 English authorities that provide social care services would levy a 3% council tax precept from April to raise extra cash for the care of older and disabled adults. Although this will raise an extra £548m, it will be wiped out by the cost of meeting the national minimum wage.

These councils face additional costs estimated to be at least £400m over the next 12 months as result of a legal judgement that requires care employers to pay the minimum wage to carers working sleep-in shifts, backdated for six years.

Out of the 152 “social care” authorities, 108 also plan to increase general council tax by between 2.95% and the maximum 2.99% allowed. This will raise an estimated £548m. Five councils have said they will freeze council tax for 2018-19. …

… A spokesman for the Department of Housing, Communities and Local Government said: “As part of our finance settlement, we are delivering a real-terms increase in resources to councils over the next two years, more freedom and fairness, and greater certainty to plan and secure value for money.

“We want to work with local government to develop a new funding system for the future and encourage councils to submit responses to the review currently under way.”

England’s councils have experienced a 40% cut in central government funding since the start of the decade and face a £5bn funding gap by 2020.

The Local Government Information Unit thinktank warned this month that many English local authorities were teetering on the edge of financial crisis.”

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/feb/26/council-tax-hikes-will-not-stop-cuts-to-local-services-authorities-warn

“Extra council tax income in 2018/19 will not protect under-pressure local services”

“Communities across the country will see many of their local services face further reductions this year despite paying more council tax, the Local Government Association warns today. …

With local government facing an overall funding gap that will exceed £5 billion by 2020, the LGA is warning these council tax rises will not prevent the need for continued cutbacks to all local services this year. Councils will also have to continue to divert ever-dwindling resources from other local services, including filling potholes, maintaining our parks and green spaces and running children’s centres, leisure centres and libraries, to try and plug growing funding gaps in adult social care, children’s services and homelessness support.

The LGA said the Government needs to urgently address the growing funding gaps facing local services and provide the financial sustainability and certainty needed to protect the local services our communities rely on by committing to allow local government as a whole to keep every penny of business rates collected.

LGA Chairman Lord Porter said

“Since 2010, council tax bills have risen by less than inflation and other key household bills. But faced with severe funding pressures, many councils feel they are being left with little choice but to ask residents to pay more to help them try and protect their local services.

“The extra income this year will help offset some of the financial pressures they face but the reality is that many councils are now beyond the point where council tax income can be expected to plug the growing funding gaps they face. Extra social care funding will be wiped out by the significant cost pressures of paying for the Government’s National Living Wage and extra general council tax income will only replace a third of the central government funding they will lose this year.

“This means councils will have to continue to cutback services or stop some altogether to plug funding gaps.

“We have repeatedly warned of the serious consequences of funding pressures facing services caring for the elderly and disabled, protecting children and tackling homelessness for the people that rely on them and the financial sustainability of other services councils provide. It is unfair to shift the burden of tackling a national crisis onto councils and their residents.

“The need for adequate funding for local government is urgent. To maximise the potential of local government and protect local services from further cuts, funding gaps must be properly addressed and local government as a whole must be allowed to keep all of the business rates it collects locally each year to put it on a sustainable footing.”

https://www.local.gov.uk/about/news/extra-council-tax-income-201819-will-not-protect-under-pressure-local-services