09 Nov 2024
There remains a great deal of uncertainty surround the new Government’s support of local councils, despite promises in the Autumn Statement.
SADC leader Cllr Paul de Kort said he is still waiting for the details of many of the announcements before he can say whether the council will be better off as a consequence of Rachel Reeves’ first Budget.
One of her key promises was that local government could see its core spending power increased by around 3.2 per cent in real terms in 2025-26, with £1.3 billion of new grant funding including at least £600 million in new grant funding for social care.
But Paul is reluctant to say whether these measures go far enough.
“The simple answer is we do not know, as there is no guidance as to how this extra spending power will be allocated between, for example, counties and districts.
“There is also considerable confusion over how the additional NI employers’ contributions will be supported and to what extent. This alone could eat heavily into the quoted increase.
“There also seems to have been a greater recognition of the pressures on counties in terms of social care and SEND spending than those on districts, such as temporary accommodation costs and planning fees that remain held below the cost of the provision.”
The Chancellor has also promised to reform the approach to funding allocations within the Local Government Finance Settlement by redistributing funding to ensure it reflects an up-to-date assessment of need and local revenues.
Paul said he would like this to include longer-term commitments to allow for proper budget planning, rather than the current situation where it is an annual announcement from the Government.
“There must be multi-year settlements that remove this financial uncertainty which forces inefficient decision making.
“All statutory obligations that are demand-driven, for example temporary accommodation costs, should be fully covered by national government support that reacts quickly to pressure changes.”
The Government has also pledged to implement legislative changes to ensure a simplified and streamlined planning system, and will be adding £500 million to the Affordable Homes Programme to kickstart social and affordable housebuilding.
Paul said he would like to see a recognition of local circumstance in setting housing targets: “For us, the special circumstance is the impact on our land supply and transport infrastructure of the presence of two major transport hubs – the strategic rail freight terminal and Luton Airport – within or adjacent to our boundaries.
“I’d also like to see a firmer commitment to insist that developers’ contributions fund infrastructure ahead -(or at least fully in parallel – with home occupation, and an insistence that the two new stated golden rules around affordable housing and infrastructure provision for any building on the Green Belt, must not be allowed to be watered down due to ‘viability’ concerns of developers.”
He wants to see planning fees to rise to the level of cost recovery for authorities in areas like ours: “It is ridiculous that those who can afford to develop their land are being subsidised by the rest of the council taxpayers.”
He isn’t sure the extra funding for the Affordable Homes Programme will make much of a difference: “The Government has said that this would equate to 5,000 more homes. If these were evenly distributed across the country then this amounts to around 12-15 more for this district. Better than nothing, but this would not be a large addition.
“For comparison our draft Local Plan foresees a delivery of 4,000 affordable homes (1,200 for social rent) over 16 years.”
He added his final thoughts on the Chancellor’s announcements: “This Budget offered some positives for councils that hold housing stock like ours, restricting Right to Buy discounts and allowing councils to retain the full sale price being two examples. In addition there is a five year fix of social rent increases [inflation plus one per cent], this will help with planning in this area.
“However the range of touted changes, linked with the lack of detail around most of them, means that the level of financial uncertainty faced by this council appears to be even higher than in most recent previous ones, with the exception, perhaps, of the inflation-ravaged Budget of 2023/24.”
