• Home
  • About
  • Subscribe
  • LATIF
  • Conferences
  • Dashboard
  • Edit My Profile
  • Log In
  • Logout
  • Register
  • Edit this post

Room 151

  • 151 BRIEF

    What's New?

  • EAPF criticised for water company investments

    August 10, 2022

  • Welsh pension fund confirms £50m investment in clean energy

    August 10, 2022

  • Inflation ‘disastrous’ for local services, warns LGA

    August 10, 2022

  • Consultation opens into care charging reforms

    August 9, 2022

  • ADASS survey: ‘worst fears confirmed for adult social care’

    August 5, 2022

  • GMCA to unlock funds for home energy-efficiency upgrades

    August 4, 2022

  • Treasury
  • Technical
  • Funding
  • Resources
  • LGPS
  • Development
  • 151 News
  • Blogs
    • David Green
    • Agent 151
    • Dan Bates
    • Richard Harbord
    • Stephen Sheen
    • James Bevan
    • Steve Bishop
    • Cllr John Clancy
    • David Crum
    • Graham Liddell
    • Ian O’Donnell
    • Jackie Shute
  • Interviews
  • Briefs

Call for needs-based solution as districts ‘punished’ by negative RSG proposals

0
  • by Colin Marrs
  • in 151 News · Funding
  • — 25 Jul, 2018

Government proposals to compensate authorities suffering negative revenue support grant (RSG) are unfair on deprived urban authorities, according to representatives of municipal councils.
The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government this week released a consultation aimed at helping councils which face the prospect of a downward adjustment of their business rates in 2019/20 due to the phasing out of RSG.
It proposes compensating affected authorities for any losses through the funding formula, at a cost of £153m, continuing the approach adopted for the past two years.
The consultation paper said: “In addition to being the only option which is both affordable and fair, dealing with negative RSG in its entirety, this approach represents the most direct and simple solution to the problem.”
The government has also outlined other potential approaches, including allocating new funding on the basis of existing relative needs formulas.
But it concluded that “even when modelling for significant additional funding (£500m), these options similarly prove themselves of limited effectiveness in addressing negative RSG.
“The quantum of funding needed to completely eliminate negative RSG through this methodology is excessive, totalling over £2bn. This level of funding is not affordable.”
But the government’s preferred approach drew criticism from SIGOMA – which represents 46 metropolitan and unitary councils in England.
Geoff Winterbottom, principal research officer at the organisation said that 145 of the 168 authorities who would have been adversely affected by the negative RSG issue in 2019 will be shire district councils.
He said: “The government has released data showing the extent to which districts have benefited from the retention of business rates compared to baseline funding.
“The amount of business rates retained by districts on average has grown by more than 60% in 2018/19.
“These authorities are in a position where they are collecting more than they need to provide their services.”

Winterbottom called for the government to distribute any extra funding available to the sector on a needs-based formula in order to help the poorest authorities.
He said: “When the four-year settlement for local authority funding was announced, the biggest losers were metropolitan districts. The majority lived with it and signed up to it, but now they are being punished further.”

John Fuller, chairman of the District Councils’ Network, said he was “delighted” that the government had listened to the concerns of his members.
He said: “Today is a significant victory for district councils, but we must continue to push for the further financial freedom our districts require.”

John Betts, head of finance at Warwickshire County Council also welcomed the government’s efforts to resolve the issue of negative RSG.
He said: “The preferred option in the consultation, the direct elimination of negative RSG via forgone business rates receipts, looks sensible and is worth exploring further.”

The announcement of the consultation came in a wider consultation on next year’s local government finance settlement.
Among other proposals, the government said that it was considering adjusting the baseline for housing growth – currently 0.4% a year – below which the New Homes Bonus would not be paid.
The consultation said: “The government has retained the option of making adjustments to the baseline in future years to reflect significant additional housing growth and to remain within spending limits set at Spending Review 2015.”
However, Richard Watts, chair of the Local Government Association’s resources board, said: “We would urge the government not to increase the New Homes Bonus threshold again.
“This would risk putting the brakes on housebuilding schemes and growth-boosting projects at a time when our housing shortage is one of the biggest challenges facing the nation and further exacerbate the financial challenges facing some councils.”
The government consultation raised the prospect that the New Homes Bonus will be scrapped from 2020-21, when a new spending review period begins.
It said: “…it is the government’s intention to explore how to incentivise housing growth most effectively, for example by using the Housing Delivery Test results to reward delivery or incentivising plans that meet or exceed local housing need.”

Get the Room151 Newsletter

Share

You may also like...

  • Does local government need a new red flag system to signal looming financial crisis? 23rd Jun, 2021
  • Children’s social care: a radical review, but is it realistic? 15th Jun, 2022
  • Government welcomes devolution bid by four Midlands councils 16th Jun, 2022
  • LGPS webinar: Governance the key to TCFD implementation 1st Mar, 2021

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

  • 151 BRIEFS – WHAT’s NEW?

    • Inflation ‘disastrous’ for local services, warns LGA
    • Consultation opens into care charging reforms
    • ADASS survey: ‘worst fears confirmed for adult social care’
    • GMCA to unlock funds for home energy-efficiency upgrades
    • Levelling up committee calls for urgent boost to social care funding
  • Room151’s LGPS Roundtables

    Biodiversity
    Valuations & Risk
    LGPS Women

  • Room151’s LGPS Roundtables

    Biodiversity
    LGPS Women
    Valuations & Risk
  • Latest tweets

    Room151 10 hours ago

    Which LGPS pools and funds are attending the LGPS Investment Forum on Nov 2 & the LGPS Private Markets Forum on Nov 1st? Answer here: lnkd.in/eDHU8tuy pic.twitter.com/D3gd63Rh7F

    Room151 1 day ago

    LGPS and levelling up: nothing to fear but fear itself: There have been a number of objections to government plans for LGPS funds to invest 5% of their assets in local projects. But George Graham says these objections can be[...] dlvr.it/SWL7vt pic.twitter.com/ebwBEkZTy4

    Room151 1 day ago

    George Graham @SYpensions @bordertocoast channels his inner FDR in a call for local government pension funds to avoid the fear factor and embrace levelling up #LGPS #localgov room151.co.uk/local-governme…

    Room151 2 days ago

    Changes to rules on capital receipts raise wider questions: Stephen Kitching argues that DLUHC’s latest rule changes are part of a series following on from revisions to MRP guidance and the purchase of commercial property. He questions whether… dlvr.it/SWGqKC pic.twitter.com/Ycr5hWZDPk

    Room151 5 days ago

    ‘No ifs, no buts’: the Bank of England continues its battle with inflation: Partner Content: CCLA Investment Management’s Robert Evans discusses the MPC’s 0.5% increase in the Official Bank Rate and its ongoing commitment to the 2% inflation target… dlvr.it/SW7SNC pic.twitter.com/ryOzYRSNA9

    Room151 6 days ago

    DLUHC changes rules on flexible use of capital receipts: The levelling up secretary has written to all council leaders to amend the rules concerning the flexible use of capital receipts to fund transformation projects. In his letter, Greg Clark[...] dlvr.it/SW3jyX pic.twitter.com/KEhSSaMITl

    Room151 1 week ago

    Local audit and financial reporting: let’s take back control: Mazars’ Suresh Patel suggests three steps that auditors and council finance teams should take to help get financial reporting and local audit back on track. Following my recent appearance… dlvr.it/SW0PfV pic.twitter.com/miL7pjukce

    Room151 1 week ago

    The case for residential investment: income, impact and resilience: Partner Content: Emma Gullifer from Columbia Threadneedle discusses the options for pension funds looking to invest in residential property including the Build-to-Rent market.… dlvr.it/SVzKwN pic.twitter.com/hdgZ4zKt4H

    Room151 1 week ago

    Draft accounts: delays continue despite deadline dash: Dan Bates discusses the latest data on the publication of local authority accounts and examines why so many councils missed the 31 July deadline. Sunday 31 July 2022 was the[...] dlvr.it/SVx2ZT pic.twitter.com/gdELhD3Yis

  • Register to become a Room151 user

  • Previous story Northants’ outgoing 151 issues second section 114
  • Next story Housing and regeneration summit to explore collaborative finance and funding models

© Copyright 2022 Room 151. Typegrid Theme by WPBandit.

0 shares