EARLY ONE MORNING.........................
Liberal Democrat Councillor for Stansted North on Uttlesford District Council and former Leader of the Liberal Democrat Group Learn more
by Alan Dean on 23 February, 2015
Uttlesford’s Liberal Democrat councillors aim to amend the Tories’ budget for 2015/16 to make it greener and fairer. The Liberal Democrat alternative budget proposals call for improved recycling, solar energy panels on council building and a fairer way to refund surplus New Homes Bonus to taxpayers.
In a press release issued today I said “The Lib Dem budget is better tuned to the common good of all people. At this time of surplus funding from the New Homes Bonus we want to return an equal amount of council tax to all households whilst retaining the council tax at a level ready for harder times in coming years.”
The Lib Dems propose a flat rate rebate of £4.25 for each household. This contrasts with the proposal from the Conservatives to give back £8.58 to people in the most expensive houses and only one-third that amount, £2.86, to people in the lowest valued homes.
Said Cllr Martin Foley “The sums involved may be quite small, but the principle of fairness to all and the common good convinced us that the Lib Dem approach of rebating the same amount to all taxpayers is fairer and more progressive”.
Also included in the Liberal Democrats’ budget proposals are £45,000 to boost the Highway Rangers service to do extra work smartening up Uttlesford’s towns and villages including footpath and hedge trimming work.
They also plan to invest £400,000 of surplus funds for the installation of photovoltaic panels on council buildings to a reduce energy costs and bring income to the council for improving other services.
People will be employed to visit households and neighbourhoods to explain the merits of more effective recycling and reduced contamination caused by people who put the wrong items in recycling bins. “The council must work with residents to boost recycling and cut the financial penalties caused by misuse of the brown, green and black bins”, said Cllr David Morson.
Cllr Janice Loughlin applauded the Lib Dem plan to introduce welcome packs for both new residents and residents who move within the district. She said “We want to work with Town and Parish Councils to include local information. We want Uttlesford to be a welcoming council which tells people about local services and also about how things like recycling work in this district”.
Finally I commented “Our long-term budget proposal is a Capital Initiative Fund which we would start next year, if we are elected to run the council, and would last for several years. We would start with £1,500,000 to pump prime infrastructure associated with growth in the district. Examples are car parking and pedestrian access, schemes to bring more jobs and public spaces in support of a still to be agreed Local Plan.”
“All of these proposals can be funded from budget underspends and from council Reserves. We are determined that future expenditure on a Local Plan is transparently agreed by councillors. More than £2 million was spent on the recently failed Local Plan so the next two years’ expenditure on this regrettably lengthy project must be closely monitored and spelled out to the public.”
10 Comments
The Tories won Uttlesford in 2007 on the lie that the £1mn lost in an accounting error by officers was a political failure and the result of profligacy. They then lost over £2mn in Landsbanki in 2008. Since then, they have held around one in every five pounds paid by households in ever-increasing reserves, much of which are not earmarked for anything useful.
I don’t think tax cuts are needed, I think spending is required, particularly in more council housing stock. In order to fulfil demand, one in four houses built under the local plan should be council houses, provided by developers as part of their 40% affordable housing contribution. It’s also good to see a drive towards greater energy efficiency in existing council housing stock. It is right that this cost should be paid by the council and not the tenant.
The Tory admininstration’s budgeting over recent years needs to be exposed to in-depth scrutiny. Yes, the lid has been lifted, but statements from the current cabinet member are full of obfuscation and headline-seeking that show he lacks all authority – and responsibility. I don’t think it’s just me who is of this opinion, even though I can’t claim a particularly sound grasp of local government finance. In particular council tax-payers have a right to know in detail how their council tax demands have been calculated over the lifetime of the present administration, and why a comparatively small local authority like UDC has been able to accumulate such massive reserves. It is reasonable to surmise that some of this is down to underspends in a succession of budgets, and that the council-tax demands have been allowed to ‘outpace’ the spending programme. And then we have Robert Chambers’ ‘rainy day’ explanation, trotted out when anyone threatens to dig a little deeper into what has actually been happening. In a healthy council the Audit Committee would have had several opportunities to look into this state of affairs and report on them, but, as we all know, at the behest of Cllrs Ketteridge and Rolfe, the committee has been forced to adopt a low profile.
I have to remind myself that I made critical comment of this state of affairs here on Alan’s blog some months ago, and wish to re-iterate the point made then, that I attach no blame to any of the council’s chief financial officers. However, despite the preliminary investigations carried out by Alan and Neil Hargreaves with particular reference to the costs attaching to the Local Plan, I am not much wiser with regard to the overall picture. I sincerely hope that any new council administration will be able to carry out an in depth review of the council’s exact financial position at an early date that will serve as a learning exercise for the future.
Would the Audit Commission comment on political decisions made by the council? I would imagine that they’d only have something to say if there was something untoward or a mistake by financial officers. I don’t think there’s any scandal, but there is a debate over council spending priorities.
I would imagine that most of the work of the draft local plan would feed into the new one, eg scoping reports. So, the cost of revision may not be high. The cost will come in the form of developers exploiting the lack of a plan to force through inappropriate developments.
It’s been obvious for some time that UDC has breached the guidelines for holding prudential reserves. East Herts. District Council was held up as an example of good practice when a senior member of that council suggested that some of the funds current held should be returned to council tax-payers. I believe that there is almost a case this year for a council-tax holiday in Uttlesford – but that is me being, perhaps, a little incautious.
With regard to money invested with Landsbanki : at the time it met all the relevant financial criteria and many councils and public bodies invested funds there, including the Metropolitan Police. The council cannot simply invest willy-nilly, it has to operate within strict guidelines. So nothing sinister about the investment. As to the outcome, if people cared to check their facts, the council has recovered the bulk of the money invested, over 95% I believe so hardly the massive financial disaster inferred above.
I agree that spending on social housing is to be encouraged, though I would prefer that the council go into partnership with established builders and pump-prime developments. I also think that the council should be more imaginative in looking for solutions. Flat-pack housing, static caravans, narrow boats, etc After the war the government put money into providing pre-fab housing that was meant as a short-term fix. The houses were so well built that people were happily living in some of them over 50 years later. I think someone in B&B accommodation would happily consider a static caravan as a temporary solution. As to the flat pack homes, they can be erected in days rather than weeks or months as is the case for conventional brick builds.
Returning to the Lib Dem budget proposals, what I would really like to see is a return to providing adequate Local Council Tax Support for the most vulnerable residents. The council can easily afford to fund this.
On the question of increased funding to the rangers, I have been arguing for this for two years and the cabinet member has pooh-poohed it. I would hope that whatever the outcome on Thursday, a new administration in May will substantially increase the rangers, they provide an excellent service and deserve to be recognised.
If the Tories can’t be blamed for Landsbanki then the Lib Dems can’t be blamed for a cock up by financial officers – double counting a government grant – that no councillor of any party noticed for two years
I agree with pre-fabricated modular housing. It can be rubbish or it can be excellent. A couple of privately developed pre-fab houses have recently been built in Newport and they are very attractive. But I’m unsure a decent home can be built in days.
I am bored with the repeated assertion that the lack of an up to date local plan means that developers can ‘force through inappropriate developers’ because it is nonsense.
We do have a plan, it is dated but it remains adopted and we use policies from that plan to support the decisions of the planning committee. We have a healthy record of successfully defended appeals, including Bentfield Green, Cambridge Road, Ongar Road, the list is quite extensive and I have been directly involved in the three mentioned above as well as others.
Criticism should be levelled at the councillors who were so deeply involved in preparing the draft local plan, the individuals who disregarded all arguments against what they were proposing and rammed through a totally deficient plan with the unthinking support of the Tory majority in the council.
There were several opportunities to stop and consider, all were disregarded, particularly by cabinet. It is galling to hear Cllr Rolfe claiming to be delighted that the draft process is to be reviewed by commission, when he was so totally opposed to a motion to have the plan independently assessed in December 2013.
The Tories were so convinced that their draft plan would be accepted by the inspector that thousands of ‘In Touch’ leaflets were prepared last November, trumpeting the advanced state of the plan. Some were even delivered in Walden and Newport but it has now become apparent even to the Walter Mittys in the Armoury that such claims are embarrassingly false.
For clarity, the draft local plan has been withdrawn, so 8 years and £2million would appear not to have been put to best use. While it is true that much of the evidence base might be useable in a replacement plan, there have been substantial changes in the district that need to be taken into account (where the Tories tried to rush through applications to make facts on the ground, such as Fairfield and Kier) The inspector was highly critical of the Elsenham proposal in his report.
Naturally there has been no acknowledgement from the leadership of the extent of this failure nor a word of apology. It is to be hoped that in May residents take the opportunity to register their appreciation of being taken for a ride. To repeat for emphasis; 8 years and £2million to deliver a draft local plan that was thrown out by the inspector in days. That level of incompetence has to be recognised for what it is and suitably rewarded. The Tories do not deserve to run the council, certainly residents deserve an administration that listens to them and acts accordingly.
“I am bored with the repeated assertion that the lack of an up to date local plan means that developers can ‘force through inappropriate developers’ because it is nonsense.”
So you disagree with the assertion by Alan Dean and the Lib Dems that a lack of a local plan is creating planning anarchy? http://www.hertsandessexobserver.co.uk/Road-Stansted-planninganarchy/story-21906292-detail/story.html
Alan warned two years ago that “The council risks the work so far being dismissed as unsound by a planning inspector, bringing further years’ delay and all-out planning anarchy in Uttlesford.” (http://alandean.mycouncillor.org.uk/2013/01/09/uttlesford-people-under-threat-from-ostriches-do-we-need-a-canute/)
Yes, I disagree with Alan and I have explained why. Having been involved in a succession of successful planning appeals I think I’m entitled to believe that we do not face a planning Armageddon
I also challenge your attempt to conflate two financial events that are in no way linked.
The investment in Landsbanki was legitimate and met the necessary legal/financial criteria. The council has made an almost full recovery of the funds invested.
This is in no way similar to an accounting error (whoever made it) that appears to have the capacity to embarrass Lib Dems and Tories alike. I’m not trying to dodge responsibility but the fact remains that I was not a councillor at the time and I cannot really speak with authority about what took place then.
Pleased to see you agree with the potential of modular housing. Yes, it could be substandard if we didn’t keep an eye on builders but think of what might be achieved. Some of the stuff I’ve seen on TV that the Germans supply looks excellent. Scandinavia does a lot of wooden building. I’m not sure what the situation is like for domestic providers but the new administration in May would do worse than to start looking.
Modular would give the council the opportunity to get a lot more housing for the same cash. I think the council should start being more imaginative, more adventurous and above all more responsive to residents.
Whilst Keith is right that he and other members stood against the planning establishment’s view that during the period when there was no five-year land supply all that mattered was housing numbers regardless of bad planning, the cost to the local community of what I have called “planning anarchy” has been considerable.
I do not want to see another such period of recommended planning approvals from officers regardless of the merits of applications simply to avoid the risk of costs being awarded if appeals are upheld by planning inspectors. The failure of UDC to defend the Elsenham/Fairfield appeal has yet to bring the full shame on Uttlesford that is deserved.