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 2 March, 2015
Uttlesford’s Liberal Democrat councillors have issued the following press release.
Uttlesford Liberal Democrats have accused the council’s Tory administration of short-term gimmicks that favour the wealthy and of lacking ideas on how to use New Homes Bonus to benefit the district.
Lib Dem leader of the opposition, Alan Dean, said: “The Tories are out of touch with fairness towards smaller households.
“This year and next year Uttlesford will have received a total of £6.5 million in New Homes Bonus grant from central government. The Tories don’t know what to do with a lot of it. They’ve put £1.4 million into a strategic initiative reserve, but their financial plan shows none of it will have been used five years from now. Some strategy! (*)
“They are largely clueless and have no strategy for improving infrastructure to accommodate the large numbers of additional homes and residents who are coming into the district.”
Cllr Dean was backed at last Thursday’s budget meeting by Cllr Janice Loughlin, who represents the Stort Valley villages. She said: “Much of the local plan was found unsound by the Planning Inspector in December. That cost over £2 million pounds, much of it now down the drain. No wonder the Tories need another £1,000,000 pot of money to produce a new local plan; to consult residents again and to pay for even more outside consultants.”
The Lib Dem leader added; “The Tories have so much windfall New Homes Bonus money but lack purpose for its use. They decided to hand out nearly £150,000 to the district’s residents. This isn’t council tax they are giving back. It’s part of the central government grant to improve the district for all who live here.
“Yet the Tories decided to give under £3 to the least wealthy residents in the smallest homes and almost £9 to generally wealthy people who live in the largest homes in Uttlesford. That’s unfair. The Liberal Democrats want to grant £4.25 to every household, which means more cash for the less wealthy.
Thaxted’s Councillor Martin Foley said at the budget meeting last Thursday: “The Tories simply don’t care about fairness. It’s becoming clear to everyone that Tories favour wealth. Their deeds, however small in this instance, worsen today’s wealth-divided society. Remember the Conservatives and their divisive poll tax!”
Alan Dean concluded: “The only “innovation” the Tories did invent last week was a bogus excuse not to agree to our fair £4.25 cash rebate to all home owners. They threw it out on the spurious argument that they didn’t have time to deduct the sum from council tax bills and so would have to spend £33,000 on posting out cheques.
“That is, of course, total nonsense. They simply invented a fictitious administrative cock-up to justify what they want – a council tax cut to benefit the wealthiest households most. That’s Tory politics for you.”
(*) See the table below extracted from budget papers. This shows £1,034,000 will be added in April to this year’s 30% underspend of £353,000, making a total of £1,387,000 in the Strategic Initiatives Fund. £1,387,000 stays in the bank for the coming five financial years to March 2020.
Total General Fund usable reserves during this five year model are estimated to reduce from
£5.5m to £3.4m. This excludes any in-year surpluses or deficits. A schedule of forecasted reserves balances is set out below.
| £000 | 31.3.2015 | 2015/16 | 2015/16 | 31.3.2016 | 31.3.2017 | 31.3.2018 | 31.3.2019 | 31.3.2020 |
| Forecast | additions | deductions | Forecast | Forecast | Forecast | Forecast | Forecast | |
| USABLE RESERVES |
1,000 |
22 |
-50 |
972 |
972 |
972 |
972 |
972 |
| Strategic Initiatives Fund | 353 | 1,034 | 0 | 1,387 | 1,387 | 1,387 | 1,387 | 1,387 |
The whole Medium Term Financial Strategy can be found at http://bit.ly/1M1ty7s
ENDS
22 Comments
I’m not going to get bogged down in specific figures. The headline 3% cut in council tax is crude electioneering. The Tory group obviously forget that I was there a couple of years back when the group were considering prospects over the coming years. It was agreed that any cuts in council tax needed to be sustainable and the likelihood was that there would need to be a freeze in 2015-16. Suddenly they magic the wherewithal to implement a 3% cut, just as the election looms.
There was an argument to be made for a smaller cut, say 1%, that could readily have been repeated next year. There is also a powerful argument for increasing the financial assistance to vulnerable residents eligible for Council Tax Support. Never mind can we afford it, how can we afford not to do it. Incidentally, the council has ample reserves to fund this measure.
I see the Tories are still peddling the line that a Daily Telegraph survey makes Uttlesford the best council. For the record, this was not a genuine survey, it was merely an advertising exercise by estate agents, only a desperate group would seize on it as the Tories have.
The elephant in the room remains the local plan. Two terms wasted, that is eight years, and the small matter of over £2m. What I find genuinely appalling is that the Tory leadership have offered not a word of apology for this staggering incompetence. Cllr Rolfe claims that the inspector declared the plan ‘largely sound’. Well I was there on December 3rd when the inspector closed the examination proceedings and I can assure residents that he said nothing of the kind. The closing paragraph of his subsequent report was totally unambiguous.
In that paragraph he identified two options for the council. To continue the examination with the INEVITABLE conclusion that he would find the plan unsound or for the council to withdraw the plan. It would be utterly bizarre and certainly inconsistent for him to say such things about a plan that was ‘largely sound’.
The failure of the local plan, the wasted time and the wasted money are compelling reasons to vote the Tories out of office in the local elections. Residents deserve better.
But your group backed the 3% cut. Cllr John Lodge said “We fully support the motion to cut taxes by 3%. UDC is sitting on reserves of £ millions of unused cash, which rightly belongs to residents. It’s our money and should be returned to us.” http://www.residents4u.org/2015/02/24/press-release-r4u-proposes-to-reverse-conservatives-council-tax-increases-on-uttlesfords-most-vulnerable/
Did your group propose an amendment to the budget to “restore Local Council Tax Support, which provides tax relief to the poorest families”? Did it get passed? How much would this have saved claimants?
I refuse to engage with you on this or any other matter.
That’s a shame. I was just asking a question.
Alan, the Conservatives, Independents and some R4Us did not agree with your idea of a rebate and voted against your motion. We decided to reduce next year’s council tax, for everyone, by 3% with the public blessing, in the media, of our other political opponents. No council tax will be “given back”. Never was too much taken. Sound financial management (which your party isn’t very good at, is it?), and respect of central government policy to build houses, means we won’t need as much next year. You posture as if you are the leader of the council. You aren’t. You are the leader of the seven member opposition group. There is nothing more UNFAIR than a minority group trying to impose it’s views and throwing it’s toys out of the pram when it can’t get it’s way!
As for Cllr Mackman, apparently he wanted to REDUCE council tax relief for the poorest residents to 15% … when it currently stands at 87.5%. They only pay 12.5%. But as could be seen after this was explained to him, R4U didn’t understand the council tax relief discount as they sat quietly looking at each other in disbelief.
Andrew, taking a principled stand on how next year’s surplus money should be handed to residents – in our opinion more fairly – cannot reasonably described as an opposition group “trying to impose its views and throwing its toys out of the pram”. Seven members cannot impose their views; they can only try to persuade. This we failed to do, but we stick to our principles. I think our financial proposal of a one-off rebate, that may or may not be repeated depending on circumstances in a year’s time, was far more sound than the Conservatives’ tax reduction. That tax reduction will be repeated each year until it is reversed; yet it may not be possible to reverse it and make up for expected income reductions from New Homes Bonus in coming year’s because of the government capping regime on council tax rises. I am sure that the council’s professional financial advisors warned the Conservatives of that risk. Whoever is running the council from May could well regret that particular pre-election “gimmick”, as one Conservative councillor described it last Thursday.
You are correct in saying that Residents for Uttlesford had misunderstood the workings and percentages that apply to Local Council Tax Support.
P.S., Andrew. Thanks for the compliment that I appear as though I am leader of the council. It is ten years since I held that office but I suppose I haven’t forgotten all the skills that the job requires. I am more than willing to pass on my experience to anyone who may benefit.
What is the Strategic Initiatives Fund used for? Why is the General Fund reserve forecast to fall? Is it because NHB will decline and the council will be forced to rely more on core funding?
The (Conservatives’) Strategic Initiatives Fund is an attempt to make use of some of the surplus New Homes Bonus (NHB) money provided by central government. It was created by the Tories a year ago in a panic caused by fear that central government would start to claw back the NHB sitting idle in the bank. The trouble is that it is being spent in the absence of a clear and coherent strategy and was set up last year for one year only. Strategies are intrinsically long-term, but the Tories’ budget does not show new money being added each year to top-up the previous year’s expenditure. On the contrary, it shows £1.4 million remaining unspent until 2020. Of course, if the Tories’ true strategy is to keep money unused in the bank for the long-term, then they will be able to say that do have a strategic plan. I’m not sure the public would back that strategy if it were explained to them. In contrast, given the chance, the Lib Dems would transform this fund into an ongoing Strategic Infrastructure Fund to pump-prime infrastructure needed to support jobs and population growth.
The General Fund Reserve is based on a formula derived from the council’s gross income and its gross expenditure. At present they include housing benefit that flows in from central government and is paid out to benefit claimants. When (if) Universal Credit comes into operation, the council will no longer administer housing benefit so its cash turnover will go down, its risks of overspending will go down and so the reserve to support fluctuations in nett expenditure can also be reduced. I hope that makes sense, Daniel.
Thanks for the explanation. So what is the Strategic Reserves Fund currently being spent on?
Given that £1.4mn doesn’t go very far these days, what kind of job-creating infrastructure can it be spent on? And £1.4mn will not go as far in five years time as it does today as the value with depreciate. Presumably the pot has to be shared around a geographically large district and, in the interests of fairness, has to be shared evenly. As such, it seems like such a fund would have to be augmented by developer contributions and funds from government agencies.
As for the debate on the flat rebate versus a reduction in precept, we are literally talking of pocket money either way. I’m sure most residents would not mind foregoing either option in order to provide grants to local service organisations – for example, for the disabled – that have seen their funding reduced or eliminated by central government cuts and the move towards funding larger national organisations. I know that money is already given in grants to local groups, but I also know that some are really affected.
I am also concerned about coming risks in the next parliament. There is a real prospect of a reduction in the council tax rise cap at the same time of reductions in central government funding, in spite of major parties claiming that they support sovereignty of local government. But doesn’t this lend support to the argument for a high level of reserves, even over the short-term while whoever gets into power formulates another hairbrained overhaul of local government finances?
While the Tories and Lib Dems may battle it out over these issues, it does worry me that there are others who are refusing to accept they lack experience and policy coherence who could hold the balance of power after May. Getting the basics wrong over council tax relief suggests that RFU’s members need to learn to crawl before they can run.
After the election, I hope experienced councillors from all parties can put aside differences and listen in a non-partisan way to any proposals that can answer the challenges likely over the next five years.
By the way, the audio minutes of the full council meeting are incomplete – they cut off well before the end.
Being attacked by Cllr Ketteridge for NOT doing something strikes me as amusing but let’s examine his record with regard to the draft local plan. Yes, on every occasion he voted for the plan, presumably out of blind party loyalty, it surely can’t have been because he thought the plan was excellent. The inspector was unambiguous, he thought it was a dreadful plan, which rather calls into question the judgement of all the members who voted for it time after time. It is to be hoped that residents will bear this in mind come May 7th and vote out a Tory group that put politics ahead of proper planning, they simply don’t deserve to remain in power. Eight years wasted along with £2m are powerful reasons to eject them, they demonstrate no understanding of their failure so can hardly put things right.
Experience and policy coherence might not be all it’s cracked up to be. The whipped Tory group stuck solidly to backing the draft local plan at every opportunity. They also rejected any opportunity to have the process reviewed. The local plan working group was secretive, cabinet-dominated and politically skewed. The Elsenham allocation, the largest, was more akin to gerrymandering than legitimate planning and the inspector made it very clear that he was unimpressed. Similarly the allocations in other parts of the district left much to be desired, particularly Walden. There is no dispute that Uttlesford needs a quantity of housing each year, but it is unhelpful to put it in the wrong places and ludicrous to claim that the government is setting targets. A couple of years ago the Tory group were happy to claim that about 340 new houses per year would be sufficient to meet requirements, suddenly that has jumped to nearer 600 yet there is no evidence of infrastructure, employment or education facilities to accommodate this. No wonder the draft plan was thrown out.
As to experience, if they didn’t (couldn’t?) pick things up during eight years, what guarantee do we have that giving them another four will improve matters? I don’t see any planning expertise in their candidates, the residents group by contrast has several individuals with professional planning qualifications and experience. We could hardly do a worse job.
On the matter of council tax relief, the reason for not putting the motion was two-fold. Firstly it would have been voted down by the Tory group who have made it abundantly clear that they do not intend to improve assistance for vulnerable residents.
Secondly, the wording originally considered was at odds with how the current system works. Neither Cllr Watson or myself are financial experts and it wasn’t feasible to get guidance from Adrian Webb so we opted not to put forward a motion.
In any case, any measure to amend the level of council tax support would require an emergency budget, something that cannot take place before the election so nothing has been lost by holding the motion over.
If the residents’ group take control in May, there will be increased financial assistance to those that merit it. There will also be a professional assessment of the current shambles that is the draft local plan. We will build on what the council does well, and improve those things that are not being done so well. We offer aspiration and hope instead of more tired party political posturing.
Some odd reasoning there. Even if something isn’t likely to be passed, it is worth putting forward a motion to both make a point and demonstrate that the opposing side resists it. The Lib Dems proposed a flat rebate in the name of fairness and the Tories voted it down on the grounds of what they say are practicalities. The public can judge who is correct.
Also, this doesn’t require financial expertise or officer advice. If RFU had actually spoken to someone on benefits, they could have understood how the mechanism works. In my mind, it demonstrates how remote RFU are from low income households and their needs in addition to the evident lack of experience and policy coherence.
If you want to go on repeatedly about the Local Plan, then I will also point to the need for social rented accommodation to serve the 1,800+ on the council housing waiting list. Low cost housing is of greater need to low income households than a few pence per week in council tax savings since housing costs are the largest item of expenditure for any household. This is the debate we need to have, in my mind.
As I recall, you were scathing about the motion of no-confidence proposed in December, describing it as a waste of time.
And why do you keep referring to the Rugby Football Union? Obviously Howard is pulling your strings because he continually makes that childish error.
You continually harp on about social housing, the provision of which has indeed been pathetic for the past 8 years but you never actively criticise the people who have been in a position to do something about it, yet another indication that Howard is operating you.
It is ridiculous to criticise the emerging residents’ party for not addressing the shortfall in social housing. If we get in and the situation remains as bad in 4 years then by all means stick the boot in, it will be deserved. But for the past 8 years the responsibility has been that of the Tories so when will you attack their failure (or has Howard said not to?)
The warped agenda of continually attacking a new and aspirational group whilst disregarding the failures of the Tories over 8 years does you no credit. Change is needed to address the local plan AND social housing, as well as a slew of other council responsibilities. The Tories have made it clear that they do not understand the plan, social housing provision or protection of the vulnerable. I repeat, a change is needed.
It took me a while to work out who you were talking about before I realised it was UDC leader Howard Rolfe. I’ve never met the man or communicated with him. I last spoke to his predecessor over 20 years ago. The notion that I am a Conservative is laughably paranoid.
I’ve said to all parties that they need to address social housing as the council housing waiting list is surging and, indeed, not enough is being done to fulfil it. It’s not an attack on anyone. I’ve written to Julie Redfern about it as well and I wait for her response.
RFU are the initials of the party you lead – Residents For Uttlesford.
I suggest you check again. Normally you are so fastidious in your research. My party group is not and never has been RFU. And for the record, we are not in charge of the council, nor have we been for the past 8 years, that particular responsibility has been shouldered by the Tories, who consequently bear the responsibility for the failures of the council during that 8 years.
Nobody suggested you were a Conservative, just a stooge for Howard. That remains my view, given your reluctance to attack the Tory group over matters such as the local plan.
Well, it’s untrue and irrational to believe I am working for the UDC leader, which is why I said such a notion was paranoid. I didn’t say you had a paranoid personality disorder or needed psychiatric help. Given my repeated criticism of the Tories, your claims are unfounded.
Incidentally, given your paroxysms over suggestions that you might have psychiatric issues, do you not consider it inappropriate to describe another respondent as ‘laughably paranoid’? Double standards are so unbecoming, don’t you agree?
Gentlemen, please debate the issues rather than the motives and qualities of individual contributors. Otherwise, I know that other contributors feel uncomfortable and are put off making their own contributions.
Returning to the issues, I was happy to vote for the Liberal Democrat amendment which I felt was considered and proportionate.
I was less comfortable with the apparent suggestion to dedicate something in excess of £2m to a number of causes but Cllr Dean reassured council that these aspirations would need to be debated and voted for.
I remain firmly of the view that the council needs to take the appropriate measures to increase the level of Local Council Tax Support to vulnerable residents, something I believe the Lib Dems would readily support.
On the vexed matter of social housing, I believe that the council needs to be far more innovative in its approach to providing good quality social housing at an affordable cost to residents. Mechanisms must exist and we should examine them. I would not disregard such things as static caravans, flat-pack housing, flats, the important thing is to provide accommodation for those that need it. I doubt very much that a single mother of two youngsters in a B&B would turn her nose up at the possibility of moving to a caravan as a stepping stone to something more substantial. I have been in the position of sitting in B&B on benefits knowing that it would be years before I was eligible for a council place and it was soul-destroying.
I don’t belong to a high-income household, quite the opposite and I fully understand the problems of being unemployed, in temporary accommodation and wondering how things will change for the better. The key is to aspire for better, to search for work, to look for opportunities.
In Uttlesford we need to do more to help those who look for opportunities.