LABOUR ARE LEAVING WALES BEHIND

First Published by: local government

Overwhelmingly residents in Wales are facing an increase in Council Tax this month. 

In England there is a freeze or a reduction. In some places in Wales the increase is over 3.5%. In England that level of increase would require approval in a referendum. No English council has decided to chance it.

But in Wales there is no need to get such approval from residents. The Labour-run Welsh Assembly Government oppose it. Plaid Cymru's Assembly member Llyr Huws Gruffydd agrees it would be "inappropriate."

In England every council apart from Nottingham has introduced spending transparency. In Wales only the Conservative-run councils Monmouthshire, Newport and Glamorgan have done so. Of course we can still get hold of a few figures via Freedom of Information requests. The Conservative's Shadow Local Government Minister in the Welsh Assembly Janet Finch-Saunders says:

In 2010-11, local authorities in Wales spent over £630,000 on official cars and chauffeurs. Rhondda Cynon Taf and Blaenau Gwent each spent £90,000, while Bridgend spent £75,000 and Neath Port Talbot £70,000. I wonder whether the Minister was aware of those figures until I mentioned them. 

Local authorities spent an average of £1.5 million on printing and paper costs, but Swansea spent £0.5 million. Given that this is public money, this kind of information should be made available through online publishing, to enable processes to be examined and efficiencies to be identified.

Labour Assembly member Jenny Rathbone opposes this, saying residents mustn't be "bombarded" with information. So it is better to keep spending secret. On Carmarthenshire Council, run by Independents and Labour, a blogger was arrested for filming a council meeting using her mobile phone, and led away in handcuffs.

Council tenants in England can exercise their right to buy taking advantage of up to £75,000 in discounts - in Wales the discounts are capped at just £16,000. In Wales there is no chance for schools to become independent of council control by converting to be academies. There is no opportunity to set up free schools. Michael Gove's reforms to reduce red tape and make it easier to sack bad teachers and exclude disruptive pupils do not apply.

But the rigour of competition is needed more in Wales than anywhere else in the UK. In the Pisa tests we find that Wales is behind England, Scotland and Northern Ireland in terms of science, reading and maths. It is below the OECD average in all three. It has fallen behind in the international league table in all three. The Welsh schools inspectors Estyn finds that 40% of Welsh children arriving at secondary school arrive at least six months behind in reading. But while failing schools in England are being taken over in Wales there is just talk about the possibility of closing them.

The Education Minister Leighton Andrews says he will close a school where the situation is "irredeemable." But how many of the 5% of Welsh schools officially failing have been closed? None. Where is the procedure for them to be taken over by an academy chain? What is the trigger for them to be closed or taken over? The truth is that under Labour schools in Wales are able to carry on failing. Bad teachers will keep their jobs.

In Wales the Conservatives are fighting against the establishment. They are the force of protest against the complacent vested interests. In considering how Wales has fallen behind in terms of transparency, accountability, the opportunity for home ownership, and parental choice those of us in England can see what a difference the change of Government has meant over the past two years.

READ WHAT: ERIC PICKLES ‘SECRETARY OF STATE’ SAYS ABOUT OVER-CHARGED COUNCIL TAX.

Are you paying too much Council Tax - check here?

SCOTTISH COUNCIL ELECTION: DEAL OVER COUNCIL TAX BENEFIT

First Published by: BBC

The Scottish government has announced it is funding a £40m "shortfall" in Council Tax benefit, after accusing UK ministers of unfairly cutting it.

The one-year deal, backed by local government body Cosla, came two weeks before the 3 May council elections. SNP ministers said the deal would help protect vulnerable people. 

Labour and the Lib Dems questioned if it could be paid for. Prime Minister David Cameron said it was an example of devolved power working efficiently.

The UK government will abolish the existing Council Tax benefit in April 2013 under welfare reforms, and cut the budget of its replacement by 10%. Responsibility for its successor scheme will be devolved to the UK's regions and nations, which includes Scotland.

The Scottish government said it would put up £23m of funding to plug the benefits hole in 2013-14, with Cosla providing £17m. Local Government Minister Derek Mackay, said: "558,000 people in Scotland on the lowest incomes currently receive Council Tax benefit, including the unemployed, pensioners, those who cannot work because of disability, carers and people who receive tax credits.

Spending 'black hole'

"We will not allow them to be victims of UK cuts - we will work to protect them." Cosla president Pat Watters added: "In taking this decisive action to cover the cost of Council Tax benefit, together with the Scottish government, we will once again be protecting the most vulnerable in society."

The UK government said its reforms would make for a fairer system, where hard working families and pensioners were not left to pick up a spiralling benefits bill and where "hard work always paid". On a visit to Scotland, Mr Cameron said: "The public need to know that the Westminster government, the United Kingdom government, is dealing with our debt, dealing with our deficit, making sure that we can pay our bills, keeping our credit rating, keeping interest rates low.

"Now one of the cuts we made was to the overall level of Council Tax benefit because we said this can be done more efficiently if we devolve the power. "Well we have and hey presto that's exactly what's happening." In making the announcement, opposition parties said SNP ministers had breached the rules of purdah, which prevents major government announcements in an election period.

Labour health spokeswoman Jackie Baillie, said: "Everybody knows the Tories are cutting too hard and too fast, but we can't pretend this announcement plugs the gap. "Even with today's figures, local councils face a £17m black hole across Scotland - on top of SNP ministers passing on a massive 90% of all the cuts they face to Scotland councils." Scottish Lib Dem leader Willie Rennie added: "People will be deeply suspicious about this announcement.

"Even this morning the Scottish government said it didn't have enough money to protect bus services from cuts, but apparently they will have enough money to pay for this announcement." Currently, 558,000 people receive Council Tax benefit in Scotland, worth £387m, with eligibility based on factors like income, savings, receipt of other benefits and financial status of partners.

READ WHAT: ERIC PICKLES ‘SECRETARY OF STATE’ SAYS ABOUT OVER-CHARGED COUNCIL TAX.

Are you paying too much Council Tax - check here?

BORIS JOHNSON V KEN LIVINGSTONE: WHO IS RIGHT ABOUT COUNCIL TAX SAVINGS?

First Published By: The Guardian

Boris Johnson claims to be putting back £445 into Londoners pockets.

How: By freezing the part of Council Tax controlled by the mayor. Is this right? Rivals Boris Johnson and Ken Livingstone have had bitter exchanges in their debates so far to win votes of Londoners.

The incumbent London mayor has made freezing the part of Council Tax controlled by the mayor's office (the precept) one of his nine promises to Londoners. Ken Livingstone is promising the same. But is Johnson right to claim this will mean £445 in Londoner's pockets?

The claim

Putting £445 back in your pocket by freezing the mayoral share of the Council Tax On Johnson's website he explains this promise: Boris Johnson's Council Tax freezes over three successive years have saved the average London household up to £445.

Under Boris Johnson, Council Tax has been frozen three years in a row and cut by 1% for the fourth year. Whereas: under Ken Livingstone, the mayor's Council Tax precept increased by an average of 12.58% a year. In total, he put it up 152% which cost the average London household £964. Assuming a base figure of £310, households have therefore saved £445 under Boris Johnson. Overall, this means a 16% real terms cut over four years.

A spokesman for the campaign adds:

Ken's record in office was to increase Council Tax by 152%. That's average annual increases of 13%. This cost average band d households £964. That's his record in office. That's what he's shown himself to do. Boris Johnson got in and cut waste at City Hall freeing that money up for services. He's been able to freeze Council Tax for three years and cut it year. This is 16% cut in real terms. 

If Ken Livingstone had got back in his record shows that Council Tax would have continued to rise and at that rate it would have gone up over that period. Difference is £445 over the four-year term. Labour points out that the title of this promise (Putting £445 back in your pocket by freezing the mayoral share of the Council Tax) sounds like they are promising something new to voters, whereas in fact they are simply making claims about their record. It's included in a section called "my nine-point plan for London", which does make it sound like a future promise.

In a statement Livingstone's campaign said:

According to his own budget, his cut this year to the Council Tax will save households £3.10 per year. His pledge for the Council Tax is the same as ours – to freeze it for four years. There's another problem with Johnson's promise. Is it really fair or accurate to assume what Livingstone would have done had he won the last mayoral election and to then calculate the difference?

I asked spokesman for Johnson's campaign who said:

There is no reason to think otherwise as that was his record in office. There is one reason. Since 2010 the coalition has paid for a Council Tax freeze for local government, meaning for the last year at least, it is extremely likely that there would have been no increase in the part of Council Tax controlled by the London mayor.

Verdict

Both candidates are promising to freeze Council Tax if they win this election. Johnson's website gives a confusing impression claiming that a Council Tax freeze would save Londoners £445 over a term. While he is promising to freeze the part of Council Tax that the mayor controls, those are savings he claims Londoners have already enjoyed during his current term in office.

Those savings are also made on assumptions based on Livingstone's previous record in office. There is no proof that Livingstone would have increased Council Tax by as much as the Johnson campaign claims and indeed a central government Council Tax freeze suggests that it's highly unlikely that he would have for one of the years.

Johnson is right that in the past year he has cut Council Tax but the savings to Londoners won't go very far. It amounted to £3.10 for the average band D home over a year.

READ WHAT: ERIC PICKLES ‘SECRETARY OF STATE’ SAYS ABOUT OVER-CHARGED COUNCIL TAX.

Are you paying too much Council Tax - check here?

SLASHING BENEFITS IS A BREEZE WHEN YOU DISREGARD THE DETAIL

First Published By: The Guardian   

Warnings over the unfairness of cuts to child benefit and other payments are simply being ignored by the government

The government is wobbling over its child benefit cut, but problems with the detail were exposed from the off. David Cameron recently went on the record to acknowledge that his plans to snatch child benefit from higher-earners could create rough justice around the edges – edges he is keen to get smoothed.

The first thought this stirs is the stark contrast between the prime minister's concern with top-rate taxpayers and the abject disregard for the millions of poorer households who will be hit by wider social security cuts. 

Last week the reversal of seven separate Lords government defeats over welfare were rammed through the Commons: closely-argued points that peers had made about protecting vulnerable people were simply swept away. But the coalition's prioritising of the comfortably-off is now well familiar.

The second thought about the child benefit wobble, exposed last week by the Institute for Fiscal Studies, is more instructive. Namely, the breezy lack of concern with getting the detail right.

As Robert Joyce – the institute's research economist – put it, the precise problems that are suddenly nagging at Cameron were apparent from the off.

The first – in Cameron's phrase – is "a cliff edge". A modest pay rise that just pushes a parent into the top bracket will leave them worse off, as they suddenly lose a payment worth £1,750 a year for a parent of two, or more for bigger families. Cameron's second concern is being unfair to families with one breadwinner. A parent on £45,000 with a stay-at-home partner loses everything, whereas a couple on £40,000 a piece – or £80,000 in combination – will keep the benefit.

The good news is that these snags are, in principle, soluble. The cliff edge could be smoothed by withdrawing benefit gradually as income rises. And there could be a switch from individual to joint family income assessment by merging child benefit into the tax credits. The bad news is that the policy becomes effective next year – and to get such modifications right, there needs to be time to think them through. The latter option, for instance, would represent a U-turn for a coalition that has been hacking away at tax credits; it would confuse broader welfare reforms if it were not melded properly with these.

Having worked in Whitehall, I feel sure officials would have spotted these problems and warned ministers before the policy was set. But even if the civil service failed on this occasion, the IFS flagged up both issues on the very day the policy was announced – and yet ministers initially paid no attention.

These ignored problems, remember, affect families on decent wages, most of whom will vote. It seems a safe bet that problems with myriad other reforms affecting the marginalised will not be on the ministerial radar. Half-baked replacements for the social fund and for Council Tax benefit are only two examples of disasters waiting to happen.

The bigger fear, perhaps, concerns the software systems that are meant to start paying the universal credit from next year: glitches could sink the policy. Whispers about this abound in Whitehall but, so far, are only rumours.

Certainly, the failure to think through a child benefit cut for the middle classes inspires no confidence about how policy will be implemented when it comes to the poor.

READ WHAT: ERIC PICKLES ‘SECRETARY OF STATE’ SAYS ABOUT OVER-CHARGED COUNCIL TAX.

Are you paying too much Council Tax - check here? 

IS YOUR COUNCIL TAX SET TO SOAR?

First published by: money.uk.msn

With £54 billion missing from council pension schemes, brace yourself for higher taxes.

Burgeoning pension fund deficits could trigger a sharp hike in Council Tax bills, a tax organisation has warned. Councils across the UK have a combined pension deficit of more than £54 billion in 2010/11, according to new research from The TaxPayers' Alliance (TPA).

Put another way, the UK's 101 local authority pension funds have total liabilities calculated at £186.6 billion and total assets worth £132.4 billion. This difference represents a huge 'black hole' at the heart of the Local Government Pension Scheme (LGPS).

Your share could be £1,125

To put this £54 billion shortfall into context, it averages out at £1,125 for each of the UK's 48 million adults. Ultimately, taxpayers will be held liable for this deficit, so we could be facing some steep increases in our Council Tax bills, plus other local taxes such as parking charges and fines.

In previous research, TPA estimated that a fifth (20%) of all Council Tax is spent on funding employer contributions to the LGPS. In other words, if your Council Tax bill this year is £1,500, then around £300 of this goes towards topping up your local council's sickly pension scheme. As a result, TPA argues that the LGPS is "much more generous than most private-sector pensions and is in urgent need of reform."

The only good news is that this huge deficit fell from £91 billion in 2009/10 to £54 billion in 2010/11, largely thanks to a sharp recovery in share prices. Then again, this is still £3 billion more than the £51 billion shortfall recorded in 2008/09, so things have got worse instead of better since the recession.

20 councils with big 'black holes

According to TPA figures, these 10 councils had the largest pension deficits in 2010/11.

COUNCIL	DEFICIT (£M)	FUNDING LEVEL	DEFICIT PER PERSON
Birmingham	£1,340	67%	£1,292
Durham	£728	63%	£1,424
Hampshire	£718	64%	£554
Leeds	£650	75%	£814
Essex	£633	67%	£448
Lancashire	£629	73%	£538
Glasgow	£625	79%	£1,054
Brent	£582	42%	£2,267
Staffordshire	£568	66%	£684
Sheffield	£563	70%	£1,014

As you can see, Birmingham has the biggest pension shortfall, weighing in at a hefty £1.34 billion, or £1,292 for each of its 1,037,000 citizens. Genteel Durham has the second-highest black hole, at £728 million (£1,424 per head). In third place is Hampshire, with a deficit of £718 million, which comes to £554 per head.

Another problem is that some pension funds are much better funded than others. The average funding level for all LGPS plans is 70% of their liabilities. However, of the top 20 councils, three have assets worth less than three-fifths (60%) of their liabilities. These are Brent (London), with a funding level of 42%, Rhondda, Cynon, Taff in Wales at 53% and Welsh capital Cardiff, with a 58% funding level.

In total, TPA identified 26 councils with funding levels below this critical 60% level. Brent was the worst by far, but other councils with pension-funding problems include Merthyr Tydfil, South Wales (50%), Craven, North Yorkshire (52%), Worthing, West Sussex (52%) and Havering, London (55%).

The biggest bills per head

TPA also identified those councils with the highest pension shortfalls per head of population. These are the 'top 10' in this category.

COUNCIL	DEFICIT (£M)	FUNDING LEVEL	DEFICIT PER PERSON
Merthyr Tydfil	£126	50%	£2,268
Brent	£582	42%	£2,267
Rhondda, Cynon, Taff	£483	53%	£2,063
Gateshead	£391	62%	£2,040
Neath, Port Talbot	£275	59%	£2,001
Hackney	£423	61%	£1,931
Hammersmith and Fulham	£322	59%	£1,899
Newham	£413	61%	£1,718
Blaenau, Gwent	£117	65%	£1,708
Lambeth	£472	61%	£1,660

Merthyr Tydfil has a shocking pension problem, with a deficit amounting to £2,268 per head, which is more than double the £1,125 average I calculated above. Brent is just behind on £2,267 per head and Rhondda, Cynon, Taff takes third place with a deficit per person of £2,063.

While London and Wales dominate the list above, the situation looks bleak across the country. This is a problem for every household paying Council Tax throughout the UK. Indeed, every one of the 434 councils in this survey - from Aberdeen City to York - has a pension deficit, although it's a tiny £3 per head at the Greater London Authority and in Chichester, West Sussex.

Pension promises we can't keep?

Frankly, I find this survey to be deeply disturbing. Clearly, councils with huge pension black holes will have to fill them somehow - and this burden will fall on ordinary taxpayers. However, with Brits struggling to pay their own household bills and pension contributions, it's a bit much to ask them to fork out an average £1,225 extra per person towards sorting out council pensions, too. Hence, Matthew Sinclair, director of the TaxPayers' Alliance, is calling on the government to urgently reform pensions.

"The deficit in the Local Government Pension Scheme remains a ticking time-bomb that's being left for future generations of taxpayers to deal with," said Sinclair. "With an ageing population and a crisis in the public finances, generous final-salary schemes like the LGPS are inflexible and too expensive, and need urgent reform. "Councils should not take false comfort in the improvement in the stock market. Their pension liabilities continue to far outweigh their assets and the situation remains worse than two years ago."

In summary, unless councils take action to increase employee pension contributions, freeze current entitlements, reduce future payouts and increase their retirement age to 65, then taxpayers could be clobbered with yet more rounds of steep rises in Council Tax.

This will not be a welcome move, especially as many councils have already ignored the call by Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Eric Pickles to freeze Council Tax in 2012/13.

READ WHAT: ERIC PICKLES ‘SECRETARY OF STATE’ SAYS ABOUT OVER-CHARGED COUNCIL TAX.

Are you paying too much Council Tax - check here?

THE SLOW DEATH OF COUNCIL TAX

First Published BY: The Guardian

There is a solution to Council Tax hikes: put up the business rate, says Peter Hetherington

Councils in England should have entered 2012 with a renewed sense of optimism. 

Frequently sidelined, ignored and attacked by ministers for inflation-busting Council Tax increases they were lauded by the Audit Commission last year for a "marked improvement" in performance over the past 12 months

The second comprehensive performance assessment (CPA) showed that almost two thirds of the biggest authorities were generally in a good state of health - a year after the commission showered praise on the best councils and noted that, when gauging efficiency and value for money, they stood comparison with the best private businesses.

At any other time, the government - which, after all, instituted the complex and expensive CPA process - might be joining James Strachan, the commission chairman, in proclaiming the "excellent news". Instead, the praise was grudging.

Local and regional government minister Nick Raynsford, are in a belligerent mood and preparing to - let's be blunt - wield the axe on authorities daring to post Council Tax increases above "low" single figures. Raynsford says it's a near certainty that some budgets will be capped.

In local government, 12 months seems an eternity. Last year, ministers were promising councils extra freedoms and flexibilities in return for decent CPA ratings. Some at the margins have been delivered, a few strings to Whitehall severed, while an innovation forum, embracing ministers and councillors, has been mulling over what further powers might be devolved from the centre to the council chamber. 

But everybody knows there is one sticking point in a key area which dare not speak its name: finance.

The method of funding local government is in a mess, bordering on chaos. Ministers have known about this since Labour came to power (and lost the last election) - which is why, last year, Nick Raynsford changed the formula governing the system that allocates government grants and the uniform business rate (together accounting for three quarters of council spending) to councils.

In political terms, this has only made matters worse for the government; a slight shift in resources from the south to parts of the Midlands and the north produced an almighty outcry and, according to another Audit Commission report last month, ministers were at least partly responsible for Council Tax rises this financial year.

The revised formula sent out all the wrong signals to marginal middle-England, the places where elections are won and lost. These days it has moved south from the West Mid lands, and parts of the north, to Hertfordshire and Kent - the very areas hammered by the marginal shift in resources.

Downing Street was not amused - especially after leaked reports from a Cabinet sub-committee last year showed Prescott insisting, under pressure from No 10, that nothing be done to penalise this important constituency by giving the impression that the north was getting more at the expense of the south.

Over the past few weeks the government has responded with almost £800m extra for town and county halls - barely a month after agreeing the annual Whitehall grant settlement - to keep average increases in the next financial year close to the low single figures. It will be a hard task.

The deputy prime minister knows that the current system, broadly in place since the poll tax was scrapped, is unsustainable. He told the Guardian as much last month. Then he acknowledged that a review currently under way and chaired by Raynsford (with the help of up to 20 experts from local government, finance, academia, unions, and business) will have to be "deeper than the relationship between central and local government."

Revealingly, he added: "I do not think the Council Tax will live up to that kind of review. I am trying to manage a difficulty that has been brought about not just since some pensioners have been kicking up [about Council Tax rises this year]. The whole way local authorities are financed is not good enough."

Councils need additional sources of funds and more revenue-raising powers. The problem is that the most sensible reform, namely addressing "underfunding" from business rates will be ruled out of order by Downing Street and probably by the Treasury because the business lobby will not wear any change.

Yet a recent report by Maureen Wellen, assistant director of local government finance and policy at Cipfa, the professional body for council finance officers, shows that in just over 10 years the contribution made by ordinary Council Taxpayers has increased by a third, while the share paid by business has fallen significantly.

This is because governments have pegged any increases in business rates to inflation - at a time, says Wellen, when the needs of local government have risen faster than inflation (pay rises, for instance, outstrip inflation).

There is one obvious conclusion from her analysis. Businesses are getting cut-price property taxes, while householders pick up the tab.

READ WHAT: ERIC PICKLES ‘SECRETARY OF STATE’ SAYS ABOUT OVER-CHARGED COUNCIL TAX.

Are you paying too much Council Tax- check here? 

CRICKET FANS TO SUBSIDISE COUNCIL TAX

First Published By: An Independent Voice for Hedge End

Eastleigh Borough Council's controversial December decision to purchase the Rose Bowl in West End.

Ex West End Councillor Martin Kyrle has been defending the Lib Dems' position, provoking a response from West End residents who would like to see Council Leader and Hedge End Councillor Keith House come to the crease himself to answer questions about the bail-out.

Trying to cut through all the bluster and short-pitched bowling from hotel owners who are worried about competition, and political parties who will oppose it just because the Lib Dems are proposing it. 

The kernel of fact is that the Council will borrow money at a certain rate of interest to buy a piece of real estate which they can lease to a cricket club at a rent higher than the interest on their loan.  The surplus will go towards financing council services, filling part of the funding gap caused by the Lib Dem's long term policy of keeping Council Tax increases below inflation.

What's not to like?  Cricket fans, golfers and people who like expensive spa hotels will in effect be helping to keep Eastleigh's Council Tax down and services running.  In common with other councils, Eastleigh already manages a property portfolio, admittedly on a smaller, less spectacular scale.  The Rose Bowl deal is an ambitious extension of something the Council has already shown that it is competent to do.

The Council will not be spending taxpayers' money in any real sense, because the money will have to be borrowed, and they can only borrow for projects that have a positive business case.  As long as the income line remains higher than the expenditure line, then the Council Tax payers of Eastleigh will not be subsidising the Rose Bowl.

That said, it is a bail-out despite the protestations of some Lib Dem Councillors that it is not.  But it is a bail-out that benefits both parties.  The Rose Bowl gets to proceed with its amibitious plans for Hampshire, and the Council gets both the financial surplus and the harder to quantify benefits to the local economy.

Rose Bowl Boss Leaves 

Council had already agreed in 2009 to borrow in order to finance the building of the Rose Bowl hotel.  The implementation of that decision was delayed by a judicial review instigated by rival hoteliers, leading to a review of the business case and a repeat of the extensive due diligence process which involved consultation with a dozen legal and commercial experts.  

In the intervening two years some of the risks involved in the project have come into focus: the UK economy with George Osborne and Danny Alexander at the helm looks decidedly shaky, and the plans of Rose Bowl plc have taken blows with both the failure to secure an Australia test match and relegation to the second division.  

Nine Lib Dem councillors were absent for December's debate - including three of Hedge End's seven representatives - and  the debate and voting split on party lines.  All councillors will have read the same reports and documents and attended the same briefings and seminars, but all the Conservatives decided to oppose the purchase and only the Lib Dems supported it.   Unless those absentee Lib Dems were dissenters kept away from the debate to preserve party unity...

Was Report "Sexed Up"? 

Independent Cllr Glynn Davies-Dear accused the administration of "sexing up" the Rose Bowl report by inflating the likely new jobs to be generated by the project.  He claimed that a newly built, similarly sized, hotel in Reading was only employing 70 people, not the 500 hoped for in West End. 

He may well prove to be correct, but even 70 jobs are not to be sniffed at as the UK lurches towards three million unemployed under the Conservative / Lib Dem Coalition, and the number of jobs is not critical to the business case.  The important thing, as pointed out in the conclusion of the report, and alluded to by the Conservative Leader, Cllr Godfrey Olson, is:  "This is not a risk free project and Members do need to understand and consider the risks involved."

A succession of Lib Dem councillors got to their feet on 15th December to state that "the benefits outweigh the risks".  When so many come out with exactly the same wording it looks likely that that is the party line, the sound bite that the leadership wanted to be reported.  Parroting the words dictated by their leader, those councillors did not convince that they had themselves, personally, considered and understood the risks.

Luckily for Hedge End, we have the chance to question our borough councillors at the town council meeting each month and Cllr Louise Bloom subsequently made clear that owning the ground is fundamental to managing the risks that might impact the income stream from the Rose Bowl.

 2000 Houses?

Councillors have not been explicit on how ownership of the land would provide a plan B in the event of the income stream failing.  Presumably the Council would have to sell it and use the revenue to pay off what is left of the loan to avoid a massive and unsustainable increase in Council Tax.

It's easy to see that the Council could grant planning permission for 2000 or so houses on the 167 acre site and more than recoup any losses by selling it as building land, thus digging itself out of a financial hole and coincidentally relieving pressure on green field sites in the Hedge End and Botley countryside.   It would require a major change to the Lib Dems' Local Plan, though, as currently it only allows for five hundred new houses to be built in West End between now and 2029 (compared to nearly 4,000 in Hedge End and Botley).

Nobody wants Rose Bowl plc to fail and the Hampshire cricket team to be made homeless, but the question remains: In the worst case scenario, would the Council have the ruthlessness and courage to carry out its plan B?  

READ WHAT: ERIC PICKLES ‘SECRETARY OF STATE’ SAYS ABOUT OVER-CHARGED COUNCIL TAX.

Are you paying too much Council Tax - check here?