Council Budgets

Skip to the loo? Easier said than done as Britain loses hundreds of public toilets

, ,

As I get older I begin to identify with the sentiments in this article. If you can find a public loo in many rural settings you’re either in a parallel universe or lost. This story tells us:

Public toilets are not as convenient as they were. Getting caught short outside home has become an increasingly tricky problem as a result.

The trouble has been caused by austerity-hit councils in the UK who are not legally required to provide toilets for the public and who have cut expenditure on them in order to protect services that they are obliged by law to provide for local people.

The result is a major reduction of Ladies and Gents across the nation. According to Freedom of Information data obtained by local government researcher Jack Shaw and shared with the Observer, the number of public lavatories that local authorities have funded and maintained fell from 3,154 in 2015/16 to 2,556 in 2020/21 – a drop of 19% across the past six years, which comes on top of reductions in previous years.

Public health workers have warned that this loss of public conveniences is now causing major problems for a range of people, including the homeless, disabled, outdoor workers and those whose illnesses dictate frequent toilet use.

According to a 2019 report by the Royal Society for Public Health, imaginatively titled Taking the P***, the effect has been to create a “urinary leash” ,with one in five people stating that a lack of facilities in their neighbourhood means they restrict outings from their homes.

Former ‘red wall’ areas could lose millions in council funding review

,

A shame this is being politicized. To my mind its more about an impartial process of fairness than politics, with rural places deserving a fair rebalancing, but then who am I to urge rational fairness in these ultra selfish times?

A reallocation of council funding could redirect hundreds of millions of pounds from so-called left-behind communities in the north of England to the leafy southern shires, analysis has found, leaving many newly Conservative voting “red wall” areas facing fresh cuts to local services.

Under a review of the local authority funding formula, £320m a year could be shifted out of councils in England’s most deprived areas while Tory-controlled shire councils mainly in the south-east gain £300m.

High-profile losers include many constituencies that elected new Tory MPs in December, including Workington, which would suffer from Cumbria county council’s £5m loss, and Sedgefield, which would feel the impact of £10m being taken out of Durham county council.

An estimated 37 of the 50 new Tory MPs – amounting to 70% of the gains made by the Conservatives at the general election – represent areas that are set to lose millions a year. Other notable losers include Stoke-on-Trent, Redcar, West Bromwich, Bishop Auckland, Grimsby and Leigh.

Councils in country have far less to spend on elderly than those in cities

, ,

Anecdotally I thought this was the case but this article demonstrates the funding bias against rural settings in the way local government is funded. It tells us:

Councils in rural areas like Dorset have five times less than to spend on care of the elderly than those in cities, new analysis reveals. 

The study by the Salvation Army warns that areas with lower house prices are unable to properly fund social care, because they cannot raise enough from council tax and business rates. 

Experts said the findings were evidence of a “dementia lottery” which meant the chance of receiving help were a matter of geography. 

The analysis suggests that typically councils in Dorset would have around £5,762 a head to spend on elderly care – while those in Lambeth in London could have more than £31,000 at their disposal. 

Leicestershire, Derbyshire, Somerset, East Sussex, Staffordshire, Lincolnshire and North Yorkshire were among other areas with the most limited resources, according to the analysis. All the councils which fared best were in London. 

The trends also show an increasing gulf, with  “spending power” in rural councils falling, while it is rising in urban areas. 

The organisation said it was now having to subsidise places in its own care homes, to the tune of an average £302 per person were week. 

Lieut-Colonel Dean Pallant, of The Salvation Army, said: “Rural local authorities have been set up to fail with this flawed formula and it urgently needs revision. 

“People are living longer and the population is ageing, the adult social care bill is rising but the local authority funding streams aren’t enough to cover the demand, especially in areas where there are not many businesses or people to tax.”

“The Government must prioritise its spending and properly fund adult social care.”

Millions in rural England risk being ‘left behind’ post-Brexit, councils warn

, ,

This very thoughtful and illuminating report is the latest in a useful list of analysis on this subject. It tells us:

Millions of people living in rural England are at risk of being ‘left behind’ and missing out on their fair share of future prosperity following the UK’s withdrawal from the EU, council leaders warn.

The Local Government Association (LGA) set up a Post-Brexit England Commission to examine the challenges and opportunities faced by non-metropolitan England. Its final report, published at the LGA’s Annual Conference in Bournemouth on 4 July 2019, argues that the challenges facing rural areas can only be met by passing down greater powers to local areas.

Towns and villages outside the big cities are facing unique challenges but are increasingly frustrated that the levers of power continue to be held in Westminster and Whitehall. 

LGA analysis finds the crucial issues faced by communities outside of England’s cities include:

A disproportionately ageing population which will see the majority rural areas reaching a “tipping point” of over 50 retired residents per 100 of working age residents by 2030, as younger people struggle to find jobs and homes locally and move away. Many council areas are already at that level today.

  • Durham currently has 53 retired residents per 100 of working age which is forecast to rise to 60 retired residents per 100 working age by 2026 and 76 retired per 100 working age by 2041.
  • North Norfolk has 63 retired residents per 100 of working age which is forecast to rise to 70 retired residents per 100 working age by 2026 and 86 retired per 100 working age by 2041.
  • West Dorset has 54 retired residents per 100 working age which is forecast to rise to 67 retired residents per 100 working age by 2026 and 88 retired per 100 working age by 2041.
  • Rother has 58 retired residents per 100 working age which is forecast to rise to 69 retired residents per 100 working age by 2026 and 89 retired per 100 working age by 2041.

Businesses that are on average 30 per cent less productive per job than urban areas with a major town centre, as economic growth in cities is fast-tracked by national Government through devolution deals and local industrial strategies.

Poor mobile and broadband connectivity across communities outside cities with only 42 per cent of rural residents receiving a 4G signal from every major mobile network operator in their homes.

Without their fair share of investment, councils are concerned that the brain drain away from rural areas and towards bigger cities and towns will continue. A new survey carried out for the LGA found seven in ten rural residents believe councils are best placed to improve their local areas and deliver the services communities desperately need. In sharp contrast, just 2 per cent said they believed central government was best placed to meet the needs of rural areas.

The LGA is calling for the Government to use the Spending Review to address the £8 billion overall funding gap facing councils by 2025.

Government also needs to recognise the growing sense of disconnection in rural England and the historic opportunity by giving councils the powers and freedoms to seize the initiative and make sure their communities and businesses can thrive.

Council left red-faced after £6,000 bus shelter built on road with no buses

, ,

I know Maltby well although I’ve never waited for a bus there. On the strength of this story its just as well I haven’t as they never actually come to some of its bus shelters…..

Residents were left scratching their heads after a £6,000 bus shelter appeared on a street where no buses run.

The shelter popped up in place of a rusty old pole on Tickhill Road in Maltby, South Yorkshire, earlier this month.

But council officials were left red-faced after it emerged the two-bus-a-day service along the road was axed back in March.

Council funding crisis could be ‘catastrophic’ for vulnerable children

NHS Trusts are allowed to overspend with some rhetorical criticism but not swingeing sanctions. This story (and there will be a dozen so or more local authorities over the next 24 months to follow) shows that local authorities conversely are the whipping boy in our unbalanced relationship between central and local government. Lets hope those in Central Government of both political hues who have presided over this get the blame and not the local authorities themselves which have been denuded of over 50% of their funding in recent years. And who are the real victims in all this? – those vulnerable people who need society’s help most! This story tells us:

Families with vulnerable youngsters are unable to get help from cash-strapped councils, the children’s commissioner for England has said.

Anne Longfield’s comments followed Tory-run Northamptonshire and East Sussex councils’ plans for major reductions in the services they provide across all areas of activity as a result of funding shortfalls.

Longfield said she had written to ministers calling on the government to intervene to ensure youngsters across the country were protected from local authorities’ financial difficulties.

“I’m extremely worried that the financial difficulties that Northamptonshire county council are facing will mean that they are not going to be protecting the services for the most vulnerable children, which could have catastrophic consequences for those children,” she said.

Work carried out with the Institute for Fiscal Studies showed “half of all the spending on children’s services goes on the 70,000 children who are in care”, she said, and “if you add in those who are on the child protection registers, that’s over 80%, leaving very, very little for any others”.

She told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme on Saturday: “Councils have been warning for some time that they are not going to be able to meet their statutory requirements.

“I can see and hear every day from families and children who simply can’t get help.”

There were about 1.5 million children living in families with very high needs such as “severe mental health problems, domestic violence in the household” who were not getting “any form of substantial help”, she said.