Title

BUSINESS RATES

Local government settlement shows Government is not in listening mode

It is clear from the final local government settlement that the Government did not pay attention to the submissions of councils, including districts, says Ian Miller. The consultation with the sector on council tax increases 'seems a sham', he adds.

The final local government settlement brought no cheer. The Government didn't listen to the representations that councils, including districts, submitted. New homes bonus allocations for 2021-22 will be based on housing growth in the 12 months to October 2020, using a 0.4% pre-COVID threshold. No account was taken of the impact of COVID on building during half of that period.

A higher threshold for the Mayor of London apart, there was no shift in proposals for criteria for ‘excessive' council tax increases. The Government presented no compelling reason why the maximum increase for districts should be 2% or £5, a figure that has applied for several years and has not been adjusted to allow for erosion in the value of money. Nor a reason why, in comparison, police and crime commissioners should be allowed to increase by up to £15. In many shires, police council tax has leap-frogged the district share. For councils, the consultation seems a sham. The decisions were taken long ago by the Treasury. The Spending Review on 25 November said ‘the referendum threshold for increases in council tax will remain at 2% in 2021-22' ignoring the statutory requirement to consult and the process for the House of Commons to approve the referendum principles.

The Ministry didn't listen to representations about the name of the new ‘lower tier services grant'. Districts are grateful for it (as are unitary councils who also benefit). It reinforces the Whitehall preoccupation with using unnecessarily hierarchical language. What would have been wrong with community services grant or local services grant?

The ‘request' for billing authorities not to send out business rates bills because of the Budget on 3 March gives the game away: there will be more reliefs, decided centrally. Billing in many councils would otherwise have been under way by then. If the approach devised by the Government requires software changes, there is a severe risk that getting out bills in time for instalments on 1 April will be jeopardised.

As always, Whitehall knows best.

Ian Miller is chief executive of Wyre Forest DC

@IanM65

BUSINESS RATES

Forward motion for SEND?

By Rob Powell | 15 January 2026

Local government funding is a huge talking point as the new year kicks into gear, with cumulative SEND deficits being one of the areas strongly in need of he...

BUSINESS RATES

Challenging the LGR wisdom

By Heather Jameson | 15 January 2026

As local government faces the next round of reorganisation, Dorset Council chief Catherine Howe challenges the assumption that only county-scale leaders can ...

BUSINESS RATES

On your marks for the AI era in local government

By Dan Peters | 15 January 2026

Councils are racing to use AI to cut costs and improve services – but a shortage of skills is holding them back and time is running out. Dan Peters reports.

BUSINESS RATES

Pay body could have 'unintended consequences'

By Martin Ford | 13 January 2026

The Government has been warned of ‘unintended consequences’ stemming from its proposed adult social care negotiating body (ASCNB).

Ian Miller

Popular articles by Ian Miller