Southwark Council's services

[Penguin68]

Maybe this is the problem? Council tax bands have been static since 1991???!!! So, a property in Dulwich which now on avg goes for upwards of a million pounds might still be banded as what the value was in 1991?

The council's fiscal needs are identified and then a rate is set pro-rata by tax band. It is the relationship of tax bands (and the number of premises in each band) and not their actual value at any one time which is key. Each band is allocated a %age of the needed revenue, taking account the number of properties in each band. There is an issue about whether there need to be some additional bands, certainly - but the changes in house prices over time are not an issue per se. You can imagine scenarios where, for instance, the price of one bed flats was static, but of 5 bed detached houses increased by 200% so that an imbalance emerged, but so long as prices are moving generally in line with each other this shouldn't be a problem. Imagine that the 'price' bands were colour codes - so that some premises are 'white' some 'yellow' some 'red' some 'green' some 'purple' and so on. Purple houses pay tax at 4 times the rate of white houses (say) and that's always true, however much a purple house now costs (or a white one). Effectively the 1991 valuations are (treated as) colours.

[legalalien]

That makes sense, but how are new builds allocated to bands? At actual value or at an adjusted 1991 type rate?

[Penguin68]

That makes sense, but how are new builds allocated to bands? At actual value or at an adjusted 1991 type rate?

This may help https://www.gov.uk/guidance/understand-how-council-tax-bands-are-assessed

[Pugwash]

East Dulwich for many years was known as bedsit land, due to the high number of rentals. Many ED residents are renters of private properties and I would imagine that combined with tenants in HA/half way homes etc that percentage is high.

There was a theory some time ago that those in transient properties, rarely have the community commitment of their surroundings and therefore do not take pride in their environment hence graffiti, fly tipping etc.

Fly tipping has gradually got worse since Southwark introduced charging. We have ended up paying private contractors to take away our bulky rubbish.

[legalalien]

Thanks. It?s a 1991 value approximation as I read it.

Very complex area. Interesting to contemplate situations where changes to the area ought to affect banding. Read article from Which? https://www.which.co.uk/money/tax/council-tax/council-tax-bands-apxvz5j37h67, mentions

this example:

?For example, if nearby long-term roadworks have affected the rateable value of your property, you can submit one challenge for works that started on 31 December 2020, and a new challenge for roadworks starting on a different date.?

One wonders whether changing traffic patterns in the area might warrant re-banding (up for those on quiet roads, down for those on congested roads) if they persist? Similarly houses on estates affected by infill. I wonder if that?s been considered.

[sand12]

I don't think it is that complex. Property values have skyrocketed in the past few decades, and yet the council taxes don't reflect this bounty that is in private hands. I think this does explain it pretty clearly:

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2018/mar/03/council-tax-unfair-westminster

The area has been a centre of gentrification, yet the council services have not kept pace, and in many cases declined. IMO, if councils want to deliver quality services and residents want improvements, we have to reasses property values to the current values in 2021. How is it fair otherwise for anyone to complain about services?

"

It should start with an acknowledgement that property taxes can be progressive and efficient. Generally, we under-tax wealth in the UK, which means we place excessive burdens instead on working people?s income and spending, while the rentiers who have prospered from property wealth gains have been left relatively untouched. Taxing property is also relatively simple, as houses can?t be hidden."

[legalalien]

I meant that the current system of working out banding is complex. I think it is. Whether or not council tax ought to be a wealth tax, or to reflect what services people receive from the council is a different question.

[Jenijenjen]

?The area has been a centre of gentrification, yet the council services have not kept pace, and in many cases declined. IMO, if councils want to deliver quality services and residents want improvements, we have to reasses property values to the current values in 2021. How is it fair otherwise for anyone to complain about services??

Any increased revenue raised by Southwark by these means will not be ringfenced to be spent on keeping the streets of Dulwich clean. It will be used to meet the needs of the more vulnerable in the Borough.

[legalalien]

Or more likely to service debt as the council is going to have to borrow a lot to meet its house building ( and climate change) commitments.

[rachp]

They might not be ring-fenced but when the council had more money, they spent more on services for the vulnerable AND the services that the whole community requires and benefits from. We don?t know how the council would spend increased funds if they were generated.

There is sometimes a reaction when people in more affluent areas are bothered by the area becoming dirtier, as if it?s only well off people who are concerned about this and therefore it?s not really a valid concern when bigger issues exist. I wonder how true that is? I was somewhere the other day which was definitely a lot less affluent than Dulwich and there were council funded planters (nothing to do with LTNs) and signs put up by the local residents asking people to respect the efforts they?d made to improve the area by not dropping litter.

Jenijenjen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> ?The area has been a centre of gentrification, yet

> the council services have not kept pace, and in

> many cases declined. IMO, if councils want to

> deliver quality services and residents want

> improvements, we have to reasses property values

> to the current values in 2021. How is it fair

> otherwise for anyone to complain about services??

>

> Any increased revenue raised by Southwark by these

> means will not be ringfenced to be spent on

> keeping the streets of Dulwich clean. It will be

> used to meet the needs of the more vulnerable in

> the Borough.

[Nigello]

It really is a joint effort. I have asked councillors to intervene with shop owners who don't keep their shopfronts clean, explaning that retail is vital to all, but nothing happened. So I asked individual shop owners and some did and some didn't. You can't rely on the council to do everything, so if you are displeased, complain by all means but do something yourself if you can. Got a litter problem near your house? Take pics, clean it up, send pics to councillor and MP to show them up! People are very keen to tap away on their keyboards, which takes time and at least a bit of effort, but not prepared to do something practical and useful. Sure, you can't apply that to education or dodgy pavements but that doesn't mean it is not a valid way of approaching at least some problems.

[rachp]

Couldn?t agree more Nigello, the community needs to play a part too.

[sand12]

Not expecting or asking for any ring fencing just for areas that have seen property values rise. Should be distributed across the borough to meet critical needs of vulnerable (Social care, SEND), but no one can argue that more funds would not be helpful and property reassessments would be a pretty straightforward way for councils to do this. Politicians might not want to touch this for fear of upsetting their constituents who will have to pay more. Someone has to have the courage though to state the obvious. Central govt funding is inadequate, local (esp London) property values have risen, yet the formula for calculating it has not been updated to reflect these changes in the past 20+ years?

Makes no sense.

There are several local clean streets groups (EDSTN , Dawson?s Heights) and friends of Dulwich park that also do litter pick ups. I do what I can as well when I am out, but individuals can?t do much about persistent fly tipping, over flowing dog shit barrels, parking, inconsiderate builders and planning regs not being enforced, or other anti social issues. Most people do care about their local areas and I don?t think whether you rent or own or your salary has anything to do with it. Collective responsibility and expectations that there is a negative consequence for disregarding the rules deter people from this, but if no one is enforcing things?

Speaking with several council employees over the years, the consistent refrain is that there isn?t enough money to enforce half the laws or regs on the books. You need actual people to do this effectively. That means salaries, pensions, and other labour related costs which the council has had to shrink in the interests of efficiency. Cutting labour costs to the bone is a false economy when the result is blight and deteriorating critical social and health and safety services.

[Jenijenjen]

As Penguin has explained, the rise in value of a property itself is irrelevant when setting council tax as it is the comparison and differential between different types of property that determines which council tax band a property falls into. So it means a five bedroom property with a garden, garage etc will fall into a higher council tax band than a one bedroom flat on the second floor with sliding scales for properties in between. The increased value of a property within the last 30 years is immaterial as it is the differential between different types of property that is taken into account.

I fully agree that the council needs more money for all kinds of things which are being neglected currently (which in my view should come from central government) but your suggestion of raising council tax in line with increased property valuations would mean implementing a totally different system of setting council tax than the one we have now and far from straight forward.

[sand12]

It is very kind of Penguin to explain the current system. The current system in not fit for purpose today. The article I linked above explains how even as it stands today, there is a lot of inequity baked into it by design. There are loopholes and failures to reflect today's realities.

I agree central govt has to give more as well, but current politics make this very difficult. While we wait for the political calculus to change, local services and residents are neglected and suffer.

I don't think local govt is great across the board at all, but I do think that they have been left holding the bag under austerity and the most vulnerable and areas with the most deprivation have suffered further. People trying to make do with what little they have can only go so far and food banks, charities, and philanthropy are no substitute for properly functioning local and national services.

[legalalien]

If I understand this recent council funding strategy paper correctly, the current policy is to change the balance between central and local funding with more emphasis on local taxation.

https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s103542/Report%20Policy%20and%20Resources%20Strategy%202022-23%20to%202024-25%20update.pdfibthiught this paragraph was interesting given ongoing debates about gentrification:

?The ongoing move to self-sufficient local government demonstrates the importance of Southwark?s capital investment programme within the borough, either as the lead authority or with partners. Regeneration is one of the key routes to ensuring sustainable budget sources as we move closer to reliance on local taxation, either through business rates or through council tax as well as increasing opportunities across the borough for quality of life, jobs and environmental improvements.?

The report isn?t exciting but quite an interesting read to see where the council?s finances are at. Links to the Appendixes are at https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?MId=7017, you can see where they are looking at making efficiency savings, source additional income (LTN fines!), and proposed changes to various fees and charges for 2022/23.

[malumbu]

Sand12 - you've hit the nail on the head with your reference to austerity and the harm it has had to our public and social services. Shame on Cameron and Osbourne, and the Lib Dems who should have put a brake on the savage cuts that affected the vulnerable the most. In all the discussions on local authorities you need to remember central government's role.

Johnson effectively acting like his own dead cat has created mass memory loss about the government of the early tens.

[legalalien]

Interesting though that as I understand it from the report linked above the Labour council chose to freeze council tax from 2010 to 2018 and subtly suggest that they?d now prefer CPI increases to the central govt imposed cap. (I may be wrong - this is a subject I?ve only just starting paying much attention to so am relying on the docs that the council put out.)

I?d like some proper and better-communicated-to-the-public clarity about who is responsible for what and the basis on which they are expected to fund it. I suspect most people have no idea, and really they should,to enable democracy to function properly. Politicians, local and central, blaming each other without going into detail is unhelpful.

[rachp]

Is this an example of lack of vision & leadership? The councils that are open about having robust enforcement strategies position them as self funding. I believe Lewisham has gone down the route of having a much stronger enforcement strategy just recently- will be interesting to see how that works out.

sand12 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Not expecting or asking for any ring fencing just

> for areas that have seen property values rise.

> Should be distributed across the borough to meet

> critical needs of vulnerable (Social care, SEND),

> but no one can argue that more funds would not be

> helpful and property reassessments would be a

> pretty straightforward way for councils to do

> this. Politicians might not want to touch this for

> fear of upsetting their constituents who will have

> to pay more. Someone has to have the courage

> though to state the obvious. Central govt funding

> is inadequate, local (esp London) property values

> have risen, yet the formula for calculating it has

> not been updated to reflect these changes in the

> past 20+ years?

>

> Makes no sense.

>

> There are several local clean streets groups

> (EDSTN , Dawson?s Heights) and friends of Dulwich

> park that also do litter pick ups. I do what I can

> as well when I am out, but individuals can?t do

> much about persistent fly tipping, over flowing

> dog shit barrels, parking, inconsiderate builders

> and planning regs not being enforced, or other

> anti social issues. Most people do care about

> their local areas and I don?t think whether you

> rent or own or your salary has anything to do with

> it. Collective responsibility and expectations

> that there is a negative consequence for

> disregarding the rules deter people from this, but

> if no one is enforcing things?

>

> Speaking with several council employees over the

> years, the consistent refrain is that there isn?t

> enough money to enforce half the laws or regs on

> the books. You need actual people to do this

> effectively. That means salaries, pensions, and

> other labour related costs which the council has

> had to shrink in the interests of efficiency.

> Cutting labour costs to the bone is a false

> economy when the result is blight and

> deteriorating critical social and health and

> safety services.

[malumbu]

What are Lewisham enforcing? Always found them pants on some double yellow line parking. And going for the soft option eg daytime shoppers rather than night time revelers (ie when there is no enforcement). Have told them this, and repeated it through my MP.

[rachp]

https://twitter.com/envirocrime_lbl?s=21