Treasury 'cash grab' to hit council homes, says LGA
By Richard Johnstone
| 18 July 2011
The
Local Government Association has accused the Treasury of a ‘cash grab’ that
will put at risk the building of thousands of
new homes.
The plan
to give 75% of the receipts from council house sales to the Treasury also jeopardises
moves to give town halls greater freedom, the LGA says.
Local
authorities say that they should be able to keep the money as part of the ending
of the Housing Revenue Account subsidy system, where all council house rents
are paid to the Treasury and then redistributed. Under the Localism Bill, council landlords will be able to keep all
their rental income from next April, while paying off a proportion of the
housing debt in a 30-year self-financing business plan.
The LGA is urging
the House of Lords, which is currently examining the Bill, to allow councils to
keep receipts from sales too, which amounted to almost £5bn in the past six years.
Councils also want peers to help provide ‘a truly self-financing system for
social housing’ by voting against plans to limit the amount of money councils
can borrow to build new homes. The Bill proposes to prevent councils from borrowing
more than the housing debt they will take on when the new system is introduced.
Gary
Porter, chair of the LGA’s housing and environment board, said that without these
changes a ‘golden opportunity’ to create a self-financing system would be
missed.
‘Peers
should overturn Treasury plans to hoard the bulk of revenue from the sale of
council homes. Instead, local authorities should be allowed to keep 100% of the
money to improve properties for current tenants and build new houses for those
who need them. Failure to deliver could lead to thousands fewer council homes
being built.
‘The
government’s movement toward a self-financing model is undoubtedly good news.
But we clearly need a more wholehearted pursuit of the principle from all
departments. Similarly, placing restrictions on how much councils can borrow to
build new houses runs contrary to the government’s broader intent of devolving
greater freedom to local areas.’