|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Grant Shapps: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government how an increase in (a) the number of residential dwellings and (b) the local population arising from the construction of additional residential dwellings is taken into account in determining revenue support grant allocations. 
John Healey: Formula grant, which comprises Revenue Support Grant, redistributed business rates and principal formula Police Grant, where appropriate, is largely based on the socio-economic and demographic characteristics of the authority, together with a measure of the authoritys ability to raise income locally (i.e. the number of band-D equivalent properties within the area), relative to all other authorities providing the same services. We then ensure that every authority receives at least a minimum percentage increase (the floor) year-on-year on a like-for-like basis i.e. after adjusting for changes in funding and function.
The number of residential dwellings in an authority will be reflected in the number of band-D equivalent properties (tax base) data provided by local authorities to the Department. Data from these returns are used in
the calculation of tax base projections at the beginning of the three-year settlement period. Further, the mid-year population estimates and sub-national population projections produced by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) take into account the changes in population as a result of births, deaths and migration, both internally and internationally. We use the latest population data that are available from the ONS at the time in the calculation of Formula Grant for the three year settlement.
Mr. Iain Wright: The information requested has been placed in the Library of the House. The information shows the number of new social rent homes built in each London borough since 1992-93; the figures exclude affordable housing acquisitions.
Statistics on affordable housing supply (new build and acquisitions) for England were published in the Communities and Local Government Statistics Release of 12 June and accompanying live tables. The web links are shown as follows:
Ms Buck: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government which London local authorities have submitted proposals for tackling overcrowding in response to her recent initiative on overcrowding; and if she will make a statement. 
Barking and Dagenham
City of London
Hammersmith and Fulham
Kensington and Chelsea
Officials have meetings arranged with a further 11 London local authorities. Pathfinder authorities are building on the lessons learnt from the London pilots and developing schemes to make better use of existing stock for example by offering enhanced support to under occupiers who wish to move, supporting moves into other tenures and improving tenants quality of life by mitigating the effect of overcrowding.
Grant Shapps: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (1) if she will place in the Library a copy of the research used to select the local areas chosen for the housing market renewal pathfinders; 
(3) on what grounds Birmingham was added to the locations for the Housing Market Renewal pathfinders; and what role the right hon. Member for North Tyneside (Mr. Byers) played in the decision as Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions. 
Mr. Iain Wright: The Housing Market Renewal (HMR) programme originated from a growing body of evidenceacademic research, Government statistics and local anecdotal reportsall pointing to large scale abandonment of housing and neighbourhoods, resulting in low demand for housing.
1. All local authorities in the South East, London, South West and East regions were excluded on the grounds that none of those areas are experiencing widespread severe low demand.
2. Local authorities with low demand problems in either private or social sectors, but not both, were excluded, since these were unlikely to be symptomatic of a wider problem.
3. Local authorities with weak evidence of low demand in housing statistics returns were excluded.
4. Local authorities with low demand problems at small scale levels and which did not relate to wider markets were excluded.
Stage 2 then identified sub-regional groupings on the basis of areas which contained a large number of properties in low demand, a large number of properties at risk of low demand, and a high risk of more widespread failure in the short term due to unstable housing markets. Additional local authorities were added to the pathfinder groupings where the failure to include them was likely to have a serious impact on the success of action to tackle housing market failure.
This process led to the identification of the nine areas considered in immediate need or at highest risk of market failure, which included Birmingham/Sandwell. The Secretary of State approved the final list of areas selected as pathfinders.
Mr. Crausby: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government what the average expenditure per head was by local authorities in (a) Bolton and (b) Greater Manchester in the latest period for which figures are available. 
John Healey: The average revenue and capital expenditure per head by local authorities in Bolton and Greater Manchester in 2006-07, the latest period for which figures are available is tabled as follows:
|£ per head|
Communities and Local Government Revenue Outturn (RO) and Capital Outturn (COR4) returns.
The definition of revenue expenditure used here is that expenditure funded from aggregate external finance (AEF), council tax and authorities reserves. AEF is central Government revenue funding that comprises formula grant (revenue support grant, redistributed business rates and police grant) and specific grants inside AEF, i.e. revenue grants paid for councils core services. Revenue information is produced on a non-financial reporting standard (FRS) 17 basis.
Mr. Drew: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government what estimate she has made of the likely effect on (a) administrative and (b) other costs if Gloucestershire was to become a unitary authority area. 
Mr. Hoyle: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government what the composition of Comprehensive Performance Assessment inspector panels is when assessing (a) district authorities, (b) county councils, (c) Metropolitan authorities and (d) unitary authorities. 
Your question on the composition of Comprehensive Performance Assessment inspector panels when assessing district authorities, county councils, metropolitan authorities and unitary councils has been passed to me for reply.
The Comprehensive Performance Assessment (CPA) for all single tier and county councils comprises the assessment scores for use of resources, based upon the work of appointed auditors, annual service assessments and a corporate assessment element. These are brought together by the Audit Commission using a set of rules, to categorise councils according to their performance, which is described by a star rating (0-4 star).
For county councils, metropolitan councils and unitary councils, a corporate assessment is undertaken once every three years by an Audit Commission team comprising 6 people:
an Audit Commission team leader;
two Audit Commission inspectorsone of these is also a member of the team carrying out the Joint Area Review of Childrens Services led by OFSTED or CSCI, which is earned out at the same time as the corporate assessment;
two peersone is an elected member from a council, the other is normally a local government chief officer or equivalent; and
an administrative support officer.
CPA re-categorisation for district councils, from 2006, follows a two-stage approach:
Re-categorisation activity is only taken following an application for re-categorisation by a district council. An Audit Commission panel decides whether or not there is sufficient evidence for a potential change of category. This panel comprises two Audit Commission managers with no previous involvement at the council concerned, and a peer from a district council, either an officer or councillor. If the panel identifies that there is sufficient evidence of a potential category change, a corporate assessment is carried out to determine whether a category change is warranted.
For district council CPA, the corporate assessment team comprises 4 people:
an Audit Commission team leader;
an Audit Commission inspector;
a peereither a chief officer or an elected member from a district council; and
an administrative support officer.
For all types of council, the findings of the corporate assessment team are subject to further internal review and challenge before a draft report is sent to the council. This review is undertaken by a consistency panel of two senior Audit Commission managers and a peer, either an officer or councillor, who have had no previous involvement With the council concerned.
The text of this letter will be placed in Hansard.
Bedford Borough Council
Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council
Hackney Borough Council
Hartlepool Borough Council
Lewisham London Borough Council
Mansfield District Council
North Tyneside Council
Stoke-on-Trent City Council
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|