Nationally, many councils are financially stretched, with one in five expected to declare effective bankruptcy over the next three years. All councils have faced huge budget reductions from central government since 2010. In East Herts, the District Council is also paying the price of hefty borrowing decisions made by the previous administration.  The stated aim was to future-proof key facilities – but how much has the future-proofing cost, and has it been worth the price?

Since the Green/Lib Dem administration took over running East Herts District Council in May 2023, we’ve received lots of questions about District Council funding, how much money the District Council has, and where the money is going.

Where does my council tax go?

Although you pay your council tax bill to East Herts District Council, about 75% of it then goes to Hertfordshire County Council. The next biggest chunk, about 11% goes to the Police and Crime Commissioner. Only about 9% (or £200 per year for a band D property) goes to East Herts District Council, and the rest (about 4 – 5%) goes to your town or parish council.

There are around 62,000 households in East Herts, and this year (financial year 2024/25), the District Council received £12.6m in council tax. This equates to around  £3.76 per week for a typical band D household.

Does East Herts District Council get any other money?

Along with council tax, the District Council receives money from government grants, business rates, and New Homes Bonus grants – although this is due to end. The District Council also gets money from Hartham and Grange Paddocks leisure facilities, from parking charges, from renting out space (e.g. for activities like Oktoberfest), and in the future from BEAM. 

With all income combined, the District Council expects to receive about £22.6m for the financial year 24/25.

In addition to the above, there are other pots of money that the District Council receives ad-hoc, but these are pretty much all ringfenced, and can only be spent on specific projects or in certain areas. Examples of this include Section 106 money from new developments, and the UK Shared Prosperity Fund. 

What does the District Council spend its money on?

The District Council’s biggest expense is Waste management. This includes household waste collection, street cleaning, dealing with fly tipping, dealing with dead animals, and dealing with dog-waste bins.

Other big costs include planning and planning enforcement, environmental health (dealing with food standards, noise complaints, licensing, air quality monitoring, asbestos removal), grounds maintenance (verge cutting, maintaining parks & open spaces, managing playgrounds), housing (responding to housing and homelessness applications, funding temporary accommodation), dealing with housing and council tax benefit claims, and providing IT systems to enable much to be done online. 

For the financial year 2024/25, the cost of all provision combined was budgeted to be £22.9m.  

It looks like the books roughly balance then – so what’s the problem?

Yes, the figures above are roughly balanced. This is because all councils must, by law, show that their expected spending won’t be higher than their expected income. If it is higher, the council must issue what’s called a Section 114 notice, which means the government steps in and tells the council what to cut.

The problem is, for many years now, central government has given councils less and less money. They’ve also limited how much councils can increase council tax. In years where there is significant inflation, councils cannot increase tax to reflect this. Yet the cost of all services has gone up. The combined impact means that East Herts District Council now has 40% less income in real terms compared to 10 years ago.

East Herts District Council isn’t just suffering from cuts in government funding though. There is a second problem: the cost of interest on borrowing. 

As the previous administration themselves has been keen to emphasise, in their final six years or so, the then Conservative-led council made some hefty spending decisions, including spending on Grange Paddocks, Hartham Leisure Centre, and BEAM.  Unfortunately, these projects, along with Northgate End car park, resulted in significant borrowing. While interest rates were less than 0.5% back in 2019/2020 when the borrowing took place, they have since increased dramatically, reaching 5% when the Green/Lib Dem administration took over. The impact is significant. For the financial year 2024/25, interest on loans is expected to be nearly £3m.  

To make the books ‘balance’ for 2024/25, only a few months after taking over, the Green/LibDem administration had to find over £1m in savings.  

If you’re interested in seeing the detail, the most recent 24/25 details are all available here.

What did you do last time to reduce costs by £1m?

Many services provided by the District Council are statutory – meaning they must be provided by law, and so cannot easily be cut. In the recent financial year, cuts to achieve this “balanced budget” included cuts to grounds maintenance, cuts to aspects of economic development, and various internal changes to cut staff costs. There were also suggested cuts that the Green/Lib Dem administration did not approve, including cuts to grants, cuts to Citizen’s Advice, cuts to planning enforcement, and cuts to the blue badge scheme. Details are available here.

However, despite hefty cuts agreed in March 2024, costs have continued to rise. In addition, new legislation has increased council costs nationally. Waste management is one of the biggest expenses the District Council has and food waste collection will soon become mandatory, meaning a significant extra cost. To try and offset some of this extra cost, when the new contract starts in April 2025, general waste collection will be reduced from two weeks (in most areas) to three. It will be a big change for lots of residents, but it will mean fewer service cuts elsewhere. 

And how about for next year?

It was clear when preparing the 2024/25 budget, that 2025/26 was going to be very challenging. The new waste contract will be significantly more expensive than the previous one, and as borrowing has continued to increase, interest payments have continued to rise. To try to ensure the District Council could produce a balanced budget in 2025/26, a further £3m of savings were identified. However, even this is not expected to be enough to produce a balanced budget in 2025/26, with further savings of at least £2m needed. 

And remember, the District Council must by law, balance its books.  

As the Green/Lib Dem administration, to achieve the legally required “balanced budget”, we have two options: increase the District Council’s income, or make even more decisions on what to cut – or in reality, most likely do both. 

How does the District Council increase income?

This is a good question, and ways to increase income are often quite limited.  There are some options however, although most are not popular.  Here are the key ones:

• A council tax referendum: this is where we ask residents if they’d like to pay more council tax. A referendum would cost at least £100,000 to run, and it doesn’t take much imagination to guess the likely outcome(!)

• Selling assets to plug the gap: the administration has already explored this in detail, with several assets earmarked for sale. However, there are assets that people don’t want to see sold, and assets that will not make much money even when they are sold at best price. Most assets also earn money, so whilst selling them is a way of escaping a crisis, to do so will reduce income in the longer term.

• Increasing parking charges: our engagement to date tells us that residents, whilst recognising the need, take a very dim view of paying more to park, but it will likely be a necessity. 

• Increasing charges for garden waste collection: again, unlikely to be popular, and likely to be met with criticism, but again, likely to be a necessity.

• Renting office space: ideally the administration would be keen to do this. However, it requires people wanting to rent, and Covid-19 has reduced demand for office space.

• Maximising income on existing assets: this was the stated reason for the then-Conservative administration to redevelop Hertford Theatre and create BEAM.  However, it’s early days, people have less disposable income, and Covid-19 changed how many people manage their money and time. We are also looking at options for increasing revenue on District Council green spaces (e.g. renting out for events), but again, this is not necessarily popular, especially for neighbouring residents.

This then leaves options for cuts. It wouldn’t take a big leap to imagine that areas we refused to cut last time will be put back on the table, along with many others. Yet services are already cut to the bone, and are largely ones that the District Council must, by law, deliver.

Over the next few months, councillors will have to look at potential cuts to pretty much all services to achieve a legally required “balanced budget”. Likely most services will end up getting worse as a result, because there will not be sufficient staff or money to achieve the standard we’d all like to see. 

But the District Council just spent loads of money on BEAM!

Yes, over the last six or so years, millions and millions of pounds were spent to redevelop Hartham, Grange Paddocks, BEAM (formerly Hertford Theatre), and to build Northgate End car park in Bishops Stortford. These projects were not the current administration’s decisions, and indeed, many who were in opposition at the time strongly opposed running multiple capital projects at once, for the exact reason of affordability. When we arrived in May 2023, BEAM was essentially 80% complete, and it was too late to redesign it to reduce the costs.  If we didn’t agree to spend the amount needed to get it finished, it would’ve been mothballed, would not make any income at all, and yet would still require loan repayments.  The only option by that point was to get it finished so it could start paying for itself.

However, the fact remains that as a result of these capital projects, combined with increases in interest rates, the District Council now has even less money for services. By way of comparison, interest on debt in 2020/21 was around £400,000. It now sits at nearly £3m.

What’s the solution?

This is the question that many councillors in the Green/LibDem administration have been grappling with. None of us became councillors to simply sit and oversee the demise of services. Of course, there are ways of innovatively achieving both cuts and ambitions – wildflower areas, for example, achieve both improving biodiversity and plant life, and reducing costs from maintenance. Imaginative use of new technologies can reduce some costs while not overly affecting services. But in the end, until councils have certainty of funding, it is difficult to really plan meaningfully for the longer-term.  

However, despite the challenges, there are many things we can still achieve that do not come at a cost. As an administration, we were keen to engage with residents and be transparent about decisions. This is something we remain determined to do, and we welcome all ideas for generating income, improving our district, engaging with residents, or anything else that you’d like to share.

The post HOW GREEN PARTY COUNCILLORS ARE DEALING WITH THE FINANCIAL BLACK HOLE FACING EAST HERTS DISTRICT COUNCIL appeared first on East Herts Green Party.

The Development Management Committee is a cross-party group of councillors, who are tasked with reviewing all large-scale planning applications.  The committee is apolitical, and members are not whipped on how to vote.  Fundamentally, the Development Management Committee is not there to assess “is this a good application?” but rather “are there any reasons in planning law to refuse this application, and will these stand at appeal?”.

At the Development Management Committee, all three district councillors expressed their concerns, including the unsuitable location for the medical centre the lack of transport connections, sustainability, loss of agricultural land and drainage issues.

The application, for a residential development on an unsuitable edge-of-town site in Buntingford, was refused planning permission.

Cllr Vicky Burt (Buntingford): “As a Buntingford resident and councillor, I have always thought the development was unsuitable as it is unsustainable and inaccessible.

“The site is on the edge of town, located on a busy road, up a steep hill, with poor transport links.

“There has been a substantial amount of house building in Buntingford in recent years with few associated employment opportunities, thus forcing more people into their cars even more. The development goes against highways targets of half of journeys within a town being made on foot or by bicycle.

“In addition, both Edwinstree Middle School and Freman College, the town’s secondary school, are both oversubscribed in all year groups.

“I was also concerned about the foul water drainage system on the site, which depends on gravity for the western section and a pumping station for the eastern section. These ultimately feed into the foul water network on the adjacent site to the west. This site relies on a pumping station that pumps foul water into a manhole on Hare Street Road which feeds into the already stressed network feeding the Thames Water Sewage Treatment Works that does not have sufficient capacity.”

Cllr Sue Nicholls (Buntingford), said: “The major concern was not just the proposal to move our only primary care provision in Buntingford from the current site on an accessible, flat location in the centre of town, that is in easy reach on foot by a large proportion of local residents (even many less able residents) to a site at the top of a steep hill on the edge of town.

“It was also the fact that the application came with a proposal for around 200 houses attached to it. There are currently no strategic development sites in Buntingford as part of the District or local Neighbourhood Plans to reflect the detrimental impact of the scale of development that has already taken place in Buntingford – over 1000 since 2018.

“This, combined with the strain on drainage infrastructure and the sewage treatment works which, despite a £21M upgrade, does not have capacity to even meet the needs of the current population, loss of other facilities such as the swimming pool, adult day centre, youth club, banks, recycling centre and the strain put on other services including local dentists and oversubscribed middle and senior school meant that this application was unsustainable and would have caused significant harm to the community.”

East Herts District Council was keen for residents to ensure their concerns could be addressed and therefore held a Development Management Forum in July. The Forum enabled petitioners to present their views to councillors, planning officers and the applicant, prior to the planning application being determined. The forum provided early discussion of the planning issues raised by petitioners and explored the scope for building consensus and resolving concerns.

Cllr Sue Nicholls (Buntingford), added: “The Development Management Forum was the important first step in the process of engaging the Buntingford community in preparation for the planning application being considered by the Development Management Committee. It also played a really key role in bringing members of the community together and more importantly getting the rather reluctant town council on board to fight this application. All of this work has meant months of hard work and preparation but it was a crucial step to ensure local people have had opportunities to have their say.”

The post BUNTINGFORD’S GREEN PARTY COUNCILLORS Speak UP FOR RESIDENTS AS UNPOPULAR PLANNING APPLICATION IS REFUSED appeared first on East Herts Green Party.

“The refusal to end the two-child benefit cap or reverse the Winter Fuel Payment cut will mean children and pensioners in East Herts will continue to suffer avoidable poverty. These measures are only likely to add further pressure on our overstretched NHS.

“The Chancellor should have increased taxation on the super-rich to bring in the money needed to undo cruel Conservative policies and prevent Labour’s cuts. This was a great opportunity to create a fairer tax system, which unfortunately the Chancellor ignored.

“The increase in funding for the NHS is welcome, however, local government funding looks inadequate to tackle the severe problems in the sector. Many essential services councils provide will remain under threat.”

The post GREENS SLAM LABOUR’S FIRST BUDGET AS DISAPPOINTING AND A MISSED OPPORTUNITY appeared first on East Herts Green Party.

I am deeply saddened by the pending closure of two gym and swimming facilities in East Herts, and I know there are lots of questions as to why and how this has happened. The short version is that both Leventhorpe and Fanshawe pools – owned by Leventhorpe and Chauncy Schools respectively – have had central government money for the pools withdrawn, meaning they can no longer afford to operate.

The government funding came from the Department for Education (DfE), and it was ringfenced specifically for school use of the pools.

Since the pending closure of the pools – especially Fanshawe – became public knowledge, there have been lots of questions, particularly around the district council’s role, why the council can’t plug the funding gap, why there has been huge investments elsewhere and what other funding sources were explored. I’ll now try and address these as best as I can.

How much was the government DfE money, and why can’t replacement funding be found elsewhere?

The DfE funding was to pay for 40% of the pool time, and it was to cover running and maintenance costs. Pools of this size cost in the region of £80 per hour to run and maintain. Consider how many school hours there are per year, and this gives a sense of the total. The loss of this money was significant, and not something either the school, district, or county council can cover with existing finances. Unfortunately, current funding for schools is extremely limited and heavily ringfenced for education.  Alternative funding pots available for schools (and councils) to apply to are very limited. Both schools have been in discussions with relevant government departments to see whether there were any opportunities available, and councillors have also lobbied our MP to raise our concerns.

As to the broader funding landscape, cuts to government funding, coupled with cost of living increases means that there is much greater demand on the funding pots that do exist. Grant giving trusts and foundations which used to receive 100 applications per quarter are now receiving in the region of 700 – 800 applications per quarter. One charitable trust recently received over 1,000 applications and could only fund 25 projects. Many of the larger funding pots are now closing (there is a spreadsheet here if of interest).

Coupled with that, East Herts is not, by funders’ standards, considered an area of deprivation, making it very low on any priority list. We have been supporting the Ward Freman Pool group, who set up as a charity, to submit applications to the lottery, to the Benefact group, and to several smaller charity pots. Unfortunately, these applications were all unsuccessful, despite a highly compelling case.

If a charity (or charitable incorporated organisation) were to set up for Fanshawe or Leventhorpe, they would be also eligible to apply to charities, but again, our experience with Ward Freman shows this is not straight forward. We are also awaiting the budget announcement next week to see what possible opportunities – including the hoped-for reopening of the Community Ownership Fund – will be made available for potentially both pools. If anything is made available, we will of course be looking to see if we can apply.

Swimming is a critical life-skill. Do you not feel that’s worth investing in?

Learning to swim is an essential life skill. Swimming is also a great physical activity, good for mental wellbeing, and is accessible across the ages. And of course, keeping the population fit and active saves huge costs for the NHS and related services.

I make no attempt to justify the ins and outs of government funding. The compartmentalisation and ringfencing of funding pots is a massive challenge, and it doesn’t allow for any wider systems thinking. As councillors, we absolutely know the value of physical activity. At the same time, councils have had cuts in government funding to the tune of a 40% reduction in the past 10 years. They have simultaneously been capped in how much they can raise council tax, making it impossible to deliver anywhere near what was possible even a few years ago. To add to this, each year councils must prove that they can finance themselves that year – even though they are not told how much money they will be getting from government until right near the end of the budgeting process, making spending decisions an even bigger challenge.

Right now, thanks to a combination of global events and spending decisions of the previous administration, East Herts District Council is in a dire financial situation. All the low-hanging fruit has gone, and there remains only tough options, each of which will impact negatively on residents or businesses. There sadly simply isn’t the option available for the district council to plug the gap left by the DfE funding cut. Our main, and only, option at this stage is to look at an alternative operational model.

If there’s no money, why did the council recently invest so much in Hartham and Grange Paddocks, but not in Fanshawe and Leventhorpe pools?

Back in 2016 under the then Conservative-led administration, a review of all five East Herts District Council-operated leisure facilities took place. Of these, two – Grange Paddocks and Hartham – are owned outright by East Herts District Council, while the other three (Fanshawe, Leventhorpe, Ward Freman) are owned either by the schools or by County Council, with East Herts District Council providing operations. All five facilities were noted as being older and needing investment. However, the administration at the time felt it would be difficult to justify spending significant capital costs on facilities which they did not own, and which did not necessarily have a guaranteed future if DfE funding came to an end. The DfE funding has always been decided annually for a year at a time, making long-term planning challenging. As a result of these factors, the then-administration chose to commit investment to the two facilities that the council owned outright, whilst leaving the door open for consideration of capital investment over the following years should anything significant change. Full details on this decision are in the council papers here, item 218.

At the time of these decisions, many councils were choosing to borrow to invest in assets that could generate council money, in the hope that this additional income would off-set some of the loss of central government funding. There have been lots of examples elsewhere of councils doing this – some with success, some which then led to major issues for those councils resulting in effective bankruptcy (see Woking council and their investment portfolio as an example of the latter Explainer: The Woking case, and what happens when councils go bust – CityAM). It was this decision-making process that also contributed to the decision of the then-administration to spend on BEAM, with the aim of this then generating revenue to address the funding gap.

Unfortunately, in the six years between 2017 and 2023, there continued to be no capital investment in the school pools. Lots of external factors, including inflation, the cost of energy, the cost of Covid-19, and the cost of other capital projects, meant budgets continued to be squeezed, further limiting any opportunity for new capital investment.  This has meant that not only do they now not have the DfE funding available, but both pools also need significant upgrades to have a reasonable long-term future.

OK, but didn’t you just agree a further £6 million to spend on BEAM?

Yes. The new administration arrived after the redevelopment of BEAM (formerly Hertford Theatre) was well underway. The project was first discussed in 2016 under the Conservatives, and funding agreed in 2018, with work starting in 2022. Already being 75% complete by May 2023, it was too late to cancel the project, and too late to redesign any aspects in a way that would’ve significantly reduced the costs. The options before us were to either stop and mothball (not a realistic option as this would incur huge additional costs and prevent any revenue), partially finish but not build the studio (again, a challenging one, but ultimately not a good option in the longer term), or stump up the cash to get the project completed so that it could begin to pay for itself and hopefully generate revenue in the longer term. Of the three, the third option was the only one that at that stage made any sense if we were to stand any chance of the project recouping its costs. You can see the full papers and discussion that took place on this decision here.

So where did all the money for these projects come from in the first place?

Over a period of many years, East Herts District Council received capital money from the sale of council houses under the Right to Buy Act. Money from the sale of council houses by law could not be spent on new council homes, and it could not be spent on revenue. It had to be spent on capital projects. The Conservative administration at the time chose to invest in Grange Paddocks, Hartham Leisure Centre, BEAM (formerly Hertford Theatre), and the new Northgate End multi-storey carpark in Bishops Stortford, as part of a wider scheme to develop Old River Lane including a new theatre (now on pause).

But if you knew the DfE money was always at risk, why weren’t alternative plans put in place?

When the review of leisure facilities took place, there were also discussions with Chauncy and Leventhorpe about a longer-term future. At the time, the then-Head of Chauncy was keen that free swimming be retained for school children. It is difficult to develop an alternative viable model that still allows for this to happen without DfE funding. And, not knowing for sure if, or when, the DfE funding would end, it would be difficult to arrange a contingency plan with another business for another option at an unknown time at the future.

In discussions with Leventhorpe, the school was open to the idea of providing more sessions for community use during school time. However, visitor numbers to the facility naturally began to reduce once Grange Paddocks was refurbished and reopened, again making it difficult to identify a long-term sustainable alternative model.

So the last DfE funding is for this academic year, doesn’t that mean it’s available until the summer of 2025?  Couldn’t the pools stay open until then?

The DfE was clear that this would be the final instalment, and that no further money would be available for any further costs associated with the pools. As such, any costs associated with demobilisation and decommissioning would need to come from this year’s DfE grant. Both schools worked hard to explore how long they could retain the pools with the existing grants, but in the end, without any additional money being made available, and without the option of taking decommissioning costs from any existing budgets, they felt that they could only keep the pools open until the end of term.  The remaining DfE funding will then be used to decommission and secure the sites. 

I still don’t understand, why not put capital in the pools now to bring them up to standard so they can then be managed by another arrangement?

Unfortunately, there just isn’t any money left.  I know this is frustrating and difficult, and I feel it too.  While I can appreciate the rationale behind investing in Grange Paddocks and Hartham, and the reasoning behind investing in BEAM, I really struggle to think that building the new Northgate End Carpark in Bishops Stortford to the initial tune of £16m (later increasing to £20m+) could have been justified.  The spend on this could easily have covered the cost of all pool refurbishments and many other community ventures.  Here is a brief announcement which explains the decision at the time: Town centre multi-storey set for 13 June opening | East Herts District Council

So, you’re not prepared to reopen the pools?

Ultimately, the pools are owned by the schools, and any decision as to their future rests with them. Of course, naturally the schools do not want to see their pools closing, but they simply cannot keep them open and lose thousands and thousands of pounds each year. Likewise, the district council is required already to find £2m in savings next year alone, whilst still delivering all statutory services. There just isn’t the option of picking up this cost.

As councillors, we would love to help find a future for the pools via another solution, and I would encourage any person or business who feels they may be able to help, either towards the capital repair costs needed, or towards achieving a financially sustainable operational model, to get in touch. You can contact me via email at sarah.hopewell@eastherts.gov.uk.

More about Councillor Sarah Hopewell:

Councillor Sarah Hopewell is Executive Member for Wellbeing at East Herts District Council. Sarah graduated from Bath University in 2005 and spent the first 9 years of her career in a variety of community support worker roles working in housing, mental health and drugs/alcohol. When working as a drug and alcohol support worker she studied for an MSc in Addiction Psychology and Counselling. Since then, she has spent five years working as a Research Assistant at the University of Cambridge and four years as a Research and Evaluation Officer in Public Health at Hertfordshire County Council. She now works at Campaign for Better Transport and is a Councillor for Castle Ward on Hertford Town Council.

The post Update on Leventhorpe and Fanshawe swimming pools in East Herts appeared first on East Herts Green Party.

Multiple Green Party councillors spoke against the cuts at a meeting of East Herts District Council on Wednesday 16 October, highlighting that Age UK estimate 2 million pensioners who rely on this crucial support to stay warm during the winter months may be ineligible under the new Winter Fuel Allowance criteria.

Locally, in East Herts, 27,486 pensioners could lose access to this vital financial assistance. This could create severe financial strain for many older residents and exacerbate existing health and wellbeing challenges, particularly for those just above the Pension Credit threshold.

Addressing the meeting, Cllr Alex Daar (Green, Hertford Bengeo), Executive Member for Communities, said: “We recognise the new Labour-led government’s need to deal with the debts inherited from the previous Conservative government but the burden of paying for cuts must fall on the broadest shoulders not the most vulnerable residents in our community. We urge the government to make up the shortfall in funding through a windfall tax on energy companies in the immediate term while other longer-term options are explored. Older people locally are already suffering from years of austerity from the previous Conservative government.”

Green councillors also highlighted how all residents should have the right to live in a warm home and that funding should be increased for home insulation schemes.

Cllr George Williams (Green, Ware Priory), said: “If your car leaks oil, you don’t simply replace the oil, you take your car to a garage to have the fault fixed. However, rather than ensuring we all have heated, insulated homes, we give vulnerable residents a winter fuel allowance, which is effectively passed on to the utility companies. I am completely against means testing the Winter Fuel Allowance and I think it is crucial that we call upon the Government to support pensioners, by increasing funding for free home insulation schemes in order to make winter fuel payments go further.”

The post Green Councillors oppose cuts to Winter Fuel payments appeared first on East Herts Green Party.

Two narratives dominate discussions about the housing market:

1. That house prices have risen due to high immigration, arguing that the influx of people has generated so much competition for properties that they’re now unaffordable. 
2. That rising house prices are caused by a lack of supply – we’re simply not building enough new houses. 

Both are underpinned by a common rationale; house prices are rising because supply cannot keep up with demand. 

If this is true then the Labour government’s new build programme should eliminate house price inflation, and if over supply is sufficient, house prices should fall. 

However, if supply and demand is not the driver, we could be sacrificing our green belt and disfiguring our towns and villages needlessly.

Travelling around England, you don’t get the impression that building has stalled. On the contrary, towns appear to be being strangled by sprawling new housing estates. The numbers confirm this feeling – in 2001, there were 21.21 million houses in England and 49.45 million people, 2.33 people per household. In 2023, there were 25.4 million¹ houses and 57.7 million² people, 2.27 people per household.

More houses per person and lower occupancy should have resulted in cheaper housing in a supply and demand situation. The reality is very different – in 2001, the average house price in England was £84,377, in 2023, it was over £302,000.³ In just 22 years, the price of the average home in England has increased by more than three and a half times!

What is the real driver behind rising house prices?

M2 is a measure of the money supply that includes cash and deposits readily convertible to cash. The M2 money supply in the UK in January 2001 was £835 billion, rising to £3.1 trillion⁴ in January 2023. This 371% increase is remarkably close to the 358% increase in the house price index, suggesting that the house price index is tracking money supply not housing demand. Relative to the money supply, houses cost about the same as they did 22 years ago.

In Jan 2001, average weekly earnings in the UK were £321, in Jan 2023 this had risen to £637⁵ – an increase of 198%. Measured as a percentage of the money supply, we are paid less than we were 22 years ago, salary increases have not tracked money supply increases, whilst house prices are closely aligned to it. In real terms, house prices have not risen, salaries have fallen, causing the housing affordability crisis.

We accepted this cut in our salaries because it didn’t happen transparently. It’s not clear how much a salary needs to rise each year to maintain its real value. Most people expect their salary to follow the Retail Price Index (RPI), but this tracks the cost of consumer items. Neither the money supply nor house prices are included in the RPI.

The situation was made worse by Quantitative Easing – between March 2009 and November 2020 the Bank of England bought government and corporate bonds⁶ – but they didn’t use existing money to pay for them, they created “new” money, increasing the money supply. Mechanisms such as ‘Help to Buy’ (HTB) and ‘Stamp Duty Land Tax’ (SDLT) relief provided additional stimuli to the housing market.

Since 1931, our currency has been ‘fiat money’, not convertible to gold or any other asset and the words on bank notes, “I promise to pay the bearer on demand the sum of…” have been a lie. Fiat money holds its value simply because people have faith that other parties will accept it, based on trust in the government and its ability to levy and collect taxes⁷. Harold Wilson famously said that devaluation “does not mean, of course, that the pound here in Britain, in your pocket or purse, or in your bank, has been devalued”⁸. Wilson lied, breaking the trust with the people whose trust underpins the value of our money, and the lies continue.

Even if we could abolish immigration and build 300,000 new houses a year, house prices wouldn’t fall. They might rise less quickly, but probably still faster than wages. The crisis isn’t caused by a lack of housing or house building, it’s caused by investors treating housing as an investable commodity. The driver for the increase in house prices has been the increase in the money supply and inflated house prices have turned us into indebted wage slaves.

We can use taxation and legislation to make housing unattractive to investors but squeezing them out gradually without crashing the market will be difficult. It might be easier to squeeze the money supply to stabilise the housing market, but this risks recession, job losses and, paradoxically, falling wages.

We need to be honest, admit that the private sector can’t provide for those that have been left behind, and embark on an urgent programme of publicly-owned social house building. Atlee’s government built over 800,000 new council houses⁹, whilst simultaneously establishing Green Belts to protect our countryside¹⁰. We can do it again!

More about Councillor Nick Cox:

Nick Cox is East Herts District Councillor for Ware Trinity and Parish Councillor for Stanstead St Margarets. He has lived in East Herts for 37 years, is a self-employed building services design and project manager and a leading authority on sustainable refrigeration and air conditioning. Nick was involved in the successful Hoddesdon incinerator campaign, is a long-standing member of Greenpeace, a life member of the Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA) and is XR East Herts Political Liaison Officer. He lives with Alison, his wife of 38 years, and their 7-year-old blue roan cocker spaniel, Alfie.

Sources:

1. Statista: Total housing stock in England 2001-2023

2. Statista: Population of England from 1971 to 2023

3.  Land Registry: House Price Statistics

4. Trading Economics: UK Money Supply   

5. Trading Economics: UK Wages

6. Bank of England: Quantitative Easing 

7. Investopedia: How Currency Works

8. Money Week: Harold Wilson’s ‘pound in your pocket’ little white lie

9. Property Wire: Labour vows for Clement Attlee-style ‘new towns’10. Wikipedia: Town and Country Planning Act 1947

The post Buy to Live or Buy to Invest: Why we need a new approach to solve the housing crisis. An opinion piece by District Councillor Nick Cox. appeared first on East Herts Green Party.

Bengeo field is a much-loved area of land, on which a planning application for 118 dwellings was approved on Wednesday 18th September, taking approximately 10% of the current land. Many have campaigned against this proposal, including the three Green Bengeo Ward Councillors, Cllrs Alex Daar, Ben Crystall, and Vicky Smith, all of whom attended the Development Management Committee meeting (where planning applications are discussed) as ward councillors to speak against the proposal. [Link to meeting speakers against the application].

While many people feel deeply upset, disappointed, and angered about the decision to approve the application, I wanted to take a bit of time to explain more broadly the planning process – all information I have only learnt myself since getting involved in the council!

Housing targets for the UK are set by the government, and despite there being a million empty homes (according to census data in 2021) and a million homes that planners have allowed but developers haven’t built (according to Planning Portal data in July 2024), the new Labour government announced in July that all councils in England are to be given new, mandatory housing targets to pave the way to deliver 1.5 million more homes. In Hertford, one example of a site that has already received planning permission for more than 300 homes but that developers appear to have abandoned is the Gas Works in Marsh Lane.

Once these national targets are set, all local authorities are legally required to follow national planning policy, which is skewed heavily in favour of developers. The government requires councils to provide a minimum number of new homes based on a housing-need calculation and are required to demonstrate an adequate supply of land (5-year land supply). More info from the government on 5-year housing land supply. If a council can’t demonstrate this adequate supply of land for housing development, the government’s rules are clear –  planning applications are decided based on a “tilted balance”, which is slanted even more favourably towards developers. The main tool at a council’s disposal is a district plan, and, for individual wards, to have local neighbourhood plans. The district plan will include a series of strategic development sites, along with areas for biodiversity, infrastructure plans, climate mitigation and any other wider objectives for the area. Refreshing a district plan is a huge process and typically takes seven years to complete. 

In East Herts, the current district plan was created and approved by the then Conservative-led District Council in 2018. It included part of Bengeo field (Hert4) as a strategic development site, along with various others across the district. [Link to East Herts District Plan] As such, you could argue that its fate was already sealed, in that some form of development would happen there sooner or later, and it was just a matter of which one and when. 

All developments and larger scale planning applications are brought forward to the Development Management Committee, a cross-party group of councillors, who are required to be apolitical and as objective as possible when making decisions on applications. Decisions are to be based strictly on planning rules and material considerations. Essentially, the committee is not there to answer the question “is this a good plan?”, but rather “are there sufficient planning reasons to refuse this planning application, and would these reasons be upheld at appeal?”  Politics and personal feelings are to be left at the door.

I remember hearing this before being elected, and thinking “what’s the point in that then? Surely people are elected to be political?!” I still partially think this, but at the same time can appreciate that the alternative is councillors likely to pretty much not approve anything, which arguably creates wider housing issues. The reality, however, is simply that developers would appeal and win, and if there are too many appeals, councils will just lose any say at all. 

The Bengeo Field planning application was discussed at length over three hours at the Development Management Committee meeting on the 18th September and there were points raised about transport, infrastructure, water, and affordable housing. Not being on the committee myself, it really isn’t my place to comment on the particulars of how people voted. However, I do know that these decisions are never easy, are heavily constrained, and are rarely taken lightly. It is easy to blame the planners, or blame the councillors (or more generally “the council”), but the wider system is weighted heavily against local councils – an example being Vistry’s recent successful appeal after the council refused permission to build 350 homes near Buntingford. In this case, despite loss of agricultural land, loss of countryside, and poor accessibility of services, the Planning Inspectorate found these insufficient reasons to refuse the application, and overruled the council’s decision. 

For Bengeo field, those who have campaigned so passionately are now looking at potential next steps, and you can follow their story on the Love Bengeo Field Facebook Page. More broadly, the new Labour government is currently looking at national planning policy and there is a public consultation on their proposed approach, open until Tuesday 24th Sept. While the national policy is still in discussion, now is also an excellent time to contact your MP, share your concerns and views on how to improve planning policy and make any suggestions for what you’d like the future of national planning policy to look like.For more on the Green Party’s manifesto on providing fairer, greener homes for all, check out the Green Party Right Homes, Right Place, Right Price Charter.

More about Councillor Sarah Hopewell:

Councillor Sarah Hopewell is Executive Member for Wellbeing at East Herts District Council. Sarah graduated from Bath University in 2005 and spent the first 9 years of her career in a variety of community support worker roles working in housing, mental health and drugs/alcohol. When working as a drug and alcohol support worker she studied for an MSc in Addiction Psychology and Counselling. Since then, she has spent five years working as a Research Assistant at the University of Cambridge and four years as a Research and Evaluation Officer in Public Health at Hertfordshire County Council. She now works at Campaign for Better Transport and is a Councillor for Castle Ward on Hertford Town Council.

The post Hertford Councillor Sarah Hopewell on the go-ahead given to build on the much-loved Bengeo Field appeared first on East Herts Green Party.

At the DMC meeting, Bengeo North Town, District and County Councillor Ben Crystall raised concerns that the HERT4 development wasn’t truly sustainable in terms of transportation. He argued that while development should be “located to enable sustainable journeys to be made to reach key services and facilities”, many in the community have serious doubts over whether this was the case. He pointed out that the majority of services and facilities for HERT4 residents – shops and supermarkets, doctors and dentist surgeries – are in the town centre, about 1.5 km away, at the bottom of a steep hill with insufficient bus services and safety issues for cyclists. 

Bengeo North Town and District Councillor Alex Daar argued that if the District Plan is the decision document that must be obeyed then the wording about mineral extraction first must be followed to the letter.  The Inspector who approved the District Plan did so in the expectation quarrying would happen first. The Neighbourhood Plan which values the views also carries weight in planning.  In these respects the arguments formed in previous democratic forums have not been followed.  She questioned whether these were the kind of houses needed by local people as proposed by the developer and said the proposed tree planting would not prevent the damage to the wonderful views from either end of the field so praised by the Secretary of State in the quarry decision for the beauty of the whole field, not just part of it.

Bengeo North Town and District Councillor Vicky Smith argued that there was considerable risk of water contamination if the development goes ahead, referencing multiple reports that raised concerns about risks of  infrastructure failure and the potential for groundwater contamination. She urged the committee to refuse the application, saying that our community’s health and environmental safety must remain a priority.

On Thursday 19th September, the three councillors and the Green Town Council candidate responded to the decision to allow the development to go ahead.

Bengeo North Town, District and County Councillor Ben Crystall said:

“Like many residents, I’m deeply frustrated that we’re locked in a planning system that relies completely on organisations like the Environment Agency to protect us but that are so hollowed out they can’t even properly look at the evidence in front of them. It’s similar with infrastructure providers like Thames Water – we are forced to accept the word of for-profit organisations which have failed us all time and again. The only thing that cheers me up is the incredible tenacity and skills of the Bengeo community – the list of their planning objections in the officers report was staggering – it also listed out the 90 or so streets where people had stepped up to complain- pretty much the whole of our area… amazing.”

Bengeo North Town and District Councillor Alex Daar said:

“Bengeo Field is my ‘go to place’ for improving my mood and mental health. I have been involved in the fight to save it since the last quarry campaign and the development of the Neighbourhood Plan for Bengeo. I know how hard everyone has fought because we all love this field and its views so much. Our community spirit is vast and I feel we will continue to work together to make Bengeo the best place it can be for all the people living in it.”

Bengeo North Town and District Councillor Vicky Smith said:

“I am deeply disappointed that we have lost this precious green space to a development that raised so many questions and concerns. The community spirit of Bengeo has shown through over the last few years as residents have worked together to fight this inappropriate application. And I thank everyone who has taken the time to join in the fight for Bengeo Field.”

Bengeo North Town Council Green Candidate Robert Beahan said:

“I’m so sad and disappointed that the Bengeo Field development is going ahead. It’s such a beautiful space that holds a special place in my heart and I know in the hearts of many residents in Bengeo and it’s just so frustrating to see yet another piece of our countryside being built on. I was incredibly impressed with the arguments put forward by the residents at East Herts Council’s Development Management Committee and felt proud to stand alongside the three Green Bengeo councillors as they argued against the development. If I’m elected today as a Bengeo North Hertford Town Councillor I will do everything I can to continue to share residents’ views and hold the local planning authority to account on their behalf.”

The post Green Councillors and Candidate in Bengeo share their disappointment and frustration as the Bengeo HERT4 development gets the go ahead appeared first on East Herts Green Party.

The motion, which was proposed and seconded by myself and fellow Green Councillor Sue Nicholls, means that as a Council we commit to embedding nature’s recovery at the heart of our strategic plans (including the East Herts Local Plan), policies and in our decision-making. We also support the Wildlife Trust’s goal to protect 30% of land for nature by 2030 and will take action to reverse losses to our nationally and internationally important species, habitats and ecosystems including our rare chalk streams. 

There’s lots of simple, cheap things we can all do too – from leaving a patch of our garden to grow wild, to eating more veg and recycling. We need to do everything we can to reduce our impact on biodiversity and play our part in tackling the extinction crisis before it’s too late.”

This article has been published in The Flyer Magazine.

The post Councillor Tim Hoskin on tackling the Biodiversity Crisis appeared first on East Herts Green Party.

“There are many joys in being Hertford’s Mayor: helping to mark important moments in the town’s year from Christmas to Remembrance; meeting volunteers, business owners and residents of all ages; and taking part in a whole range of activities.

One of the most rewarding things is choosing the Mayor’s charities for the year. Not as easy as you might think, given how many brilliant local charities there are! After some thought, I decided on Hertford and District Guides, knowing all they do to build the confidence and skills of girls and young women. They are fundraising this year to upgrade the security and facilities of their Guide Hut.

East Herts Citizens Advice is my other charity. My father was a volunteer for many years and I know what an essential service it is. The support and advice it provides free of charge to all citizens on debt, benefits and all manner of other issues is invaluable. Its funding has recently been cut as councils come under financial pressure and it may have to reduce its hours. So it was a no brainer, really, to choose this charity, which does so much for Hertford citizens. I’ll be kicking off the fundraising year with a sponsored circular walk around Hertford – ‘Beating the Bounds’ of our beautiful town.”

Donation details are on the Town Council’s website at https://www.hertford.gov.uk/the-mayor-of-hertford/“

This article has been published in The Flyer Magazine.

The post Hertford Mayor Councillor Rachel Carter on her charity of the year appeared first on East Herts Green Party.