Consultation outcome

Provisional local government finance settlement 2023-24 consultation: summary of responses

Updated 6 February 2023

1. Introduction

1. The local government finance settlement is the annual determination of funding available to local government.

2. The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities published the provisional local government finance settlement for 2023/24 on 19 December 2022. The consultation closed on 16 January 2023.

3. This publication outlines the government response to the consultation and confirms the final proposals for the 2023/24 local government finance settlement. It should be noted that parts of the local government finance settlement still require approval by the House of Commons.

4. On the distribution of Settlement Funding Assessment (SFA), the consultation document set out the following summary of the government’s proposals:

• Before rolling in grants a uniform percentage increase in Revenue Support Grant (RSG) allocations from 2022/23, based on the change in the Consumer Price Index between September 2021 and September 2022. We will also continue to eliminate so-called ‘negative RSG’ and roll in the Family Annexe Council Tax Discount grant, Local Council Tax Support Administration Subsidy (LCTS) grant, and additional funding for food safety and standards enforcement (Natasha’s Law) grants. We are also rolling the Independent Living Fund grant into the Social Care Grant.

• Local authorities will be compensated for the freeze in the Small Business Rates Multiplier in 2023/24, seeing the sum of Baseline Funding Levels (BFLs) and compensation grant for underindexation of the Small Business Rates Multiplier rise in line with the CPI measure of inflation rather than the Retail Price Index (RPI).

5. On Council Tax the consultation document set out the following:

• Protecting local taxpayers from excessive increases in council tax, by setting the referendum threshold at 3% per year from April 2023 for shire counties, unitary authorities, London boroughs, and the Greater London Authority, without a local referendum. Councils can set higher increases if they wish, via consent of a local referendum.

• In addition, local authorities with social care responsibilities will be able to set an adult social care precept of up to 2% per year without a referendum.

• A bespoke council tax referendum principle of up to 3% or £5, whichever is higher, for shire districts.

• A bespoke additional council tax flexibility of up to £20 on Band D bills for the Greater London Authority, as requested by the Mayor of London.

• Setting no council tax referendum principles for mayoral combined authorities (MCAs).

• Setting no council tax referendum principles for town and parish councils.

• A £5 referendum principle on Band D bills for all fire and rescue authorities. A £15 referendum principle on Band D bills for police authorities and police and crime commissioners.

6. On the one-off Funding Guarantee the consultation document set out the following:

• Repurposing the Lower Tier Services Grant from previous years and a proportion of expired New Homes Bonus legacy payments to create a new one-off Funding Guarantee. This guarantee will ensure all councils will see at least a 3% increase in their Core Spending Power before any decision they make about organisational efficiencies, use of reserves, and council tax.

7. On the distribution of Adults and Children’s Social Care resources the consultation document set out the following:

• That the Social Care Grant will increase to £3.852 billion in 2023/24, an increase of £1.345 billion from 2022/23 before accounting for the rolling in of the Independent Living Fund. This includes £1.265 billion from delaying adult social care (ASC) charging reform until October 2025. The majority of this funding will be allocated using our ASC Relative Needs Formula, while £80 million will be used to equalise the variation in yield from the ASC precept. A further £80 million in equalisation will be paid from elsewhere in the local government finance settlement.

• The improved Better Care Fund (iBCF) will retain the same distribution and quantum as in 2022/23.

• The £400 million in ASC grant funding announced at the Autumn Statement will be combined with the existing £162 million of Fair Cost of Care and Market Sustainability funding and will be paid out using the existing ASC Relative Needs Formula.

• £300 million of additional funding will be allocated to local authorities from the £600 million of new discharge funding announced at the Autumn Statement. This grant funding will be paid out using the existing iBCF grant shares and will be required to be pooled as part of the Better Care Fund.

8. On New Homes Bonus (NHB), Rural Services Delivery Grant (RSDG) and the Services Grant the consultation document set out the following:

• A new round of NHB payments in 2023/24, which will, as with last year, not attract new legacy payments. NHB allocations for 2023/24 will continue to be paid for in the usual way. There will be no changes to the calculation process except the expiration of legacy payments.

• Rural Services Delivery Grant will remain unchanged.

• The Services Grant will continue with no change to distribution methodology. The Services Grant will be reduced to pay for other parts of the local government finance settlement and will be worth £464 million in 2023/24. In addition to the £464 million, government has held a small proportion of the Services Grant back as contingency to cover unexpected movements.

9. Government also invited views and evidence on the impact that the government’s proposals may have on persons who share a protected characteristic.

2. Responses to the consultation

10. The 157 responses received to this consultation have been given full consideration, alongside other representations made during the consultation period. Government is grateful to everyone who took time to respond to the consultation^{[footnote 1]}.

11. The table below gives a breakdown of consultation responses by the type of respondent.

Organisation type	Count	% of total responses
London Borough	9	6%
Metropolitan District	14	9%
Unitary Authority	20	13%
Shire County	11	7%
Shire District	55	35%
Fire and Rescue Authority	18	11%
Local Authority Association or Special Interest Group	12	8%
Other organisation types consisting of: Other Local Authority Grouping, Local Authority Officer, Member of Parliament, Other Representative Group, and Greater London Authority	18	11%
Total	157	100%

12. This document provides an overview of the responses received. It would not be practical to capture every point made in response.

13. Percentages are calculated from the number of respondents that responded to the consultation. This will include those that selected ‘no comment’ as an option. A number of responses provided a text comment but did not specify whether they agreed or disagreed on the scale provided. These comments have been considered as part of the consultation. For the numerical analysis of each question, we have put them as not specifying a view on the scale provided^{[footnote 2]}.

3. Distribution of Settlement Funding Assessment (SFA)

Question 1: Do you agree with the government’s proposed methodology for the distribution of Revenue Support Grant in 2023/24?

• Number of responses: 157
• Respondents who strongly agreed or agreed with the proposal: 63 (40%)
• Respondents neither agreeing nor disagreeing with the proposal: 14 (9%)
• Respondents who disagreed or strongly disagreed with the proposal: 40 (25%)
• Respondents who had no comments or did not specify their view on the scale provided: 39 (25%)
• Respondents who did not answer this question: 1 (1%)

14. The provisional local government finance settlement outlined the government’s proposal to not change the distribution of Revenue Support Grant (RSG) from that used in 2022/23 and increase 2022/23 RSG levels in line with the September 2021 to September 2022 change in the Consumer Price Index (CPI), before accounting for rolled in grants.

15. The provisional local government finance settlement also outlined the government’s proposal to continue to eliminate so-called ‘negative RSG.’

16. Of those who expressed an opinion, the majority agreed with the government’s proposal. Many respondents specifically welcomed the increase in RSG in line with CPI. However, a significant number of respondents also stated that RSG uses an outdated formula and called for the government to provide clarity on plans for future reform.

17. The provisional local government finance settlement also outlined the government’s proposal to continue to eliminate so-called ‘negative RSG.’

18. Fifty-nine (38%) respondents welcomed the increase in RSG in line with CPI change between September 2021 to September 2022 and the stability this brings.

19. Fifty-five (35%) respondents stated that the increase in RSG is not enough, with some respondents stating that RSG should have increased in line with the Retail Price Index (RPI) and some noting that it is not enough to mitigate underlying cost pressures. 12 (8%) respondents argued that it should have been funded by a different means than reducing Services Grant.

20. Fifty-three (34%) respondents stated that RSG uses an outdated formula, with 25 (16%) respondents asking for clarity on government’s plans for future reform of local government finance.

21. Fourteen respondents (9%) agreed with the continued elimination of so-called ‘negative RSG’, with 17 respondents (11%) disagreeing. 126 respondents (80%) did not respond with a view on this.

22. Eleven respondents (7%) noted differences in cost-of-service delivery for rural areas as compared to urban areas.

23. After consideration of the responses, the government intends to proceed with the approach consulted on for the 2023/24 local government finance settlement.

Question 2: Do you agree with the government’s proposals to roll grants into the local government finance settlement in 2023/24?

• Number of responses: 157
• Respondents who strongly agreed or agreed with the proposal: 83 (53%)
• Respondents neither agreeing nor disagreeing with the proposal: 18 (11%)
• Respondents who disagreed or strongly disagreed with the proposal: 15 (10%)
• Respondents who had no comments or did not specify their view on the scale provided: 41 (26%)
• Respondents who did not answer this question: 2 (1%)

24. The provisional consultation sought views on consolidating three grants into the Revenue Support Grant, the Family Annexe Council Tax Discount grant (worth £7.4 million in 2023/24), Local Council Tax Support Administration Subsidy grant (£69 million) and additional funding for food safety and standards enforcement (£1.5 million). Additionally, we consulted on the proposal to roll in the Independent Living Fund (£161 million) grant into the Social Care Grant. In order to ensure the policy objectives of these grants are not lost, we proposed retaining the current distribution formulas of these grants.

25. A majority of respondents agreed with this question and expressed support for funding simplification by rolling in grants more generally.

26. There was strong support for the government’s proposal to simplify the funding system by rolling in these grants, with 83 respondents (53%) in favour. 117 (75%) respondents expressed their support for the principle of funding simplification through rolling in grants to the local government finance settlement. There were 15 respondents (10%) who disagreed with the proposals.

27. Ninety-nine respondents (63%) agreed with the proposal to maintain the existing distribution for the rolled in grants. There were only 6 (4%) respondents who disagreed with this approach.

28. Seventy-six (48%) respondents sought assurance that grant quantum will not be reduced in future years.

29. Thirty-two respondents (20%) sought assurance that these grants remain visible in future local government finance settlements to support their budget setting process.

30. We can confirm for 2024-25 that we will increase Revenue Support Grant in line with Baseline Funding Levels. This will include these rolled in grants.

31. Having considered the responses to the consultation, the government intends to move forward with rolling in grants to the local government finance settlement as proposed in the consultation.

4. Council Tax

Question 3: Do you agree with the proposed package of council tax referendum principles for 2023/24?

• Number of responses: 157
• Respondents who strongly agreed or agreed with the proposal: 30 (19%)
• Respondents neither agreeing nor disagreeing with the proposal: 11 (7%)
• Respondents who disagreed or strongly disagreed with the proposal: 77 (49%)
• Respondents who had no comments or did not specify their view on the scale provided: 37 (24%)
• Respondents who did not answer this question: 2 (1%)

32. The consultation on the provisional local government finance settlement sought views on the government’s proposed package of referendum principles for 2023/24.

33. There was broad disagreement with the proposals put forward in this consultation, with many comments on the existence and varying levels of referendum principles, with districts in particular requesting further flexibilities. There was also commentary on long term issues, such as the ramifications of low taxbases, and pressures from inflation and social care.

34. Sixty-eight respondents (43%) argued that referendum principles should not be set for local authorities.

35. Nine respondents (6%) stated that they felt the proposals struck a good balance.

36. Twenty-five respondents (16%) argued that council tax is not a sustainable way to fund local authorities.

37. Twenty-seven respondents (17%) argued that increases in council tax will further compound the cost-of-living challenges facing residents, with 5 respondents (3%) stating that council tax is already too high.

38. Thirty-two respondents (20%) argued that the principles do not provide sufficient flexibility to meet the pressures services are facing.

39. Fifty-six respondents (36%) argued for greater flexibility for district councils, generally for an increase to £10. Of these, 49 were district councils.

40. Eight respondents (5%) argued for more flexibility for fire and rescue authorities. 17 respondents (11%) welcomed the £5 flexibility for fire and rescue authorities.

41. Thirty-one respondents (20%) raised concerns regarding low taxbases.

42. Twenty respondents (13%) argued that the adult social care precept is inadequate to fund adult social care pressures.

43. Eleven respondents (7%) raised concerns regarding special expenses.

44. Nine respondents (6%) raised concerns regarding significant increases in the levies charged by Internal Drainage Boards and the impact this was having on local authority budgets.

45. The government has considered the arguments put forward by respondents against the proposals, including those highlighting local service pressures, the cost-of-living implications of council tax increases, and the possible removal of all referendum principles. The government believes that the overall package set out in the provisional local government finance settlement – including increases in Core Spending Power and £100 million of additional support for vulnerable households – strikes an appropriate balance between ensuring local authorities have access to sufficient resources to deliver local services while also protecting residents from excessive council tax increases, and allowing authorities to put the case for exceeding these principles directly to their local electorate.

46. Following significant failures in local leadership and financial management, the government received requests from Thurrock, Croydon and Slough for the flexibility to increase their council tax by an additional amount, to provide extra funding to support their financial recovery. Given the exceptional circumstance in these council and unprecedented scale of financial deficits in each council, government has agreed to the requests. In line with their requests, Thurrock and Slough will be able to raise council tax by an additional 5% above referendum principles applied to other councils, and Croydon will be able to raise an additional 10%. The government has otherwise decided to continue with the proposed referendum principles at final local government finance settlement.

5. Funding Guarantee

Question 4: Do you agree with the government’s proposals for a new Funding Guarantee?

• Number of responses: 157
• Respondents who strongly agreed or agreed with the proposal: 60 (38%)
• Respondents neither agreeing nor disagreeing with the proposal: 18 (11%)
• Respondents who disagreed or strongly disagreed with the proposal: 32 (20%)
• Respondents who had no comments or did not specify their view on the scale provided: 45 (29%)
• Respondents who did not answer this question: 2 (1%)

47. The provisional consultation sought views on a new, one-off, 3% Funding Guarantee for all authorities that would be calculated before any other decisions on council tax were made.

48. Of those that expressed a view to this question, the majority of respondents supported the government’s proposal. Many respondents welcomed the principle of introducing a Funding Guarantee, including some councils who would not receive an allocation in 2023-24 under the current proposals. A large number of respondents did not express an opinion to this question.

49. Sixty respondents (38%) agreed with the proposal and 32 respondents (20%) expressed disagreement.

50. Sixty-six respondents (42%) welcomed the principle of a Funding Guarantee. This included responses from councils who weren’t eligible for the Funding Guarantee but were in favour of the principle behind it. 29 respondents (18%) argued that the guarantee should be maintained beyond 2023/24 to give local authorities certainty when planning for their financial future.

51. Sixty-one respondents (39%) argued that the level of the guarantee should be higher as the current rate was not sufficient to meet the financial pressures being faced by local authorities at current levels of inflation and demand.

52. Twenty-six respondents (17%) highlighted that the guarantee should be funded from new money because funding for the guarantee has been repurposed from the former Lower-Tier Services Grant and the NHB.

53. Having considered the responses to the consultation, the government intends to implement the new 3% Funding Guarantee (before any decisions on council tax levels) for all authorities for 2023/24. We will review the position ahead of the 2024/25 local government finance settlement.

6. Distribution of Adults and Children’s Social Care resources

Question 5: Do you agree with the government’s proposals on funding for social care as part of the local government finance settlement in 2023/24?

• Number of responses: 157
• Respondents who strongly agreed or agreed with the proposal: 20 (13%)
• Respondents neither agreeing nor disagreeing with the proposal: 26 (17%)
• Respondents who disagreed or strongly disagreed with the proposal: 25 (16%)
• Respondents who had no comments or did not specify their view on the scale provided: 83 (53%)
• Respondents who did not answer this question: 3 (2%)

54. The consultation sought views on the government’s proposals regarding social care funding in 2023/24 as part of the local government finance settlement.

55. These proposals include increasing the Social Care Grant allocations to £3.852 billion and ringfencing this fund for adults’ and children’s social care; retaining the same quantum and distribution methodology as 2022/23 for the improved Better Care Fund (iBCF); distributing the new discharge funding announced at the Autumn Statement using the iBCF methodology; and distributing the new ASC Market Sustainability and Improvement Fund using the ASC Relative Needs Formula (RNF).

56. The vast majority of respondents did not express a view or neither agreed nor disagreed with the proposals, while 20 (13%) agreed and 25 (16%) expressed disagreement.

57. Of those who expressed a view on this question, most respondents either disagreed or neither agreed nor disagreed. While the increase in funding for social care was welcomed, there were concerns about its sufficiency to meet pressures, the distribution formula, and the conditions and reporting.

58. Sixty-eight respondents (43%) welcomed the increase in funding for social care, but 40 (25%) argued that this would not be sufficient to meet current pressures in adult social care, and 28 (18%) argued it would not be sufficient to meet children’s social care pressures.

59. In addition, 28 respondents (18%) called for clarity on the new ringfenced grants as soon as possible and requested that the conditions on these grants are proportionate.

60. Twenty respondents (13%) called for more equalisation, while 4 (3%) argued against equalisation.

61. Twenty-four respondents (15%) argued for the ASC RNF to be updated. In addition, some respondents called for the Social Care Grant methodology to be updated to reflect relative need for both children’s and adult’s social care, rather than solely using the ASC RNF.

62. Having considered all the responses to the consultation, the government intends to proceed with the position consulted on for the 2023/24 local government finance settlement.

7. Other grants: New Homes Bonus, Rural Services Delivery Grant and Services Grant

Question 6: Do you agree with the government’s proposals for New Homes Bonus in 2023/24?

• Number of responses: 157
• Respondents who strongly agreed or agreed with the proposal: 54 (34%)
• Respondents neither agreeing nor disagreeing with the proposal: 15 (10%)
• Respondents who disagreed or strongly disagreed with the proposal: 34 (22%)
• Respondents who had no comments or did not specify their view on the scale provided: 53 (34%)
• Respondents who did not answer this question: 1 (1%)

63. The provisional local government finance settlement outlined the government’s plans for a new round of NHB payments in 2023/24. The new payments would not attract new legacy payments, as previously communicated. This would mean a total of 2023/24 NHB allocations of £290.6 million paid for by a top slice of Revenue Support Grant.

64. The majority of those who responded to this question were in favour of the proposal. Responses tended to ask for information on the future of the NHB and commented on the distributional impact on different kinds of local authorities

65. Fifty-four (34%) respondents agreed with the proposal while 34 (22%) opposed it.

66. One hundred and two (65%) respondents argued that we had further delayed reform of the NHB and/or that longer-term clarity is needed.

67. Ninety-four (60%) respondents welcomed the continuation of NHB for another year and 37 (24%) of respondents thought we should not be further reducing funding this year.

68. Fifty-nine (38%) respondents disagreed with the distribution of NHB and 39 (25%) of respondents thought funding should be distributed according to general need for services instead.

69. After considering these responses, government intends to proceed with the proposals consulted on for the 2023/24 local government finance settlement. It should be noted that we have received representations separately to the consultation which have made minor changes to NHB allocations. These have been reflected in the final local government finance settlement, bringing the total value of the grant to £291.3 million, compared to the £290.6 million consulted on at the provisional local government finance settlement. This has been funded from the contingency held back at the provisional settlement. We will respond to the outstanding 2021 consultation on the NHB in the coming months and provide clarity on the future of NHB ahead of the 2024/25 local government finance settlement.

Question 7: Do you agree with the government’s proposals for Rural Services Delivery Grant in 2023/24?

• Number of responses: 157
• Respondents who strongly agreed or agreed with the proposal: 25 (16%)
• Respondents neither agreeing nor disagreeing with the proposal: 18 (11%)
• Respondents who disagreed or strongly disagreed with the proposal: 46 (29%)
• Respondents who had no comments or did not specify their view on the scale provided: 64 (41%)
• Respondents who did not answer this question: 4 (3%)

70. Government consulted on rolling forward the 2022/23 allocations of the £85 million Rural Services Delivery Grant for 2023/24, with the distribution and quantum of the grant unchanged. There was a mixed reaction to this proposal, and of those who did not support it, the key concerns focused on the distribution methodology and the overall value of this grant remaining at £85 million.

71. Twenty-five respondents (16%) supported the proposals compared to 46 (29%) who did not.

72. Forty-three respondents (27%) mentioned the amount of funding should increase, while 5 respondents (3%), mentioned that the government should not be providing additional funding to rural areas.

73. Forty-seven respondents (30%) disagreed with the proposed methodology. These were often from authorities who expressed they were rural, but not receiving funding as they were not in the upper quartile of sparsity.

74. There was a pattern of authorities in more urban areas with suggesting that it was unfair for rural areas to receive bespoke funding when urban/more densely populated areas faced their own pressures (11 respondents, 7%).

75. After consideration of responses, government has decided to increase the value of the Rural Services Delivery Grant by £10 million in 2023/24 to £95 million. Recipients of the 2022/23 Rural Services Grant will receive a proportionate uplift of their 2022/23 allocation from this additional £10 million. This additional £10 million will be funded through contingency funding held back at the provisional local government finance settlement.

Question 8: Do you agree with the government’s proposals for Services Grant in 2023/24?

• Number of responses: 157
• Respondents who strongly agreed or agreed with the proposal: 54 (34%)
• Respondents neither agreeing nor disagreeing with the proposal: 17 (11%)
• Respondents who disagreed or strongly disagreed with the proposal: 51 (32%)
• Respondents who had no comments or did not specify their view on the scale provided: 31 (20%)
• Respondents who did not answer this question: 4 (3%)

76. We consulted on continuing the Services Grant and distributing funding by the Settlement Funding Assessment. We proposed reducing the amount to £464 million. We will remove compensation for National Insurance Contributions, funding to pay for an increase to the Supporting Families programme and increases to the Revenue Support Grant. We stated that we were holding back a small proportion of the Services Grant and that we would return any unused contingency back into the Services Grant.

77. Of those that expressed an opinion on this proposal, there was almost an equal number of respondents who either agreed or disagreed with the government’s proposal, with slightly more in agreement. Many respondents welcomed the continuation of the grant however there were also many that argued for greater transparency in how the reduction from 2022/23 was calculated.

78. Sixty-two (39%) responses welcomed the continuation of the Services Grant beyond 2022/23.

79. Forty-nine (31%) responses disagreed with the reduction in quantum. A significant number of responses, 60 (38%), argued that there should be greater transparency in how the grant quantum had been reduced.

80. Twenty-eight (18%) responses agreed that the money held back as contingency should be distributed as part of the final local government finance settlement and 14 (9%) responses requested more detail on the contingency.

81. Twenty-one (13%) responses argued that more than 1 year of certainty should have been provided for the Services Grant allocations. Responses expressed the view that the Services Grant cannot be relied on and that it increases uncertainty around future financial planning.

82. The government agrees that longer term certainty is beneficial for long-term financial planning. We will work closely with the sector on options for this grant from 2024/25 onwards.

83. Having considered the responses to the consultation, the government intends to move forward with the proposal from the provisional local government finance settlement.

84. The government has used some of the contingency from the provisional Settlement, for example to pay for changes such as the £10 million increase to Rural Services Delivery Grant and adjusting New Homes Bonus Payments as set out in paragraph 70 above.

85. Unused contingency will be distributed back into local government as proposed at the Provisional Settlement, through the Services Grant. All contingency funding released back into Services Grant, used to fund New Homes Bonus adjustments or increases to Rural Services Delivery Grant will be within Core Spending Power and so included in calculations for the Funding Guarantee, which have been updated since the provisional local government finance settlement. Any subsequent reductions in the cost of the Funding Guarantee will be put into Services Grant.

86. In total, the government will increase Services Grant by £19.1 million above the Provisional Settlement proposals.

87. Alongside the consultation, we also received representations from the Isle of Wight Council about the unique circumstances of the island and its physical separation from the mainland. In 2022/23, the Isle of Wight council benefitted from a £1 million grant in 2022/23, in recognition of these circumstances. We can confirm that the Isle of Wight has been allocated this £1 million grant again in the 2023/24 Settlement. This can be found within their Services Grant allocation. We are working with the council to gain a better understanding of these circumstances.

88. We have also seen the representations from local authorities facing significant increases in Internal Drainage Board levies and will commit to working with the most affected local authorities ahead of the new financial year.

8. Impacts of these proposals

Question 9: Do you have any comments on the impact of these proposals on the three aims for public bodies under the Equality Act 2010 to consider the needs of people who share particular characteristics? Please provide evidence to support your comments.

• Number of responses: 157
• Respondents that had comments: 94 (60%)
• Respondents that had no comment: 52 (33%)
• Respondents who did not answer this question: 11 (7%)

89. The government invited views through the provisional consultation on the impact of the proposals in the 2023/24 local government finance settlement on persons who share a protected characteristic.

90. Thirty-seven respondents (24%) argued that this local government finance settlement does negatively impact those with a protected characteristic. Within this, the most common protected characteristic mentioned was age, with 8 (22% of 37 who felt the local government finance settlement negatively impacted those with protected characteristics) responses detailing that more funding should go to the elderly, and 14 (38% of 37 who felt the local government finance settlement negatively impacted those with protected characteristics) detailing that more funding should go towards children’s services.

91. Although socioeconomic status is not a protected characteristic itself, 11 (7%) respondents argued that the local government finance settlement has a negative impact on poorer/more deprived persons which can intersect with a number of protected characteristics, including age, race, gender and disability. Nine respondents (6%) argued that council tax increases place further cost of living pressures on residents.

92. Responses to this question have been considered in government decisions on the final local government finance settlement. A policy impact statement has been published alongside the final local government finance settlement, taking these responses into consideration.

1. We received one response outside the consultation window that was considered in our analysis, though is not reflected in our total number of responses and numbers summarising key themes. ↩

2. This approach was taken to avoid making an incorrect subjective judgement on the strength of feeling of respondents on each question. Therefore, when we state the ‘respondents who had no comments or did not specify their view on the scale provided’ for each individual question, this includes responses who provided comments, but we avoided making such a judgement on. ↩