Chorley Council Unitary Council Financial Viability Unitary Financial Viability FINANCE WITH VISION 2 Contents 1. Introduction 3 2. Methodology 6 3. Disaggregation of Expenditure and

Adrian Jenkins

Associate Consultant

E. [email protected]

T. 0796 998 0016

FINANCE WITH VISION

LG Futures, Technology House, 151 Silbury Boulevard, Milton Keynes MK9 1LH | www.lgfutures.co.uk | T. 01908 424387 LG Futures Ltd. Incorporated in England and Wales under registration number: 05308266 | VAT registration number: 855940493

Chorley Council

Unitary Council Financial Viability

12 March 2015

Chorley Unitary Financial Viability

FINANCE WITH VISION 2

Contents

1. Introduction ........................................................................................ 3

2. Methodology ...................................................................................... 6

3. Disaggregation of Expenditure and Resources ............................... 15

4. Transitional costs and savings ......................................................... 27

5. Conclusion ....................................................................................... 29

Appendix 1: Disaggregation factors ..................................................................................... 31

Appendix 2: Disaggregation factors for each budget line (Lancashire County Council) ....... 34

Appendix 3: Expenditure and resources disaggregation ...................................................... 44

Appendix 4: Settlement Funding Assessment benchmarks ................................................. 46



1. Introduction

1.1. Chorley Council is considering a range of alternative models of delivery for public services.

This work includes testing the viability of a unitary council for Chorley as a potential way of

delivering transformational change in public services.

1.2. This report supports the development of these options and helps Chorley Council to explore

the potential financial implications of a unitary authority. The analysis is supported by a detailed

financial model that allocates expenditure and resources to a unitary Chorley council, and

demonstrates the financial viability of a unitary structure based on current administrative

boundaries.

Chorley Unitary Authority (existing borders)

1.3. Creating a unitary council within the current Chorley borough borders is the least complex to

model because it follows a process that has been worked through by previous unitary councils

and it is defined by existing administrative boundaries. It has been assumed that there would

be no change to the local government structure outside Chorley, and that there would continue

to be a two-tier structure for the rest of Lancashire.

1.4. The disaggregation of expenditure and resources within the model is based on existing

available information. The model provides an estimate of the cost of providing a unitary council

in Chorley, and it also estimates the cost of the services that would remain with Lancashire

County Council. This cost estimate has been compared to an estimate of the resources that

would be allocated to Chorley UA and a residual Lancashire. This allows an understanding of

how current resources are used within the county and whether Chorley receives more or less

“service” than its notional allocation of grant and council tax. From this it can be deduced

whether Chorley Council is likely to be financially viable if it were to become a unitary council,

as well as the impact on the County Council.

1.5. Although based on the budget for 2014-15, it projects both expenditure and resources forward

into 2017-18. This is important because of the continued scale of cuts in local government

funding over the medium term. The model therefore shows the impact that future cuts in

funding might have on the business case in future years (for instance, whether surpluses or

deficits change significantly over the period for either Chorley UA or residual Lancashire).

Based on this analysis, conclusions can be drawn about whether the business case can

withstand cuts in funding and increased spending driven by demand pressures.

1.6. Other unitary business cases in previous years have had to show that both the new unitary and

the residual county are financially viable, and that savings can be made from the creation of a

unitary structure that repays any investment within 5 years. The first step is to show that there

would not be a mismatch between expenditure and resources, and we have shown this in our

analysis. In practice, further work would need to be undertaken on the implementation costs

and the savings, and we have advised on the costs and savings that were assumed in other

unitary business cases.



1.7. Our financial model has used publicly-available data from national sources such as the Census

and benefits data, as well as from local sources, such as Lancashire County Council budget

reports and administrative datasets. Some cost driver information has also been supplied by

Chorley Council. For the overwhelming majority of the data we have been able to validate the

disaggregation against more than one data source.

1.8. The purpose of this financial model is to test the viability of creating a unitary council in Chorley

in both the short and longer term. On this basis, the council and its partners can have

discussions about the potential shape of other public services in the borough, and understand

the role that the creation of a unitary authority could play.

Summary of demographic and geographic characteristics of Chorley

1.9. This is a brief summary of the characteristics of Chorley compared to the rest of Lancashire:

● 9.1% of the usual residents within Lancashire. It has higher proportions of younger

residents (between 9.0% and 9.8% of residents in age groups between 0 and 16

years), and lower proportions of older residents (between 9.2% and 7.7% of residents

in age groups over 60). The largest age groups by proportion are for working-age

adults (e.g. 10.1% of adults aged between 30 and 44 years).

● 9.1% of the households in the county. This indicates that the average household size

is average for the county. 9.6% of the council tax base is in Chorley, which shows

that the average valuation per dwelling is greater than the Lancashire average.

● A relatively low proportion of the overall land area in Lancashire (6.6%), showing that

Chorley is a more densely-populated district than the average for the county.

● A very high proportion of day visitors compared to the rest of Lancashire (17.6%) but

a low proportion of the number of businesses (7.6% of the hereditaments).

Criteria for assessing financial viability

1.10. We have set out criteria for assessing whether the proposal to create a unitary council in

Chorley is financially viable. Some of these criteria are based on those that were used in

previous rounds of LGR; others are those that we think are now relevant because of the cuts in

local government funding.

● Starting point. Can resources and expenditure be disaggregated in a reasonable and

equitable way? Do any of the proposed authorities begin with an unfair or

unmanageable deficit in year 1?

● Council tax convergence. Can council taxes for all residents be converged into a

single rate within 5 years without placing an unreasonable financial burden on

residents?

● Repay transitional costs within 5 years. Can the costs of setting up the new unitary

councils be repaid within 5 years? Can this be demonstrated with reasonable

certainty and with a reasonable margin for error?



● Optimum size and/ or structure for delivering savings and efficiency. What is the

optimum size for a unitary council, and can a reasonable case be made that the

proposed structure has more economies than diseconomies of scale?

● Ability to deliver county council services. Does the proposed structure demonstrate

that it can deliver county council services – where spending pressures are greatest –

in the most effective way and at a lower cost?



2. Methodology

2.1. A financial model has been created in order to determine the resources and expenditure of a

unitary authority in Chorley. The model shows how resources and service costs would be split

between a new Chorley Unitary and a Residual Lancashire.

Service Costs

2.2. The service costs from the 2014-15 RA forms have been disaggregated using factors that are

appropriate to each service type. The RA data has the advantage of being publicly available,

published in a widely-accepted format and allows for like-for-like aggregation of expenditure.

There is a disadvantage that the data is relatively out-of-date (i.e. the latest iteration of the RA

form was published in November 2014) and that budgets are changing quickly in response to

the cuts in funding. But the 2014-15 RA Form represents the budget that has most recently

been delivered and, to adjust for the rapid changes in funding and budgets, we have used

forward projections to show how budgets are likely to change between 2014-15 and 2017-18.

2.3. Disaggregation factors have been obtained from a number of sources:

● Census 2011 (residents, age structure, communal establishments, unpaid care)

Source: Office for National Statistics (ONS)

● Relative Needs Formulae (RNF) (day visitors) Source: DCLG

● Business hereditaments and rating data. Source: Valuation Office Agency (VOA)

● Council taxbase. Source: Department of Communities and Local Government

(DCLG)

● Homelessness numbers. Source: DCLG.

● Benefits data. Source: Department of Work and Pensions (DWP)

● Local authority area. Source: ONS

● Pupil numbers. Source: Neighbourhood Statistics

● Public health population groups. Source: ONS

2.4. In addition, some data was available from local administrative datasets that we have used to

challenge or replace the other data that has been collected above. In some cases, we have

used this data in preference to the published data because it appears to give a more accurate

picture of the way services should be disaggregated between Chorley and the rest of

Lancashire. The datasets are:

● Adult social care, with clients disaggregated for 18-64, 65+, learning disabilities, and

social care activities



● Children’s services, with separate disaggregations for children looked-after, referrals

and children in need

● Waste disposal, including household and non-household volumes

2.5. Appendix 1 shows each disaggregation factor, source of the data, and the proportion in

Chorley compared to Lancashire as a whole. This is a summary of the key disaggregation

factors.

2.6. Table 2.1 reviews the disaggregation data from various sources and recommends the most

appropriate disaggregation basis. The most suitable disaggregation factors were applied to the

budget headings from the 2014-15 RA form in our financial model.



Table 2.1 – Disaggregation datasets

Service area Datasets Proposed use of data

Schools Expenditure will be driven by where a child actually attends school.

Data has been collected from resident pupil data from ONS.

Resident pupil numbers used to disaggregate school

expenditure.

Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) and other funding for

schools is disaggregated in the financial model on

same basis. This mitigates the risk of errors in

disaggregation of schools expenditure.

Children’s services 9.0% of the under-18 population lives in Chorley but this does not reflect the way that

actual need might be distributed across the county.

Data obtained from the County Council indicates that the prevalence of looked-after

children and referrals is lower per head in Chorley than the rest of the County. The

proportion of looked-after children is 7.3% and referrals (children in need) is 6.8%.

Disaggregation should be based on the County

Council data. This reflects the lower prevalence of

looked-after children and referrals in Chorley.

Adult social care 9.3% of the 18-64 population and 8.5% of the 65+ population lives in Chorley.

Disability Living Allowance is mainly a benefit for working-age adults and is used in the

adult social care RNF as one of the main indicators of social care need. 8.3% of the

claimants in the county are resident in Chorley. This is slightly lower than the proportion of

the relevant population. This is also consistent with the number of adults with significantly

limited day-to-day activities (Census 2011).

Data obtained from the County Council has provided actual client numbers for Chorley

Disaggregation should be based on the County

Council data. It is the most accurate data available

and is broadly consistent with the other data that is

available (benefits, Census).




(based on current boundaries). This data suggests that for most of the main client groups

the proportion of clients in Chorley is broadly similar to the proportion of the relevant

population group. The main exceptions are in mental health and substance abuse, where

the proportion of clients in Chorley is significantly lower. This data shows the number of

current social care clients. It does not show the type of service that is being provided, and

the intensity of that service.

Highways maintenance Road length based from the ONS indicates that 9.5% of the road network for the county is

located within Chorley.

Road length is more dense in Chorley compared to the county as a whole (6.6% of the

area and 9.5% of the road network). There is no data on traffic flow on these roads; traffic

flow is probably marginally higher within Chorley than for the county as a whole but there

is no data to demonstrate this with any confidence.

No data has been obtained from the County Council on actual expenditure patterns, but

we have been supplied with data showing the proportion of streetlighting (8.4%), gritting

(7.8% for primary routes, 9.0% for secondary routes) and for highways structures (7.4%)

in Chorley.

Road length appears to be the most suitable data for

disaggregating expenditure, even though it does not

include any adjustment for traffic flow.

The supplementary data supplied on gritting and

highways structures suggests expenditure might be

less than the proportion of road length.

However, we have used road length as the primary

disaggregation basis to ensure we do not under-

allocate expenditure to Chorley.

Streetlighting data has been used to disaggregate

expenditure on streetlighting.

Regulatory services These services are provided to businesses and, in some cases, to the general public.

Data was available on visits by trading standards. Only 7.1% of visits are to businesses

within Chorley. This is broadly consistent with the number of businesses (number of

business hereditaments, 7.6%).

The number of business hereditaments should be

used for those services that are directed at

businesses (e.g. food safety, health and safety).

Usual residents should be used for other services,

particularly where these are undertaken for the benefit




9.1% of population is resident in Chorley (higher than the proportion of businesses).

of the population as a whole (e.g. pest control,

housing standards, water safety).

Specific services

There is a number of services which will need bespoke disaggregation, either because

they are based on the location of facilities (e.g. libraries, open spaces). A different basis is

required for each of these services. The budgets for these services are small relative to

the overall spend of across the county.

Usual residents should be used as a proxy where no

specific data exists.

Specific data is used in some instances (e.g. area is

used to disaggregate open spaces).



2.7. The most suitable disaggregation factors were applied to the budget headings from the 2014-

15 RA form. Appendix 2 shows the base used to disaggregate each budget line and the

disaggregated budgets.

2.8. A confidence judgement has been applied to each of the budget lines – and disaggregation

bases – that were used in the financial model. Using judgement, we have classified whether

there is High, Medium or Low confidence in the disaggregation basis that is being proposed.

This analysis shows that the disaggregation model is robust, is supported by credible and

suitable data, and can be corroborated against a number of datasets. There is only a very

small proportion of the budget – 0.1% - where we have low confidence in the disaggregation

data available.

Table 2.2 Confidence in the budget analysis

Projected budgets and future savings plans

2.9. There continue to be significant cuts in local government funding and it essential to reflect

these expected changes to ensure the business case presents a meaningful picture of the

potential financial position when the new unitary would be likely to go-live. In previous rounds

of Local Government Reorganisation (LGR), this has not been necessary because resources

and expenditure remained broadly the same from year to year, with small annual increases in

total resources and some reallocation within council budgets.

2.10. Our approach for Lancashire has been to use the savings plans that the County Council has

published. Savings of £68.4m have been identified for 2015-16, a further £39.5m in 2016-17

and a further £38.3m in 2017-18.1

2.11. These planned savings have then been disaggregated between Chorley UA and Residual

Lancashire pro rata to the disaggregation of budgets in 2014-15. In practice Lancashire

County Council’s future budget plans might be different from these published plans and

additional savings might have to be found to cover future shortfalls. However, it is reasonable

to use these plans because they indicate the scale of change and the direction of change in

terms of where the cuts in services are likely to be made.

1 Analysis based on http://council.lancashire.gov.uk/documents/s51304/Draft%20Budget%20Resolutions%20-

%20Annex%201.pdf

Level of Confidence

Financial value £ (,000)

Proportion of the budget

HIGH 106,568 68.9%

MEDIUM 48,138 31.1%

LOW 150 0.1%

TOTAL 157,448 100.1%

https://site2.exch500.serverdata.net/owa/redir.aspx?C=gBEbjAQ5fkaUeAQ14m724KexzqLV_tEIj3eZVCP_4VEvuW8qPvSnWCIaPfW13L9J8vCnOJw1JV4.&URL=http%3a%2f%2fcouncil.lancashire.gov.uk%2fdocuments%2fs51304%2fDraft%2520Budget%2520Resolutions%2520-%2520Annex%25201.pdf

https://site2.exch500.serverdata.net/owa/redir.aspx?C=gBEbjAQ5fkaUeAQ14m724KexzqLV_tEIj3eZVCP_4VEvuW8qPvSnWCIaPfW13L9J8vCnOJw1JV4.&URL=http%3a%2f%2fcouncil.lancashire.gov.uk%2fdocuments%2fs51304%2fDraft%2520Budget%2520Resolutions%2520-%2520Annex%25201.pdf



2.12. Chorley Council has plans to bridge the forecasted budget deficit over the next 3 years totalling

£5.2m (i.e. to 2017-18). Within this plans, £0.8m is forecast to come from additional income,

£3.1m from additional tax receipts, and £1.3m from reducing expenditure. We have applied

the budget reductions and additional income over the financial years to 2017-18.

Resources

2.13. Lancashire County Council’s current resources have been disaggregated between the

proposed Chorley UA and Residual Lancashire. The bulk of our disaggregation analysis has

focussed on the Settlement Funding Assessment (SFA), which is the County Council’s largest

source of resources. A full and detailed process has been undertaken to allocate RNFs

between Chorley and the rest of Lancashire. A note of caution here is that the current SFA

distribution could be changed materially by ministerial decisions in future. For instance,

ministers have taken decision on assumed council tax, the application of cuts to the needs

block and to damping which have had massive implications for the allocation of resources, and

it is not possible to know whether these decisions will continue to remain in future years, or

whether they will be changed.

2.14. Nevertheless, based on the most recent SFA allocation process (2013-14) we have been able

to undertake a detailed disaggregation of the SFA, including rolled-in grants, needs block,

resource block and damping, as well as other elements of the SFA including council tax freeze

grant and council tax support. Most of the data used to calculate the elements of the SFA is

available from public sources, and we have therefore been able to recreate the SFA

calculations with some accuracy. The underlying Relative Needs Formulae (RNF) have been

reworked to estimate the disaggregation of the needs blocks. There are elements where we

have used proxies but even in these cases we have used the most appropriate RNF, so even

these disaggregations are relatively robust.

2.15. Furthermore, we also undertook a second approach to the resources disaggregation, which

was essentially to use more high-level disaggregation. This was done to test the modelling

undertaken, the outcomes of each approach was almost identical, with a variance of only

£28,000. The detailed approach provided an estimate for SFA of £42.841m and the high-level

approach £42.813m. This indicates that confidence can be placed in the resources

disaggregation work that we have undertaken.

2.16. The RA forms show the budgeted retained business rates for each authority. This amount is

different from the SFA because it reflects the actual amount of business rates that the authority

expects to retain rather than the target amount assumed in the SFA. It is important to include

this element of the budget in our disaggregation because (a) it ensures our disaggregation

model balances to the RA forms and (b) it reflects the actual resources that might be available

to each authority. The approach we have taken is to calculate the actual amount of retained

rates in Chorley (based on the RA and NNDR1 forms for 2014-15) and to allocate the balance

to Residual Lancashire.

2.17. According to the NNDR1 for 2014-15, Chorley Council estimated that £310,000 would be paid

over to the County Council in respect of above target business rate income. We have

assumed that this would be retained by the new Chorley UA.



2.18. Further detail business rate retention and the methodology used in its disaggregation, is

provided in the next section alongside the detailed analysis.

2.19. Table 2.3 summarises the approach we have taken for each of the major income streams:

Table 2.3 – Approach to splitting existing funding streams

Settlement Funding

Assessment

Most complex area, with funding based on:

• 2014/15 Four Block Model

• Takes into account previous specific grants rolled-into SFA, relative need, ability to raise

council tax and damping

Considerations:

• Local level information needed e.g. deprivation and demographic/ socio-economic/

geographic data such as older people living alone; secondary pupils in low achieving

ethnic groups; qualification levels; sparsity/density,

• Subjective decisions would also be needed by DCLG

• Last set of complete figures published for the 2014/15 settlement

• Therefore, only a broad assumptions possible at this stage

New Homes Bonus Projected NHB receipts based on the RA Form for 2013-14 and disaggregated based on council

taxbase. Currently shown within the Special Grant section of the RA Form. Could be updated to

show latest projections for current and/ or future years.

Council Tax Disaggregation based on council taxbase. Actual collection rates have been used. Chorley

Council’s budgeted collection rate is 98.5% in 2014-15. Lancashire County Council’s effective

collection rate (i.e. the weighted average of all Lancashire districts) would fall from 97.7% to 97.5%

in 2014-15 if Chorley were removed. This is because Chorley’s collection rate is higher than the

average for Lancashire as a whole.

Specific Grants Specific grants disaggregated from the totals in the RA Form using suitable disaggregation bases

used

Fees and charges These are excluded from the Resources forecast and included in the net revenue expenditure in the

RA Form so effectively disaggregated on the same basis as the relevant expenditure. Tend to be

site specific, so further information needed i.e. location of fees and charges sites and income

generated.

2.20. It should be noted that DCLG will want to ensure that re-organisation in one part of the country

does not affect grant resources elsewhere. DCLG will therefore ensure that the total SFA

available to Chorley and Lancashire combined does not change, at least until the current grant

settlement is “unfrozen” in 2020-21. This means that the Resources disaggregation has to

allocate existing SFA resources between a Chorley UA and Residual Lancashire. To this

extent, the Resources disaggregation is relatively low risk because its purpose is to allocate an

existing control total between two future organisations rather than to fully recalculate the SFA

allocations for those organisations.



2.21. Special and specific grants (per the special grants tab in the RA Form for 2014-15) have been

disaggregated based on the disaggregation factors that were used in the disaggregation of

expenditure. In order to minimise the risk of differences between the disaggregation of grants

and expenditure, we have disaggregated some grants pro rata to expenditure rather than other

factors. For instance, most schools and social care grants have been disaggregated pro rata

to the expenditure we have allocated to Chorley UA and Residual Lancashire.

2.22. “Other Items” (£4.36m in Lancashire County Council in 2014-15 and £102,000 in Chorley

Council) have been disaggregated based on taxbase.



3. Disaggregation of Expenditure and Resources

3.1. Based on the methodology set out in the last section, in this section we consider whether the

proposed disaggregation of resources and expenditure results in a surplus or deficit for a new

Chorley UA and the corresponding surplus or deficit for a Residual Lancashire. Any business

case that is presented to DCLG will need to show that reorganisation does not result a financial

position for either the new unitary or the residual county that is not sustainable. Ideally this

would be shown not having significant differences in the surpluses or deficits in both the new

Chorley unitary authority and in the residual county council.

3.2. If this is not the case, however, it might indicate that there has been historical mis-allocation of

resources within the County. Furthermore, any imbalances will have to be addressed within

the business case.

3.3. The disaggregation to both the proposed Chorley UA and Residual Lancashire is based on a

range of disaggregation factors. We have a high degree of confidence in the disaggregation

bases that have been used but, to reflect that there is some uncertainty we have undertaken

break-even analysis to show how much the Chorley UA position would have to deteriorate by

for it to become unviable.

Disaggregation of expenditure

3.4. The application of the disaggregation factors in the financial model allocates 8.9% of

expenditure to the new Chorley unitary (compared to 9.1% of the overall population). Table 3.1

provides a full service-by-service breakdown of upper-tier expenditure.

Table 3.1 – Disaggregation of County Council expenditure

Chorley UA Residual Lancashire UA % Chorley

£000 £ per head £000 £ per head

Education 82,570 770.57 815,588 696.29 9.2%

Highways 7,309 68.21 74,708 63.78 8.9%

Children's social care 11,664 108.85 139,746 119.30 7.7%

Adult social care 28,458 265.58 299,357 255.57 8.7%

Public health 5,211 48.63 54,679 46.68 8.7%

Housing services 12 0.11 119 0.10 9.1%

Cultural and related services 1,924 17.96 19,582 16.72 8.9%

Environmental and regulatory services 10,127 94.51 105,775 90.30 8.7%

Planning and development services 573 5.35 5,693 4.86 9.1%

Central services 3,195 29.81 31,725 27.08 9.1%

Other services 3,706 34.59 36,805 31.42 9.1%

Total Service Expenditure 154,750 1,444.17 1,583,776 1,352.11 8.9%

Population (people) 107,155

1,171,339

9.1%



3.5. Estimated expenditure per head of population would be marginally lower in Chorley UA than

the rest of the county. This is partly a function of Chorley’s demography (e.g. working-age

adults (18-64) tend not to use local authority services as heavily as other sections of the

population). Only in Education is there an above-average allocation of expenditure and this is

almost entirely funded from specific grants.

Resource Disaggregation

Settlement Funding Assessment

3.6. We have estimated that 8.79% of the County Council’s SFA would be allocated to Chorley

UA.2 In addition Chorley UA would continue to receive the funding it currently receives as a

district council.

Table 3.2 – Disaggregation of Settlement Funding Assessment (SFA) 2013-14

Chorley share of Lancashire County Council

Chorley Council

New Chorley Unitary

£000 % £000 £000

Rolled in Grants 3,386 8.97% 0 3,386

Needs 22,840 8.94% 1,676 24,516

Resources -9,868 10.63% -1,750 -11,618

Central Allocation 10,200 9.19% 4,794 14,994

Damping -1,269 8.53% 728 -541

LACSEG Adjustment -2,227

0 -2,227

Formula Grant Total 23,061 8.43% 5,448 28,509

0 0

Council Tax Freeze Grant 1,016 9.57% 160 1,176

Council Tax Support Funding 5,699 9.57% 753 6,452

Early Intervention Funding 3,413 9.80% 0 3,413

Homelessness Prevention 0

71 71

Lead Local Flood Authorities Funding 18 9.19% 0 18

Learning Disability and Health Reform 3,202 9.04% 0 3,202

Settlement Funding Assessment 36,409 8.79% 6,431 42,841

3.7. This is a summary of the outcome of the resource disaggregation:

● Needs. We estimate that Chorley UA would receive 8.97% of the upper tier needs

currently allocated to the County Council. This is lower per head than the average for

2 Note that for the purposes of this calculation, the SFA for the whole county has been allocated into two unitary

blocks. The financial model assumes that the rest of Lancashire will retain its two-tier structure and SFA has been

allocated on that basis.



the county, and is consistent with the other disaggregation data that we have seen

that shows Chorley having, on average, below average needs.

● Resources. At 10.63%, Chorley UA has a much larger deduction per head of

population than the average for the county. This is consistent with the much higher

taxbase per head in Chorley.

● Central allocation. This is a per head allocation and is in line with the population in

Chorley.

● Formula Grant. Overall Chorley UA would receive a much lower allocation per head

than the rest of the county because its needs are marginally below average, but its

deduction for resources is much greater.

● Rolled-in Grants. Chorley UA would get a higher proportion of the council tax freeze

grant than that rest of Lancashire – this is based on previous decisions to freeze

council tax. Council tax support funding is also above average. Other rolled-in

grants are broadly in line with population.

3.8. This disaggregation set out above is based on the 2013-14 SFA (£42.8m); the same

proportions have been applied to the 2014-15 SFA to calculate the SFA that has been used in

the disaggregation model (£38.8m).

3.9. To help support this disaggregation, we have compared our estimated SFA with benchmarks

from other similar authorities. By way of context, Chorley Council is at the upper quartile for

district services SFA (at £60 per head), which suggests that Chorley Council is relatively high-

need compared to other district councils. For SFA (including both upper and lower tier), our

estimate for Chorley is £362 per head. This is close to the lower quartile for single-tier councils

(which are typically much more deprived than district councils). We have used CIPFA’s

nearest neighbour benchmarks to identify similar authorities (Appendix 4). According to this

index, Bury MBC is the most similar authority and it has an SFA per head of £383 (5.8% higher

than Chorley). The other five most similar authorities range from £306 per head (Warrington)

to £427 per head (Darlington).

Council Tax

3.10. Table 3.3 show the disaggregation Council Tax resources between Chorley UA and the rest of

the County Council. There would be no change to council tax Band D: Chorley Unitary would

charge is the district council current Band D council tax plus the county’s Band D, and the

County would charge its own Band D, as it currently does without any change. There would be

no change in the Chorley collection rate because the Council already operates its own council

tax collection; the County Council’s collection rate has been adjusted to exclude Chorley’s. It

should be noted that direct comparisons between the County and the Chorley unitary need to

take account that the Unitary would provide both upper and lower tier services and resources

are calculated on that basis.



Table 3.3 – Disaggregation of Council Tax resources

Chorley UA

Residual Lancashire

2014-15 2014-15 Band D 1,302.14 1,107.74 Taxbase 33,751 310,439 Collection rate 98.5% 97.5% Council tax income 43,289 335,429

Business rates

3.11. The RA forms show the budgeted retained business rates for each authority. This amount is

different from the SFA because it reflects the actual amount of business rates that the authority

expects to retain rather than the target amount assumed in the SFA. It is important to include

this element of the budget in our disaggregation because (a) it ensures our disaggregation

model balances to the RA forms and (b) it reflects the actual resources that might be available

to each authority. The approach we have taken is to calculate the actual amount of retained

rates in Chorley (based on the RA and NNDR1 forms for 2014-15) and to allocate the balance

to Residual Lancashire.

3.12. According to the NNDR1 for 2014-15, Chorley Council estimated that it would be £3.074m

above its target business rates income for 2014/15. This would be split as follows under the

business rates retention scheme:

DCLG receive 50% £1.537m

Chorley 40% minus a levy of 50% £0.615m

Levy (goes to DCLG) £0.615m

County Council 9% £0.276m

Lancashire Fire Authority 1% £0.031m

3.13. In order to determine how this would be split under a Chorley Unitary authority, it is first

necessary to determine if that new authority is a top or tariff authority (as top up authorities do

not pay a levy and tariff authorities do)3. The County is currently a top up authority and

3 For authorities with a Baseline Need (i.e. determined by the four block model) that is higher than their

NDR Baseline (i.e. business rates target), a Top Up grant is required. Whereas, for authorities with a

baseline need that is lower than their NDR Baseline, a Tariff is paid to central government i.e.

Baseline Need = NDR Baseline plus Top Up OR less Tariff



Chorley is currently a tariff authority.

3.14. We estimate that a new Chorley UA would be a top-up authority and would therefore not pay a

levy (in contrast to the 50% levy rate Chorley Council currently pays). This is based upon the

forecast level of SFA (and therefore Baseline Need) compared to the NDR Baseline of a

Chorley Unitary, as shown below.

Table 3.3 – Retained business rate calculations

Projected NDR Baseline

2014/15 Overall business rates target for Chorley = £25.662m

Chorley district NDR Baseline @ 40% = £10.265m

County Council NDR Baseline (Chorley element) @ 9% = £1.796m

A Chorley unitary NDR Baseline will be the sum of the district’s current baseline and the county

council element i.e. 49% of the overall business rates target:

Chorley Unitary NDR Baseline 2014/15 @ 49% = £12.574m

Projected Baseline Need

The forecast SFA in 2014-15 for a Chorley Unitary is £38.803m.

In 2014/15, Baseline Need account for 45% of SFA funding (with the remaining 55% coming in

RSG). Therefore:

£38.803 x 45% = £17.461m

Chorley top up / tariff calculation:

Baseline Need - NDR Baseline = Top up / (Tariff)

Therefore:

£17.461m less £12.574m = £4.887m Top Up (and therefore a 0% levy)

This would mean that of the £17.461m baseline need figure, £4.887m was funded from Top Up

grant, and this is 28%.

Equivalent percentages with nearby unitaries are consistent with being a top up of this

magnitude e.g.

Blackburn 44%

Blackpool 44%

Wigan 40%



3.15. The revised split of the projected gain from business rates retention would therefore be as

follows:

DCLG receive 50% £1.537m

Chorley 49% £1.506m

Residual County 0% £0.000m

Levy at 0% £0.000m

Lancashire Fire Authority 1% £0.031m

3.16. Based on the figures above a Chorley unitary would therefore increase its gain from the

business rates retention scheme (compared to the current district) by £0.891m per annum

(from £0.615m to £1.506m). The county council would see a reduction of £0.276m in funding

and the levy payment would also reduce to £0 (from £0.615m). Thereby meaning that the

creation of a Chorley unitary would also increase the resources retained locally by £0.615m, as

there would no longer by a levy payment to DCLG.

3.17. In terms of the robustness of the £3.074m forecast, in January 2015, Chorley issued an

updated projection for 2014/15 and an initial 2015/16 projection. The equivalent amounts were

£3.285 for 2014/15 and £4.006m for 2015/16. A Chorley unitary would therefore look well

placed to continue to receive these gains each year until at least the business rates reset,

originally planned for 2020, and potentially beyond, depending on the nature of the reset and

any damping arrangements that are included with its introduction.

3.18. The additional resources that would be retained by Chorley and more generally in the county

have not been included in the financial model. Clearly these would represent an additional

financial benefit from unitary status.



Overall disaggregation results

3.19. Our financial model indicates that Chorley UA would have a surplus of £5.8m, and Residual

Lancashire would have a corresponding deficit of £5.8m (this is summarised in Table 3.4, with

future years shown in Appendix 3). This surplus for Chorley UA is significant, at 7.5% of the

projected Budget Requirement. For Residual Lancashire, this deficit is equivalent to 0.8% of

projected Budget Requirement and £18.65 at Band D.

Table 3.4 – Disaggregation of expenditure and resources (2014-15)

Chorley Unitary Residual

Lancashire 2014-15 2014-15 £000 £000 County services 154,750 1,583,776 County services (specific and special grants) -88,049 -872,311

66,701 711,465 District services 15,774 District services (specific and special grants) -3,333

12,441 0 Net Revenue Expenditure 79,142 711,465 County services (use of reserves) -1,385 -14,179 County services (use of schools reserves) -190 -1,945 District services (use of reserves) -346

-1,921 -16,124 Budget Requirement 77,220 695,342

SFA 38,803 348,159 Council Tax 43,289 335,429 Retained business rates 397 2,022 Other items 519 3,943 Resources 83,008 689,553

Surplus/ deficit 5,788 -5,789

3.20. Chorley UA’s surplus is due to a:

● Lower per head disaggregation of Council expenditure to Chorley UA than the

Residual Lancashire (£1444 compared to £1488 per head);

● Higher per head council tax for Chorley UA than Residual Lancashire (£403

compared to £315 per head respectively)



3.21. This suggests that the creation of a unitary council would result in significant benefits for the

Chorley area. The new unitary council would have resources to invest in services, to reduce

the scale of cuts in some services and/ or to reduce council tax.

3.22. It should be noted that Lancashire County Council’s 2014-15 budget was supported by a

significant use of reserves (£14.2m). It is assumed that this use of resources is a short term

measure and that the County is currently setting budgets that are not reliant (or at least less

reliant) on reserves. This does have the effect of over-stating the County’s net revenue

expenditure but should not have any material impact on the surpluses or deficits that we are

estimating. We have assumed no use of reserves in future years by either a Chorley UA or

Residual Lancashire.



Breakeven analysis

3.23. Breakeven analysis has been undertaken to indicate how much the financial position can

deteriorate before Chorley’s unitary business case becomes unviable. There are two key

variables that we have modelled: the amount of county expenditure and SFA that is

disaggregated to Chorley UA. Others variables, such as district SFA, district services, and

council tax, are relatively certain or predictable, and there is little benefit in including them in

the breakeven analysis. For the analysis we have established a range for each variable that

looks reasonable. Where possible, we have anchored the range for each variable to external

factors.

Table 3.4 – Breakeven analysis

Modelled scenario

Increase expenditure

Reduce SFA

County services 154,750 160,538 154,750

County Special Grant -88,049 -88,049 -88,049

District services 15,774 15,774 15,774

District Special Grant -3,333 -3,333 -3,333

County services (use of reserves) -1,385 -1,385 -1,385

County services (use of schools reserves) -190 -190 -190

District services (use of reserves) -346 -346 -346

SFA 38,803 38,803 33,015

Council Tax 43,289 43,289 43,289

Retained business rates 397 397 397

Other items 519 519 519

Surplus/ (deficit) 5,788 0 0

Expenditure

County services per head 1,444 1,498 1,444

Population 107,155 107,155 107,155

SFA

SFA per head 362 362 308

Population 107,155 107,155 107,155

3.24. Table 3.4 compared the best estimate from the financial model to two scenarios:

● Increase expenditure. In this scenario expenditure has been increased (by £5.8m)

so that there is no longer any surplus. We have assumed that the increase is in

county services because this is the element that is being disaggregated. This is

higher than the current level of expenditure per head in the rest of Lancashire

(£1,488). Based on the evidence we have seen it is very unlikely that Chorley would



spend more than the rest of the county per head. Needs are clearly lower in Chorley

than the rest of the county, on average, and this has been demonstrated by both

published data (e.g. Census) and by local data (e.g. County Council data on client

numbers).

● Reduce SFA. In this scenario SFA has been reduced (by £5.8m) so that there is no

longer any surplus. SFA per head would fall to £308 (for upper and lower tier

services). This would make Chorley UA‘s SFA per head lower than all the other

authorities in the benchmarking group except Warrington (£306 per head), York and

Central Bedfordshire.

3.25. We have also looked at the “risk” budgets that Chorley Council would inherit from the County

Council. Adult social care and children’s budgets are both demand led (£28.5m and £11.7m

respectively, £40.1m together). An increase of 14% in both would result in £5.8m increase (i.e.

size of current surplus).

3.26. The size of the projected surplus for Chorley means that a new unitary could cope with the

financial pressure from either scenario or with significant increases in risk budgets. The

likelihood of any of these scenarios actually occurring to the extent shown here is relatively

unlikely, although there is clearly a risk that there could be a deterioration in one or more of the

scenarios at the same time. If these were to be the case, Chorley UA would need to rely on its

ability to generate additional savings (from local government reorganisation and integration)

and additional tax receipts (council tax, NDR, NHB).

Projected budget position

3.27. The financial model (Appendix 3) shows budget projections for both Chorley UA and Residual

Lancashire from 2014-15 to 2017-18. Over this period, our financial model shows that there

are current savings plans would be sufficient to deliver a balanced budget:

● The combined budget requirement reduces by £96m and available resources

reduces by £104m. (The variance between the two figures reflects different

assumptions about future resources.)

● Chorley UA’s surplus reduces from £5.8m in 2014-15 to £1.5m in 2017-18; this is the

change in total expenditure that is projected by the Council and includes savings,

inflationary pressures and growth/ investment plans.4

● Residual Lancashire’s deficit in 2014-15 (£5.8m) increases over the period and is

projected to be £9.2m by 2017-18; these projections include the County Council’s

savings proposals and their estimated “change to forecast in spending”.5 However,

4 https://democracy.chorley.gov.uk/documents/b13318/To%20follow%2003rd-Mar-

2015%2018.30%20Council.pdf?T=9

5 http://council.lancashire.gov.uk/documents/s56763/Appendix%20A%20-

%20The%20Councils%20Revenue%20budget%202015-16.pdf



these projections use LGFutures’ resources forecasts rather than the County

Council’s. The County Council assumed additional income from council tax and

retained business rates to balance its budget in 2015-16; and in 2016-17 and 2017-

18 the County Council still has an unresolved budget gap (£17.3m and £9.2m

respectively). Therefore, the projected budget deficits for the County Council in our

model mirror the actual position in the County Council and are not the consequence

of Chorley Council’s unitary proposals,

3.28. These projections do not take account of the ability of Chorley UA or Residual Lancashire to

raise additional income from business rates, council tax or New Homes Bonus.

3.29. In terms of medium term viability, it is important to consider overall viability separately from

viability following LGR. The former applies across whole of local government and many are

concerned that local government as a sector, especially those authorities with social care

responsibilities, might not be viable. Our financial model suggests that services overall are

viable, as long as the savings proposed by Lancashire County Council are achievable. It is

inevitable that there will be some concern about whether proposed financial plans and service

proposals are viable.

3.30. The question for this business case is whether the proposed unitary structure makes Chorley

UA and Residual Lancashire materially less viable. Structural reorganisation provides new

opportunities to improve financial viability because it offers the ability to generate new

economies of scale and the transformation of services. In the next section we explore the

opportunities that local government reorganisation would give Chorley Council to optimise

savings from integration.

Summary

3.31. Chorley UA would have a projected surplus of £5.8m, which is equivalent to 7.5% of its

projected budget requirement. The impact on the Residual Lancashire would be a £5.8m

deficit, equivalent to 0.8% of projected budget requirement.

3.32. The medium term projections indicate that both councils (Chorley UA and Lancashire County

Council) would be able to set balanced budgets.

3.33. The analysis suggests that the area of Chorley contributes more to the resources of Lancashire

County Council than it receives back. Largely this under-allocation of resources to Chorley is a

combination of Chorley’s relatively low needs (compared to the rest of Lancashire) and the

relatively high council taxbase. In recent years, cuts in grant funding have meant that

authorities with high taxbases have been protected in relative terms from Government cuts. It

http://council.lancashire.gov.uk/documents/s56763/Appendix%20A%20-

%20The%20Councils%20Revenue%20budget%202015-16.pdf. The savings proposed by Lancashire County Council

are pro rated between the County Council and the Chorley Unitary.

http://council.lancashire.gov.uk/documents/s56763/Appendix%20A%20-%20The%20Councils%20Revenue%20budget%202015-16.pdf

http://council.lancashire.gov.uk/documents/s56763/Appendix%20A%20-%20The%20Councils%20Revenue%20budget%202015-16.pdf



is possible, therefore, that the current position shows an under-allocation to Chorley; but that in

previous years this under-allocation was less pronounced.

3.34. Furthermore, authorities, such as Chorley Council, with growing council taxbases have also

been able to benefit from New Homes Bonus. Chorley Council should be aware that there

could be changes in funding in future years that penalises high-taxbase authorities (e.g.

resource equalisation, removal of New Homes Bonus), although this is the case with any

authority, depending on particular circumstances and changes that could be made.



4. Transitional costs and savings

4.1. In previous rounds of reorganisation, the DCLG has expected unitary business cases to repay

their investment within 5 years i.e. the estimated costs for implementing the new unitary and

undertaking any planned transformation should generate sufficient savings to repay savings

within 5 years. The DCLG undertook in-depth challenge and risk assessment of the proposals

in this area and those proposals with a shorter repayment period were seen being lower risk.

4.2. In the current financial circumstances, Chorley Council is looking to use the opportunity

presented by local government reorganisation (LGR) to do more than simply repay transitional

costs within 5 years. For instance, the changes from LGR need to be much more than simply

merging management teams where the savings can only be achieved once. LGR can deliver

greater medium and long term changes: better integration and joint working will deliver much

greater savings overall than working in the current structure.

Opportunities for integration and financial benefits

4.3. Many of the savings and financial benefits from LGR will come from improvements in the

design, management and commissioning of services:

● More-focussed services. Lancashire County Council is commissioning services for

the whole county. Different parts of the county will have different needs and will require

different service design. Urban and rural areas in particular need different types of

services and those services need to be organised in different ways to meet those

needs. If we look at County services, then social care is a particular example but also

some support for schools. Social care is being pushed towards greater integration with

the NHS and with local CCGs. There are working examples from other urban areas of

how community-based and preventative services can work, such as the “Virtual ward” in

central London, which is being used as a template for other urban areas. This

approach is currently delivering 5% year-on-year reductions in non-elective admissions

(NEL). This approach is suitable for urban areas where intensive community-based

support can be provided; it is less suitable for rural areas, where a different solution is

required. Countywide commissioning would lose the ability to be as focussed. In

addition, housing allocation and provision, delivery of adaptations and disabled

facilities, and supporting people are better provided in a more focussed way in Chorley.

● Amalgamating similar services. The potential to integrate district services can be

integrated with county services to create a more focussed, area-based service. For

instance: building and property maintenance teams; visiting and inspection services

(such as trading standards and environmental health); planning and development

control; community safety and warden-based services; and street-based services, such

as highways maintenance, waste collection and street cleansing. Again an urban and

rural solutions to the challenges of these services will be different, and there are good

examples of these services being delivered successfully by in-house or wholly-owned

local authority companies.

4.4. Other financial benefits will come from better delivery of economic growth and the housing.

This approach would deliver the objectives the current government want to achieve, as well as



meeting the current and future needs of Chorley’s population. These financial benefits (from

increased tax receipts) are likely to be at least as significant as the savings, discussed above,

from services and corporate functions. A unitary council in Chorley would be better placed to

deliver these benefits than the current two-tier structure.

Financial viability and optimum authority size

4.5. There appear to be plans in place from both the County Council and Chorley Council to deliver

a balanced budget over the medium term (to 2017-18) despite the projected cuts in funding

from central government. It is reasonable to expect, therefore, that a Chorley UA would inherit

viable services from the County Council and a balanced budget. From the County’s point of

view, it has projected savings to balance its own budget and the financial deficit from the

transfer of services to Chorley would be relatively small in the context of the overall budget

(0.8% of net expenditure).

4.6. In addition, the LGR business case could help to deliver some of the savings that would be

required to balance the budget, particularly in Chorley where there are plans under

consideration to engage in much greater integration between local government, health partners

and others. Based on benchmarks from other LGR business cases, we have estimated that

net savings could be 4.2% per year once the transitional plans are implemented. Even if this is

higher than a Chorley UA might want to commit to, then LGR will make some contribution to

the overall savings requirement.

4.7. Our financial projections do not take account of the ability of Chorley UA to raise additional

income from business rates, council tax or New Homes Bonus. Some of these projected

benefits are included in Chorley Council’s current medium term financial plan but we have not

included them in this report. Additional tax receipts would make a significant difference to

Chorley UA’s budget in future years, and LGR may help to unlock these tax receipts.

4.8. LGR provides new opportunities to improve financial viability because it offers the ability to

generate new economies of scale and transformation of services. The potential downside is

that it can introduce some diseconomies, particularly for some services such as social care.

Chorley Council is addressing these potential diseconomies by proposing the creation of new

forms of integration with health and other partners. More generally, there is no clear

conclusion on the optimum size for an authority, there is no evidence that larger authorities are

more efficient, and there are other effective urban authorities that have a similar population.



5. Conclusion

5.1. In this section we have responded to the initial criteria and questions that were set out in

paragraph 1.9 of this report. In responding to the questions we are seeking to make a

judgement about the two overarching question which are: can the proposed Chorley unitary

authority meet the Government’s likely qualifying criteria, and will a unitary council in Chorley

be financially viable?

Starting point

Can resources and expenditure be

disaggregated in a reasonable and equitable

way?

Do any of the proposed authorities begin

with an unfair or unmanageable deficit in

year 1?

● The disaggregation of resources and expenditure

indicates expenditure and resources would be in

Chorley UA’s favour but would be relatively balanced.

Chorley would have a surplus of £5.8m (equivalent to

7.5% of net revenue expenditure); the County

Council’s corresponding deficit would be equivalent to

only 0.8% of its net revenue expenditure.

● The disaggregation is robust and there is a high

degree of confidence in the data used for over two-

thirds of the budget.

Council tax convergence

Can council taxes for all residents be

converged into a single rate within 5 years

without placing an unreasonable financial

burden on residents?

● Council taxes would be converged from day-one. No

period of convergence required.

Repay transitional costs within 5 years

Can the costs of setting up the new unitary

councils be repaid within 5 years?

Can this be demonstrated with reasonable

certainty and with a reasonable margin for

error?

● Benchmarking suggests that savings from LGR can

comfortably repay transitional costs within 5 years.

● Chorley Council is looking to exceed this by using LGR

as an opportunity to maximise benefits from

transformation and integration.

● A unitary Chorley could generate significant additional

tax receipts.

Optimum size and/ or structure for

delivering savings and efficiency

What is the optimum size for a unitary

council, and can a reasonable case be made

that the proposed structure has more

economies than diseconomies of scale?

● A unitary Chorley would be relatively small compared

to many single-tier councils but there is no evidence

that smaller councils are less efficient. Other similar

sized councils performing well.

● Chorley Council looking to increase economies of

scale through partnerships with other organisations,



particularly health.

Ability to deliver county council services

Does the proposed structure demonstrate

that it can deliver county council services –

where spending pressures are greatest – in

the most effective way and at a lower cost?

● A unitary Chorley would be able to commission

services that are more suited to the local area and to

work more closely with other partners, particularly

health.

5.2. The business case meets the qualification criteria that the Government is likely to set. The

disaggregation results in a balanced allocation of resources and expenditure, council taxes can

be converged without significant increases for any residents, and benchmarking suggests that

payback can easily be delivered within 5 years.

5.3. Chorley Council also has ambitions to use LGR to generate much greater financial benefits

from transformation and integration. These benefits will help to maintain Chorley Council’s

financial health over the medium term and to reinvest in services and infrastructure in the area.



Appendix 1: Disaggregation factors Chorley Lancashire %age

Chorley

All Usual Residents Census 2011 107,155 1,171,339 9.1%

Age 0 to 4 Census 2011 6,203 68,591 9.0%

Age 5 to 7 Census 2011 3,714 38,980 9.5%

Age 8 to 9 Census 2011 2,249 24,585 9.1%

Age 10 to 14 Census 2011 6,076 67,883 9.0%

Age 15 Census 2011 1,381 14,344 9.6%

Age 16 to 17 Census 2011 2,558 29,186 8.8%

Age 18 to 19 Census 2011 2,202 33,352 6.6%

Age 20 to 24 Census 2011 6,122 78,594 7.8%

Age 25 to 29 Census 2011 6,210 68,819 9.0%

Age 30 to 44 Census 2011 22,338 221,875 10.1%

Age 45 to 59 Census 2011 22,475 235,357 9.5%

Age 60 to 64 Census 2011 7,665 78,580 9.8%

Age 65 to 74 Census 2011 10,381 113,367 9.2%

Age 75 to 84 Census 2011 5,420 70,377 7.7%

Age 85 to 89 Census 2011 1,407 18,380 7.7%

Age 90 and Over Census 2011 754 9,069 8.3%

Population - early years Census 2011 6,203 68,591 9.0%

Population - Primary Census 2011 5,963 63,565 9.4%

Population - Secondary Census 2011 7,457 82,227 9.1%

Population - Post-16 Census 2011 4,760 62,538 7.6%

Population - 18-64 Census 2011 69,570 745,763 9.3%

Population - 65+ Census 2011 17,208 202,124 8.5%

Population - under 16s Census 2011 19,623 214,383 9.2%

Day-to-Day Activities Limited a Lot Census 2011 9,626 115,343 8.3%

Day-to-Day Activities Limited a Lot; Age 16 to 64

Census 2011 4,228 50,316 8.4%

Claimants Aged 16-24 Disability Living Allowance (DWP)

350 4,180 8.4%


1,380 16,590 8.3%


1,060 12,910 8.2%


1,560 18,210 8.6%

Claimants Aged 70 and Over Disability Living Allowance (DWP)

1,180 13,860 8.5%

All Schoolchildren and Full-Time Students Aged 4 and Over at their Non Term-Time Address

Census 2011 1,244 14,049 8.9%

Pupils Eligible for EYFSP Assessment Census 2011 1,230 13,834 8.9%

Pupils Eligible for KS1 Assessment Census 2011 1,152 12,323 9.3%



Chorley Lancashire %age Chorley

Pupils Eligible for KS2 Assessment Census 2011 739 6,700 11.0%

Pupils Eligible for KS3 Assessment Census 2011 1,449 14,274 10.2%

All Households Census 2011 44,919 496,299 9.1%

Statutory Homeless; Decisions Made; Total Office for National Statistics

28 1,029 2.7%

Statutory Homeless; Applicants Accepted as Owed a Main Homelessness Duty; Total

Office for National Statistics

6 405 1.5%

Local authority area Office for National Statistics

20,291 308,299 6.6%

Taxbase DCLG settlement data 37,129 388,154 9.6%

Day visitors DCLG settlement data 3,518,000 19,973,000 17.6%

Business rate heriditaments Valuation Office Agency

3,050 39,980 7.6%

Streetlighting Provided by Chorley Council

14,900 177,200 8.4%

Gritting - Primary (km) Provided by Chorley Council

195 2,500 7.8%

Gritting - Secondary (km) Provided by Chorley Council

86 956 9.0%

Highway structures (bridges etc) Provided by Chorley Council

281 3,773 7.4%

Bus Passengers annually Provided by Chorley Council

663,000 7,373,440 9.0%

Concessionary travel - Senior citizens passes

Provided by Chorley Council

17,830 204,707 8.7%

Concessionary travel - Disabled passes Provided by Chorley Council

1,771 21,478 8.2%

Public rights of way (km) Provided by Chorley Council

477 5,561 8.6%

Road length Provided by Chorley Council

657 6,927 9.5%

Trading Standards - Provision of advice/visits to businesses


816 11,552 7.1%

Animal Health and Agriculture - Visits to food producers


13 193 6.7%

Animal Health and Agriculture - Visits following animal welfare complaint


28 384 7.3%

Petroleum and Explosives - Registered premises


31 426 7.3%

Childrens - looked after County Council data 159 2,176 7.3%

Childrens - referrals to social care County Council data 2,254 26,882 8.4%

Childrens - current referrals (Children in Need)

County Council data 559 8,171 6.8%

Adult social care - all (18-64) County Council data 760 8,788 8.6%



Chorley Lancashire %age Chorley

Adult social care - LD (18-64) County Council data 257 2,697 9.5%

Adult social care - MH (18-64) County Council data 183 2,596 7.0%

Adult social care - other vulnerable (18-64) County Council data 11 114 9.6%

Adult social care - Physical/ Sensory Disability, Frailty (18-64)

County Council data 276 2,985 9.2%

Adult social care - substance misuse (18-64) County Council data 33 396 8.3%

Adult social care - all (65+) County Council data 1,597 19,560 8.2%

Adult social care - LD (65+) County Council data 31 353 8.8%

Adult social care - MH (65+) County Council data 176 2,366 7.4%

Adult social care - other vulnerable (65+) County Council data 4 120 3.3%

Adult social care - Physical/ Sensory Disability, Frailty (65+)

County Council data 1,384 16,684 8.3%

Adult social care - substance misuse (65+) County Council data 2 37 5.4%

Adult social care - all clients County Council data 4,714 56,696 8.3%

Household residual waste Provided by Chorley Council

21,809 247,699 8.8%

Non-household residual waste Provided by Chorley Council

130 27,569 0.5%

Total residual waste Provided by Chorley Council

21,939 275,267 8.0%

Public health - 0-18 years Census 2011 23,370 259,443 9.0%

Public health - 19+ years Census 2011 83,785 911,896 9.2%


Public health - 18+ years Census 2011 84,974 927,770 9.2%

Public health - 4-5 and 10-11 years Census 2011 4,855 53,169 9.1%




Appendix 2: Disaggregation factors for each budget line (Lancashire County Council) Code RA budget category Expenditure Distributing

proportion of budget

Primary Primary Secondary Secondary Comments Proposed disaggregation basis

Confidence rating

£000 % % % % HIGH/ MED/ LOW

110 Early years 50,131 2.9% Population - early years

9.0% Pupils Eligible for EYFSP Assessment

8.9% Resident population relevant age groups has been used to distribute expenditure. Same basis used to distribute funding.

9.0% HIGH

120 Primary schools 414,024 23.8% Population - Primary 9.4% Pupils Eligible for KS1 Assessment

9.3% ditto 9.4% HIGH

130 Secondary schools 290,194 16.7% Population - Secondary

9.1% Pupils Eligible for KS3 Assessment

10.2% ditto 9.1% MEDIUM

140 Special schools 85,837 4.9% All Schoolchildren and Full-Time Students Aged 4 and Over at their Non Term-Time Address

8.9% All Schoolchildren and Full-Time Students Aged 4 and Over at their Non Term-Time Address


145 Post-16 provision 6,243 0.4% Age 16 to 17 8.8% All Schoolchildren and Full-Time Students Aged 4 and Over at their Non Term-Time Address


165 Other education and community budget

51,729 3.0% All Usual Residents 9.1% All Usual Residents 9.1% Wider resident population group has been used to reflect provision of services to whole community.

9.1% MEDIUM

190 Total Education 898,158 9.2%

210 Transport planning, policy and strategy

2,876 0.2% Road length 9.5% Local authority area 6.6% Road length reflects the overall need to spend on the road network, including capital investment and on other services.

9.5% HIGH

220 Capital charges relating to construction projects

0.0% Road length 9.5% Local authority area 6.6% Ditto 9.5% HIGH

230 Structural maintenance -340 0.0% Road length 9.5% Local authority area 6.6% Ditto 9.5% HIGH

247 Environmental, safety and 25,093 1.4% Road length 9.5% Local authority area 6.6% Ditto 9.5% HIGH



Code RA budget category Expenditure Distributing proportion of budget


Confidence rating

routine maintenance

248 Winter service 4,103 0.2% Local authority area 6.6% Local authority area 6.6% Costs likely to be much higher in Pennine parts of the county. Used local authority area because it allocates less cost to Chorley.

6.6% HIGH

249 Street lighting (including energy costs)

11,702 0.7% Streetlighting 8.4% Local authority area 6.6% Ditto 8.4% HIGH

251 Traffic management and road safety: congestion charging

0 0.0% Road length 9.5% Local authority area 6.6% Ditto 9.5% HIGH

254 Traffic management and road safety: road safety education and safe routes (including school crossing patrols)

2,885 0.2% All Usual Residents 9.1% Local authority area 6.6% Usual residents is a more suitable disaggregation basis because this budget is more about education than direct expenditure on the road network.

9.1% HIGH

258 Traffic management and road safety: other

113 0.0% Road length 9.5% Local authority area 6.6% Ditto 9.5% HIGH

260 Parking services 190 0.0% Road length 9.5% Local authority area 6.6% Very low income in county council; mostly in district councils.

9.5% HIGH

271 Public transport: statutory concessionary fares

21,644 1.2% Concessionary travel - Senior citizens passes

8.7% All Usual Residents 9.1% Measure is reasonable. No further action.

8.7% HIGH

272 Public transport: discretionary concessionary fares

277 0.0% Concessionary travel - Senior citizens passes

8.7% All Usual Residents 9.1% Ditto 8.7% HIGH

275 Public transport: support to operators

11,826 0.7% All Usual Residents 9.1% All Usual Residents 9.1% Service likely to benefit whole population. Usual residents is a reasonable approach. Ideally obtain information about actual services supported.

9.1% MEDIUM

276 Public transport: co-ordination

1,648 0.1% All Usual Residents 9.1% All Usual Residents 9.1% Ditto 9.1% MEDIUM

280 Airports, harbours and toll facilities

0 0.0% All Usual Residents 9.1% Local authority area 6.6% 9.1% HIGH

290 Total Highways and Transport

82,017

332 Physical support - adults (18–64)

18,266 1.1% Adult social care - Physical/ Sensory Disability, Frailty (18-64)

9.2% Population - 18-64 9.3% County Council data has been used. This allocates actual client numbers to Chorley. It is very similar to the overall population numbers in Chorley for the

9.2% HIGH





Confidence rating

relevant age group.

333 Physical support - older people (65+)

67,124 3.9% Adult social care - Physical/ Sensory Disability, Frailty (65+)

8.3% Population - 65+ 8.5% ditto 8.3% HIGH

334 Sensory support - adults (18–64)

7,998 0.5% Adult social care - Physical/ Sensory Disability, Frailty (18-64)

9.2% Population - 18-64 9.3% ditto 9.2% HIGH

335 Sensory support - older people (65+)



336 Support with memory and cognition - adults (18–64)

105 0.0% Adult social care - Physical/ Sensory Disability, Frailty (18-64)


337 Support with memory and cognition - older people (65+)



340 Learning disability support - adults (18–64)

105,711 6.1% Adult social care - LD (18-64)


341 Learning disability support - older people (65+)

15,561 0.9% Adult social care - LD (65+)


344 Mental health support - adults (18–64)

17,927 1.0% Adult social care - MH (18-64)

7.0% Population - 18-64 9.3% County Council data has been used. This allocates actual client numbers to Chorley. Prevalent of MH in Chorley appears much lower than rest of Lancs (both 18-64 and 65+).

7.0% HIGH

345 Mental health support - older people (65+)

17,679 1.0% Adult social care - MH (65+)


348 Social support: Substance misuse support

1,721 0.1% Adult social care - substance misuse (18-64)

8.3% Population - 18-64 9.3% County Council data has been used. This allocates actual client numbers to Chorley. Prevalent of Substance Abuse in Chorley appears much lower than rest of Lancs (both 18-64 and 65+).

8.3% HIGH

349 Social support: Asylum seeker support

0 0.0% Population - 18-64 9.3% Population - 18-64 9.3% ditto 9.3% HIGH

350 Social support: Support for carer

1,307 0.1% Adult social care - all clients

8.3% Population - 18-64 9.3% County Council data has been used. This disaggregation factors is the sum of all clients and reflects the overall provision of

8.3% HIGH





Confidence rating

services.

353 Assistive equipment and technology


8.3% Day-to-Day Activities Limited a Lot


354 Social care activities 35,651 2.1% Adult social care - all clients



355 Information and early intervention

560 0.0% Adult social care - all clients



356 Commissioning and service delivery




360 Total Adult Social Care 327,815

310 Children's social care: Sure start children's centres/flying start and early years

23,811 1.4% Childrens - looked after

7.3% Population - under 16s

9.2% County Council data has been used. Children Looked After reflects the number of children who are being supported in Chorley. Detailed numbers not available for each service line.

7.3% HIGH

313 Children's social care: Children looked after




315 Children's social care: Other children and family services

0 0.0% Childrens - looked after



322 Children's social care: Family support services

28,062 1.6% Childrens - referrals to social care


9.2% County Council data has been used. Referral numbers reflects the volume of cases that the teams will be dealing with in Chorley.

8.4% HIGH

323 Children's social care: Youth justice




325 Children's social care: Safeguarding children and young people’s services




326 Children's social care: Asylum seekers

12 0.0% Childrens - looked after


9.2% See above 7.3% HIGH

327 Children's social care: Services for young people



9.2% See above 7.3% HIGH

330 Total Children's Social Care 151,410

409 Housing strategy, advice, advances, enabling, renewals and licensing

0 0.0% All Usual Residents 9.1% All Usual Residents 9.1% No expenditure 9.1% HIGH





Confidence rating

440 Homelessness 0 0.0% All Usual Residents 9.1% All Usual Residents 9.1% ditto 9.1% HIGH

456 Housing benefits: rent allowances and rent rebates - discretionary payments

0 0.0% All Usual Residents 9.1% All Usual Residents 9.1% ditto 9.1% HIGH

457 Housing benefits administration


460 Other council property - travellers' sites and non-HRA housing


475 Housing welfare: Supporting People

0

478 Other welfare services 0 0.0% All Usual Residents 9.1% All Usual Residents 9.1% ditto 9.1% HIGH

490 Total Housing (GFRA only) 131

500 Archives 691 0.0% All Usual Residents 9.1% All Usual Residents 9.1% Countywide service. Assume will continue on same basis with costs disaggregated.

9.1% MEDIUM

501 Culture and heritage (excluding Archives)

3,801 0.2% All Usual Residents 9.1% All Usual Residents 9.1% Population is a reasonable proxy but actual expenditure will be incurred where the facilities are currently located.

9.1% MEDIUM

502 Recreation and sport 0 0.0% All Usual Residents 9.1% All Usual Residents 9.1% ditto 9.1% MEDIUM

503 Open spaces 1,681 0.1% Local authority area 6.6% All Usual Residents 9.1% ditto 6.6% MEDIUM

504 Tourism 0 0.0% All Usual Residents 9.1% All Usual Residents 9.1% ditto 9.1% MEDIUM

505 Library service 15,333 0.9% All Usual Residents 9.1% All Usual Residents 9.1% ditto 9.1% MEDIUM

509 Total Cultural and Related Services

21,506

510 Cemetery, cremation and mortuary services

0 0.0% Trading Standards - Provision of advice/visits to businesses

7.1% All Usual Residents 9.1% 7.1% HIGH

519 Regulatory services: Trading standards

2,915 0.2% Trading Standards - Provision of advice/visits to businesses


520 Regulatory services: Water safety

0 0.0% All Usual Residents 9.1% All Usual Residents 9.1% 9.1% HIGH





Confidence rating

521 Regulatory services: Food safety



522 Regulatory services: Environmental protection; noise and nuisance

-353 0.0% All Usual Residents 9.1% All Usual Residents 9.1% 9.1% HIGH

523 Regulatory services: Housing standards


524 Regulatory services: Health and safety



525 Regulatory services: Port health (excluding levies)


526 Regulatory services: Port health levies


527 Regulatory services: Pest control


528 Regulatory services: Public conveniences

0 0.0% All Usual Residents 9.1% All Usual Residents 9.1% 9.1% LOW

529 Regulatory services: Animal and public health; infectious disease

617 0.0% Animal Health and Agriculture - Visits to food producers


530 Regulatory services: Licensing - Alcohol and entertainment licensing; taxi licensing


531 Community safety (Crime reduction)

1,204 0.1% All Usual Residents 9.1% All Usual Residents 9.1% 9.1% LOW

532 Community safety (Safety services)


533 Community safety (CCTV) 0 0.0% All Usual Residents 9.1% All Usual Residents 9.1% 9.1% LOW

541 Defences against flooding 0 0.0% All Usual Residents 9.1% All Usual Residents 9.1% 9.1% LOW

543 Land drainage and related work (excluding levy / Special levies)

635 0.0% Local authority area 6.6% Road length 9.5% 6.6% LOW

544 Land drainage and related work - Levy / Special levies

0 0.0% Local authority area 6.6% Road length 9.5% 6.6% LOW

547 Coast protection 0 0.0% All Usual Residents 9.1% All Usual Residents 9.1% 9.1% LOW





Confidence rating

550 Agriculture and fisheries services

-24 0.0% All Usual Residents 9.1% All Usual Residents 9.1% 9.1% LOW

570 Street cleansing (not chargeable to Highways)

0 0.0% Road length 9.5% All Usual Residents 9.1% District council service. 9.5% HIGH

581 Waste collection 0 0.0% All Households 9.1% All Usual Residents 9.1% District council service. 9.1% HIGH

582 Waste disposal 99,631 5.7% Household residual waste

8.8% All Usual Residents 9.1% Residual (household) waste volume is most suitable factor for waste disposal (household numbers for waste collection).

8.8% HIGH

583 Trade waste 0 0.0% Non-household residual waste

0.5% All Usual Residents 9.1% Non-household residual waste volume most suitable disaggregation factor. No expenditure by County.

0.5% HIGH

584 Recycling 11,036 0.6% Household residual waste

8.8% All Usual Residents 9.1% Residual (household) waste volume is most suitable factor for recycling (household numbers for waste collection).

8.8% HIGH

585 Waste minimisation 55 0.0% Household residual waste


586 Climate change costs 0 0.0% All Usual Residents 9.1% All Usual Residents 9.1% 9.1% MEDIUM

590 Total Environmental and Regulatory Services

115,902

591 Building control 0 0.0% All Usual Residents 9.1% All Usual Residents 9.1% Service is probably related to population.

9.1% MEDIUM

592 Development control 870 0.1% All Usual Residents 9.1% All Usual Residents 9.1% ditto 9.1% MEDIUM

593 Planning policy 728 0.0% All Usual Residents 9.1% All Usual Residents 9.1% ditto 9.1% MEDIUM

594 Environmental initiatives 960 0.1% All Usual Residents 9.1% All Usual Residents 9.1% ditto 9.1% MEDIUM

595 Economic development 3,708 0.2% All Usual Residents 9.1% All Usual Residents 9.1% ditto 9.1% MEDIUM

596 Community development 0 0.0% All Usual Residents 9.1% All Usual Residents 9.1% ditto 9.1% MEDIUM

597 Economic research 0 0.0% All Usual Residents 9.1% All Usual Residents 9.1% ditto 9.1% MEDIUM

598 Business Support 0 0.0% All Usual Residents 9.1% All Usual Residents 9.1% 9.1% MEDIUM

599 Total Planning and Development Services

6,266 #N/A #N/A

#N/A #N/A

604 Coroners' court services 2,429 0.1% All Usual Residents 9.1% All Usual Residents 9.1% Service is probably related to population. No further action.

9.1% HIGH





Confidence rating

605 Other court services 0 0.0% All Usual Residents 9.1% All Usual Residents 9.1% Costs would be distributed by population. No further action.

9.1% HIGH

610 Corporate and democratic core

10,541 0.6% All Usual Residents 9.1% All Usual Residents 9.1% ditto 9.1% HIGH

623 Local tax collection: council tax discounts - locally funded


625 Local tax collection: council tax support administration


628 Local tax collection: other 0 0.0% All Usual Residents 9.1% All Usual Residents 9.1% ditto 9.1% HIGH

650 Emergency planning 480 0.0% All Usual Residents 9.1% All Usual Residents 9.1% ditto 9.1% HIGH

675 Central services to the public: other

4,405 0.3% All Usual Residents 9.1% All Usual Residents 9.1% ditto 9.1% HIGH

681 Non-distributed costs - retirement benefits

16,263 0.9% All Usual Residents 9.1% All Usual Residents 9.1% Costs would be distributed by population. No further action.

9.1% HIGH

682 Non-distributed costs - costs of unused shares of IT facilities and other assets


683 Non-distributed costs - depreciation / impairment of surplus costs etc

0.0% All Usual Residents 9.1% All Usual Residents 9.1% ditto 9.1% HIGH

684 Non-distributed costs - revenue expenditure on surplus assets


690 Total Central Services 34,920

361 Sexual health services - STI testing and treatment (prescribed functions)

3,615 0.2% Population - Post-16 7.6% All Usual Residents 9.1% 7.6% MEDIUM

362 Sexual health services - Contraception (prescribed functions)


363 Sexual health services - Advice, prevention and promotion (non-prescribed functions)

132 0.0% All Usual Residents 9.1% All Usual Residents 9.1% 9.1% MEDIUM

365 NHS health check programme (prescribed functions)


366 Health protection - Local 678 0.0% All Usual Residents 9.1% All Usual Residents 9.1% 9.1% MEDIUM





Confidence rating

authority role in health protection (prescribed functions)

368 National child measurement programme (prescribed functions)

341 0.0% Public health - 4-5 and 10-11 years

9.1% All Usual Residents 9.1% 9.1% MEDIUM

370 Public health advice (prescribed functions)

1,526 0.1% All Usual Residents 9.1% All Usual Residents 9.1% 9.1% MEDIUM

371 Obesity - adults 1,375 0.1% Public health - 18+ years


372 Obesity - children 379 0.0% Public health - 0-18 years

9.0% All Usual Residents 9.1% ditto 9.0% MEDIUM

373 Physical activity - adults 394 0.0% Public health - 18+ years


374 Physical activity - children 83 0.0% Public health - 0-18 years

9.0% All Usual Residents 9.1% ditto 9.0% MEDIUM

376 Substance misuse - Drug misuse - adults

13,035 0.7% Public health - 18+ years


377 Substance misuse - Alcohol misuse - adults

8,690 0.5% Public health - 18+ years


378 Substance misuse - (drugs and alcohol) - youth services

1,648 0.1% Public health - 0-18 years


380 Smoking and tobacco - Stop smoking services and interventions


381 Smoking and tobacco - Wider tobacco control

245 0.0% All Usual Residents 9.1% All Usual Residents 9.1% 9.1% MEDIUM

383 Children 5–19 public health programmes

7,625 0.4% Public health - 5-19 years


385 Miscellaneous public health services


390 Total Public Health 59,890

698 TOTAL OTHER SERVICES (exclude Public Health)


601 TOTAL POLICE SERVICES 0 0.0% All Usual Residents 9.1% All Usual Residents 9.1% All Usual Residents 9.1% HIGH

602 TOTAL FIRE AND RESCUE SERVICES

0 0.0% All Usual Residents 9.1% All Usual Residents 9.1% All Usual Residents 9.1% HIGH

828 Other levies 391 0.0% All Usual Residents 9.1% All Usual Residents 9.1% All Usual Residents 9.1% HIGH





Confidence rating

831 External Trading Accounts net surplus(-)/ deficit(+)

-74 0.0% All Usual Residents 9.1% All Usual Residents 9.1% All Usual Residents 9.1% HIGH

832 Internal Trading Accounts net surplus(-)/ deficit(+)

2,244 0.1% All Usual Residents 9.1% All Usual Residents 9.1% All Usual Residents 9.1% HIGH

841 Capital items accounted for in External Trading Accounts


842 Capital items accounted for in Internal Trading Accounts

-3,888 -0.2% All Usual Residents 9.1% All Usual Residents 9.1% All Usual Residents 9.1% HIGH

859 Levy: Environment Agency flood defence


865 Capital expenditure charged to the GF Revenue Account (CERA) (exclude Public Health)


873 Provision for repayment of principal


881 Interest: external payments 17,162 1.0% All Usual Residents 9.1% All Usual Residents 9.1% All Usual Residents 9.1% HIGH

886 Interest and investment income (-): external receipts and dividends

-15,419 -0.9% All Usual Residents 9.1% All Usual Residents 9.1% All Usual Residents 9.1% HIGH

895 Carbon Reduction Commitment (CRC) transactions (expenditure) (+)


903 Local services support grant -1,267 -0.1% All Usual Residents 9.1% All Usual Residents 9.1% All Usual Residents 9.1% HIGH

T0 Total Service Expenditure 1,738,526 100.0%



Appendix 3: Expenditure and resources disaggregation (2014-15 to 2017-18) Chorley UA Residual Lancashire

2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18

£000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000

County services 154,750 150,250 147,487 144,519 1,583,776 1,532,777 1,502,096 1,468,222

County services (specific and special grants) -88,049 -87,698 -87,382 -87,097 -872,311 -868,829 -865,696 -862,876

66,701 62,552 60,105 57,422 711,465 663,948 636,400 605,346

District services 15,774 14,861 15,597 16,037

District services (specific and special grants) -3,333 -3,000 -2,700 -2,430

12,441 11,861 12,897 13,607 0 0 0 0

Net Revenue Expenditure 79,142 74,413 73,003 71,029 711,465 663,948 636,400 605,346

County services (use of reserves) -1,385 -14,179

County services (use of schools reserves) -190 -1,945

District services (use of reserves) -346

Use of reserves -1,921 0 0 0 -16,124 0 0 0

Budget Requirement 77,220 74,413 73,003 71,029 695,342 663,948 636,400 605,346

SFA 38,803 35,146 31,834 28,835 348,159 315,350 285,634 258,717

Council Tax 43,289 43,289 43,289 43,289 335,429 335,429 335,429 335,429

Retained business rates 397 397 397 397 2,022 2,022 2,022 2,022

Other items 519 3,943

Resources 83,008 78,833 75,521 72,521 689,553 652,801 623,085 596,168

Surplus/ deficit 5,788 4,420 2,518 1,492 -5,789 -11,147 -13,316 -9,178



Chorley UA Residual Lancashire

2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18

£000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000

Revised county expenditure per head 1,444.17 1,402.17 1,376.39 1,348.69 1,488.25 1,440.33 1,411.50 1,379.67

Revised SFA per head (incl upper and lower tier)

362.12 328.00 297.09 269.09 327.16 296.33 268.41 243.11

Revised county specific grants per head -821.70 -818.42 -815.47 -812.81 -819.70 -816.43 -813.48 -810.83

Revised council tax per head 403.99 403.99 403.99 403.99 315.20 315.20 315.20 315.20

Population 107,155 1,064,184



Appendix 4: Settlement Funding Assessment benchmarks Statistical

Distance (CIPFA Nearest

Neighbours)

Statistical Ranking (CIPFA

Nearest Neighbours)

2014-15 Settlement

Funding Assessment

(£)

Census Population

(people)

SFA per head

(£)

Central Bedfordshire 0.0286 7 65,548,110 254,381 257.677

York 0.0328 13 52,417,468 198,051 264.667

Warrington 0.0231 2 61,888,603 202,228 306.034

Cheshire West and Chester 0.0280 4 104,749,346 329,608 317.800

Stockport 0.0266 3 94,489,247 283,275 333.560

Shropshire 0.0285 6 102,549,827 306,129 334.989

Kirklees 0.0333 14 161,929,463 422,458 383.303

Bury 0.0213 1 70,959,245 185,060 383.439

Stockton-on-Tees 0.0304 9 77,701,536 191,610 405.519

Darlington 0.0283 5 45,130,645 105,564 427.519

Wakefield 0.0333 15 142,062,761 325,837 435.993

Telford and the Wrekin 0.0310 10 76,573,628 166,641 459.513

Barnsley 0.0291 8 112,697,015 231,221 487.400

Rotherham 0.0319 12 127,288,044 257,280 494.745

St Helens 0.0316 11 91,377,105 175,308 521.238



Chorley Council Unitary Council Financial Viability Unitary Financial Viability FINANCE WITH VISION 2 Contents 1. Introduction 3 2. Methodology 6 3. Disaggregation of Expenditure and

Documents