Ipswich MP buoyant, Suffolk County Council furious as government scraps £500m Suffolk devolution deal
News
Oliver Rouane-Williams
The government has scrapped a proposed devolution deal for Suffolk that would have brought over £500 million in funding and new decision-making powers to the county over 30 years.
The big picture: The deal aimed to give Suffolk more control over local matters like housing, transport, and adult education.
It was widely expected before the general election that the deal would go ahead but the new Labour government has decided not to move forward, with the BBC citing apparent concerns on the level of ambition, sources of funding and the idea of directly elected council leaders who would be answerable to his or her party.
What is devolution? Devolution involves transferring certain powers and responsibilities from the central UK government to local authorities. The idea is that it allows regions to have more control over local issues while national matters remain under central government control.
Key aspects of the scrapped deal:
£480m investment fund over 30 years
Control of the £9.4m annual Adult Education Budget
£5.8m one-off funding for brownfield site development
Multi-year transport funding plus £500,000 over two years for transport planning
A directly elected leader for Suffolk County Council
Public opinion: Devolution has always been a somewhat contentious topic:
An independent Ipsos poll found 63% of Suffolk residents supported the deal, with 7% against it and 30% unsure, but a Suffolk County Council survey showed just 49% were in favor, 40% were against and 11% were unsure.
No survey of just Ipswich residents was conducted.
Pros of devolution include:
Increased local decision-making power
Potential for more tailored solutions to local issues
Additional funding for local projects
Cons of devolution include:
Potential for increased bureaucracy
Possible inconsistencies in policy across regions
Concerns about local government's capacity to handle new responsibilities
Potential conflicts of interests within the county on key local policy and funding decisions
What they said in May 2024: Speaking about the deal as Labour's Ipswich candidate back in May 2024, Jack Abbott, said: "The deal currently on the table is little more than a sticking plaster, and could result in a political stalemate for nearly half a decade."
What they're saying now: Cllr Matthew Hicks, Leader of Suffolk County Council, expressed his dismay over the decision. He said, “This feels like a real slap in the face for Suffolk from a Government that won’t listen to what local people are saying. Our proposed devolution deal—which has widespread public support—is in the bin.”
He emphasised that local governments are best placed to serve their communities and described the decision as “a sad day for democracy.”
In response, Abbott stated: "The reality is, the deal put on the table by the previous Conservative government shortchanged Suffolk and created a bizarre political settlement.
“I'm much more ambitious for Suffolk - I believe we deserve our fair share - so it is welcome that the new Government will review this devolution settlement and come back with a proper agreement that values our great county.”
What's next: Suffolk County Council will publish the full consultation report on the proposed deal in October.
The bottom line: While the devolution deal had widespread public support, its cancellation means Suffolk will not receive the promised funding and increased local control over key issues affecting residents' daily lives.
Suffolk schools are facing a truancy crisis, with one in five pupils persistently absent last year, reflecting a nationwide "epidemic" that has education officials alarmed.
Relief as government pledges support for Churchmans House cladding repairs
News
Oliver Rouane-Williams
The government has promised action to support residents of Churchmans House in Ipswich, following concerns raised by local MP Jack Abbott.
Why it matters: Leaseholders at Churchmans House have faced uncertainty over funding for essential safety work but will now receive government support for remediation.
The details:
Rushanara Ali, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Building Safety and Homelessness, confirmed Churchmans House is eligible for funding to remediate all necessary works identified in the March 2024 Fire Risk Assessment.
A Grant Funding Agreement has been executed, with an additional pre-tender support payment due next week.
No contribution will be sought from leaseholders for eligible works.
Jack Abbott, MP for IpswichRoger HarrisRoger Harris Photography
What they're saying: Jack Abbott, MP for Ipswich: "I am pleased that the Minister has now confirmed with me that Churchmans House is fully eligible for government funding to fix external cladding, and that extra pre-tender support payment will be made available."
Chu Man, Churchmans House Residents Management Company thanked Abbott: "Today's news is an important milestone of progress, and my thanks go to Mr Abbott for helping to push the Government in the right direction."
What's next: Abbott pledged to continue working with residents and the government to ensure swift enforcement of pledges made following the Grenfell Inquiry.
The full letter
Here's the full transcription of the letter from Rushanara Ali, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Building Safety and Homelessness:
17 September 2024
Dear Jack,
Thank you for your letter of 21 August, regarding building safety at Churchmans House, Ipswich.
My officials have spoken with Homes England, and they appreciate the concerns raised within your correspondence. They informed us that since the recent transfer of this building to the Cladding Safety Scheme, all parties have been actively engaging to ensure progress is being achieved at a pace. Homes England confirmed the building is eligible for funding to remediate all the necessary works identified in the Fire Risk Assessment of External Walls undertaken in March 2024; no contribution from leaseholders will be sought for eligible works. The Grant Funding Agreement has been executed and an additional pre-tender support payment is due to be released next week.
Where Homes England detect that there is an issue to mobilise and manage a remediation project, the Cladding Safety Scheme can offer support via a panel of client side support providers and construction specialists, who can support the applicant with technical expertise and provide appropriate challenge to achieve the required pace for remediation of the building. For this building, a client side support provider was instructed on 7 August, they supplied their initial findings on 21 August. Homes England have already considered these and retained the support providers services for a minimum 3 month period to enable them to provide a full wraparound service so that this remediation project can be mobilised and moved forward both at pace and with the right capabilities in place.
I also note your concerns surrounding the protection of leaseholders, and the role of responsible parties. I hope this general information is helpful.
Responsibility for undertaking the works and, in the majority of cases, paying for the works will rest with the building owner. In turn they can seek to secure funding for required works from those responsible.
Developers must pay to fix buildings they had a role in developing or refurbishing, even where they no longer own the building. The Act ensures that building owners who are - or are associated with - the developer (and so meet the developer test) must pay for the remediation of historical safety defects.
Courts have also been granted new powers to extend liability to associated companies. This ensures that civil cases for claims against defective buildings can be brought against companies associated with a developer, preventing the use of complex corporate structures to avoid liability.
This gives the High Court the power to grant Building Liability Orders as part of, for example, litigation under the Defective Premises Act where the court considers it just and equitable to do so.
For example, Building Liability Orders allow civil cases to be brought against companies which were associated with the companies which developed or refurbished a site and no longer exist. Civil claims can be brought against manufacturers of, or those who have supplied, defective or mis-sold construction products, or those supplied or marketed in breach of regulations, where these products have been incorporated in a dwelling and that has caused or contributed to a dwelling being unfit for habitation. This provision, which applies to all dwellings, has retrospective effect for cladding products with a limitation period of 30 years prior to 28 June 2022 and prospective effect for all construction products with a limitation period of 15 years.
The Building Safety Act also provides remediation contribution orders, new tools that allow interested persons to apply to the First-tier Tribunal for an order requiring building owners to pay to fix unsafe buildings. A remediation contribution order can be used to require a landlord (or other specified body corporate or partnership) to make payments for the purpose of meeting costs already incurred in remedying relevant defects (or specified relevant defects) relating to the relevant building.
Parts of the Building Safety Act have been amended under the Leasehold Freehold Reform Act which has placed beyond doubt that the costs of 'interim measures' (such as waking watches and fitting simultaneous evacuation alarms) and expert reports can be recovered through remediation contribution orders. The costs of temporary accommodation if residents are decanted from their homes on building safety grounds, can also be recovered.
There have also been amendments to remediation orders to make it clear that a remediation order can include a requirement from the First-tier Tribunal that a landlord put in place 'interim measures' and/or initiate the production of an expert report.
It should be noted that the introduction of Sections 114, 115 and 116 of the Leasehold & Freehold Reform Act, which affect Sections 123 and 124 or the Building Safety Act (BSA), is yet to commence. Commencement will be at the discretion of this Government.
Thank you for writing on this important matter. I hope the above is helpful.
Yours Sincerely,
RUSHANARA ALI MP Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Building Safety and Homelessness
