Inner is ready to be the largest losers under a government scheme to update the Council Council Funding Rules in London, calling a think tank.
The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) found that some London Boro may see their funding level falling up to 12%, when inflation is taken into consideration.
But the fields of outer London are ready to benefit from changes, researchers found, notingham, wolverhampton and with urban areas outside the capital, including Slow.
The government argues that overhaul is necessary as the funding of the councils has been out of step with local demand for services.
The new funding system, which is phased in three years from 2026, will see changes in the formulas used to capture the level of demand for the services operated by the council, as well as to occupy different costs of distributing them.
A large part of funds will be redirected towards the high -part areas of the assets in the lower council tax band, while the councils will be allowed to keep the income portion of commercial rates allowed to be kept since 2013.
The IFS has been predicted that the proposed changes have been determined to rebuild around £ 2.1BN in annual government funding, with 186 officers lost and 161 benefits.
It would not be possible to say what changes for each region would be meant until the plans are finalized by the end of this year.
But the think tank stated that Camden, Hammarsith and Fulham, Kensington and Chelsea, Wandsworth and Westminster saw their overall funding drops up to 11–12%, even an accounting would be made to limit the damage to a proposed funding floor.
These areas have also been designed to lose the difference in the tax revenue of the council under the proposed method of the government, given that they have many properties in low rates and high bands, it has been said.
According to the report, outside London, East Midlands and Yorkshire and Hamber regions have been designed to see the biggest growth in funding.
Relatively high -but highest -population density areas are also prescribed to rent well, it is estimated, which includes councils in outer London Boro and Blackpool, Nottingham and Slow.
It states that the most wide range of results will be seen in the Shire District Councils, where some councils where trade rate income has increased the most, such as Mid Safok and North West Lecesterushair, will lose.
More urban areas are among other districts such as Harlo, Crrolly and Norwich, among the largest winners.
The share of funding going into very poor areas will be quite large, compared to the least deprived.
The shake-up will affect the central government’s funding share distribution to the councils in England, including those income, including those income.
This currently represents about half of their income, the councils locally extended the rest, subject to 5% cap on annual growth.
Funding is allocated according to a complex mixture of formulas keeping in mind the factors such as population and lack.
The Labor Minister argues the current rules, which have not been updated over a decade, the councils in poor areas have failed to reflect high demand for services.
Liberal Democrats stated that the changes “would come as a blow to the system for many councils,” branding those changes “to pay Peter to pay Paul”.
Deputy leader Daisy Cooper said, “The government is moving the pain of the Chronic Council from one community to another, which will provide revenue to fund local services everywhere instead of giving economic development.”
A spokesman for the local government department said: “The current, the old method in which the local authorities are funded to be funded, means that the link between the need for money and services is broken, leaving the communities behind.
“So we are taking decisive action to improve the funding system so that we can withdraw the councils on their feet and improve public services”.
Although there is a widespread agreement between the councils that the current system needs to be updated, a new design causes a political headache for ministers further of a significant set of local elections due to next year.
Several local leaders have warned that the current funding levels do not cover the increasing cost of compulsory services such as adult social care and special educational requirements, despite the increase in actual financing in recent years.
