Reform’s First Big Money Row: Hartlepool Council Allowances Set For Comeback...
- May 24
- 3 min read
Where Will Reform Find The Money? Row Erupts Over Hartlepool Council Allowances
24th May 2026
Edited 24th May 2026 08:54am
Speculations growing over how Hartlepool Borough Council will fund reported plans to reinstate controversial councillor Special Responsibility Allowances (SRA's), with critics warning the move would place an additional burden on local taxpayers as well as the prospect of even more service cuts having to be made in the future to fund the plans..
The now Reform-led Hartlepool Borough Council, which took control of the troubled Teesside council following its landslide local election victory in May, is reportedly preparing to bring back a system of additional allowances paid to councillors who take on senior roles, such as chairing key committees. The payments, known as Special Responsibility Allowances, are separate from the basic councillor allowance, which currently stands at around £8,330 per year.
Under the previous Labour administration, many of these additional payments were either removed or significantly reduced, with the savings retained within the council’s budget. However, it's claimed the new Reform administration which is currently being propped up by a number of Independent Councillors reportedly intend to reverse that decision and reinstate the controversial allowances, potentially adding what some say will be close to £100,000 pounds in additional costs pilled straight onto the council’s annual spending.
Special Responsibility Allowances are commonly paid to councillors who hold positions of additional responsibility, including committee chairs, portfolio holders and council leaders. In Hartlepool, the highest payments of nearly £23k a year traditionally linked to the most senior roles, including the leader of the council, who automatically chairs the council’s powerful Finance and Corporate Affairs Committee (Formally known as Finance & Policy).
Labour, who lost control of Hartlepool Borough Council in the May elections argue that reinstating the payments so soon after taking control of the council risks sending the wrong message to residents, particularly at a time when many households are still struggling with the cost of living, with Labour warning that if the allowances are brought back, the Reform-led council would have to identify significant savings elsewhere in the councils budget to balance the books. That's led to further speculation over possible service reductions, future council tax rises, and whether Local Council Tax Support, a lifeline for many struggling & vulnerable households could be first in the firing line first for potential spending cuts, with any reduction to LCTS likely prove highly controversial, especially if it came at the same time as councillors were to receive increased allowances.
SRA's are there to Recognise the work involved some claim..
However, some have come out in support of the plans, claiming Special Responsibility Allowances for council roles are paid to councillors for the significant time, responsibility and accountability they must take on board, and that the additional payments help recognise the workload involved. However, others have questioned whether now's the right time to restore those payments which were previously removed under a Labour administration in order to save public money, with the political row over the allowance payments coming at both an early and sensitive stage for the new Reform administration, which swept to power promising change at Hartlepool Borough Council.
While the party’s election success gave it a strong mandate to reshape the local council, the reported return of councillor SRA's could quickly become one of the first major tests of how Reform intends to manage public money at the supposedly 'struggling' Teesside Council.
For residents though, the concern's likely to be simple: if almost £100,000 is to be spent just on additional councillor payments, will that money come from increased council tax, reduced services, cuts to support schemes, or savings made elsewhere?
