Questions on social media about why council tax is lower in Brent than in Harrow have sparked a political row, with Harrow Conservatives accused of presenting a partial picture of the funding system.
Responding to criticism, local Conservatives claimed that “Brent receives far more grant funding from central government and that Harrow has, for many years under successive governments, received well below the average level of support compared to other outer London boroughs.”
Their statement is technically right but misleading by omission: government funding is not distributed evenly but through a Formula Grant system that takes into account factors such as population, deprivation levels, social care needs, and the strength of the local tax base.
Brent, with higher levels of deprivation, greater housing demand, and a more transient population, scores higher on need, which justifies its greater share of central funds.
Harrow, by contrast, is relatively more affluent, which means it naturally receives less support from central government. Yet the borough faces its own financial pressures. Like, an ageing population is driving up adult social care costs, but without the high deprivation scores that trigger additional government funding. This mismatch leaves Harrow with funding gaps that must be met locally through council tax.
Against this backdrop, Harrow’s 2025–26 budget, presented by astute finance executive Cllr David Ashton, has been described as broadly fair, with a focus on protecting statutory services. To balance the books, the council has opted to maintain higher council tax levels rather than rely on reserves or short-term savings.
Taking the example of Band D, the most common band in Harrow, covering nearly 29% of properties, the council tax for 2025–26 is £2,395.86. This is higher than in neighbouring boroughs such as Brent, Hillingdon, and Barnet. The underlying reasons, however, are structural rather than evidence of political ‘unfairness’.
Critics argue that Harrow’s financial approach is defensible on its own merits, without resorting to claims of long-standing injustice in government funding – a political “victim card.”
Responding to criticism, local Conservatives claimed that “Brent receives far more grant funding from central government and that Harrow has, for many years under successive governments, received well below the average level of support compared to other outer London boroughs.”
Their statement is technically right but misleading by omission: government funding is not distributed evenly but through a Formula Grant system that takes into account factors such as population, deprivation levels, social care needs, and the strength of the local tax base.
Brent, with higher levels of deprivation, greater housing demand, and a more transient population, scores higher on need, which justifies its greater share of central funds.
Harrow, by contrast, is relatively more affluent, which means it naturally receives less support from central government. Yet the borough faces its own financial pressures. Like, an ageing population is driving up adult social care costs, but without the high deprivation scores that trigger additional government funding. This mismatch leaves Harrow with funding gaps that must be met locally through council tax.
Against this backdrop, Harrow’s 2025–26 budget, presented by astute finance executive Cllr David Ashton, has been described as broadly fair, with a focus on protecting statutory services. To balance the books, the council has opted to maintain higher council tax levels rather than rely on reserves or short-term savings.
Taking the example of Band D, the most common band in Harrow, covering nearly 29% of properties, the council tax for 2025–26 is £2,395.86. This is higher than in neighbouring boroughs such as Brent, Hillingdon, and Barnet. The underlying reasons, however, are structural rather than evidence of political ‘unfairness’.
Critics argue that Harrow’s financial approach is defensible on its own merits, without resorting to claims of long-standing injustice in government funding – a political “victim card.”
Harrow Monitoring Group 