Agenda item

(CSP:1,5 and 7)

Purpose:  The purpose of this report is for the Executive to consider the Council’s policy for discretionary rate relief, which was established in May 2009, in the light of the changed funding arrangements in the rate retention scheme; and to establish the Council’s policy for relief introduced in the Chancellors Autumn Statement. Linked to both is the establishment of an appeals process.

Resolved that:

1.         The existing schemes for discretionary and top up relief will continue, but with amendments to the hardship scheme as shown in paragraph 12.2 of the report.

2.         A policy to not grant relief in respect of partly occupied property will be adopted.

3.         A retail relief scheme will be adopted which allows relief to property types identified by government and as shown at paragraph 9.4 of the report. The scheme will allow for relief to be reduced for property types identified in paragraph 9.5 to the report.

4.         An appeals process will be put in place as described in paragraph 12.7.

This decision is eligible to be ‘called-in’.  However, if the decision has not been ‘called-in’ by 5.00pm on 3 April 2014, then it will be implemented.

(During discussion of the item, Councillor Tony Vickers declared a personal interest in Agenda item 9 by virtue of the fact that he managed the property owned by Newbury and West Berkshire Liberal Democrats at 108 Bartholomew Street which was currently rented as a tattoo parlour. The establishment was currently classed as retail for rate relief purposes, but could become classed as medical in future and this could affect receipt of rate relief. While he reported this as an ‘indirect’ pecuniary interest, his interest was personal and not prejudicial and he was permitted to remain and participate in the debate).

The Executive considered a report (Agenda Item 9) concerning the Council’s policy for discretionary rate relief, which was established in May 2009, in the light of the changed funding arrangements in the rate retention scheme; and to establish the Council’s policy for relief introduced in the Chancellors Autumn Statement. Linked to both was the establishment of an appeals process.

Councillor Gordon Lundie explained that a change resulting from the Autumn Statement was an amendment to the Council’s policy for granting hardship relief. While this scheme would continue, an amendment was proposed which would limit the amount of rate relief to 50% in the first financial year and, subject to review, to 25% in the following financial year. The maximum period of relief would be two financial years.

With regard to part occupation, given the high values potentially involved and the consequent cost to the Council, it was recommended that a policy to not grant relief for part occupation should be put into place.

The report also recommended that the Council adopt a retail relief scheme which allowed relief to property types identified by Government and shown in paragraph 9.4 of the report. The scheme would allow for relief to be reduced for property types identified in paragraph 9.5 of the report.

A further recommendation was for an appeals process to be implemented. Appeals would be subject to an initial internal review and, if the applicant remained dissatisfied, would be referred to the Head of Finance for a decision. Further appeal would be to a Councillor review panel and the decision of that panel would be final.

Councillor Jeff Brooks queried the level of consultation which had been conducted. Bill Blackett explained that this was not necessary for those discretionary reliefs which were continuing without change. For new/amended schemes, although there was not a direct consultation exercise, businesses were consulted as part of the Council’s budget process. He also confirmed that the guidance of the Department for Communities and Local Government in terms of eligibility was closely followed.

Councillor Tony Vickers referred to the policy for discretionary rate relief allowed to businesses which fell outside of the mandatory scheme which were located in rural settlements and queried the criteria which was in place. Bill Blackett explained that these rural settlements had originally been identified by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and had populations of fewer than 3,000 residents. The Head of Finance, under delegated powers, would determine those settlements which now fell into this category.

Councillor Vickers then expressed his surprise that hair and beauty services would qualify for rate relief, when medical services were considered by the Government to be outside the scope of the scheme. Bill Blackett advised that Government guidance for qualifying properties made particular reference to the eligibility of retail establishments, but this was not extended to cover medical services.

Councillor Vickers also queried how the Councillor review panel, which would consider appeals, would be formed. Bill Blackett confirmed that this would be for Strategic Support to administer.

RESOLVED that:

1.            The existing schemes for discretionary and top up relief to continue but with amendments to the hardship scheme as shown in paragraph 12.2 of the report.

2.            The Council adopts a policy to not grant relief in respect of partly occupied property.

3.            The Council adopts a retail relief scheme allowing relief to property types identified by government and as shown at paragraph 9.4 of this report. The scheme to allow for relief to be reduced for property types identified in paragraph 9.5 to the report.

4.            An appeals process be put into place as described in paragraph 12.7.

Reason for the decision: The changed funding arrangements affect the cost of the existing scheme. The introduction of retail relief needs a policy for the identification for eligible businesses.

Other options considered: None.