Agenda item

For Members to consider and agree to adopt a Local Discretionary Business Rate Relief Policy (LDBRR).

Members considered the Discretionary Rate Relief Policy, presented by Councillor Boden.

Members asked questions, made comments and received responses as follows:

·         Councillor Tanfield asked how many businesses we would envisage attracting into Fenland over the next five years. She wondered how the criteria was arrived at because, as a business owner herself, it seems harsh to expect 50% of the staff to be apprentices. Who would teach them? We are trying to help businesses and get them into Fenland, but not by having a policy that no-one can fulfil.  Councillor Boden agreed we do not have unlimited funds available, but we do need to target, therefore what should that target be? We could subsidise more low paying jobs in the area, but that will perpetuate the current problem. We do not want a low-paid economy but we do want to attract higher paid, higher skilled jobs in more productive industries. That, he stated, is the rationale behind the policy. The objective is that any business would need to show that either half the workforce is apprenticed or that staff are receiving more than the average wage in Fenland, it is ambitious to try and attract larger, higher paying employers into the area. Councillor Boden also pointed out that no targets have been set for the number of businesses we would envisage attracting into Fenland.

·         Councillor Booth said the policy aims are good. However, he does have concerns about the eligibility criteria and the number of businesses it will attract. It also seems there has been no cost benefit analysis. He would ask that the criteria not be over complicated as it could put businesses off. He also stated that by requesting two years of audited accounts, we are potentially missing an opportunity in not attracting start-ups or new firms. Councillor Boden replied that a cost benefit analysis was examined at the start of this process. He also emphasised that this is a discretionary relief. However, he took on board the comments regarding not making the application process over complicated and every effort is being made to ensure that it will not be. The requirement for two years of audited accounts, whilst stated in the report, is not an absolute obligation and there is flexibility to allow that requirement not to be fulfilled.

·         Councillor Tierney stated that he runs a small industrial business in Hertfordshire and all his customers are medium to large sized. He works closely with those companies and is confident that they all meet the criteria described within this policy. This is a policy where we offer a discount on rates to attract those sorts of companies here, if only one comes then it is a benefit, therefore he fully supports this.

·         Councillor Booth said he was in no doubt this is a good policy but he just wants to make sure it is not too restrictive and puts people off.  He said that the wording seems quite rigid and does not offer the flexibility as suggested by Councillor Boden; therefore he feels that this does need to be given consideration.

·         Councillor Hoy quoted page 142 of the agenda pack, pointing out that the policy states that “The Council recognises that there will be occasions when an applicant does not satisfy the above criteria. These criteria are not restrictive and nothing in them shall be taken as restricting the Council’s ability to depart from its general guidelines as to the granting of relief as it sees fit to do so bearing in mind the facts of each case”.  Therefore each case will be considered on its own merit. 

·         Councillor Sutton said the figures in the report do not reflect those in the policy so confirmation is required as to what is correct. He would also like confirmation as to how many other district or borough councils have this kind of policy. Furthermore, he felt a huge omission from the policy is that of having a claw back clause. Councillor Boden said it is not usual practice for local councils to have claw backs in this form.  He thanked Councillor Sutton for highlighting the error within the report, stating that the narrative in the report is correct, 50% of the jobs which are created either have to be apprenticeships or have to be above the average wage for Fenland. The policy will be amended accordingly.

·         Councillor Count thanked Councillor Boden for the clarification regarding the narrative. He agreed with Councillor Tierney and stated that this is basically another tool in the box. The reason for the criteria regarding apprenticeships is clear. This is a start in life for many, if we continue to attract low paid jobs we will stay at the bottom of the productivity list nationally. We want to attract employers who will be able to raise aspirations. It can cost a business a lot of money to move; if we attract none it has cost us nothing, if we attract one, it may cost us for a number of years but there is so much to benefit from if we do. It is a clear cut, advantageous policy for the benefit of Fenland and he would encourage all to get behind it. 

·         Councillor Yeulett stated he will support the policy if it leads to upskilling and benefits the economy.

·         Councillor Hay welcomed the recommendation, saying we need to attract big businesses to this area.

·         Councillor Boden confirmed that two changes in the application guidance under qualifying criteria would be made and thanked Councillor Count for pointing these out. These changes were namely the exclusion of the words “full time” in the third bullet point, and in the fourth bullet point, the lack of mention of apprenticeships would be changed to match the narrative in the report. 

Proposed by Councillor Boden, seconded by Councillor Mrs Davis, Council AGREED to adopt the proposed Local Discretionary Business Rate Relief policy, guidance and application form and notes the proposed application and assessment process and to accept the amendments as stated by Councillor Boden.