Agenda item

This report advises the Committee of a notice of call-in received from six Members of the Council of the Cabinet’s decisions 163 and 164/2017.

Discussion:

Members considered a report regarding a call-in received from six Members of the Council of Cabinet’s decisions 163/2017 and 164/2017 in relation to Business Rate Relief. The Committee was requested to consider the Cabinet decisions and decide either to take no further action, refer the decisions back to Cabinet or to refer the decisions to Council for reconsideration.

Councillor Maple, the Lead Member for the call-in, explained the reasons for the call-in as outlined in paragraph 2.2 of the report. Councillor Maple referred to the special meeting of the Committee on 5 January were Members had heard from a selected group of organisations with an interest in the proposed changes. As the Federation of Small Business had not submitted evidence, there were no grounds to think that small businesses wished to see charities removed from the high street. Councillor Maple stated that, from the evidence received, 70% of organisations who had responded to the consultation had favoured Option 1.

He continued that the impacts of the Cabinet’s decision to approve Option 2 would be significant. Many affected organisations recognised the Council’s financial difficulties although he was concerned that some had asked to remain anonymous when speaking to him due to concerns about the Council’s reaction.

Councillor Maple read out a response from RSPCA Medway West who felt the loss of 20% relief would be devastating. This shop funded the veterinary clinic which provided a service to people on low incomes and removed stray cats and dogs, which benefited the Council. Many charities and voluntary sector groups affected by Cabinet’s decision provided services which would be at risk of being reduced or removed as a result of the decision with consequential negative impacts on the Council. It was also argued that the cost of achieving the £200,000 saving would be greater than the saving itself.

Councillor Maple noted that it was an option for the Committee to refer the matter to full Council and it seemed appropriate to do so given the next meeting was the budget Council meeting. Another Member supported this commenting that as Cabinet’s decision related to the 2017/18 budget. Cabinet had relied on an incomplete draft budget to make its decision and the details of the 2017/18 budget had not been made available so it was therefore difficult to judge the appropriateness of the decision. The Chief Legal Officer advised that the next meeting being the budget meeting was not sufficient grounds for referring the matter to Council. In order to refer the matter to Council the Committee would have to agree that Cabinet’s decisions were contrary to the policy framework or budget. The Chief Finance Officer advised that the decision was a matter for Cabinet and its impact on next year’s budget would be reflected in the proposals submitted to Council.  A Member queried whether it would be possible at the Budget Council meeting to change Cabinet’s decision by amending the draft budget. The Chief Legal Officer advised that the £200,000 saving resulting from Cabinet’s decision would be reflected in the draft budget, but it would not be possible to reverse Cabinet’s decision. He added that as advice had been given that Cabinet’s decision was not outside the policy framework or budget then Members should come to a view on that point.

A Member referred to the references in the Council Plan to working in partnership to deliver services that matter most to the community and noted the role affected organisations such as Nucleus Arts and Fort Amherst made to the culture, tourism and regeneration strategies referred to in the Plan. Also in the Plan was a commitment to improve support for vulnerable adults by working with partners and communities. Age UK had said that every pound they lost as a result of losing business rates relief would impact on services. In conclusion it was therefore argued that the decision was not in accordance with the Council Plan.

The Chairman called upon the Portfolio Holder for Business Management to speak. A vote was requested on this in the light of a recent decision not to agree to a request from the Leader of the Labour Group to address Cabinet meetings. Following a vote it was agreed that the Portfolio Holder should address the meeting. 

Councillor Turpin, the Portfolio Holder for Business Management, commented that the grounds for a review would be on either hardship or incorrect categorisation. Option 2 was a lower risk to the Council financially. Councillor Turpin felt Age UK’s statement that loss of relief would be a tipping point was out of proportion and it was important charity shops were run as efficiently as possible, such as ensuring gift aid was claimed. High street shops paid five times more in business rates than charity shops. Some organisations had quoted a loss in rate relief that was twice the actual amount they would lose.

A Member commented that the appeals process had not yet been agreed and asked if Age UK would qualify on hardship grounds. Councillor Turpin replied that if there was an appeal on hardship grounds then the way in which a business was run would be looked at and not claiming gift aid would be an issue.

In response to a question about the review process, the Chief Finance Officer advised that enforcement would be halted until the review process had finished.

Another Member argued that, based on officer advice, it was clear Cabinet had made a decision within their remit. The Council was also facing significant financial difficulties and had responsibilities for vulnerable people. The decision was therefore valid.

A Member then moved that the decision be referred to Council. In accordance with Rule 12.6 of the Council Rules, the following Members requested that their votes in favour of the motion be recorded in the minutes:

Councillors Griffiths, Maple and Murray.

In accordance with Rule 12.6 of the Council Rules, the following Members requested that their votes against the motion be recorded in the

minutes:

Councillors Mrs Chambers and Mrs Iles.

On being put to the vote, the motion was lost.

It was then moved that the decisions be referred to Cabinet for reconsideration.

On being put to the vote, the motion was lost.

It was then moved that no further action be taken.

On being put to the vote, the motion was agreed.

Decision:

The Committee agreed that no further action be taken in respect of Cabinet decisions 163 and 164/2017.