Meeting documents

The Committee will review the changes to Business Rates Retention (BRR) and how these will impact on the County Council and small businesses in Buckinghamshire.

Contributors:

Mr John Chilver, Cabinet Member for Resources

Mr Richard Ambrose, Director of Finance and Procurement

Mr Matthew Strevens, Head of Finance – Corporate

Papers:

Business Rates Retention report

The Chairman welcomed Mr John Chilver, Cabinet Member for Resources, Mr Alistair Rush, Interim Deputy Director of Finance and Mr Matthew Strevens, Head of Finance – Corporate to the meeting.

Mr Strevens presented an overview of the report included in the agenda pack.  During the presentation and the subsequent discussion the following main points were noted:

• Buckinghamshire had been successful in becoming part of a pilot for 75% business rates retention (BRR) in 2019-20.  It was anticipated that this would deliver a financial benefit of approximately £7million, shared across all five authorities.
• The diagram on page 21 of the agenda pack illustrated the difference between a ‘tariff authority’ and a ‘top-up authority’.  Currently all four district councils in Bucks were tariff authorities whilst the County Council was a top-up authority.  Top-up authorities retained 50% of their business rates growth, whilst tariff authorities were subject to a levy.
• The new BRR scheme was due to come into effect on 1^st April 2020 and it was likely that there would still be a system of safety nets through tariffs and top-up arrangements.  Further information was expected to be included in the 2019 Autumn Statement, but unfortunately this was quite late for financial planning purposes for the new unitary authority.
• In addition to the lack of detail about the changes, there were other risks to business rates growth such as the impact of Brexit, changes to the way that businesses operate etc.
• The Council had been actively engaged in discussions on the development of new methodologies associated with the BRR scheme
• Whilst the new unitary authority would simplify the system locally, it would not particularly increase the financial benefit for the County because this had been maximised through pooling arrangements between County and districts anyway.
• It was noted that learning from earlier BRR pilots across the country was limited for Bucks, as many of these had been in London boroughs, combined authorities or areas with metro mayors which were very different to a rural county.
• Members raised concerns about the suggestion that the Public Health(PH) grant was to be removed and replaced by funding from BRR.  Arrangements were still to be confirmed, but it was suggested that unlike the PH grant, funding through BRR might not have to be ringfenced.
• Whilst there remained uncertainty about BRR, there were wider issues of local government funding that could prove to be more significant, e.g. the impact of the Comprehensive Spending Review, Fair Funding Review and the future funding for Social Care, which had still not been addressed due to continuing delays with the Green Paper on Social Care.
• It was noted that Unitary presented an opportunity to maximise the opportunity of BRR and that collaboration with the Local Enterprise Partnership was vital to encourage new business development, particularly in the three Enterprise Zones.  Mr Strevens reported that he had been meeting with district council colleagues and commented that a commonality of purpose was growing.

The Chairman thanked Mr Chilver, Mr Rush and Mr Strevens for attending the meeting.  It was recognised that this was a complicated area and Members hoped that learning would be shared through the Unitary.