Agenda item - Public Involvement

To consider the following matters raised by members of the public:

(a)          Petitions: to receive any petitions presented by members of the public to the full Council or at the meeting itself.

i)             Business Rates for The Bevy and Other Community Businesses – for presented (copy attached)

ii)            Keep Our Horses in Stanmer – referred from Council on 6 April 2017 (copy attached)

iii)           Open Night Shelters for Rough Sleepers – referred from Council on 6 April 2017 (copy attached)

(b)          Written Questions: to receive any questions submitted by the due date of 12 noon on the 25 April 2017.

(c)          Deputations: to receive any deputations submitted by the due date of 12 noon on the 25 April 2017.

158.1    The Chair noted there were three petitions listed on the agenda, one for presentation and two that had been referred from Council on 6 April 2017.

158.2    The first petition related to Business rates for The Bevy and Other Community Business; the Chair called forward Helen Jones on behalf of The Bevendean Community Pub to come forward and speak to the petition.

158.3    Ms Carter stated that she was appealing for a reduction in the business rates the Bevy was expected to pay, and she had a number of documents and letters of support. She highlighted some of the achievements of the Bevy, in particular the flexible use of the space for the community, and estimated that the 18 volunteers contributed approximately 100 hours a week, and this enabled up to 150 people to use the Bevy each week for community events.

158.4    In response the Chair stated:

              “Thank you for your petition. It is great to hear about the work of The Bevy in enabling sections of the community to come together, but as you acknowledge in the petition, the council does have a difficult balance to strike in how it funds support to organisations in the community.

We have a limited fund to provide Business Rate Relief, and it covers a broad range of charities and not-for-profits, of varying size and type. Whilst it would be appealing to do so, we cannot apply rate relief to everybody, as there is a cost attached. Government contributes around 50% towards the cost of Rate Relief, but the council contributes the other 50%, meaning that there is a corresponding impact on local council tax payers.

Inevitably there has to be a process to decide who gets the support. This in turn means that some organisations will qualify for help, and others regrettably will not. There is an existing policy that determines how such decisions are to be made. The policy was approved in 2010 under the Cabinet system, having first been scrutinised at Overview and Scrutiny Commission. In accordance with the policy, officers take into account factors such as impact on the community, but they also take into account an organisation’s ability to cover the rates liability, their overall financial health, and their ability to raise funds and generate their own income.

There is an appeals process where officers can reconsider their decision, but my understanding is that the Bevy has not provided the full information requested of them as part of the appeals process.

In regards to the request for the policy to be reconsidered Officers are planning to review the overall policy this year and there will be a consultation about how the scheme should operate. However, we should have realistic expectations about the distribution of this very limited fund. We will need to be mindful of any financial implications beyond the Bevy on other organisations, were we to adjust the policy in the way they are suggesting. 

In the meantime, the government announced in March that there would be a new £1000 reduction for pubs with a Rateable Value of less than £100,000. This will be implemented once government has confirmed further details.”

158.5    RESOLVED – That the petition be noted.

158.6    The second petition related to Keep Our Horses in Stanmer, the Chair noted that as the petition had been referred from Council there would be no further opportunity for the petitioner to address the Committee.

158.7    The Chair provided the following response in relation to the petition:

              “The stables referred to in the Petition form part of the Traditional Agricultural Buildings in Stanmer which have been identified for refurbishment and restoration since they were surrendered out of the farm tenancy in 2004.  The proposed restoration of the farm buildings has been the subject of several committee reports, most recently in July 2016 when approval was granted for the proposed scheme and funding.  The redevelopment and refurbishment of this site is being taken forward as a council project led by Property & Design who are currently undertaking site investigations and research prior to commencing design work. This scheme is running in parallel with, and is supporting, the HLF grant funded development of the walled garden in Stammer and improvements to access and car parking.

Although the development of the buildings approved at PR&G in July does not include the continued use of the stables for housing horses, a proposal has been put forward for the development of the modern farm buildings at the top of the village to house animals which could potentially include horses.  BHCC officers have brought to the current tenants’ attention the fact that their business could potentially bid for a lease of the modern farm buildings. However BHCC is unable to offer any certainty in this regard. This is for two reasons, the first of which is that proposals have yet to be determined. Secondly and in any event, the Council is required to obtain best consideration and this is best evidenced by marketing opportunities openly s to ensure that all potential  parties have an equal opportunity to secure what will be very desirable premises in the heart of Stanmer, post completion of the HLF funded wall garden development and council funded development of the traditional agricultural buildings.

The Council emphasises that in this matter - as always - it seeks to act in a way which is fair to all of its potential partners as well as lawful. There are currently five tenancies within the Traditional Agricultural Buildings, all of which were agreed on flexible terms which are short-term and without security. This was done to ensure that the Council is able to develop the site in accordance with the strategic priorities which have been set. That process is well underway and must be carried out in a compliant way by assessing the tenders which are received in against criteria which will reflect the strategic vision for the development.”

158.8    RESOLVED – That the petition be noted.

158.9    The Chair noted that the final petition related to Item 160, and proposed it be considered together with that item.

158.10  The Chair noted there were no other items listed under Public Involvement.