Agenda and draft minutes

To note that Rich Lehmann has replaced Jenni Hawkins on the Committee. 

It was noted that Mr R Lehmann has replaced Mrs J Hawkins on the Committee

Apologies were received from Mr P Barrington-King, Mr D Brazier, Mr S Webb, Mr Whiting, Mrs S Prendergast and Mr A Hook.

Mr M Sole was substituting for Mr A Hook, Mrs S Hohler for Mrs S Prendergast and Mrs M McArthur for Mr S Webb.

Mr Sole declared that he was Canterbury City Councillor and a Cabinet Member for finance. Mr Brady was also a Canterbury City Councillor. Mr Lehmann was an opposition group leader at Swale Borough Council

1)  The Chair opened the discussion by explaining to members the options available to the committee A) make no comments, B) express comments but not require reconsideration of the decision C) require implementation of the decision to be postponed pending reconsideration of the matter by the decision-maker in light of the Committee’s comments. D) require implementation of the decision to be postponed pending review or scrutiny of the matter by the full Council.

2) Mr Lehmann highlighted the rationale for the call-in of decision 25/0004. The decision had been considered by the Policy and Resources Committee but responses to queries raised at both the Cabinet Committee and Full Council had not been received. 

3) The Member prefaced the previous headlines on the agenda and the desire to try and ensure that the best financial outcomes were in place for the authority and asked that Members’ questions be fully answered and explored during the debate.

4)The proposal had been put forward originally prior to the knowledge that KCC was on course for local government unitarisation. The Member suggested that it was unlikely that the current scenario would result in greater council tax being collected throughout the county.

5) There was a duty to the taxpayer to ensure that collections were maximised over the next four years to enable authorities to maintain the strongest financial position in advance of any local government reorganisation proposals.  

6) The Member raised concerns about how the districts would continue to collect Council tax as part of their statutory duty and the benefits of the district councils being able to develop local council tax reduction schemes and policies on empty property discounts.

7) Members during the recent Policy and Resources committee discussed a desire to review the policy progress after a year. It was considered that this had not been satisfactorily addressed in the past and some confusion on consultation to reverse a decision remained.

8) Mr Brady highlighted the information captured in section 1.8 of the Policy and Resources document from the 5^th of March and noted:

‘The billing authorities’ response was that if such incentives were removed they would have to review the working age CTRS and empty properties discounts/premiums, especially where these result in council tax charges that are not cost effective for the district to collect from their share of council tax’

9) It was suggested that the statement was a demonstration that any decision needed to be stress tested with risk analysis, impact assessments and mitigation proposals. The Member added that the past responses to similar concerns had been met with a response that further communications with districts was underway as the decision was now ‘live’.

10) The Member asked for clarification on what further data and information needed to be collected and shared with Members so that a greater understanding of the potential impacts could be understood.

• Point 5.3 in the executive decision report was discussed. The estimate if all districts chose to offer a maximum 100% local discount  ...  view the full minutes text for item 117.