Agenda item

Report number HOF215 of the Portfolio Holder - Strategic Resources (Well Run Council) and the Portfolio Holder – Good Housing                                                       (Enclosure)

The appendices to the draft submission are available to view on the Council’s website: http://moderngovsvr/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=261&MId=2817&Ver=4

A small number of copies of the complete draft submission (including appendices) are available for Councillors to view in the Members’ Lounge.

Decision:

1.    The Council approves the scheme for the localisation of council tax support as detailed in the local scheme rules from 1 April 2013. The scheme for working age customers having the following characteristics:

i.              80% maximum eligibility for those who do not fall into a vulnerable group

ii.            100% maximum eligibility for vulnerable customers (as defined)

iii.           No restrictions based on size of property or council tax band

iv.           Carers, the disabled and war pensioners protected

v.            Inclusion of enhanced working disregards meaning that a certain amount of earnings is ignored in the calculation of support

2.    Council to approve amendments to the council tax discount and exemption arrangements in relation to Class C (unoccupied and unfurnished) to provide a one month exemption followed by 25% discount for remaining 5 months. This is to be introduced from 1 April 2013

3.    Council to approve amendments to the council tax discount and exemption arrangements in relation to Class A (in need of structural repair) to provide a 25% discount for 12 months. This is to be introduced from 1 April 2013.

4.    Council to introduce 100% charge for properties that have been empty for a period of between six months and two years. This is to be introduced from 1 April 2013.

5.    Council to introduce an empty homes premium of 150% for those properties that have been empty for two years or more. This is to be introduced from 1 April 2013.

6.    Council approves that delegation be given to the Strategic Director – Corporate Focus in consultation with the relevant Portfolio Holders to approve amendments to the local scheme (appendix 5 of report number HOF215) in order to ensure consistency with changes to the national default scheme. The changes provide clarification only

The Portfolio Holder for Strategic Resources – Well Run Council moved the recommendations in report number HOF215 on the localisation of support for council tax support policy and amendments to council tax discount and exemption arrangements. He also moved a further recommendation:

“that delegation be given to the Strategic Director -  Corporate Focus in consultation with the Portfolio Holders to approve amendments to the local scheme (appendix 5 to the report) in order to ensure compliance with current changes to the national default scheme.”

The Portfolio Holder reminded Councillors that there had been a 10% cut in grants for council tax benefit and that there was a requirement for authorities to develop a local scheme for council tax support. Legislation stipulated that pensioners had to be protected from any reduction and the proposed local scheme protected a number of other vulnerable groups. He noted that protecting certain groups increased the burden of the cuts over the remaining recipients who did not fall into any of the exempt categories. Councillors were reminded that the changes also impacted on the county council and police, who had been consulted as other precepting authorities. The scheme would be reviewed at the end of its first year of operation. He also thanked the officers who helped produce the proposed scheme and the Resources PDG for their work. The proposal was seconded.

A number of Councillors spoke against adopting the proposed scheme, highlighting difficulties determining what should and should not be defined as vulnerable. They argued that the scheme would not achieve one of its objectives: making work pay; they stated that working families would be worse off. Concerns were also expressed about the impact of the changes on families with children. They felt the issue should have been brought to full Council at an earlier stage so that all members would have the opportunity to have input in the formation of the policy. The content of the equality analysis attached to the report was also challenged with some Members suggesting that changes would have a disproportionate impact on women, as were the way in which the consultation outcomes were recorded in the report.

Councillors who spoke in favour of the draft scheme refuted that the meeting provided the first opportunity for councillors to get involved; they highlighted the public consultation (including drop-in sessions), a briefing session which was held for Councillors and the discussions that were undertaken by the Resources and Communities Policy Development Groups. The grant the council would receive was to be based on outturn figures from 2009/10 and reduced by 10%; Members noted that the caseload had increased since that time. Members expressed regret about the position in which the Council found itself but stated that the Council had tried to ensure a higher disregard so that families working and on low wages in receipt of some form of benefit were allowed to earn a bit more before they were required to contribute to their council tax. The council had worked with other authorities in the county to try and form a common scheme; a Member who had been involved in those discussions stated that a common scheme had not been possible because of the diverse demography of the county’s residents but stated that SKDC’s scheme was more generous than some other authorities who were only offering a discount of up to 75%.

A motion without notice was proposed in accordance with Article 13.4 of the Council’s Constitution, which requested that the report be referred back so that the relevant officer could carry out a full Equality Impact Assessment on the basis of the consultation data and the information available to the Council as it stood currently. This was seconded.

Those speaking in favour of the motion highlighted their belief that the changed policy would have a disproportionate impact on women, particularly single mothers. Councillors speaking against the proposal and expressed their confidence in the Equality Analysis; they highlighted its thoroughness and that the neutral assessor was the Council’s equality officer. Officers provided information on the numbers of claimants in work within different unprotected categories. The motion moved without notice was put to the vote and lost.

The mover of the original proposition was invited to sum up and stated that the scheme was designed to do the best for residents and highlighted the range of opportunities through which members could have influenced the scheme.

The recommendations as originally proposed were put to the vote and carried.

16:00 to 16:20 – the meeting was adjourned.