HAMPSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL

Decision Report :

Decision Maker:

Cabinet

Date of Decision:

27 October 2008

Decision Title:

Consultation on reform of the Local Authority Business Growth Incentives (LABGI) Scheme

Decision Reference:

339

Report From:

The Chief Executive and County Treasurer

Contact name:

John Rees-Evans

Nick Gibbins

Tel:

01962 846628

01962 847544

Email:

john.rees-evans@hants.gov.uk

nick.gibbins@hants.gov.uk

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1) Summary of Decision Area:

2) Issues Covered in Report:

3) Recommendations:

MAIN REPORT

1) Purpose of the Report:

2) Contextual Information:

3) Key Issues:

4) Conclusions:

5) Recommendations:

CORPORATE OR LEGAL INFORMATION:

LINKS TO THE CORPORATE STRATEGY

Yes

No

Hampshire safer and more secure for all

Corporate Business plan link no (if appropriate)

Maximising well-being

Corporate Business plan link no (if appropriate)

2.9

Enhancing our quality of place

Corporate Business plan link no (if appropriate)

3.4

OTHER SIGNIFICANT LINKS:

Links to Previous member decisions:

Title

Ref

Date

Local Authority Business Growth Incentives Scheme. Cabinet

 

November 2007

     
     

Direct Links to Specific Legislation or Government Directives

Title

Date

   
   
   

Section 100 D - Local Government Act 1972 - background documents

 

    The following documents discuss facts or matters on which this report, or an important part of it, is based and have been relied upon to a material extent in the preparation of this report. (NB: the list excludes published works and any documents which disclose exempt or confidential information as defined in the Act.)

 

    Document

    Location

    None

 
   
   
   

COMPREHENSIVE RISK & IMPACT ASSESSMENT:

Race and Equality impact assessment:

Race and equality objectives are not considered to be adversely affected by the proposals of this report.

Crime Prevention:

The County Council has a legal obligation under Section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1988 to consider the impact of all the decisions it makes on the prevention of crime. The proposals in this report are not considered to have an impact on the prevention of crime.

Appendix C

Questions 1 to 20

1. Which other local authorities, if any, do you regard as being in the same sub-region as yours for the purposes of cooperation in economic development?

2. Do you agree that London should be regarded as a single sub-region for the purposes of the scheme?

3. Do you agree that where local authorities outside London cannot agree on a sub-regional grouping which meets the above criteria, the scheme should be broadly based on NUTS2 groupings, with the possibility of variation where the case for doing so can be made?

4. Would you prefer the Government to proceed directly to publish a final list of sub-regions, following discussion after this consultation; or to publish a provisional list for comment first?

5. Do you agree with the calculation process as outlined in the consultation paper?

6. Do you have any comments on the calculation process?

7. Do you agree that there should be no minimum or maximum awards, at least at the outset of the scheme?

8. Do you agree that the Reward Period should be set at 3 years' growth?

9. If not, what other reward period should be adopted in the new scheme?

10. Do you agree with the proposed division of reward between district and county councils?

11. Do you agree that the scheme should be based on the Contribution to the Pool, without any adjustments for reliefs?

12. If not, which factors do you think should be reflected by adjusting the Contribution to the Pool?

13. Do you agree that, in calculating NNDR contributions for the purposes of this scheme, we should take actual yield as shown in Line 14 of Part 1 of the NNDR3 for (ie after the application of transitional relief)?

14. If not, what would you propose?

15. Do you agree that we should not seek, for the purposes of the scheme, to neutralise the impact of appeals on local authorities' contributions to the NNDR pool?

16. If not, what would you propose?

17. What are your views on the handling of revaluations?

18. Do you agree that we should not make adjustments for cross-boundary transfers or for transfers between the central list and local lists?

19. If not, what would you propose?

20. Do you have comments on the approach we propose where an audited NNDR3 form is not available?