HomeEditorialPropertiesCareersSubscribeFeaturesDirectoryContact Us


General News and Deals

Supplementary Business Rate
Jerry Schurder, head of rating at Gerald Eve and president of the Rating Surveyors’ Association, says that Bristol businesses should be balloted on whether they are prepared to pay the supplementary business rate announced in the Chancellor’s recent Pre-Budget Report.
“Bristol could raise one of the highest supplements outside London,” Jerry says. “According to our research, the new levy of 2p per £ of rateable value could raise £5.2m from the 1,400 businesses within the city that would be liable to pay. But because of the proposed exemption for properties with a rateable value of below £50,000, only around 10% of Bristol’s businesses would actually pick up the tab.”
Jerry argues that give the relatively small number and proportion of businesses that would be affected by the new supplementary rate, the system would be significantly fairer and more acceptable if those businesses were permitted a ballot. “This would remove much of the antagonism towards the new tax,” he states, “and would empower businesses so that they were more in control of the whole process.”
The government has issued a White Paper covering the principles of the supplementary business rate, the purpose of which is to support

the funding of new economic development. This includes a caveat that there would need to be a ballot if the supplement raised more than one-third of a project’s cost. But Jerry argues that the democratic process should be widened to include all projects to be partially funded by the new rate.
Jerry is also strongly critical of the government’s lack of consultation on business rate reliefs and exemptions. “Sir Michael Lyons recommended a review of all rating reliefs and exemptions and not just empty business rates relief,” says Jerry. “The latter will be greatly reduced from next April albeit without property consultation. But no further changes have been announced, despite the fact that Lyons suggested reviewing whether agricultural businesses should remain exempt, as well as other reliefs such as the 80% rates relief granted to charities.
With astonishing arrogance, the government claims to have undertaken a review behind closed doors, without asking for a single view on reliefs and exemptions. Why on earth did it bother commissioning the review if it was simply going to ignore Lyons; key recommendations?”