DOCSLIB.ORG

Business Rates Pilot Scheme 2019/20 Application Form

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Business Rates Pilot Scheme 2019/20 Application Form Business Rates Pilot Scheme 2019/20 Application Form This application form will be used to assess your application to pilot 75% business rates retention in 2019/20. Where relevant, further evidence to support points raised in this form may be included as an annex. Please note that authorities cannot apply to pilot 75% business rates retention as part of more than one application. Information provided in response to this application may be published or disclosed in accordance with the access to information regimes – these are primarily the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA), the Data Protection Act 2018 (DPA), the EU General Data Protection Regulation, and the Environmental Information Regulations 2004). The personal data you provide as part of this application will be held on a secure government system in line with the department’s personal data charter. Contact details will only be used for contacting you about your application or to update you on our work relating to local government finance reforms. For any questions relating to the application process, please email: [email protected]. FAQs relating to applications will be published on the Government publications website at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/75-business-rates-retention-pilots-2019-to-2020- prospectus 1. Application Contact Details Please include details of the lead pilot authority and lead official responsible for responding to any departmental queries relating to the pilot application. a. Name of lead pilot authority Leeds City Council b. Name of lead official Carolyn Jolley c. Lead official job title Senior Financial Manager d. Lead official email address [email protected] e. Lead official contact phone number 0113 3787821 Page 1 of 14 2. Membership of the Proposed Pool Please list all authorities belonging to the proposed pilot pool below. The application cannot be considered valid unless all of the listed members have endorsed all parts of the application (see Annex A). You can insert/delete lines as needed. For the authority type box, please write down one of the following options for each participating authority: (1) Fire; (2) London Borough; (3) Metropolitan district; (4) County; (5) Shire District; (6) Greater London Authority; (7) Unitary Authority. Authority name Authority Type City of Bradford Metropolitan District Metropolitan District Council The Metropolitan Borough Council of Metropolitan District Calderdale Craven District Council Shire District Hambleton District Council Shire District Harrogate Borough Council Shire District Kirklees Council Metropolitan District Leeds City Council Metropolitan District North Yorkshire County Council County Richmondshire District Council Shire District Ryedale District Council Shire District Selby District Council Shire District Scarborough Borough Council Shire District The Council of the City of Wakefield Metropolitan District City of York Council Unitary Authority Page 2 of 14 3. Membership details and pooling arrangements Please answer all of the questions below using short and concise answers. Section 4 will allow you to outline your pilot proposal in more detail. a. Have all members included in the pilot Select one: area endorsed all parts of this application? (1) Yes (Please ensure that Annex A is signed by (2) No s.151 officer of each area and returned as part of the application to evidence this.) Select one: b. Do any members of the proposed pool belong to any other current pool? (1) Yes (2) No (If ‘no’, please move to question 3.d.) c. If any members of the proposed pool Select one: belong to any other current pool, have other members of such pool been (1) Yes informed that the authority is applying to (2) No become a pilot as part of a different (3) N/A pool? Select one: d. Are there any precepting authorities that are not part of the proposed pilot area? (1) Yes (2) No – Does not include Fire and Rescue (If ‘yes’, please move to question 3.e.) Authorities. Select one: e. If there are any precepting authorities that are not part of the proposed pilot (1) Yes area, are these precepting authorities (2) No aware of this proposal? (3) N/A f. Are all members of the proposed pilot Select one: area willing to collaborate with MHCLG officials on system design of the new (1) Yes business rates retention system, sharing (2) No additional data and information, as required? Page 3 of 14 The proposed 75% pilot pool includes the two tier area of the county of North Yorkshire, with the County Council and seven shire districts. Our proposal in this area is to split the additional 25% of business rates income retained equally between the tiers in this area. Therefore the final tier split in the North Yorkshire area would be: - North Yorkshire County Council 21.5% The Shire Districts 52.5% North Yorkshire Fire 1.0% Our proposal follows careful consideration of the risk to the Pool brought about by increasing the g. How does the pilot pool propose to split shares of shire districts thereby increasing the non-domestic rating income in two-tier chance of a safety net payment, set against the areas?* ability of shire districts to be able to transparently measure the success of increased (F.ex. the pilot pool could propose to split retention within the Pool. Similarly the county’s the shares as in the current 50% business understandable desire is to raise more of its rates retention, or propose to test different income locally, but this has to be balanced with kinds of tier split arrangements as part of the the inherent risk of reductions in income should pilot.) the business rates tax base experience a downturn and the effect this may have on vital (*The department will use this information in upper tier local services, such as adult and regulations to designate a tier split for the children’s social care. pooled pilot area. In practice, the pilot pool will be given one overall tariff or top-up, and This proposal, sharing the additional income the members of the pool can agree to equally between tiers, allows both member change the headline tier split.) authorities and the Government to better understand the effect of greater retention. The other distributional mechanisms within the pool will insulate individual authorities from the most obvious risks and allow both tiers to share equally in the overall financial benefit as described in section 4 b) below. In all other single-tier areas it is assumed that the 25% additional income will be retained by the unitary authority with the current 1% continuing to be passed to the relevant fire authority. Therefore the tier split in the unitary areas would be: - Unitary Authorities 74.0% West Yorkshire Fire 1.0% Page 4 of 14 h. Do you propose to retain any of the Select one: additional 25% of retained business rates in an investment pot or similar and (1) Yes distribute this after 2019/20? (2) No (If ‘no’, please move to question 3.j.) Pool income will be shared out so that member authorities receive two thirds of the additional income generated through 75% business rate retention, the remaining third of additional income being retained by the Pool. The funding that is retained by the Pool will be redistributed to projects that meet the Pool’s strategic aims: Reducing Digital Isolation Inclusive Growth i. If any of the additional 25% of retained Culture, Sport and Major Events business rates are kept in an investment pot or similar, how will this be distributed Business Support, Trade and Investment after 2019/20? Enabling Housing Growth Any financial benefit held within the Pool at 31st March 2020, that is committed in 2019/20 for future years’ expenditure shall remain under the authority of the Joint Committee until expenditure is either incurred or the Joint Committee agree to treat as “residual benefit”. At the point that the Joint Committee disband, they will authorise Leeds City Council to make any residual payments (see Governance document Appendix 1, paragraph 9). There will be an estimated £71.3m in income above the baseline funding level for the pilot pool in 2019/20, of which £23.6m will be additional funding generated by the Pool being j. What is the anticipated income above accepted as a 75% retention pilot. It is this baseline funding level for the pilot pool £23.6m that authorities in the Region will be over 2019/20 (in £)? able to invest strategically to promote inclusive economic development and to support the financial sustainability of the member authorities. Page 5 of 14 The individual billing authorities within the proposed pilot have very different business rates tax bases both in terms of the types of business they accommodate and the range and distribution of the rateable values of hereditaments. For example one authority relies for as much as k. What is the business rates base of the 53% of its rateable value on retail proposed pilot area like and what is its establishments, whereas retail accounts for only relevance to the economic geography of 30% of the rateable value in two other the area? authorities, one with a higher proportion of industrial properties in its area and the other (F.ex. you could describe the size and types being the most rural area in the proposed pilot of hereditaments in the area, business area. Similarly the proportion of rateable value sectors relevant to the area, or the size of attracting the higher national multiplier is as high your business rates base in relation to as 77% in one area but only 30% in another. baseline funding levels.) With the pool’s ability to bring these different authorities together combining rural and urban, highly commercial and industrial, and stretching across a functioning economic unit, the diverse tax base offers a further source of financial resilience in the context of what can be, at the individual authority level, a highly volatile income.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Annex F –List of Consultees
    ANNEX F –LIST OF CONSULTEES Local highway authorities Leicester City Council Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council Leicestershire County Council Bath & NE Somerset Council Lincolnshire County Council Bedfordshire County Council Liverpool City Council Birmingham City Council Local Government Association Blackburn & Darwen London Borough of Barking & Dagenham Blackpool Borough Council London Borough of Barnet Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council London Borough of Bexley Borough of Poole London Borough of Brent Bournemouth Borough Council London Borough of Bromley Bracknell Forest Borough Council London Borough of Camden Bradford Metropolitan Borough Council London Borough of Croydon Brighton and Hove City Council London Borough of Ealing Bristol City Council London Borough of Enfield Buckinghamshire County Council London Borough of Greenwich Bury Metropolitan Borough Council London Borough of Hackney Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council London Borough of Hammersmith and Cambridgeshire County Council Fulham Cheshire County Council London Borough of Haringey City of York Council London Borough of Harrow Cornwall County Council London Borough of Havering Corporation of London London Borough of Hillingdon County of Herefordshire District Council London Borough of Hounslow Coventry City Council London Borough of Islington Cumbria County Council London Borough of Lambeth Cumbria Highways London Borough of Lewisham Darlington Borough Council London Borough of Merton Derby City Council London Borough of Newham Derbyshire County Council London
    [Show full text]
  • Public Sector Organisation Listing
    Public Sector Organisation listing - completed energy efficiency projects using Salix financing in FY 2018/2019 Abertay University Addenbrooke's Hospital All Saints Catholic Primary School All Saints Church of England (C) Primary School All Saints Church of England Primary School Alsager School Angus Council Archbishop Ilsley Catholic School Arnold Academy Arthur Terry Academy Ash Trees Academy Austhorpe Primary School Bailey's Court Primary School Barbara Priestman Academy Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council Barwell Church of England Academy Beacon Primary Academy Beecroft Academy Beeston Hill St Luke’s Primary School Bemrose School Biggleswade Academy Birchfield Primary School Birmingham City Council Bishop Challoner Catholic School Blunham Parish Council Bolton-le-Sands CofE Primary School Boskenwyn Primary School Bottisham Village College Bournemouth Borough Council Bournemouth University Brampton Bierlow Parish Council Brandhall Primary School Bridgend County Borough Council Briercliffe Primary School Bristol City Council Britannia Bridge Primary School Broadlands Academy Broomhill Infants School Brunel University Buckinghamshire County Council Burnt Mill Academy Version 1 Public Sector Organisation listing - completed energy efficiency projects using Salix financing in FY 2018/2019 Burraton Community Primary School Burton End Primary School Caerphilly County Borough Council Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council Cansfield High School Cardiff Metropolitan University Carmarthenshire County Council Caroline Haslett Primary School
    [Show full text]
  • Results from the Questionnaire: Analysis of Needs and Preferred Methods of Co-Operation
    Results from the questionnaire: analysis of needs and preferred methods of co-operation Following the demand-driven approach and in order to better assess the needs of the regional and local level, a questionnaire was sent in April 2012. The main findings were: 103 replies from 26 different countries were received in response to the questionnaire. Among the respondents there were several capital cites (for instance Berlin, Budapest, Lisbon, Belgrade, Vilnius, Tirana) as well as many other big cities. The majority of the respondents were municipal authorities and in particular mayors or deputy mayors. 88,3% gave a positive answer when responding to whether they would be interested in taking part in the activities of the Alliance The following graphs present other main findings: Graph 1 - Interest of cities to be part of the Alliance Graph 2 - Thematic issues of interest 1 Graph 3 - Transversal issues of interest Graph 4 - Activities of interest 2 Answers by countries cities and regions (26 Countries replied out of 43 contacted) Cities/Regio Cities/Regions ns Not- Total Number of Country Interested in Interested in Cities/Regions the Alliance the Alliance Austria 1 1 2 Albania 6 _ 6 Belgium 1 _ 1 Bosnia and Herzegovina 2 _ 2 Bulgaria 6 1 7 Croatia 3 _ 3 Czech Republic 5 _ 5 Finland 1 _ 1 France 1 _ 1 Germany 2 1 3 Greece 9 _ 9 Hungary 2 _ 2 Italy 9 1 10 Lithuania 7 4 11 Portugal 2 _ 2 Romania 1 _ 1 “the former Yugoslav Republic of 4 _ 4 Macedonia” Russia 1 _ 1 Serbia 7 _ 7 Slovakia 1 _ 1 Spain 5 _ 5 Sweden 2 _ 2 Switzerland _ 1 1 The
    [Show full text]
  • Working with Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council Why Choose
    WHY CHOOSE US? WORKING WITH DUDLEY METROPOLITAN DUDLEY BOROUGH COUNCIL METROPOLITAN Dudley MBC turned to Verto to implement a simple easy to use system that would provide BOROUGH COUNCIL a robust fund management solution and easy access to quality management information. Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council (MBC) is one of the 152 county councils and unitary authorities across England. County councils and unitary authorities are responsible for all services in their local areas. However, they work closely with partners to ensure these services are delivered in line with the needs of their local population. Dudley MBC has an annual budget of around £740 million and serves a population of nearly 313,000 across 24 wards. It is committed to building an effective and dynamic organisation, delivering services in partnership and helping communities to help themselves. Like all local authorities, Dudley MBC has a complex structure made up of the full council and its various committees, directorates and services. It has to report regularly on its progress in delivering its plans, both within the council itself, to central government and other regulatory bodies, and to its various partners. WHAT DUDLEY MBC WANTED TO ACHIEVE Prior to using Verto, Dudley MBC managed all its projects using spreadsheets and Microsoft Project. Aware that this could lead to a rather ad hoc approach, they also had a comprehensive manual to help staff work to a common project management system. However, at 90 pages it was too long for most people to read in detail. As a result, there was no consistency in how the authority was managing projects across its different departments.
    [Show full text]
  • UASC Capacity Support - Proposed Distribution of £21.3M Allocation Is Based on Latest Available Home Office Management Data Capturing Numbers at September
    UASC capacity support - proposed distribution of £21.3m Allocation is based on latest available Home Office management data capturing numbers at September. The information on NTS transfers has been confirmed by the Strategic Migration Partnership leads and is accurate up to December 2017. Please see attached FAQ and methodology document for further information. Local Authority Amount Total 21,258,203.00 London Borough of Barking and Dagenham £ 141,094.00 London Borough of Barnet £ 282,189.00 Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council £ 94,063.00 Bath and North East Somerset Council £ 94,063.00 Bedford Council (Unitary) £ 94,063.00 London Borough of Bexley £ 282,189.00 Birmingham City Council £ 188,126.00 Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council £ 94,063.00 Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council £ 94,063.00 Bournemouth Borough Council £ 141,094.00 Bracknell Forest Council £ 94,063.00 Bradford Metropolitan District Council £ 94,063.00 London Borough of Brent £ 329,219.00 Brighton and Hove City Council £ 188,126.00 Bristol City Council £ 188,126.00 London Borough of Bromley £ 141,094.00 Buckinghamshire County Council £ 188,126.00 Bury Metropolitan Borough Council £ 94,063.00 Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council £ 94,063.00 Cambridgeshire County Council £ 235,157.00 London Borough of Camden £ 329,219.00 Central Bedfordshire Council £ 282,189.00 Cheshire East Council (Unitary) £ 94,063.00 Cheshire West and Chester Council £ 94,063.00 City of London £ 94,063.00 City of Nottingham Council £ 94,063.00 Cornwall Council (Unitary) £ 94,063.00 Coventry City
    [Show full text]
  • Local Government Boundary Commission for England
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND REVIEW OF TYNE AND WEAR THE METROPOLITAN BOROUGH OF GATESHEAD Boundaries with: CASTLE MORPETH and TYNEDALE in NORTHUMBERLAND DERWENTSIDE and CHESTER-LE-STREET in COUNTY DURHAM CASTLE MORPETH NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE SOUTH TYNESIDE TYNEDALE GATESHEAD DERWENTSIDE CHESTER -LE-STREET REPORT NO. 640 LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND REPORT NO 640 SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE ENVIRONMENT REVIEW OF TYNE AND WEAR THE METROPOLITAN BOROUGH OF GATESHEAD AND ITS BOUNDARIES WITH THE DISTRICTS OF CASTLE MORPETH AND TYNEDALE IN NORTHUMBERLAND, AND WITH THE DISTRICTS OF DERWENTSIDE AND CHESTER-LE-STREET IN COUNTY DURHAM COMMISSION'S FINAL REPORT INTRODUCTION 1. This is one of a series of five reports dealing with the metropolitan districts of Tyne and Wear. In each of these reports we firstly set out our analysis of those proposals put to us for radical change to the County as a whole, and then our consideration of the boundaries of the particular metropolitan district under review. 2. The five reports are as follows:- (i) Gateshead, and its boundaries with Castle Morpeth and Tynedale in Northumberland and Derwentside and Chester-le- Street in County Durham. (ii) Newcastle upon Tyne. and its boundaries with Gateshead and with Castle Morpeth in Northumberland. (iii) North Tvneside. and its boundaries with Newcastle upon Tyne and with Blyth Valley and Castle Morpeth in Northumberland. (iv) South Tyneside. and its boundaries with Gateshead, Newcastle upon Tyne, North Tyneside and Sunderland. (v) Sunderland, and its boundaries with Gateshead, with the City of Durham, Chester-le-Street and Easington in County Durham.
    [Show full text]
  • The Role of Universities for Economic Development in Urban Poles
    THE ROLE OF UNIVERSITIES FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN URBAN POLES Dr Clive Winters 1, Dr John Dodd 2, Keith Harrison 2 1. Coventry University Enterprises Ltd, The Technocentre, Puma Way, Coventry University Technology Park, Coventry CV1 2TT, United Kingdom (Email [email protected]) 2. Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council, Civic Centre, Regent Street, Gateshead NE8 1HH, UK (Email [email protected], [email protected]) Abstract Cities are widely recognised as playing a fundamental role in the promotion of the knowledge economy but most research and policy has focussed on large cities with World-class educational and research institutes and advanced clusters of economic activity. There are clear and significant gaps in the knowledge of how smaller sized cities, with different levels and types of knowledge institutions and different levels of economic activity can compete within the Knowledge Economy. Yet such cities are recognised within European Union policy as playing a vital role in the implementation of the Lisbon agenda. This paper summarises the development phase of the URBACT II Thematic Network RUnUP (The Role of Universities for Economic Development in Urban Poles) and the perspectives of the 9 partner medium-sized European Cities in the Knowledge Economy. The network has addressed in a uniquely different way the fundamental issues of how universities should engage with their local communities with a particular focus on medium-sized cities; the role of local authorities and municipalities and the importance of triple helix structures for supporting economic development and encouraging entrepreneurship. The network has provided a unique opportunity to examine the role of universities in urban poles from the perspective of Local Government, given the constitution of the 9 partner cities rather than a traditional model taking Universities as the point of reference.
    [Show full text]
  • Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council & Barnsley Metropolitan
    TERRALED ARIALED Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council & Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council OrangeTek - TERRALED & ARIALED November 2014 “We have developed an excellent working relationship, this has enabled us to be ahead target for our installation programme and made it possible to realise additional energy savings. I have received very positive feedback from Members of the public and our own installation operatives regarding the OrangeTek LED lanterns. Initial lighting performance surveys have shown excellent lighting levels and uniformity” Colin Knight, Rotherham MBC Highway Network Management Group Manager ARIALED RMBC & BMBC - Lighting installed by DLO (Direct Labour Organisation) TERRALED and ARIALED by OrangeTek To date: installations in excess of 4,500 ME (V) Class units and 3,000 P Class units in just over 1 year. (3 year project – 41,000 units) Project Requirements Project Developments Rotherham Council is responsible for maintaining and OrangeTek continually strives to stay ahead of the controlling 36,000 units & Barnsley Council is responsible for market by appropriately investing in Research & maintaining and controlling 33,500 street lighting installations Development and regularly implementing on the roads throughout the boroughs. Routine maintenance improvements or developing new products to meet our is carried out by both Rotherham & Barnsley Council’s Street customer needs. Lighting Services who are ultimately responsible for street So when the new ARIALED was released with its lighting on their roads. improved light distribution and reduced energy These Councils, are currently replacing a combined total of consumption, this was an choice, to make use of our approximately 8,000 Main Road Luminaires and 33,000 next generation improvements and Superior Lighting Residential Route Luminaires with LED lighting units, thus Solutions.
    [Show full text]
  • Gadmtools - ISO 3166-1 Alpha-3 [email protected] 2021-08-04
    GADMTools - ISO 3166-1 alpha-3 [email protected] 2021-08-04 1 ID LEVEL_0 LEVEL_1 LEVEL_2 LEVEL_3 LEVEL_4 LEVEL_5 ABW Aruba AFG Afghanistan Province District AGO Angola Province Municpality|City Council Commune AIA Anguilla ALA Åland Municipality ALB Albania County District Bashkia AND Andorra Parish ANT ARE United Arab Emirates Emirate Municipal Region Municipality ARG Argentina Province Part ARM Armenia Province ASM American Samoa District County Village ATA Antarctica ATF French Southern Territories District ATG Antigua and Barbuda Dependency AUS Australia Territory Territory AUT Austria State Statutory City Municipality AZE Azerbaijan Region District BDI Burundi Province Commune Colline Sous Colline BEL Belgium Region Capital Region Arrondissement Commune BEN Benin Department Commune BFA Burkina Faso Region Province Department BGD Bangladesh Division Distict Upazilla Union BGR Bulgaria Province Municipality BHR Bahrain Governorate BHS Bahamas District 2 BIH Bosnia and Herzegovina District -?- Commune BLM Saint-Barthélemy BLR Belarus Region District BLZ Belize District BMU Bermuda Parish BOL Bolivia Department Province Municipality BRA Brazil State Municipality District BRB Barbados Parish BRN Brunei District Mukim BTN Bhutan District Village block BVT Bouvet Island BWA Botswana District Sub-district CAF Central African Republic Prefecture Sub-prefecture CAN Canada Province Census Division Town CCK Cocos Islands CHE Switzerland Canton District Municipality CHL Chile Region Province Municipality CHN China Province Prefecture
    [Show full text]
  • Hatfield Town Council’S Code of Conduct
    DONCASTER METROPOLITAN BOROUGH COUNCIL HEARINGS SUB-COMMITTEE NOTICE OF FINDING IN RELATION TO AN INVESTIGATION OF ALLEGED BREACHES OF THE HATFIELD TOWN COUNCIL’S CODE OF CONDUCT The Hearings Sub-Committee of Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council, at a meeting held on Tuesday, 22nd January 2019 considered allegations made by Clare McRoy, the Clerk of Hatfield Town Council, against Councillors Jessie Credland, Michael Glynn and William Morrison of Hatfield Town Council. The Sub-Committee determined that there had been a failure by Councillors Credland, Glynn and Morrison to comply with the following Obligations of the Members’ Code of Conduct adopted by Hatfield Town Council:- Member Obligation 1 1. (He/she shall behave in such a way that a reasonable person would regard as respectful). Member Obligation 2 2. (He/she shall not act in a way which a reasonable person would regard as bullying or intimidatory). In addition, Parish Councillor William Morrison had failed to comply with the Code of Conduct of the authority concerned in relation to the following obligation of the Code:- Member Obligation 5 3. (He/she shall not disclose information which is confidential or where disclosure if prohibited by law). It was alleged that:- (i) Councillors Credland, Glynn and Morrison had handed Clare McRoy, (Clerk to Hatfield Town Council) a letter dated 11th June 2018, dismissing her from her post as Clerk. The complaint alleged that the three Councillors had no authority to issue the letter and did so without the knowledge of the rest of the Councillors or any proper processes being followed; and (ii) Councillor Morrison had passed on an email without authority or permission to another Councillor that Mrs McRoy had sent to him marked ‘confidential’.
    [Show full text]
  • The Local Government Finance Report (England) 2020/2021
    The Local Government Finance Report (England) 2020/2021 HC 68 The Local Government Finance Report (England) 2020/2021 Presented to the House of Commons pursuant to paragraph 5 of Schedule 7B to the Local Government Finance Act 1988 Ordered by The House of Commons to be printed on 6 February 2020 HC 68 © Crown copyright, 2020 This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/ version/3 Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned. This publication is available at www.gov.uk/official-documents Any enquiries regarding this publication should be sent to us at Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government Fry Building, 2 Marsham Street London SW1P 4DF Tel: 030 3444 0000 ISBN 978-1-5286-1765-9 CCS0220023022 02/20 Printed on paper containing 75% recycled fibre content minimum Printed in the UK by the APS Group on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office Contents 1. Introduction 4 2. Central and local share 6 3. Revenue Support Grant 7 4. Distribution of Revenue Support Grant 8 Part A ± Council of the Isles of Scilly 8 Part B ± Main distribution 8 5. Distribution of Baseline Funding Level 12 Part A ± Main distribution 12 Part B ± Authorities with increased Business Rates Retention 13 6. Tariff and top-up amounts 17 Part A ± Main distribution 17 Part B ± Authorities with increased Business Rates Retention 17 7.
    [Show full text]
  • List of Town Team Partners
    List of Town Team Partners Name of local authority (who will act as Accountable Body Name of Town Team for the grant Lancing Town Team Partnership Adur District Council Wigton Town Team Allerdale Borough Council Love Maryport Town Team Allerdale District Council Heanor Town Team Amber Valley Borough Council Bognor Regis "Heart of the Town" Team Arun District Council Littlehampton Town Team Arun District Council Idlewells Shopping Centre, Sutton-in-Ashfield Ashfield District Council Kirkby Town Team Ashfield District Council Aylesbury Town Centre Partnership Aylesbury Vale District Council Sudbury (Suffolk) Town Team Babergh District Council Barnsley Town Team Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council Wombwell Community Board (Wombwell Town) Barnsley Metropolitan Council Barrow-in-Furness Barrow Borough Council Dalton with Newton Town Council Barrow Borough Council Radstock Town Team Bath and North East Somerset Innovation Boldmere Birmingham City Council Kings Heath Centre Partnership Birmingham City Council Saltley Business Association Birmingham City Council Soho Road Town Centre Partnership Birmingham City Council Sparbrook and Springfield Town Centres Birmingham City Council Erdington Town Centre Partnership Birmingham City Council Lifford Business Association Birmingham City Council Retail Birmingham Birmingham City Council Borough Council of Wellingborough Town Team Wellingborough Poole Town Centre Partnership Borough of Poole Boston BID Boston Borough Council Boscombe Regeneration Partnership Bournemouth Borough Council Halstead Town
    [Show full text]