Issue - meetings

This report provides a response to a petition received from the residents of the Sovereign Park development and presented to Full Council in January 2009, requesting a rebate and reduction in Council Tax.

RESOLVED: (i)         That the reasons for the petition, and the Council’s response, be noted.

                        (ii)        That the Scrutiny Management Committee be invited to consider whether a scrutiny review considering the reasons, and possible remedies, for the non-adoption of public services in new estates and roads in the City, might be a worthwhile use of their resources.

REASON:      In order to respond appropriately to the issues raised in the petition.

Members considered a report which provided a response to a petition presented at Full Council in January 2009, on behalf of residents of the Sovereign Park development, seeking a rebate and reduction in Council Tax.

The residents’ request was based upon the premise that the Council Tax charge covered services that were not being received in their neighbourhood.  However, the valuation for each chargeable dwelling under the Local Government Finance Act 1992 was carried out by the Valuation Office and not by the Council.  There was no basis on which the Council could vary the sum payable according to which particular services were received and / or used by particular residents.  The Council would fail to comply with the law if it did not carry out its duty to levy taxes in line with Council Tax bandings based upon property valuations.

Members noted that the underlying issue related to a delay in the adoption of public services on the development by the relevant authorities.  Officers from City Strategy reported at the meeting that the adoption of the highways and open space / leisure areas by the Council should be completed within the next few weeks and that Yorkshire Water were also close to finalising the adoption of the services within their remit. 

Having noted the comments of the Shadow Executive and the comments made under Public Participation on this item, it was

RESOLVED: (i)         That the reasons for the petition, and the Council’s response, be noted.

                        (ii)        That the Scrutiny Management Committee be invited to consider whether a scrutiny review considering the reasons, and possible remedies, for the non-adoption of public services in new estates and roads in the City, might be a worthwhile use of their resources. ¹

REASON:      In order to respond appropriately to the issues raised in the petition.