Agenda item

(a)       remembers the resolution it passed in October 2012 requesting officers to bring forward a report to Cabinet dealing with the benefits and resource implications of using the Sustainable Communities Act;

(b)       thanks Sheffield for Democracy for providing the Cabinet Member and relevant officer with details of a simple and inexpensive method  for consulting with local people  about possible proposals and for offering assistance to organise any public meetings;

(c)        welcomes the recent campaign  by Local Works, the national organisation which has promoted the adoption and use of the Sustainable Communities Act, to use it to call for a levy on large supermarkets;

(d)       notes that under the proposal, local authorities would be given the power to introduce a local levy of 8.5% on large retail outlets in their area with a ratable value of over £500,000 and that the revenue would be used to promote local economic activity, local services and facilities, community wellbeing and environmental protection;

(e)       notes that in Sheffield this would apply to 60 retail outlets (half of which are in Meadowhall) and raise in excess of £6million per year;

(f)        notes that similar measures have been introduced in Northern Ireland and Scotland without adversely affecting inward investment or the local economy;

(g)       welcomes the support for this measure by local authorities across the country and by the Shadow Minister for Communities and Local Government;

(h)       notes that the South and East Yorkshire branch of the Federation of Small Businesses also endorses the campaign; and

(i)         therefore urges the Cabinet Member and officers to expedite the Cabinet report requested in October 2012 so that the Sustainable Communities Act can be used to consult on the supermarket levy proposal as soon as possible.

Whereupon, it was moved by Councillor Leigh Bramall, seconded by Councillor Mohammad Maroof, as an amendment, that the Motion now submitted be amended by:-

1.         the deletion in paragraph (c) of the word “welcomes” and its substitution by the word “notes”, and the addition of the following words at the end of that paragraph:-

“but would also impact retailers including Debenhams, WH Smiths, Primark, John Lewis and Marks & Spencer and is concerned that to introduce such a levy would undermine important efforts to increase the vitality of the city centre and progress a new retail quarter”

2.         the deletion of paragraphs (d) to (i); and

3.         the addition of new paragraphs (d) to (f) as follows:-

(d)       believes that a strong city centre retail offer benefits local residents and boosts the local economy and is concerned that the introduction of such a levy could damage the prospects of securing a retail offer for the city centre which is a key component of the City Centre Masterplan;

(e)       is concerned that this policy would place at risk the prospects of bringing a high quality retail development to Sheffield and could also see the loss of business rate income; and

(f)        therefore will not seek powers from the Government for a levy on large retail outlets and resolves to continue to assist small business development in the City through alternative means and to progress alternative ways of securing funding to support city centre vibrancy such as a Business Improvement District.

On being put to the vote, the amendment was carried.

It was then moved by Councillor David Baker, seconded by Councillor Diana Stimely, as an amendment, that the Motion now submitted be amended by:-

1.         the deletion of paragraphs (c) to (i); and

2.         the addition of new paragraphs (c) and (d) as follows:-

(c)        therefore, regrets that in the past twelve months no progress has been made in delivering new submissions through the Act; and

(d)       believes than any new submissions should be based upon the ideas of Sheffielders, as was the case the last time the Act was used, when Sheffield was highlighted as an example of best practice.

On being put to the vote, the amendment was negatived.

The original Motion, as amended, was then put as a Substantive Motion in the following form and carried:-

RESOLVED: That this Council:-

(a)       remembers the resolution it passed in October 2012 requesting officers to bring forward a report to Cabinet dealing with the benefits and resource implications of using the Sustainable Communities Act;

(b)       thanks Sheffield for Democracy for providing the Cabinet Member and relevant officer with details of a simple and inexpensive method for consulting with local people about possible proposals and for offering assistance to organise any public meetings;

(c)       notes the recent campaign by Local Works, the national organisation which has promoted the adoption and use of the Sustainable Communities Act, to use it to call for a levy on large supermarkets, but would also impact retailers including Debenhams, WH Smiths, Primark, John Lewis and Marks & Spencer and is concerned that to introduce such a levy would undermine important efforts to increase the vitality of the city centre and progress a new retail quarter;

(d)       believes that a strong city centre retail offer benefits local residents and boosts the local economy and is concerned that the introduction of such a levy could damage the prospects of securing a retail offer for the city centre which is a key component of the City Centre Masterplan;

(e)       is concerned that this policy would place at risk the prospects of bringing a high quality retail development to Sheffield and could also see the loss of business rate income; and

(f)        therefore will not seek powers from the Government for a levy on large retail outlets and resolves to continue to assist small business development in the City through alternative means and to progress alternative ways of securing funding to support city centre vibrancy such as a Business Improvement District.

(Note: Councillors Jillian Creasy and Robert Murphy voted for paragraphs (a) and (b), against paragraphs (d) (e) and (f) and abstained on paragraph (c) of the Substantive Motion and asked for this to be recorded.)