Home Other

Chancellor set to alleviate the burden of business rates in Autumn Budget

LONDON, ENGLAND - OCTOBER 17: British Finance Minister Philip Hammond introduces the Secretary-General of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Angel Gurria, from Mexico, to speak during an OECD press conference at the Treasury on October 17, 2017 in London, England. The OECD presented the latest Economic Survey of the UK in the press conference Tuesday. (Photo by Matt Dunham - WPA Pool/Getty Images)

Chancellor Philip Hammond is expected to scrap the planned 3.9% rise in business rates after lobbying from retail business groups.

The Retail Price Index (RPI) is currently used to determine the uplift in business rates next April, which will mean that British retailers could be hit with an extra £270 million in tax.

Colliers International has been lobbying the government for a rise tied to the Consumer Price Index, while the British Retail Consortium has called for business rates to be completely frozen.

Hammond is now poised to opt for a CPI-linked increase, which stands at 3%, according to the Sunday Times.

John Webber of Colliers International welcomed the move but called for a full business rates reform.

“This is still tinkering at the edges,” he says, adding: “We still have a business rates system that needs a proper reform, including a move to more frequent valuations. In particular the new Check Challenge Appeal System has been disastrous, with businesses finding it virtually impossible to navigate around the new system to appeal against unfair business rates.

“This still smells of re-organising the deckchairs on a high street called Titanic,” he adds.


  1. This unfair, unreasonable and biased (but important) tax affects business and the consumer and the country. I am at a total miss as to why [any government] would want to jeopardise business growth. A review is decades overdue and it should include a ‘rate increase’ (or decrease) in line with CPI, that way business could plan better on its fixed costs and in turn the recipients of that revenue could also to a degree do the same. It’s clearly less simple than this, or is it?

Exit mobile version