18,000 retail jobs lost in last two months

Almost 18,248 retail jobs have been lost in the past two months, with 1,211 shops also shuttered since the turn of the decade, according to the Centre for Retail Research (CRR).

The research firm said retail premises in England are also set be “denied” a further £100m in tax reductions on 1 April, taking the total amount to over £1.2bn.

CRR said the 2017 revaluation of business rates should have been “good news” for ratepayers in economically disadvantaged areas which saw property values plummet.

However, according to the real estate adviser, Altus Group, during the fourth and final year of the business rates cycle the design of the system will continue to have an “acute impact” on properties in areas where rents significantly declined.

Atlus said: “Since 1990, Governments have provided financial assistance to ratepayers through Transitional Relief schemes which work by phasing in large increases in rates bills over a number of years, based on annual ‘caps’ on the percentage by which an individual ratepayer’s bill can increase from one year to the next before the effects of inflation are taken into account.

“The cost of that relief is paid by phasing in large reductions in bills that other ratepayers would have enjoyed as a result of the revaluation. The relief is self-financing.”

Altus Group added that, come 1 April for 2020/21, the net loss to the embattled retail sector will be £61m with £38m granted in relief through the capping of large increases, whilst £99m in tax reductions will be “denied” through the continual phasing in of large reductions in bills.

Robert Hayton, head of UK business rates at Altus Group, said: “The phasing in of large property tax rises is a good thing. It acts as an important shock absorber and allows businesses time to adjust to higher liabilities.

“Paying for that by denying the correct reduction on properties in areas where values are falling burdens those least able to afford to pay.  It is a simple mechanism for balancing the cost of the scheme but it is also simply wrong and unfair.”

He added: “A small supplement on all bills would spread the burden equally. It would be an insurance premium against sudden liability increases.”