Over the past few weeks, Dorset Councillors have been discussing proposals for council tax premiums on second homes and empty properties, in anticipation of the new flexibilities for councils in the forthcoming Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill. At that time, it was hoped that the Bill would receive Royal Assent by 1 April 2023. Councillors were due to vote on proposals at a rescheduled Full Council meeting on 30 March in order for the change to be introduced from April 2024, as the council was required to make the decision a year in advance.
However, we now understand from government that there is no likelihood of the Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill becoming law before the end of March and therefore a decision on this matter cannot be taken by Full Council on 30 March as planned.
Cllr Wharf, Deputy Leader of Dorset Council, said: “The proposal to introduce council tax premiums on second homes and empty properties continues to be something we are keen to explore, following constructive discussions at Overview committee and Cabinet. We will watch the progress of the government’s new Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill closely and bring this to Full Council once the legislation has passed.”
‘Second homes’ is an issue for Dorset Council because we live in a beautiful part of the world, accessible to many large cities. Empty properties make some villages and towns in Dorset half empty in the Winter months.
It would probably be possible for Dorset Council to take steps to deal with this problem, even before the government makes legislative changes. Please look into this.
Not sure we understand what you mean Sally. We can’t implement a second home tax premium without parliamentary approval of new legislation.
SO – Levelling up was always a total lie we can deduce from that.
Dear Sir/Madam.
What has happened to local council finances in Swanage? Twenty-five years ago, second home owners had a 50% discount in there council tax, then some years later it was reduced to 10% and now is 0%, which I agree is fair. However to consider 100% premium on second homes is unfair.
Applying a premium tax to second homes will be counterproductive. It will drive away a large number of people who contribute significantly to the local economy. It may bring down property prices which may benefit some first time buyers but may also push others into negative equity. It should not be introduced without a lot of consideration of the negative effects.
Even though I do not know the details of the bill I feel I am aware of the of the various issues created by second homes and on balance strongly support it. The main point, to my mind, is the impact towards the lack available affordable housing through swallowing up local housing stock and by extra stress towards maintaining a strong price in the housing market. The last point creating a much wider negative effect across the area as local landlords will have to increase their loans to pay for property leading to an increase in the rent charged.
Of course there are a range of other issues separate from second homes, including some positive but these are by far outweighed but adverse. It is distressing to see people ‘advertise’ themselves on social media desperately looking for somewhere for their family to live and when a property does become available for rent the advert is flooded with replies with people putting themselves forward. This is direct primary evidence which cannot be ignored. So I would absolutely support the council in implementing this law as it will either make more housing stock available or provide additional council income for housing services.
Regarding the delay, I would suggest that people with a second home would also more likely have the means to access legal advice so perhaps for the long-term enabling time for details to be examined will close off loopholes. The delay will also help people with second homes to consider their options and time for properties to be sold in an orderly manner if they come to that decision.
Hopefully it will be a short delay in the bill which will take the pressure off the council and allow time to ensure every dotted i and crossed t is covered ready for implementation in 2025.
Surely the answer to a shortage of affordable housing is to build more affordable houses. I doubt many second homes will fall into the affordable category. The legislation will allow councils to raise council tax on second homes without needing to make a case, economic or otherwise. They can raise council tax purely as a revenue raising exercise. What evidence the council did present was in the main anocdotal and opinion-based such as an economic study based on interviewing 30 business owners. I doubt doubling council tax will make much difference to second home ownership in the short term but might cut the amounts spent locally – and contrary to what is often claimed many second home owners do spend locally especially in restaurants and bars, including out of peak season – so the proposed increase looks nothing more than a punitive measure aimed at appeasing local voters and taking attention away from the fact that not enough houses are being built. Data available on the council website projects population growth over the next few years which necessitates building more homes, notwithstanding the current housing shortage. The second home issue in that context is a red herring. Figures out this week show that housing applications in England have fallen to a 16 year low despite Government promises to build at least 300,000 new homes a year. The council (and Government) should focus on the real issue and more affordable houses.
As a second home owner in Swanage I am deeply grieved by this proposal. Although I do understand the problem and sympathise with those encountering housing difficulties, I consider that the proposal to double Council tax on second homes is grossly unfair. I am a British citizen, born and brought up in England. My parents bought the bungalow here in 1969 at the time it was built. My father’s attachment to Swanage dates back to the war years, when he was called up from university to work on radar at Worth Matravers. His name figures on the register in the local museum. Many of his colleagues of the period retired here. My husband and I, and our daughter, who is also a British citizen, and her family, live in France. The bungalow in Swanage which we bought off my parents in 1999 is our only home in the UK. The law for non residents is such that we cannot spend more than 120 days each in the UK in one year. The house is not unoccupied in winter because we are required to be present regularly throughout the year for insurance purposes. We make a point of scrupulously respecting these demands. We contribute to the local economy as much as we can, supporting local businesses and employing local people to carry out work, maintenance and repairs on the bungalow. Over the years we have invested a good proportion of our savings in the property. Furthermore, thanks to my father’s longstanding connections from his radar days, we have many close friends here, some dating back to my early childhood. It is also a place where we receive other family members living in the UK. One of my fondest wishes is that my daughter and her family can continue to enjoy the bungalow in this delightful corner of England, which four generations of the family have cherished. I fear that a decision to double Council tax could leave us little choice but to part with the property, a property my family has owned for over fifty years! Swanage is not just a convenient place where we can come and soak up the sun. Our family has real roots here, and the property more sentimental value for myself than any other I have ever possessed.
May I suggest that, rather than penalising those who already own second homes and who with the introduction of such a law would have increasing difficulty maintaining their property, a new law apply only to future owners of second homes? Although it would perhaps not immediately make funds available to local councils, a law applicable to new second home owners only, would over time free up properties and have the levelling up effect desired by the Government without having drastic consequences for existing second home owners. A second home owner who is obliged to sell his property in the UK due to excessive taxes will inevitably be tempted to invest and consume elsewhere thus at the expense of local communities here.
I ask those in favour of the proposal to please give careful thought to the heart-breaking consequences the enforcement of such a law could have for certain families with life-long connections with Dorset, and to consider the long-term negative financial implications it would nevertheless inevitably have for its local communities and economies.
I think it is a terrible idea too and find it unfairly discriminates against one group of people in favour of another- I like things to be fair (and fairness is a two way process in the sense that the rules apply equally).
This is just another way to generate income for councils who can’t manage what they are already allocated.
Second home owners spend money in shops, bars and restaurants, supporting the local community. This increase will prevent thousands of pounds being spent in the local businesses.
If the house prices have gone up, I bet you won’t hear the local residents complaining as their houses have also been driven up in value.
The only ones suffering are the first time buyers. I have two children in the same situation so why don’t the government build more affordable housing for them to get on the ladder. Second homes in holiday areas are beyond the affordability of first time buyers and still will be if the owners sell up.
Stop passing the buck on to those who treat the holiday hotspots as holiday hotspots and spend money in the town.
So many people (perhaps willfully) missing the point. These 2nd homes are empty most of the year – a family occupying a property all year round will spend more money locally than holidaymakers visiting a few weeks at a time. Nobody needs two homes – it’s indulgent and greedy. And if you don’t care and feel you somehow deserve two properties? Good for you – now pay up, as you can clearly afford it. And if you can’t, sell your second home.
Kevin
You make an interesting point.
However, my second home is inhabited for at least 50% of the year for work duties. The home is not used as a commercial base, but for me to sleep and avoid 75 mile each way journeys. This is purely to reduce the costs of Hotels or Guest houses.
Further, while I am away at work, my first home is also occupied by my family.
The situation is not as “black and white” as it appears you are suggesting! Perhaps you can advise me of an alternative solution?
Certainly Dave – just let your second home out while you’re not staying there. You’ll make some money and, as it’ll be occupied all year round, it’s better for the local economy and you’ll avoid paying the 2nd home premium.
Hello Kevin
This of course would be an excellent solution however, I cannot dictate which dates I ” need to be” in Dorset, but in general I “am required” to be there at least 12 working days of every month except December.
Do you have any other solutions which I could investigate?
I always assumed Council tax was used to pay for local services such as refuse collection, Police etc.
If the occupiers of second homes aren’t using the services for the majority of the year why should they pay more? Maybe couples with 2 cars should pay double road tax on the second vehicle.
There probably aren’t sufficient job opportunities in these areas for the locals to live there anyway!
As a second home owner I have always tried to spend in the locality. I encourage friends and family using the house to do the same. I pay the full council tax but, of course, use very few of the services. I do not use the local schools, social care, adult care, etc etc. In many ways my council tax subsidises the local population as I pay but not use the services. If the council tax is doubled I will actively seek to avoid spending in the area and will encourage all users of the house to do the same. Bring all food in from outside and actively avoid local businesses. I will pay extra to bring in tradespeople from outside the area rather than employing local businesses as I do now. It will be my only form of protest. Yes, housing may become a little less expensive for locals. But there will be a price paid in employment etc. Nothing comes for free in this world.