To recommend to Council that Council Tax be increased for all properties deemed second homes, which are occupied periodically by 100% from 1 April 2025, subject to any exemptions set out in subsequent Regulations and for implementation to be in accordance with those Regulations and guidance; the Council Tax Empty Homes Premium be increased to 100% for properties empty for between one and five years (currently between two and five years), from 1 April 2025, subject to any exemptions set out in subsequent Regulations and guidance; and, authority be delegated to the Executive Director: Resources, in consultation with the Lead Member for Finance and Asset Management, to amend the Council's policy relating to premiums in line with legislative or government requirements and changes. 

That it be RECOMMENDED TO COUNCIL that:

i.              Council Tax be increased for all properties deemed second homes, which are occupied periodically by 100% from 1 April 2025, subject to any exemptions set out in subsequent Regulations and for implementation to be in accordance with those Regulations and guidance;

ii.             the Council Tax Empty Homes Premium be increased to 100% for properties empty for between one and five years (currently between two and five years), from 1 April 2025, subject to any exemptions set out in subsequent Regulations and guidance; and,

iii.            authority be delegated to the Executive Director: Resources, in consultation with the Lead Member for Finance and Asset Management, to amend the Council's policy relating to premiums in line with legislative or government requirements and changes. 

90.1          The report of the Head of Service: Revenues and Benefits, circulated at Pages No. 53-59, set out a proposal to encourage the owners of second properties to bring them back into full time use and occupation through the imposition of premiums.  Members were asked to recommend to Council that Council Tax be increased for all properties deemed second homes, which were occupied periodically, by 100% from 1 April 2025, subject to any exemptions set out in subsequent Regulations and for implementation to be in accordance with those Regulations and guidance; the Council Tax Empty Homes Premium be increased to 100% for properties empty for between one and five years (currently between two and five years), from 1 April 2025, subject to any exemptions set out in subsequent Regulations and guidance; and, that authority be delegated to the Executive Director: Resources, in consultation with the Lead Member for Finance and Asset Management, to amend the Council's policy relating to premiums in line with legislative or government requirements and changes. 

90.2          The Chair indicated that he had reflected on the report and felt that the additional revenue raised through this proposal would be significant for Gloucestershire County Council but it would make little difference to Tewkesbury Borough Council which would effectively be policing it so he felt it would be worth speaking to partners to suggest that additional resources may be required by the authority which warranted a financial contribution.  The Executive Director: Resources explained that it was possible to speak to district colleagues to establish if they had similar thoughts and to raise this with the County Council at a meeting later that month; however, it would need to be agreed on a negotiation basis so, whilst Tewkesbury Borough Council would look to gain the maximum amount, the partner authorities may or may not be in favour.  A Member asked what would happen if the County Council said no and the Chair indicated that these negotiations could take place separately and did not prevent Members from voting on the recommendation before them today – the plan was to carry out the work within existing resources and, if Members were in support of the proposals, it would be a case of seeing how things went and if the cost of administering them exceeded the amount which the authority received, the Council could decide not to continue.  The Executive Director: Resources advised that Tewkesbury Borough Council had a duty to collect Council Tax and at the moment there was no suggestion that additional resources would be required; however, current resources were limited so it was possible further resource may be needed to ensure the Council received the total amount due to it.  He pointed out that the proposal was also about bringing empty properties back into the housing sector so that needed to be considered if Members were minded not to have the premiums in place.

90.3          A Member questioned whether information was already available in terms of the amount of empty homes and second homes and was informed that, whilst there would be a further requirement that any information was robust and completely accurate, the information was collected and available within the Council systems currently.  The Member indicted that he could see the logic of bringing empty houses back into use more quickly but asked if there was a legal definition of a second home as it was not uncommon for people to live in one location over the weekend and in another location for three or four days per week in order to be closer to their place of work.  The Chair indicated that he did not have an absolute definition but drew attention to Page No. 57, Paragraph 2.5 of the report which included a section on job-related dwellings, as well as one in relation to properties that were not regularly lived in, which would not be classed as second homes. 

90.4          A Member raised concern that the Council had not been formally notified of the exemptions and the bullet points at Page No. 57 of the report were examples of the likely types of situations which may be excluded.  As such, he questioned whether it was appropriate to debate what was essentially a proposal rather than facts.  In response, the Executive Director: Resources indicated that, unfortunately, final guidance was awaited from the government so the report was based on what was expected but it had not been confirmed.  The Member asked if it was possible to defer consideration of the report and was advised that, administratively, it would be preferable to vote on this before 1 April 2024 in order to include it within the main Council Tax billing; whilst it was possible to reissue Council Tax bills later in the year, that would not be ideal.

90.5          With reference to Page No. 55, Paragraph 1.7 of the report which related to properties available to let for more than 20 weeks in a calendar year being rated as Business Rates by the Valuation Office Agency (VOA), a Member asked who checked this and what mechanism was in place for that.  In response, the Associate Director: Finance, advised that this would involve requesting accounts and income and expenditure statements which would prove how much the property had been let for.  The Executive Director: Resources pointed out that the decision to rate a property as Business Rates was down to the VOA, not the Council.

90.6          The Chair indicated that the purpose of the proposal was to bring properties back into use for permanent occupancy – second homes were never intended to be permanently occupied and would have been granted planning permission on that basis.  A Member felt that the need to police this would involve looking into the personal circumstances of a person or family which was concerning to him and, whilst he understood the good intentions behind it, he felt that the introduction of these premiums would be opening a can of worms and exposing the Council to reputational damage.  Another Member noted that the proposal was for those with second homes to pay double the amount of Council Tax and he questioned where the Council would stand on human rights grounds if challenged by someone who was paying the required amount of Council Tax currently.  The Monitoring Officer advised that this was government legislation and such a challenge was unlikely to be successful given it was intended as a way to bring more properties back into use by local residents and would be defended on that basis.  The Member expressed the view that if someone could afford a second home they could probably afford to pay double the amount of Council Tax but he could not see this helping to bring any properties back into use.  A Member indicated that there was a requirement and expectation that benefit claims would be investigated if there was an indication the claimant was not entitled and she felt that policing this scheme would be no different to that in terms of public perception.

90.7          A Member questioned whether it was possible for the Council to approve the proposal in April and debate the nuances when the government provided the detailed guidance.  The Executive Director: Resources advised that although the preferred option was to approve the scheme in time for it to be included in the Council Tax bills for 1 April 2024, and there were certain issues if that was not achieved, these were not insurmountable should Members wish to defer a decision and the scheme could be implemented part year following the required 12 month notice period.  A Member felt it was a shame this report had not been brought to an earlier meeting of the Committee so Members had adequate time to discuss it; it now felt they were being pushed into a decision.  As the scheme was based on the government’s detailed guidelines which were not yet available, he questioned what guarantees were in place, particularly given the looming general election.  The Chair indicated that there seemed to be agreement on a lot of elements contained within the report, such as the empty properties section, and he asked if there was any way Members could vote on that part of the scheme and defer a decision on second homes.  Another Member questioned whether the Council could approve the scheme for implementation on 1 April 2025 but decide not to go ahead if the exemptions were unsatisfactory when they were eventually provided by the government.  The Executive Director: Place advised he was aware of a local authority which had approved the scheme 12 months ago but had not implemented it due to the absence of the government guidance; all Members would be doing was giving notice to be able to implement the scheme, should the Council choose to in 12 months time.

90.8          A Member questioned whether an amendment was needed in order to secure funding from the County Council for administering the scheme in accordance with the earlier debate and was advised that, if an amendment was made to increase the premiums subject to the County Council agreeing a proportionate sum, if the County Council said no the whole scheme would fall and the opportunity to bring empty homes back into use would be lost.  Several Members expressed the view that was the likely outcome.  The Executive Director: Resources advised that there was a good relationship at Chief Finance Officer level with Gloucestershire County Council, the other district authorities and the Police so there was hope but it would be down to negotiation and discussion about the benefits – if it was a demand then it would almost certainly be refused but he felt there was a reasonable chance of getting at least some funding if approached in the right way.  A Member indicated that, based on his experience as a County Councillor, it would need a full Council decision so it would be a long process.  The Executive Director: Resources clarified that Tewkesbury Borough Council was not asking for additional resource at this stage.  There were 125 empty properties, of which 70/80 were already paying a premium, and the current proposal was to extend the current premium to second homes which could be done within existing resources.  Officers could speak to the County Council about improving resources, and therefore recovery rates, not only on this scheme but Council Tax in general, but at this stage no additional resources were required and there was no need to make an amendment to the recommendation on that basis. 

90.9          It was proposed and seconded that it be recommended to Council that Council Tax be increased for all properties deemed second homes, which were occupied periodically, by 100% from 1 April 2025, subject to any exemptions set out in subsequent Regulations and for implementation to be in accordance with those Regulations and guidance; that the Council Tax Empty Homes Premium be increased to 100% for properties empty for between one and five years (currently between two and five years), from 1 April 2025, subject to any exemptions set out in subsequent Regulations and guidance; and, that authority be delegated to the Executive Director: Resources, in consultation with the Lead Member for Finance and Asset Management, to amend the Council's policy relating to premiums in line with legislative or government requirements and changes.  A Member expressed the view that it would be remiss to defer a decision, not least due to the additional cost of issuing two sets of Council Tax bills, and she felt that the principle should be supported.  Another Member asked if the other district authorities in Gloucestershire were adopting this approach and the Executive Director: Resources confirmed that all five were planning on doing it and taking it to their respective decision-making processes in the same time frame.  The Director: Corporate Resources indicated that there were approximately 250 second homes so the administrative cost of rebilling would not be significant and there would be a nine months period to contact those impacted so the resource could be spread across that time with an opportunity to address any nuances.

90.10        Upon being put to the vote, it was