Second Home owners doing sad faces in the press about council tax increase

I was with you until you mentioned newts - I stand with the newts! Their protection is being eroded and if we aren’t careful we will wipe them out. They don’t prevent development any more than people having houses on land to be developed into a new road do.

Second home owners should be taxed more, perhaps unless they have just inherited one and are selling it, as they may not have means to pay

Your point is that they will now have 10+% for frippery?
good for them it won’t save the villages and towns. It might discourage second home ownership but that’s all.

Ah yes, "developers pleading poverty". Poor wee souls 😆

Let me tell you the story of the development where I live. It's an old farm on the edge of the village that hadn't been touched since its previous owners died. The first phase of the development, with mixed social and open market housing, was built by a developer who is well known locally as an "interesting character". The council in their wisdom stipulated that the social housing be built FIRST. Those houses sat empty for 6 months - apparently ready- while we were in limbo waiting to move in. Apparently he wouldn't sign the houses off to our housing association because he was trying to lean on the council to force some concessions about something.

Finally we got our houses, and our LLs are housing association A. He then built the second phase of the development, and the social housing on that street is being managed by housing association B, because our HA refused to deal with the fucker anymore.

During this time he also bought our local pub and it sat empty for years while he tried to get permission to turn it into a dwelling. Finally he gave it up and sold it on, and it's reopened as a thriving pub again (providing me with employment among others).

Eventually, as he kept on getting thwarted, he sold the field behind us to Housing Association A, who are directly building 25 homes for social rent, and no more of the massive 5 bedroom colossi (most of them occupied by a single retired couple) from the previous phases of the development.

So, that's a resounding win for the council, the HA, and the people of the village.

Proof of how it is possible to get social housing built without the intervention of greedy developers. They don't need "leeway", they need to get fucked.

Near me in Cornwall there are smaller developers going out of business because they cannot afford to build the affordable housing element of their development

The developer keeps coming back to ask the council for more leeway - ie to not build all the affordable homes they promised, but which was the only reason they got planning permission in the first place.

Sorry, developers pleading poverty is very common all over the country I assumed you would understand.

Interestingly, I found data on second homes and council tax bands here: https://www.cornwall.gov.uk/council-tax/your-council-tax-bill/council-tax-data/ - follow the link for second homes.

They do say the data isn't complete because they haven't linked second homes to council tax since 2013 so it's self-reported - but it's the best data we have and it accounts for almost 13,000 of the estimated 14,000 homes. It shows a total of 12,760 second homes. 2,286 are band A; 2,302 are B; 2,473 are band C; 2,232 are band D and 1,718 are band E. Band F is 911. (I stopped adding up after that because I assumed the numbers would keep dropping and using excel on my phone is fiddly).

So actually C is probably a reasonable rate to use - there are almost as many band D as band A.

Ok, so assume they're all band A and you get a 75% collection rate. That's £17.2m minimum. Still not peanuts. I work in local authority finance and we would be delighted with an extra £17m (or an extra 1% of our expenditure budget) for minimal work.

I'm not making assumptions without data. I'm making assumptions with data. I have data on the amount of second homes and the council tax rate. I'm assuming a collection rate and I'm assuming a middling band. You said you think a lower band is more likely, with some argument to back that up (though no data) so I'm revising my assumptions.

I don't know about Cornwall council specifically, and what the local authority is doing. I was using Cornwall as an example for working out how much money the policy would bring in - I was surprised by how significant an amount it was. (It's possible Cornwall is an exception - I just chose it because it's been mentioned repeatedly on this thread).

Yes, if local authorities do nothing, the problem won't be solved. But they have a massive incentive to resolve housing issues because of the cost of temporary accommodation, and because housing is an electoral issue. And because they get funding from the government specifically to try to improve housing provision.

I don't think it's a case of either/or. I think local authorities will be doing both. They'll be collecting the revenue to help with the overspend, but they'll also be trying to improve the housing situation. I may be wrong - but I don't think you can argue that the money isn't worth having.

I agree, but sadly the council doesn’t, so they are being charged the second home council tax ‘penalty’ as if it were a home someone could live permanently in. Which is such a shame that the Council doesn’t differentiate.

on the other hand I can totally see why. I find St Ives when it is quiet absolutely stunning. Hate it full in August. But it is clearly very empty off season, and so many houses are dark and empty. It almost feels like an empty theme park.

ott. Homeless crisis isnt only about unaffordability. There’s people out there living in their cars etc because they are arseholes whose anti social behaviour has seen them chucked out from rental accommodation and their family homes and they deserve to be where they are !

I was so pleased to read a family member stand up on social media to ask community not to assist their family member who was living near a local bridge. They pointed out that person had a choice, but wouldn’t wind their neck in to get along with others, so was told to leave.

No, but you said "they keep coming back and asking for more leeway". Who is asking for more leeway? Your entire answer doesn't make sense! Who has put in.a planning application to develop these parcels of land?

They probably do now their council tax bill has doubled or tripled.

Not foreigners specifically but foreigners who don't live and work in the UK. Those who buy just as an 'investment', whether foreign or permanent British expats, who don't come back after a certain period or rent out the house, should be taxed more.

For me it's a good thing. We are short of housing in this country, so buying up additional houses should be taxed heavily and the money invested to build more.

I agree entirely. It is the swathes of empty dark flats which get my goat.

At least those that buy for investment and leave the place empty. I wouldn't necessarily stop people who have jobs and intend to live here from buying.

I wish they’d ban foreign buyers in the first place

my db wanted to buy in Thailand some years back and he couldn’t

I certainly can't find it in myself to feel sorry that second home owners are going to have to cough up more tax.

I would however like to see hefty taxes applied to land banking.

I would also be in favour of making foreign investors who buy up UK properties as an investment pay handsomely for the privilege. If they are rich enough to park their money here because they don't want to use the banks etc in their own country they can afford to give something to this country as compensation for taking potential homes away from the people who live here.

I'm not anti the higher council tax, I just don't believe the posters saying that second home owners come for 2 weeks, bring their own food with them and don't spend a penny locally.

Wandsworth, Camden and Hackney were mentioned by Sky News. Not sure about the other boroughs.

Sorry didn't read your message properly. Council is not interested, or rather cannot afford to do anything. There are a few organisations like CLTs who do this sort of thing, and other housing associations. I cannot give you chapter and verse ln the economics of housebuilding, but It's simply not viable to have lots of small developments of 5 or 6 houses scattered around the place. No one can afford to build them. The only people who can are the big 6 and they won't build affordable homes, they will put up ultra expensive executive homes

The Italian example was in the back of my mind as I've seen similar schemes discussed for UK villages where houses have been abandoned or are marketed for a few thousand pounds and still don't sell.

Ultimately unless a region addresses its work and transport options nothing will improve and the next generation will face the same challenges. This should have been the focus of rural councils back in the 80s when deregulation meant the loss of so many regular jobs, many with tied cottages (which are now mostly holiday cottages).

Instead it was all "tourism tourism" which is not a large provider of steady and well paid jobs. Consider this on top of the wider shifting job market as bank branches close, some industries moved abroad etc it was always going to be tough to manage. That said some areas seem to have managed less effectively than others.

I'm showing that it's not 'peanuts'

But you are not showing any such thing - you are making assumptions without data. My own anecdotal assumption would be that most of these homes are C downward with relatively few above C.

That is based on (a) the frequent complaints that "incomers" snap up first time buyer properties and (b) my own observations of holiday homes tending to be the smaller cottages and apartments without the annual run costs and maintenance headaches of a larger family home and garden. Larger homes bought by outsiders tend to be bought by people planning to actually move into the area.

However lets pretend that this can bring in £20m (and I don't agree that implementation is cheap enough to be discountable) - that is around 1% of the expenditure budget. Its sticking plaster.

Meanwhile the council continues with the work it is doing to find solutions to the problems - trying to create jobs, build more houses.

Historically Cornwall councils track record on this has been pretty poor, especially considering the amount of EU investment a couple of decades back. As I said upthread - maybe the changing voting patterns will help that but its reputation as an old boys club wasn't earned for nothing. (Again not a unique problem to Cornwall, its an issue in many local areas, but voters who want change need to vote for it, not vote tribally for matey landowner who employed grandpa).

My concern is that this just becomes a massive displacement solution and in ten years time the next generation who can't get jobs or homes will be little better off as the root causes have not been addressed.

Agree 100%. The whole second home thing is a symptom of a far bigger problem, not the cause. In rural areas of Italy they were selling houses in deserted villages for £1 to try and encourage people back into rural areas, but people need well paid work.

When my friends were growing up in Cornwall they worked in banks, shops, garages, hairdressers, small local factories. There was still market gardening for holiday jobs. All the bank branches have shut now, lots of the shops are now charity shops, huge numbers of jobs have just gone and not been replaced, and there is a lot of competition for those that are left. Many local jobs are part time roles, often on a short contract and very low paid, and people need two or three jobs to get by and as you say, this makes it impossible to get a mortgage.

even by out of area housing associations, usually in deals that involve housing local families in return for Cornwall taking some of their residents.

Have you got any evidence of this happening? Because I hear this mentioned sometimes, and as far as I know it's a myth.

And if you thought about it....why would HAs and councils offload their tenants to Cornwall, where property is quite expensive, when there are much cheaper areas of the UK?? I did read an article in the Guardian about some London boroughs putting pressure on prospective tenants to accept properties in Hull, but that's not quite the same thing, is it?

I'm assuming a band C - my expectation would be that second homes would tend to be higher bands, so it'a a conservative estimate. And I'm not providing a fully-modelled, caveated forecast. I'm showing that it's not 'peanuts'.

Assume 75% of the income is received (some people have exemptions, some sell up etc). That's £22.5m, which covers the deficit. Keeps the council afloat. Avoids more and more cuts to services. Leaves the reserves intact for emergencies. Forecast overspends take up a huge anount and resources which could be spent on actually improving things.

Meanwhile the council continues with the work it is doing to find solutions to the problems - trying to create jobs, build more houses.

I don't think the CT alone will solve the problem, but it will make it easier rather than harder. And it is probably relatively cheap to implement.

You're assuming best possible case (which never happens in finances) and partly arguing my point - it will go towards a deficit and not fix the fundamental issues in the county (bear in mind the budget expenditure for Cornwall is nearly £1.5billion on their approved budget).

I'm not arguing against extra CT. I'm arguing that its a bit of a fig leaf which won't make material difference to the county's employment and transport situation. Its good quality employment and transport which maintains communities, not higher CT which at best will be used to reduce deficits/provide basic services. Local people will still not be able to buy if they still don't have the jobs to sustain a mortgage.