Agenda item

PREMIUM ON THE COUNCIL TAX OF SECOND HOMES AND LONG-TERM EMPTY DWELLINGS

To consider the information in the report and the appendices in order to conclude if the risks have been mitigated

Decision:

DECISION:

· To accept that the information in the report and appendices conform to the statutory guidance and legislative requirements

· Propose the following observations for the Cabinet's consideration when deciding upon a recommendation to submit to the Full Council to make a final decision on the premium levels:

1. There is a need to complete a comprehensive linguistic assessment in accordance with the Council's Language Policy

2. There is a need to consider the impact of the premium on the ability of 'native people' to make a living

3. There is a need to see statistics that demonstrate the impact of premium on restoring empty homes

4. There is a need for evidence about the success of the premium. What has been achieved to date?

5. There is a need for further consultation on the use of the premium.

What is the justification for using the second homes premium to fund homelessness? While accepting that the principle is acceptable, what is the evidence behind the decision?

6. The considerations surrounding the premium must be made in conjunction with the Welsh Government's legislation and measures to control second homes

Minutes:

a) The report was submitted to seek opinion and observations from the Committee on the procedure for submitting a report to the Cabinet that would recommend that the Full Council sets the level of the Council Tax Premium for 2023/24. It was noted that the Committee was statutorily required to review and scrutinise the Council's financial matters including ensuring that the Council acted appropriately and that the information submitted to the Cabinet and the Full Council for decisions, was robust information.

The Committee was asked to consider;

• Did the information clearly clarify the statutory requirements?

• Was the Equality Impact Assessment suitable?

• Had the Council consulted with stakeholders in an appropriate manner?

• Was the report clear about the implications of the decision sought?

• Were the risks clear?

It was reported that the Council, on the 8 December 2016, had decided to raise a Premium of 50% on Council Tax for second homes and long-term empty homes, to be implemented from 1 April 2018. On 4 March 2021, the Council had resolved that the Council would increase the Premium to 100%, namely the highest level possible under the legislation, for the 2021/22 financial year, and on 2 December 2021 it was resolved to retain the Premium at 100% for 2022/23.

By now, the Council Tax (Long-term Empty Dwellings and Dwellings Occupied
Periodically) (Wales) Regulations 2022 (SI 2022/370 W.90) had amended
Sections 12A and 12B of the 1992 Act giving the Authorities the power to raise a premium of up to 300% on the Council Tax of second homes and long-term empty homes for the 2023/24 financial year and the subsequent financial year.

A public consultation had been launched between 30 September 2022 and 28 October 2022 and 7,330 responses had been received to the questionnaire (7,277 responses to the on-line questionnaire and 53 paper responses - this was the largest number of responses the Council had received to any consultation in recent years).

It was highlighted, in the context of a statutory duty to undertake impact assessments on equality, that an Equality Impact Assessment had been updated to reflect requirements and developments, changing circumstances and the results of the recent consultation. It was reiterated that any recommendations from the Cabinet would have to ensure justification for the increase and that relevant research confirmed the need to act reasonably on the matter.

Reference was made to 3 options

· Keep the Premium level at 100% in 2023/24

· Increase the Premium to the maximum allowed under the law of 300% in
2023/24.

· Set the Premium somewhere between 100% and 300% in 2023/24.

It was noted that should the premium be abolished, Gwynedd Housing Strategy Action Plan would suffer.

The Cabinet Member for Finance highlighted that a report to the Cabinet on 22-22-22 had already been published, recommending increasing the premium to a rate of 150%. The increase would add approximately £3m in additional annual income and would contribute towards funding the financial pressure on the County's homelessness situation.

b) During the ensuing discussion, the following observations were made by members:

· That the response to the impact on the Welsh language appeared to be 'innocent' as opposed to the remainder of the report - the Council's Language Policy should be considered which noted that any decisions should be subject to language impact (in numbers / percentages)

· 2,200 second homes in Dwyfor - no evidence there was an equal demand for housing

· There was no consideration to the impact on the Local Welsh people who let their houses to earn a living an kept assets local.

· The premium had not been considered holistically alongside other measures - needed to see how setting the level of the premium linked in with other Welsh Government measures in terms of regulating second homes.

· More information was needed on the total amount of money used for empty houses

· There was a need to give consideration to those who would lose work in the area as a result of the reduction in maintaining second homes / letting homes

· Accepted that the aim was to restore long-term use of houses with the aim of improving communities and keeping people local, but although the premium had been in place for four years, there was no reference in the report to what had already been achieved - how successful was it? How effective is the premium?

· Accepted the suggestion that a percentage of the premium should respond to homelessness matters, but it had to be ensured there was a long-term plan in place to resolve the County's homelessness problem and not to use money to fill the gap

· What is the justification for using the second homes premium for homelessness matters? What was the evidence behind the decision?

· A wish to see statistics on the premium's impact on restoring empty houses

· Was it fair that money from the holiday home premium in one ward in the County would respond to homelessness problems in other wards in the County?

· 850 on the waiting list in Dwyfor v 2500 holiday homes. There was no shortage of housing, rather a shortage of suitable housing.

· That the report responded to the requirements but clarity was needed for some matters

c) It was proposed and seconded to accept the report

RESOLVED: