Agenda and draft minutes

Apologies were received for Councillor Barney with Councillor Ellis attending as substitute.

Link to further information in the Council’s Constitution

The Chair reminded the Group of restrictions placed on Councillors to participate in items relating to Council Tax if they themselves were in two months or more arrears in paying Council Tax.

Councillor Hetvi Parekh noted her employment at Nottinghamshire County Council which included foster families within Children’s Services. Councillor Parekh stated her employment did not have any impact in terms of the policies decided by the fostering service or the commissioning or strategy of fostering policies in Nottinghamshire. Councillor Parekh wanted to note this for clarity and avoid any confusion.

The minutes of the previously meeting 2 April 2026 were approved unanimously by the Group which were then signed by the Chair.

The Chair began the discussion by reading out the purpose of the report and the recommendation of this report to the Group. The Chair decided to split the discussion for this item into the three sections and vote separately on the A, B and C elements of the Recommendation.

Rushcliffe Borough Council’s Revenue Manager led a presentation which outlined the current context of the Authority's Second Homes Premium. This included both a brief history and the statutory bases for the policy, as well as the policy’s implementation at the Authority from April 2025. The Revenue Manager provided the Group with some key information which was aimed at showing an overview of the policy’s performance.

The Revenue Manager noted the following:

·       Applies a 100% Council Tax premium to qualifying second homes

·       175 properties have been subject to the premium at some stage

·       121 properties currently liable for the premium

·       72 properties have remained continuously classed as second homes

·       54 properties have had the premium removed since April 2025

·       Generated £576,000 in additional Council Tax income over two years; note this is subject to the usual precepts, for example, to the upper-tier council, fire and police authorities.

The Revenue Manager also noted the £576,000 was the total figure of Council Tax collected by the Authority as the collecting authority, but that this number, as with all Council Tax raised, was split between the various precepts, e.g. the upper-tier authority, Police and Fire etc.

The Revenue Manager noted the officers' view, and recommendation was to continue the Second Homes Premium. Officers formed this view as the policy had had a positive impact on bringing long-term unoccupied properties into use, coupled with additional Council Tax revenue. The Revenue Manager also noted the earliest the premium could be removed was from 1 April 2027.

Following the presentation the Group had a wide discussion on the topic, which allowed it to clarify its understanding of what a second home was classed as, and its difference with other policy areas such as empty homes.

The Director for Finance reaffirmed the officers' view that this policy was linked to bringing more houses back into use and noted the evidence presented did not show justification for removing the Second Homes Premium.

Councillors asked different questions related to the various housing types this policy impacted, for example, family homes, holiday homes, renovations, homes people used for work or people changing what their main residence was. It was confirmed the Council did not hold data on any subcategories. The Revenue Manager also confirmed the Council had not collected any feedback from impacted residents. The Revenue Manager went on to confirm that within the presentation no enforcement or administrative costs had been included. The Revenue Manager advised that within the presentation no enforcement or administrative costs were included as those were incorporated within the overall costs of the Revenues Team, with enforcement costs recovered separately.

Prior to the vote, Councillors Matthews and Parekh noted their intention to support revoking the policy as  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

This Item was introduced and presented by the Assistant Director of Planning. The presentation covered an overview of Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMOs) definitions, licensing requirements and planning controls. The presentation noted the current position in Rushcliffe, which was that HMOs accommodating seven or more occupants required planning permission. It was also noted that an Article 4 Direction removed permitted development rights and required a planning application but did not automatically prevent development.

The Group was advised, during the presentation, that there were currently 188 licensed HMOs in Rushcliffe and that the number of HMOs occupied by three or four people was unknown as licensing was not required. The Group was also advised that a commissioned study by Rushcliffe Borough Council suggested there were likely to be a further 175 HMOs, although this data was not verified. Of those unverified HMOs, it was thought that 91 were in West Bridgford. It was also noted that HMO concentrations were predominantly within West Bridgford, particularly along key arterial routes.

In summarising the current context, officers noted that complaints were mostly related to noise, with a small number relating to antisocial behaviour. It was also noted that Nottinghamshire County Council reported very few parking complaints directly linked to HMOs and that current evidence did not demonstrate significant harm, or risk of harm, to local amenity or wellbeing.

Following the presentation, Councillors asked questions and raised some concerns, including regarding the concentration of HMOs across West Bridgford and Trent Bridge. Councillors shared concerns from their own wards, including the impact on local communities and the character of neighbourhoods, as well as the impact on family homes, both in terms of access to family homes and the availability of family housing stock in certain areas, and the impact on families living in areas with high concentrations of HMOs.

Councillors specifically asked to be provided with local and national examples of where Article 4 implementation had taken place and officers advised that implementation was generally in city areas and gave Bolton as an example.

Councillors commented on complaints received relating to HMOs and whether the figures quoted accurately reflected residents’ concerns. Councillors noted that residents might experience fatigue from complaining, which would be compounded if they saw little noticeable action resulting from their complaints. Similarly, Councillors noted that residents might direct their complaints to other bodies, such as the relevant universities.

Councillors also considered what other tools or levers existed within the planning system to mitigate their current concerns. It was noted that there were no such policy options that would address the issues raised by Councillors.

It was RESOLVED that the Communities Scrutiny Group had scrutinised the contents of the report and the conclusions as set out in paragraphs 4.27 to 4.30, and the Group decided to provide an additional recommendation.

The Group had differing views on the evidence and whether it was sufficient to progress an Article 4 Direction. The Group then discussed a further recommendation which better reflected the Group's concerns. The Group  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

Report of the Director – Finance and Corporate Services