Agenda item

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 they did not believe that the policy had demonstrated it had achieved its stated objectives and felt that the revenue of roughly £20,000 did not justify keeping the policy. Councillor Grocock stated that he supported the officer position and believed the policy supported other authorities, such as the County Council, not just Rushcliffe.

Councillor Virdi, the Portfolio Holder for Finance, summarised the discussion, and emphasised the following points:

·       Highlighted that the lack of clarity regarding the policy showed it was not reaching its desired objectives.

·       Questioned the robustness of the evidence and links between the policy and bringing homes back into use.

·       Clarified the policy was not put into place for revenue generation.

·       Net revenue, when compared with officer time, casework and enforcement activity, would be small.

On Item A, the Group voted, through a split vote, with six members voting to revoke the policy and three voting to keep the policy, and it was therefore RESOLVED that it be RECOMMENDED to Cabinet that the policy be REVOKED.

The Revenue Manager then led a presentation regarding Council Tax relief for terminally ill residents. The Revenue Manager noted the policy's history and that this was a local discretionary Council Tax relief scheme. The Revenue Manager updated the Group on the details of the scheme, including an option to provide relief of up to 100%, and also explained the eligibility criteria. The Revenue Manager highlighted the estimated number of residents that would be eligible for the scheme at any given time. The Revenue Manager noted that as the billing authority, Rushcliffe would have to fund the whole cost of this relief.

Councillors spoke in support of the sentiment of the policy whilst also asking  questions related to the logistics of the application of the scheme.  Councillors requested clarity on how long people would be eligible and whether there was a phasing back in process of full Council Tax once the terminally ill person died. The Revenue Manager noted that the scheme would be applicable to people who were in receipt of Council Tax Support and that this relief would be applied for 52 weeks.

The Director of Finance and Corporate Services also noted, when questioned, that there was always a cut-off point in a scheme like this where there would be some residents that just missed out, but they believed using the Council Tax Support Scheme  was an appropriate way of managing eligibility and ensured the scheme was affordable based on the information provided.

It was RESOLVED that the Group unanimously supported this policy being RECOMMENDED to Cabinet.

The Revenue Manager gave a presentation to the Group which related to Council Tax relief for Foster Carers in Rushcliffe Borough. Currently, there are 12 Foster Carers in Rushcliffe. This relief would therefore cost the authority roughly £27,000 a year. The Revenue Manager noted that other councils across Nottinghamshire had begun to consider similar approaches.

The Revenue Manager outlined the officer’s viewpoint and recommendation that this scheme should wait until Local Government Reorganisation (LGR) took place in Nottinghamshire before being enacted. The Revenue Manager highlighted various options, including 100%, 75% or 50% relief and whether the Authority should fund 100% or 50% funded through Nottinghamshire County Council, for example. The Revenue Manager noted some potential risks related to the scheme, including if there was a significant uptake in the number of Foster Carers in Rushcliffe.

In response to the presentation Councillors praised the great work and benefit that foster families gave not only to the people they fostered but to the wider community. There were, however, differing opinions on whether Foster Carers were an appropriate group to receive such relief. Some Councillors noted that Foster Carers already received an income or allowance for being a Foster Carer. Councillor Matthews,  asked whether there was any evidence that Foster Carers struggled paying their Council Tax. The Director of Finance abd Corporate Services noted the intention of the policy would be to attract more Foster Carers but also noted that it was not proven that it would be enough of an incentive.

Councillor Grocock supported the introduction of the scheme and emphasised the need to try new schemes like this to address a national shortage of Foster Carers. Councillor Parekh supported Councillor Grocock's comments and added the amount it would cost Rushcliffe Borough Council was a nominal amount, and noted the costs, relatively, were significantly higher to place a child in care.

The Group, through a split vote, voted AGAINST the officers' recommendation to postpone this policy until after LGR. Instead, the Group, through a split vote of seven to two, voted to RECOMMEND introducing this policy prior to LGR. Following another split vote of six to three, the Group voted to RECOMMEND a 100% tax relief for Foster Carers as the Group’s recommendation to Cabinet.

It was therefore RESOLVED that the Communities Scrutiny Group considered and provided feedback to Cabinet on:

A) Second Homes Council Tax Premium:

The proposal to revoke the Second Homes Premium or any amendments that the Group consider appropriate.

B) Council Tax Relief for households with a terminally ill resident:

The proposed Discretionary Council Tax Relief Scheme to support households who live with a terminally ill family member, as set out at Appendix B to the report, including eligibility criteria; affordability, prudence and sustainability within the Medium-Term Financial Strategy (“MTFS”).

C) Foster Carer Council Tax Relief:

The proposed Discretionary Council Tax Relief Scheme as set out in Appendix C to the report including eligibility criteria and level of support and its affordability, prudence and sustainability within the MTFS.