Agenda item
Public Questions
To deal with questions from the public within the open forum question and answer session of fifteen minutes in total. Questions from each member of the public should be no longer than one minute each and relate to issues under the Cabinet’s remit. At any one meeting no person may submit more than two questions and no more than two such questions may be asked on behalf of one organisation.
The Leader will ask whether any members of the public present at the meeting wish to ask a question and will decide on the order of questioners.
The response may take the form of:
a) a direct oral answer;
b) where the desired information is in a publication of the Council or other published work, a reference to that publication; or
c) where the reply cannot conveniently be given orally, a written answer circulated later to the questioner.
Minutes:
There was one public question from Mr Gorin, who stated that he and his wife had owned a small second home in Cirencester since January 2013 and that he had researched the Council’s policy to raise money for “affordable housing”.
The question related to the current 100% Council Tax Premium on second homes, as provided for in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 and approved by Cotswold District Council in March 2024 and at its Revenue Meeting in February 2025.
Mr Gorin asked whether Councillors were aware that, in its first year (2025/26), 1,856 properties had been identified, potentially raising £3.66 million. However, he stated that the Council did not have a way of determining the true number of second homes and that, in any event, once Class 1 exemptions were applied, the number subject to the premium had reduced to approximately 816 properties, some 1,040 fewer than the budget prediction. He further stated that the income had fallen well below the predicted £246,000, explaining that this lower figure arose because the Council’s precept represented only 7% of the total Council Tax collected, and that this percentage was also applied to the premium. As a result, he suggested that fewer people were paying less revenue, estimating the amount retained by the Council to be approximately £120,000, which he argued would not fund an affordable home.
Mr Gorin asked that, when debating the second home premium for 2026/27, the Council review its decision in line with the powers contained in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 to “vary or revoke a determination”. He requested that the Council seek to identify accurately the total number of second homes, review the distribution of funds between preceptors, noting that the majority of the premium was allocated to Gloucestershire County Council rather than to the District Council, and ensure that any funds raised were directed towards affordable housing before voting to re-impose what he described as an unfair and punitive tax.
He further stated that the inequity of the current methodology was illustrated by the Council’s decision not to apply the premium to second homes in the Cotswold Water Park, on the basis that they were not suitable or available for permanent occupation and would not bring additional accommodation into the market. He argued that it was anomalous that, where the purpose of the premium was to raise funds for affordable housing, certain second homes were not required to contribute.
In response, the Leader advised that, as former Portfolio Holder for Finance, he was familiar with the matter and would respond in the first instance.
It was noted that, at the time the legislation was introduced, representations had been made to Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown MP, Member of Parliament for North Cotswolds, regarding the absence of any requirement for owners to self-identify second homes. However, this provision had not been included in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023.
The Leader stated that, while the Council sought to identify second homes wherever possible, estimating the number eligible for the premium had been challenging. It was noted that, although approximately 1,800 properties had initially been identified, exemptions and prudent assumptions regarding collectability had reduced the forecast number subject to the premium to around 810 properties. It was further confirmed that only 7% of the total Council Tax collected, including the premium, was retained by Cotswold District Council, with the majority allocated to Gloucestershire County Council, the Police and parish and town councils. The distribution of the precept was fixed in law and could not be varied by the District Council.
Addressing the point regarding Cotswold Water Park properties, the Leader explained that these were designated holiday homes and not suitable for permanent occupation. As the purpose of the premium was to encourage the availability of residential properties, the rationale for applying the premium did not extend to such designated holiday accommodation. It was confirmed that these properties paid 100% Council Tax but were not subject to the additional premium.
The Leader added that the decision to apply the premium was taken annually as part of the budget-setting and Council Tax process.
The Deputy Chief Executive and Chief Finance Officer (Section 151 Officer), David Stanley, further advised that, although around 1,800 second homes were recorded, the Council was required to take a prudent view when setting the Council Tax base, including exemptions and assumptions about collectability, which had resulted in an estimated 810 properties being subject to the premium in 2025/26.
He reported that, in preparing the tax base for the forthcoming financial year, the number was closer to 1,800, reflecting validation work undertaken during the year. This had included working with parish and town councils and ward members to draw upon local knowledge. He reiterated that efforts to introduce a mandatory national register of second homes had not been included in the legislation, although representations had been made.
He concluded by noting that continued dialogue with residents would inform the annual review of the premium and support Members in considering future decisions.
In response to the explanations given Mr Gorin stated that he appreciated the complexities involved and had largely expected the explanation provided. He welcomed the indication that the Council was identifying more second homes, but reiterated his concern about the limited proportion of the premium retained by the District Council and the relatively small amount directed towards affordable housing, which he felt had been presented as a key justification for the policy.
He referred to the stated intention of the premium as a “disincentive” and suggested that it was intended to discourage second home ownership and return properties to the market. He explained that he and his wife had purchased their property with the intention of retiring to the area, but that family circumstances had delayed that move. He noted that they would continue to pay approximately £500 per month rather than £250 and expressed a wish for reassurance that the additional funds were directly supporting affordable housing.
The Leader thanked Mr Gorin for his comments and reiterated that the distribution of Council Tax was fixed in law and could not be altered by the District Council. The financial pressures facing Gloucestershire County Council were noted and it was explained that the policy had been introduced not only to raise funds but also to address the impact of high levels of second home ownership on the sustainability of local communities.
The Deputy Chief Executive and Chief Finance Officer, added that the Council’s share of approximately £130,000 was being used strategically to support affordable housing delivery, including officer resource to work with registered providers to bring forward sites within the district.
The Leader thanked Mr Gorin for attending and raising his questions.