Promises of higher tax on second homes on the Isle of Wight should be treated with caution, councillors have warned.
The Isle of Wight Council wants to support the introduction of additional taxes when it meets on March 15.
However, some members fear this could send the wrong message to Islanders.
For some, it has been a long-held dream to make those who own second homes — or have empty properties — pay more.
Such a move could be introduced in new government legislation and would allow local authorities to charge second homes up to double the amount of council tax.
Data from the authority suggests it could make an additional £6 million if second homeowners were made to pay twice as much council tax.
Speaking at the corporate scrutiny committee last night (Tuesday), Cllr Joe Robertson said it was premature to issue a statement of intent when the law did not exist yet.
He said while he supported the move, the council should issue a general statement, but leave any figures out.
Cllr Richard Quigley echoed concerns, saying the council was in danger of promising something that could not happen if it were to suddenly be removed from the legislation.
It is uncertain when the legislation — included in the Regeneration and Levelling Up Bill — will become law.
Cllr Joe Lever said the positives of the levy communicated to Islanders what they wanted to do and if a large number of councils had the same intent, it sent a message to government which could hopefully result in stronger legislation.
Cabinet member for strategic finance, Cllr Chris Jarman, stressed the goal of the tax levy was to bring empty properties or second homes back into use, addressing the Island's housing need.
Any additional income it may bring is a secondary goal.
He also said declaring the council's intent now would allow it to implement the levy as soon as it could.
The committee unanimously voted to say it supported the tax premiums but withheld a figure at which the levy would be charged until it becomes law.
House Rules
We do not moderate comments, but we expect readers to adhere to certain rules in the interests of open and accountable debate.
Last Updated:
Report this comment Cancel