Is this second home council tax plan fair?

WHAT is Tenby Town Council’s opinion on the proposed second home premium tax ?

Do the town councillors feel it is a fair tax on a minority of council tax payers ?

And what, if any, suggestions do they have to be fair to all PCC council tax payers, to contribute towards social and affordable housing?

I have owned a second home in Tenby for 32 years and paid all the rates/council tax over those years. I have never let the property out so have always paid the standard council tax, there are 12 flats in the complex, three do not rent out and nine do.

They are registered as a business and do not pay business rates because they are exempt under the current legislation where properties under £4,000 rateable value do not pay a penny. Is that fair? And don’t forget these owners have second homes, albeit classed as a “business”

and probably more than one. Are they called “rich people”?

Some owners have between £6,000 and £10,000 income annually from their flats, and this is just one complex.

If they all paid a reduced business rate, I’m sure it would not affect tourism in the county.

This amount would also be tax deductible, the proceeds from that could go towards social and affordable housing, and which would be a fairer tax to all county tax payers, not expect second home owners to pay up to a £1,000 per annum over the current standard council tax based on Band D council tax rate.

The owners or visitors owning and renting these properties do not pay a thing towards council services, where as second home owners pay a contribution through their council tax for hospitals, schools, social services, policing, street lighting, refuse collections, town council expenses, etc etc, and do not get full value from these services by not being permanent residents.

My suggestion is add 0.5% to tax bills on all properties in the PCC catchment area that would only add £5/£10 per annum to all properties in Band D, a very much fairer idea to all council tax payers in the county and quite a negligible amount and probably collect more money than through the proposed way.

Not enough thought has gone into this proposal it was the thought of by a minority group to grab “easy money”

from the “rich people”.

This idea, proposed by a minority party to tax “rich people” goes to prove if they ever became the majority party in Wales (God forbid!) the Principality could become a police state, exactly what happened in Germany in the 30s and 40s and history tells us the tragic outcome of that.

This minority group are envious and jealous of people who have worked and achieved something in their lives, whilst it is probable they have never had a decent job of work in their adult life.

Another big problem is the planners in the county are far too stringent, and because of this, private enterprise is put off coming to the county to build affordable and social housing.

The National Park Authority and PCC have on occasions frightened private enterprise away.

Look at the obstacles put in the way of the developers of the Royal Gatehouse site in Tenby which probably cost tens of thousand of pounds more and was eventually two years late completing, but now, how much better the area looks and modern.

The National Park planning authority and PCC live in the past, if this county wants private enterprise to complete building projects they must look to the future and be much more relaxed in their planning objectives.

Obviously we need planning controls but we cannot live in the past, Tenby as a town needs bucking up it has been living in the past far too long, and should be brought into the 21st century.

Many other county towns in the county are suffering because of lack of control of the finances over the years, the PCC finance committee do not have a good track record according to Welsh Independent Audit Office, it will be interesting to see what their report will say for this current financial year.

The questionnaire survey presented by PCC on the second homes, I feel was against people’s human rights – “Do you speak Welsh, are you black or white, do you speak English, have a disablement, if so are you cared for are you young or old etc?”

To me it sounds if you are not the right colour, you don’t speak Welsh, you are not able bodied, you are too old you should not have a second home.

What relevance these questions have about who should have a second home and who should pay the proposed premium council tax beats me.

Back to the second home tax premium proposal – who should I write to on the PCC committee instigating this unfair proposition?

Another thought how many PCC and Tenby town councillors have second homes in Wales, England, Scotland, Ireland or on the Continent.

If there are, are they also called “rich people”? And how will they vote? Could be interesting!

MARTIN L STEPHENS

County, town and policing tax payer