Holiday home owners in Rye face a huge increase in their council tax, if budget proposals get the go ahead. On Monday, February 5 Rother District Council’s cabinet considered a range of budget plans for the 2024/25 financial year, ahead of a full council decision later this month. Among the budget proposals — including a general council tax increase of 2.99% — are plans to introduce an 100% council tax premium for second homes from 2025/26.
Alongside this, the council is also considering reducing the time period before an existing 100% premium applies to empty homes. Currently, a property owner can leave a home unoccupied and unfurnished for up to two years before the premium bites; the council is looking at reducing this period to 12 months.
In a report to cabinet, officers say the measures are intended to incentivise empty properties being brought back into use, and to revert the use of second homes to primary residences, as well as provide additional council tax income. 
The measures come alongside a range of other budget proposals, including increased fees and charges, the use of reserves and further savings from the council’s Fit for the Future programme totalling £3.1 million. This figure includes efficiency savings, as well as increased income from the council’s investments and fees and charges. The increased fees and charges will touch on a wide range of areas, from the cost of renting sports pitches to burial fees. In all, these additional charges are expected to bring an additional £160,000 into the council’s budget.
These proposals come alongside a 2.99% council increase, which will see the average band D household pay £204.54 to Rother District Council in 2024/25. The full household bill will be larger, as other local authorities — such as Rye Town Council and East Sussex County Council — are also set to increase their precepts. Despite this, Rother District Council still plans to use £185,000 of its reserves to balance its budget in 2024/25.
If backed by cabinet, the proposals will be put to a full council vote at a meeting expected to be held on Monday, February 26.
Image Credits: Chris Lawson , RDC .
Great news. Hastings Borough Council take note!
One comment – often properties are left empty as the previous owner is deceased and with delays with the Probate Registry preventing sales and thereafter 2 years looks generous but in reality it can be needed .
Agreed that holiday let’s should be taxed. Only pubs and restaurants gain.
Also noticeable how many empty and deteriorating properties there are in Rye.
If empty for more than a year the Town Council should have powers to take them over.
I understand 17% of homes being sold in Rye are sold as second homes or holiday homes. Yes, almost one in five. Quite frankly, I’d charge the owners of these homes at least three times the Council Tax as it’s possibly one of the few ways to stop this rampant ‘touristification’ or ‘Airbnb-isation’ of our town. Homes that are needed by locals who work here are being snapped up by wealthy people who just want a holiday bolthole for a couple of weeks a year, or to let the property to visitors to provide an easy income stream. The second home/buy-to-let demand pushes up property prices for locals looking for a home. Also, the character of the town changes as a result. Many people have remarked how parts of the Citadel have already been hollowed out by Airbnb properties. You should normally be able to secure probate within a year, but government cuts have made this service highly unreliable, that’s true. It seems to me that overall Council Tax for Band D will exceed £3,000 a year this year, which is appalling, given that neither ESCC or RDC are able to provide adequate services for their residents. Local government is in full crisis, as far as I can see.
Spot on, Michael
Hear, hear Michael.
How one must agree with Michael J, having lived in Rope walk from a young age until my twenties, we knew everyone who lived there and the adjoining Eagle Road,and Tower Street, all local people who contributed so much to this town.
I’m lucky enough to be in a position to split my time between two homes, one of which is in Rye. I’ve spent most of my life working in big cities and, now retired, value being able to spend 2 or 3 days most weeks in a community such as Rye, where my family lived for many years. I’ve never rented my house out, it’s never left empty for more than a few days (burglars please note). I pay substantial Council Tax (no discounts for second homes, fair enough) whilst consuming rather few local public funded services (and indeed as second home owner am not allowed some, such as residents’ parking). I try to patronise local shops, services and tradespeople… And spending more time in UK rather than burning off jet fuel seemed like a good idea. But, heigh, maybe if the council wants to squeeze the pips till they squeak… perhaps we should just take the hint and shove off to some sunnier more welcoming clime. I will now stand back and wait the wave of opprobrium.
Yes, but let’s not forget why Rother and ESCC and HBC (notwithstanding the criticisms of the latter in the recent review) are ‘not able to provide adequate services’. It’s because central government has starved them of funds.
With Council Tax more generally, there are absurd anomalies, highlighted recently by the astonishing fact that a £150k house in Hartlepool could conceivably be paying more in council tax than an £8,000,000 house in Westminster… The Exchequer is missing out on millions bcs successive Govts would rather kick the can down the road than re-evaluate the out of date scale upon which rates are calculated… Business Rates are a similar issue, with rates calculated on bricks and mortar (that SMEs likely don’t even own), rather than the value of the business and the contemporary commercial environment. And, of course, online businesses with no physical high street presence are often at a distinct advantage – which is why ppl try it on on the Hg St, then buy it online where it’s cheaper. LibDems would scrap Business Rates and replace them with a Landowner Levy. The landlord would still earn rent on their property, of course. The LDs have been talking about raising CT on 2nd homes for nearly a decade, and I’ve got a feeling that proposals in the manifesto, which isn’t yet out, will be more stringent than the 100% levy. So, hopefully, we’ll find a happy medium for Rye. We want visitors, but our kids will need somewhere to live too!
If a house is a holiday let, and run as a business, then business rates apply, not Council Tax. The Business Rate Exemption Scheme is a nationwide scheme outside the local council’s remit, and allows for a reduction in rates paid depending on the property’s rateable value. As i understand it any changes thus require a change in the law and are separate from Council Tax adjustments made by local authorities
So do you think locals will buy these houses then if the second homers get up and leave? They are very pricey and could remain empty. Also second homers that are renting out these homes on short term basis won’t they just pass the cost on? Wouldn’t the long renters have to pay the increased council tax? How would that work?