SECOND homes council tax premiums in Pembrokeshire are to drop from the current 200 percent rate to 150 percent, despite warnings it could lead to a council tax rise next year of as much as 14 percent.

At today’s October 17 meeting of Pembrokeshire County Council’s full council, two attempts to lower the second homes council tax premium in Pembrokeshire were made, with members hearing the changes could lose the council between £2.6m and £5.2m, and could increase next year’s overall council tax rise to as much as 18.8 percent.

Pembrokeshire is currently expected to see an 11.14 percent council tax rise in the next financial year.

Second-home owners, since this financial year, have been paying a 200 percent premium on their council tax, effectively a treble rate, following an increase from the previous 100 percent (or double rate) premium.

Under Welsh Government legislation, local authorities are able to increase the council premium on second homes to as much as 300 percent, effectively a quadrable rate.

Long-term empty properties in the county are also currently charged a premium council tax rate: 100 percent after 24 months, 200 percent after 36 months, and 300 percent after five years.

At the October 17 meeting of Pembrokeshire’s full council, members were recommended to back the premium remaining at the current 200 percent, with the long-term empty property rates also remaining at the current levels, and to write to Welsh Government asking for a reduction in the 182-day criteria for holiday lets rate relief.

At the meeting, two alternative proposals for a lower second homes premium rate were brought before members; a 100 percent premium by Conservative group leader Cllr Di Clements, and 150 percent by Independent Group (IPG) leader Cllr Huw Murphy.

Members were told by director of resources Jon Haswell that a reduction of the premium to 100 percent would lead to additional financial pressures to the council of £5.2m, which would lead to a predicted council tax increase of 18.87 percent against an expected general increase of 11.14 percent.

Cabinet member for finance, Cllr Joshua Beynon moved the recommendations be backed, adding: “Every 25 percent reduction would reduce the amount raised by the council by £1.3m, already we have a very difficult financial situation, that is the reality of local government finance, we are stretched in terms of demand for services.”

Cllr Clements, in her amendment, said the council was using second-home-owners as “cash cows,” with the revenue raised used to fund the general budget.

“This policy is a blunt tool, for me it’s about fairness and proportionality.

“I question the financial sustainability of this local authority if it relies on these council tax powers; when second home-owners throw in the towel where will the council go?

“In relation to second home-owners the message [we send] is clear: ‘We don’t want you’.”

Cllr Tony Wilcox said that any reduction in the rate for second-home-owners would impact on ordinary council tax-payers in the county.

“Why are we penalising 85-95 percent of our own people to pander for a political point?” he asked, adding: “The overwhelming majority of our residents aren’t affected by this, we are going to penalise the majority.

“I really can’t see how we are contemplating really high council tax rises for the majority of our county.”

Cllr Clement’s amendment was defeated; Cllr Murphy’s own amendment then being heard, with Conservative group member Cllr Aled Thomas, urging his fellow Conservatives to support the independent group, saying: “This is a half-way step, I would hope the group would put their vote behind the IPG.”

Council leader Cllr Jon Harvey, who said Cllr Murphy had previously been supportive of the 200 percent rate, warned: “On this proposal we are talking about £2.6m loss to the council, or about three-and-a-half percent on council tax. What additional services are you prepared to cut, or are you prepared to increase council tax over and above?

“I am not prepared to justify to our residents why I voted to reduce second homes tax and then put that burden or service cuts on them, they certainly will be worse off in my opinion if this goes through.”

After Cllr Murphy’s ammended was backed, a later proposal by Cllr Alan Dennison to change the empty property premium to 300 percent after two years was deferred, being considered by the council tax working group before coming before Cabinet at its December meeting.

Members also agreed to write to Welsh Government asking them to reduce the 182 days let threshold.

THE DUPUTY First Minister told the Senedd he is optimistic that revenue generated by UK-led reforms to water pollution regulations will stay in Wales.

Huw Irranca-Davies, who is also climate change secretary, appeared before a Senedd committee for scrutiny on Westminster’s water (special measures) bill on October 16.

Pressed by the Conservatives’ Janet Finch-Saunders about funds from pollution fines going to the UK Treasury, he said the Welsh Government wants revenue to stay in Wales.

Mr Irranca-Davies told the committee: “That’s the nature of the engagement we currently have with the UK Government. It’s probably fair to say those discussions are going well.”

Plaid Cymru’s Delyth Jewell raised Natural Resources Wales’ evidence on cost recovery, saying fines resulting from prosecution would return to the UK Treasury.

“We’re very cognisant of that …,” the minister replied. “We’re in discussions with the UK Government on exactly that point – making sure the funds … would actually be returned.”

He was optimistic as he pointed to progress on clawing back other funds under the bill.

Llŷr Gruffydd, who chairs the climate change committee, asked whether the bill is in line with Welsh Government policies.

Mr Irranca-Davies said the bill is aligned and builds on progress, providing an opportunity to collaborate on a UK basis as rivers “don’t respect national boundaries”.

He recognised the need to make sure the measures fit Welsh Water’s not-for-profit model.

Calling for automatic penalties, Ms Finch-Saunders warned it takes “so long” to get Welsh Water and NRW to respond to pollution incidents.

The Tory asked: “Do you actually believe we’ve got the right enforcement procedure?”

Mr Irranca-Davies said Welsh ministers fully support proposals for automatic penalties for certain offences which will be set out in secondary legislation in the Senedd.

Julie Morgan asked about civil sanctions for water industry offences.

Mr Irranca-Davies told the Labour backbencher the bill would modify the required standard of proof from beyond reasonable doubt to the balance of probabilities.

John Griffiths, also a Labour Senedd member, asked why Wales would not be included in a legal requirement for pollution incident reduction plans to hold the industry to account.

He pointed out that Welsh Water has been categorised as “lagging” on water pollution.

Mr Irranca-Davies said: “On reflection, we’ve come to a different conclusion on this,” so ministers will be seeking an amendment to the bill to extend the requirement to Wales.

The Senedd will vote on consent for the bill because elements fall within devolved powers.

THE SENEDD narrowly rejected calls to temporarily halt the sale of council-owned farms amid concerns they are disappearing at an alarming rate due to financial constraints.

James Evans led the debate calling on the Welsh Government to impose a Wales-wide temporary ban on the sale of council-owned farms.

He said: “These farms are not just pieces of land, they’re the lifeblood of rural communities. For generations, they have provided opportunities for our young farmers….

“But now, these farms are being sold off at an alarming rate. And the consequences can be devastating, not just for farming, but the way of life in our rural countryside.”

The Conservative said council-owned farms offer young people who are “locked out” of the agricultural sector a chance to get on the farming ladder through affordable tenancies.

“Without them, we risk shutting the door on the next generation,” he warned.

Mr Evans pointed to 2023 statistics showing there are 972 council-owned farms, covering 21,000 hectares – “a huge proportion of our farms across Wales”.

Calling for a moratorium, the shadow rural affairs secretary said: “We need to pause. We need to take a breath and fully assess the long-term impacts of these sales.

“It’s about giving ourselves time to develop a proper, sustainable strategy for the future of farming in Wales.”

Mr Evans, who represents Brecon and Radnorshire, said many of the farms are in Welsh-speaking communities as he raised concerns about risks to the language.

He told the Senedd: “I urge this Welsh Government to act with urgency. We cannot sit back and watch as our council farms disappear one by one.”

Backing the motion, his Plaid Cymru counterpart Llŷr Gruffydd said all parties need to hold their hands up about the issue becoming a “political football”.

He said: “The biggest irony, maybe, is that much of this is being driven as a result of Conservative-led austerity, which has put – [interruption] no, no, no – that’s the irony of the situation but I will desist from making that point.

“Look, they have been left with no other option, many of these councils.”

Mr Gruffydd, who has been calling for a national summit on the future of council farms since 2016, urged the Welsh Government to grasp the nettle.

He said: “Ultimately, yes, the responsibility rests with local authorities but the government can’t wash its hands of the problem.

“These farms are a national asset and there’s a pressing need for leadership.”

Responding to the debate on October 16, Huw Irranca-Davies said council farms are important assets offering an invaluable route into agriculture for young people.

Wales’ rural affairs secretary told the Senedd the 2023 Agriculture Act does not give ministers powers of control over councils to sell land.

Mr Irranca-Davies, who is also deputy first minister in the Welsh Government, said: “The sale of land and decisions about how they approach it is for local authorities.”

He added: “We do not have a statutory basis to intervene in the sell-off of land, so the call for a moratorium is misplaced.”

Senedd members voted 25-22 against the Conservative motion. The motion as amended by the Welsh Government was agreed 25-13 with nine abstaining.