Starmer declines to rule out council tax rise.

David49

There is a flood map of the UK if it was mandated to build at least 1 metre above the highest known flood level that would cover most of the residential flood risk, the cost is only a few courses of bricks in the foundations.

As for existing property, I remember York flooding a few years ago and proposals to divert the River Ouse, it would probably cost less to move York or at least the riverside properties.

People make a lot of fuss about flooding on the Ouse at York, mainly because it reliably happens every year and provides easy photo opportunities.

The people of York are quite used to it. The premises that flood every winter, are flood resilient and only need hosing down once the floods recede to be back in business.

I have family living in York. MY DiL's family have lived there for over 70 years. They are used to it.

As for the flood map, what a lovely idea, if only it was implemented. In my local authority, once you have removed Green Belt land and the AONB, more or less, all that is left is flood plain, and niceties about having enough courses of bricks to get the new houses above the flood level bring no joy to those people in existing houses, whose houses, now flood bcause of the new houses on the flood plain.

As for the number of courses needed, now that we have been told that a planned new reservoir will raise the ground water level by 1 metre, these new houses will need a whole new staircase and the 'ground' floor of the houses will need to be nearly 2 metres above garden level.

There is a flood map of the UK if it was mandated to build at least 1 metre above the highest known flood level that would cover most of the residential flood risk, the cost is only a few courses of bricks in the foundations.

As for existing property, I remember York flooding a few years ago and proposals to divert the River Ouse, it would probably cost less to move York or at least the riverside properties.

Building on the flood plains is crazy. Fortunately that isn't a problem where I live. We get flooding at high tide but there's nowhere to build close to the beaches.

Local medical centres objected to the building near me. They said they are already struggling and say an average of 3 people per new house that's another 1200 people needing a doctor and dentist. How can they cope?

Mollygo

M0nica

The simplest solution is for all local taxes to be abolished and replaced by a local income tax, which can vary from authority to authority but everyone's contribution would be decided by their income.

How would that work in areas where the majority are poor, or in areas like I saw on TV last night, where most of the homes are holiday homes?

All councils get large sums of money from the government. Government subsidies should be adjusted to make sure those poor areas with low tax takes make it up through the government subsidy.

In our village about 200 houses have been built on the local flood plain. The result is that older houses adjoining the new estates, that never flooded early thiscentury, now flood regularly.

Not only that, Thames Water plan to drown most of our parish under the biggest raised bank reservoir in Europe. This will lead to a 1 metre rise in the water table. From the water on our Village Green at the moment and the surrounding fields, the water table is already only a few centimetres below ground level. TW assures us this will not make flooding worse!!!!!!!!!!1

Mollygo

^I think flood defences and the like are the responsibility of the Environment Agency.^

But they have built and are continuing to build on land that has already been flooded. So where does the money for the environment agency come from?

Probably the general taxation that we are told doesn't fund anything?

I am guessing, but I think the EA needs to have a national overview, as if flood defences operated locally one council could divert a river in a way that could impact on a neighbouring area.

Rory Stewart tried to get something done about flood defences I believe when he was a government minister? Just as he tried to do something about the prison service. I don’t think he had a lot of support from his, then, party. ( I’m happy to be corrected on this).

I think flood defences and the like are the responsibility of the Environment Agency.

But they have built and are continuing to build on land that has already been flooded. So where does the money for the environment agency come from?

Mollygo

The new estate currently being built near us mentioned no schools or shops or other facilities on the plans, though it is near a main road with a bus service.
The river has flooded houses on several occasions over the last 10 years, but that evidently doesn’t matter.
Will CT used to provide clear up services for areas like that? It isn’t currently.

I doubt it. Much as I would like to continue to live in a small town, I fully understand that people have to live somewhere, so am not one to get annoyed about housing being built, but there should be laws about ensuring that services are adequate for the increased population.

I think flood defences and the like are the responsibility of the Environment Agency.

I remember being delighted by the Poll Tax replacing rates. I lived alone, no children. Next door, same style house, were five adults all earning - and we paid exactly the same rates, so totally unfair in my view

Yes and when you complained the smug people next door with kids just smiled and said "thats the system". Just like the selfish families today dont mind being subbed out by single people who pay 3/4 of what a house with 4 occupants will pay.

I deliberately left an unpaid rates bill at every address I even moved from.

Iam 64 Interested to read your post. I live south of london, crowded, expensive, traffic congestion dreadful etc etc and someone I know told me yesterday that she’s moving to Morecambe. It’s a long way away, she is fed up with living here and I don’t blame her.

I lived in Bare, a Morecambe village, in my teens. It’s my go to winter beach dog walk. Morecambe has potential I’ve always thought it could be like Hebden Bridge by the sea. It had WOMAD music festival until it de-camped to Reading. It had a glorious LIDO which was foolishly paved over. It has the Midland hotel and the views over the bay are a joy.
It’s getting a garden like the Eden in /cornwall. It doesn’t have the extent of substance misuse we see in Blackpool and oh yes, Happy Mount Park is great for children

The new estate currently being built near us mentioned no schools or shops or other facilities on the plans, though it is near a main road with a bus service.
The river has flooded houses on several occasions over the last 10 years, but that evidently doesn’t matter.
Will CT used to provide clear up services for areas like that? It isn’t currently.

I live in what used to be a small town. It has more than doubled in population over the past 25 years. The extra CT has not been spent on infrastructure, as far as I can tell. I suppose it's not meant to though. CT is supposedly for services, like bin emptying etc, and the more residents we have the more bins have to be emptied.

The doctors, dentists, school places and so on - not to mention transport just have to struggle on. I fully understand that people have to live somewhere, and have no objection to house building, but the infrastructure needs to keep pace, and it hasn't.

Where I live there has been lots of house building going on. Currently I can see a new estate of 400 houses being built. People seem to like moving to the south west near the coast. My council tax is about £2k a year, that new estate is likely to generate an extra £800k a year. With the other developments they must be getting millions a year in extra council tax so shouldn't that help the budget without big CT increases?

With no offence meant to Blackpoolers, I'd be surprised if many people wanted a second home there. Maybe if it were gentrified, but not as it stands.

I agree, gullygranny. I think there are probably winners and losers with either system, but if we are looking at fairness it makes sense for everyone to pay. Not as much as a household pays now, of course, but a two-person household should pay less than a four-person one, all things being equal.

I might think differently if not for the huge discrepancies in house prices, such as the example I gave above of the tiny but expensive house which will attract huge CT, and the large family house in a cheaper area that does not. As things stand, cheaper areas will always bump along with poor services, as getting enough money to pay for better ones depends on there being enough expensive properties where people are charged more.

The reason I chose Blackpool is that it is such a miserable impoverished and run down town

That is the reason I thought somewhere like Blackpool might welcome a sudden influx of second home owners and not want to discourage them by extra taxes.

I do not see its rival as being the south west, but a good cheap alternative to all tose who would love a second home in the Lake District, but cannot afford it.

Perhaps the best alternative that would aid a struggling town, would be Morecambe with the magnificent views across Morecambe bay to the Lake District beyond.

MaizieD

I'm wondering, MOnica, who would find Blackpool in winter a desirable place to be in?

Don't people prefer the South West, where it is rather warmer?

In Blackpool, I isn’t only the weather that discourages 2nd home ownership. Blackpool is one of most depressed and deprived towns in the north west. Its hospital is overstretched and its A and E department a dreadful place. Levels of drug / alcohol addiction and abuse mean A and E is a dreadful place for patients and staff.
The town is dreadfully run down. That’s why properties don’t sell. I occasionally drive over to give my dogs a run on the glorious beaches (closed to dogs May-end September). I have fond memories of the town in the 1950’s and family photographs of my mother, her siblings and their parents dressed in their best in Blackpool. Like many other families from the north west, they’d save all year for a week in a Guest House in Blackpool.

I remember being delighted by the Poll Tax replacing rates. I lived alone, no children. Next door, same style house, were five adults all earning - and we paid exactly the same rates, so totally unfair in my view. My joy was short-lived.

I am still convinced that any local taxes should be person-based, not property-based. I feel the same about the road fund licence - pay for the mileage you do, not the car you drive.

I'm wondering, MOnica, who would find Blackpool in winter a desirable place to be in?

Don't people prefer the South West, where it is rather warmer?

Doodledog

OldFrill

The wealthy were better off with the poll tax.

But how? I'm not saying they weren't, but I'm not sure how it would work out like that.

'Rates' have basically been a tax on property for centuries. The Council Tax still is.

In theory, the more valuable your property is, the more you pay (I know it doesn't work like that in practice as there are examples of massive discrepancies in CT payable on the same banded properties in different council areas).

So, it was envisaged that with the Poll Tax, all adult individuals being charged at the same rate, the wealthy, who had been paying more rates on their more expensive dwellings, would actually be paying less than they had in the past. No doubt, at the time, there were plenty of worked examples to make this point.

The important thing, I think, is that everyone should have access to the same level of services, whether they live in a rich area or a poor one, and regardless of what income they have.

Often it is those with less money who need more services, and it is wrong that these are cut when councils don't have enough money to provide them. That is likely to create a vicious circle, as those who can afford to move away from an area with pared back services are likely to do so, and ghettos are created.

How to ensure that councils get enough money to pay for everyone to have access to what they need in a way that is fair to everyone is the tricky bit.

Let's take it as read that the sick and disabled, the very young (and, potentially, the very old) should be excluded from paying, as should other groups I haven't mentioned but who are at a disadvantage when it comes to paying.

Obviously, people in single occupier households use far less of everything than do large families, so should they pay more? If not, why not? They will have more coming in, and will create more rubbish, use things like libraries (or have the option to do so) more, get more police protection and so on.

OTOH, where people are genuinely overcrowded, as opposed to living in homes with granny flats or several bedrooms, the chances are they are doing so for lack of money, and can't afford higher household bills.

However, a small house that may be overcrowded by a couple with one child might cost a lot of money (eg the two-up, two-down mentioned on another thread that cost £600k) and therefore attract higher bills than a large house in a cheaper area in which a large family can live comfortably. The couple in the first example are likely to be stretched already to pay the mortgage, will be paying to commute (as the fact that there is no parking at all will make car ownership difficult) and probably also paying for childcare. Why should the value of their home mean that they pay more than the family in the second house?

Income is already taxed, so is it fair to tax it again for local services? Doing that would again advantage areas with lots of wealthy people, as the tax take would be higher, and we'd be back to the ghetto situation when those who could afford to moved out of poorer ones.

It's not straightforward, and I'd be interested in genuine suggestions (as opposed to jibes about channeling wealth to the wealthy) of how to raise enough money to make everyone's lives more comfortable. What may seem like small cuts can make a huge difference to people's lives, so the ROI can quickly be seen in people's happiness levels.

The less money you have the more you notice cuts. If you can get in the car to go to Waterstones for the book club book it is very different from having to get an unreliable (and expensive) bus to the next town because your library has closed and you can't afford to buy it. Multiplied out over lots of such 'inconveniences' people's quality of life can vary wildly depending on where they live and how well their council is funded.

I think that when it comes to taxing holiday homes, we should do what the French do and allow each council to decide whether holiday homes are an issue in their area, and if they are they can increase taxes. But there may well be areas where councils would welcome the money that second home owners would bring in.

Our house in France was not in an area where holiday homes were a problem and we bought it, back in the arly 1990s where British second home owners were greeted with open arms because we tended to buy derelict houses and renovate them - which is what we did. When we sold it earlier this year it was to a local couple who bought it as a retirement home as their DD and SiL lived next door.

Along the French coast where some seaside communities are 90% second homes there the taxes are being doubled and trebled.

In the UK I suspect a town like Blackpool, where you can buy a flat overlooking the promenade for under £25,000 and there are countless numbers of properties under £50,000 being sold at auction because they have not sold any other way. I think the town would welcome an influx of second homers willing to refurbish properties themselves, using local DIY stores or local crafts people and who would come to the town in winter months and spend some money in the local shops.

I’m increasingly convinced that holiday lets/second homes should pay enhanced council tax.
My large town has areas of real deprivation and nearby houses worth up to £1. If the money went to the council that should ensure it’s re-distributed in services, fairly