Councillor Dougie Philand of the Argyll First group, has notified the council’s budget proposals to community councils in the Mid Argyll area which he represents.
He stresses the very short timescales before the decisions will be made on 10th February and is asking for feedback on reactions to the various proposals contained.
He asks people to contact either himself or the other two councillors for the area – Donnie Macmillan and Alison Hay, pointing out that both are in the ruling coalition and so may be able to ask effectively for changes.
He is himself concerned with the proposed closure of Lochgilphead Library (Page 203 of the 300 page budget papers). He feels that: ‘Having just spent 120kto refurbish it last year, I don’t know if this is a good suggestion’.
Councillor Philand points out that ‘The one thing the leader of the council will insist from any counter proposal is where we find the balance as it is a legal requirement to have a balanced budget’.
In this instance of course, the Leader’s stance on this carries considerably less weight because the council is not attempting to balance this budget and is raiding the reserves.
Since the raid is being undertaken to cover the £5,.6 million mistake made by the Council Leader, the Chief Executive and the Head of Strategic Finance, there has to be room for elected councilors to play hardball to a greater degree than usual.
Councillor Philand will, however, welcome any suggestions on alternative savings to the Lochgilphead library/
He says he is meeting with all the opposition councillors on Monday and that they should each have had, by then, some feedback from their communities’.
Most importantly, Councillor Philand is currently trying to see if there is any way the period until the decision can be extended. He has asked the Head of Strategic Finance what the legal timelines are to see if opposition councillors (who get less time than others to study the detail) can get longer to scrutinise this very important document .
Why should Councillor Philand and the other councillors outside Walsh’s party ‘get less time to study the detail’? Aren’t all councillors elected to represent us – the people – so howcome some are being discriminated against?. What’s going on? or am I being very naive?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Not one word of apology Walsh or Sally Loudon for screwing up the COSLA negotiations which turned the budget problem into a full blown crisis! And what about the council’s cash reserves, £40 million and change, so I hear. The purpose of having reserves is to help us in time of emergency, and the financial hole which that pair of eejits have dug for Argyll is surely an emergency. And how can the council draw up a meaningfull budget at this time when the main focus of their spending cut backs was centred on school closures and due to the stunning incompetence of the aforementioned pair, with contributions from Sneddon and Carol Walker, this process has hardly even begun. In reply to your qustion Bob, the reason that only the select few are privy to the details is because incompetent leaders always revert to secrecy in order to escape rigorous scrutiny of their decisions in a vain attempt to cover up their shortcomings.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The £40m in reserves is a bit of a red herring as they are not really available funds.
The unaudited 09/10 accounts are linked to below.
http://www.argyll-bute.gov.uk/sites/default/files/UnAudited%20Accounts%2009-10.pdf
(There will be changes between the audited and non audited ones but they are unlikely to be enormous).
Based on the unaudited ones the Council have £32.167m in their General Fund reserves of which £27.638m are earmarked. This leaves them unallocated reserves of £4.529m which is 1.7% of their net operating expenditure. This percentage of unallocated reserves is not excessive and it is prudent of the Council to hold levels of unallocated reserves in or around 2% of net operating expenditure.
If you look at page 52 of the linked unaudited accounts you will see the breakdown of the earmarked £27.638m. There are only three material numbers. The Waste PPP and NPDO are two of them (and these are financial commitments the Council cannot get out of so it is right that they are earmarked) and the third is £6.9m for money receved from billing council tax for second homes. It appears as if this has been earmarked for the strategic housing fund which must have been a council decision when it was decided to apply CT bills on second homes.
There may be some scope for challenging whether all that money should be earmarked for strategic housing however I am not sure about any statutory requirement.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I take it those reserves do not take into account the crown jewels in storage at Kilmory and other places?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Just to be clear on the Strategic Housing Fund, this is income from the reduced Council Tax discount on second homes. The legislation states that this income MUST be used for affordable housing. This was not a decision taken by the Council. The legislation states clearly that any income derived from the reduction in Council Tax discount on second homes must be used on affordable housing.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Thanks for that clarification Cllr Freeman.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Just to comment on your headline about the Scottish Government and their actions.
The Scottish government makes proposals about the total money allocated to Counils. It has an agreement with Cosla that Cosla should argue with them about the total, and that Cosla should make the proposal as to the allocation within that total. What happened this year that the total incompents representing A & B failed even to question the basis of that Cosla decision – not the Holyrood Finance Secretary.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
But will, I am sure insist on holding their salaries, and maybe even the bonuses they expect to get, or have already organised – just like the Bankers!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
For Gerry FIsher: The three Argyll First councillors, unable to persuade their colleagues to make it a collective gesture in these hard-with-worse-to-come times, took a voluntary 10% cut in their salary and pay it into a specially set up trust fund to benefit their communities.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
£6.9 mil for affordable homes. Has anyone seen any of these affordable homes? Genuine question.
Or are these like the elusive wild haggis we keep sending tourists off into the hills to find?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I refer to Crazy She-Bat’s question on affordable housing which hopefully I can provide some information on. As many of your readers will be aware, I was the previous Housing Spokesperson for Argyll & Bute until I was thrown out of the Alliance of Independents, which also resulted in me being sacked from the new Lib Dem / Tory / Alliance of Independents administration.
Your regular readers will be aware that this arose as a result of the anonymous lies that accused me of inciting the public to near vilolence after the Council meeting on 25 November 2010 when I voted not to support the school closure proposals. I have no doubt that this was because I did not toe the administration line to support the school closure proposals.
Although I do not have all the information on the Strategic Housing Fund to hand, I can confirm that in 2008/09, the awards from the Fund towards affordable housing developments in Argyll & Bute included: Kilmun – £242k, Rothesay – £400k, Oban – £130k, Mull – £360k, Lochgilphead – £801k and Bowmore – £60k all of which came to a total of £1.993 million.
Gerry Fisher refers to salaries and bonuses. It should be remembered that the first thing the new Lib Dem / Tory / Alliance of Independent administration did at the Council meeting on 6 December 2010, was to award themselves an extra £8,119 in allowances at a time when the Council is facing cuts in the region of £11 million. Difficult to see how this can be justified when services to the public are being cut and staff are losing their jobs?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
As the Council’s housing spokesperson until recently ,I wonder if you can help me out here Councillor Freeman .
I am under the impression that the SNP administration proposed and had passed in the Scottish parliament , legislation which allowed councils at their discretion , to increase the amount of tax payable on second homes from the previous level of 50% .
Can you tell me if that is the position ? Was it Argyll & Bute Councillors who took the decision to almost double the amount of council tax paid by second home owners in this area ?
A £6,900 000 tax in Argyll & Bute so far according to Crazy She Bat’s figures.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
For Kintyre 1: The previous Labour / Lib Dem Scottish Government brought in new legislation a number of years ago that allowed local authorities to reduce the Council Tax discount on second homes from a 50% discount to a 10% discount. The legislation was clear that any additional income that councils generated from reducing the discount on second homes (increasing the Council Tax due on second homes) must be used to promote affordable housing opportunities in the most pressured housing markets within the Council area.
At the Council meeting on 21 December 2004, it was agreed to make use of the new statutory powers to reduce the Council Tax discount on second homes from 50% to 10% and that the change would take effect from 1 April 2005. At the present time, this generates approximately £1.7 million annually which is deposited in the Strategic Housing Fund. The estimated balance in the Fund that will be carried forward into 2011/12 is £6.4 million.
Last year, the Scottish Government issued a housing discussion paper (Fresh Thinking – New Ideas) in which they were looking for feedback on a wide range of housing related matters. One of the issues in the document related to the possibility of councils being allowed to increase Council Tax on second and holiday homes above the 100% base rate with any additional income generated being used for affordable housing.
At the end of last week, the Scottish Government announced that Councils will now be given new powers to increase Council Tax on Scotland’s 25,000 long term empty homes raising up to £130 million over four years to build low cost homes. The changes are expected to deliver around 800 homes annually and support 1,500 jobs in the construction sector and wider economy. The measures are contained in a new policy paper, Homes Fit for The 21st Century, which sets out the Scottish Government’s vision for housing to 2020.
I hope that this has helps to answer the points raised by Kintyre 1?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I refer to Councillor George Freemans earlier post stating
“It should be remembered that the first thing the new Lib Dem / Tory / Alliance of Independent administration did at the Council meeting on 6 December 2010, was to award themselves an extra £8,119 in allowances”
I reallly cannot believe the impudence of these people!
I think the group (Conservatives, Lib Dem and Alliance) should be re-named the “ConDemAll” party!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Thank you for the information Councillor Freeman , it is refreshing to find a Councillor willing to engage in such a discussion .
I stand corrected as you say the legislation to allow increased second home council tax was proposed by Lab/Lib administration (supported by the SNP?), but note the latest move is by the SNP .
This £1.7 million in Argyll & Bute , is money which has been taken in tax from second home owners and which is therefore not available for repairs or improvements to the properties ,no doubt local tradespeople have suffered as a result .
Many people will be aware of the substantial number of former RAF houses at the now renamed Sound of Kintyre . A fair proportion of these were bought by people of modest means to escape the city and enjoy the many attractions of the Kintyre peninsula . They would most likely have remained unsold without the interest of ‘outsiders’ .
The idea that second home owners are able to pay the vastly increased sums demanded by the council without the increases impacting on the individuals , tradespeople and service providers in the area is in my view plain wrong .
Tax increases , for no matter how they are dressed up , that is what they are , such as the latest proposed one on empty properties are more likely to deter improvements to the housing stock rather than assist .
Can you enlighten readers further Councillor Freeman by telling us if you supported the use of the powers given by the legislation ?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
For Kintyre 1: Call me pedantic but to say that the legislation to allow increased second home Council Tax was “proposed” by the Lab/Lib administration (supported by the SNP) is not correct. The legislation was to allow the discount on Council Tax on second homes to be reduced but not removed. These properties still benefit from a reduced Council Tax level. The legislation was not proposed by the Lab/Lib administration. It was introduced by the Lab/Lib administration and as far as I can recall, it was supported by all the main political parties in the Scottish Parliament.
The £1.7 million has been collected from property owners, many of whom do not live in Argyll & Bute, but who still enjoy a discount on the Council Tax that they pay. This is a discount that it can well be argued is funded by the other Council Tax payers in Argyll & Bute. There is absolutely no evidence that there has been any reduction in the level of repairs and maintenance of second homes in Argyll & Bute as a result, and therefore no evidence that local tradespeople have suffered as a result. Given the additional houses that this fund has helped to build, there is a strong argument that local tradespeople have benefited from this legislation.
I am well aware of the issue of empty MoD properties. This is an issue that I have been involved in over many years. It is an issue in many parts of Argyll & Bute including Helensburgh and Rhu. The Council has helped to bringing a number of these properties back into use which has benefited many local people.
I note your comments about “the idea that second home owners are able to pay the vastly increased sums demanded by the council without the increases impacting on the individuals, tradespeople and service providers in the area” and that in your view, this is wrong. These are not vastly increased sums. As I have already stated, these properties / owners enjoy a discount in the level of the Council Tax that they pay that is funded by other Council Tax payers across Argyll & Bute.
Although the Council has not taken a decision on the question of increased Council Tax on Long Term Empty properties, and at this stage, the legislation does not exist to allow this to happen, I can confirm that I fully support such a proposal. This helps to bring empty house back into use which benefits the residents of Argyll & Bute. I get angry every time some young couple speaks to me about the difficulties of securing a house in Argyll & Bute when they see so many houses lying empty. In my view, this is totally unacceptable.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Four years ago a housing association which I think was West Highland Housing Association built 16 new houses in Port Charlotte Islay. The cost of these “affordable houses” worked out at £133,000 each.
I do not agree with Councillor Freeman’s views regarding the reduction for second homes council tax. Not every council in Scotland reduced the second homes council tax discount to 10%. Dundee City Council are at present still giving a 50% second homes council tax discount.
If Argyll & Bute Council are needing to raise funds to balance their books they should be investigating the people who rent out their properties for holiday lets/long term lets but only pay council tax (some with 10% council tax reduction), when they should be paying business rates with separate charges for uplift of rubbish.
This is why couples moving to Argyll & Bute find it difficult to obtain suitable accomodation.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Thank you Councillor Freeman for the information.
re: £6.9 mil I quoted was from the info supplied by Integrity for the 09/10 tax year
What makes me wonder, is – we have such a desperate need for affordable housing in A&B and yet there is apparently £6.4mil being carried over into 11/12. Is it just me or should this money not be spent on providing these houses rather than sitting in the council’s bank account gaining them interest?
Surely the resulting Council Tax due from these homes would then give them a legitimate income from the £6.4mil and meet some of the housing need that is out there and part and parcel of the problems facing communities all over the region.
Rural communities are in decline and the council is escalating this problem by removing pieces of essential infrastructure – yet here we are being told of money that is sitting there to be invested in part of the solution.
Council Tax on second homes should not receive any kind of discount as far as I’m concerned. If you own a holiday home, you still use the services of the council such as rubbish collection, roads and lighting AND you depend on the locals to keep the area looking decent, respectable and inviting for yourselves or customers. Why should they get a discount, when we are forced to make up the shortfall AND do all the work in maintaining the communities these homes are dependent on.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Crazy She-Bat. I do not agree with your views about not giving second home owners a Council Tax discount. Would you rather that these houses many of which were in a poor state of repair prior to being purchased by people for a second home were lying empty and falling to bits. Second home owners cannot be in two places at the same time. If they live in Glasgow and have a second home in Argyll & Bute they are paying Council Tax to two separate Council Authorities. These second home owners are using their hard earned money to try to maintain two homes for their own use.
There is a simple solution which is used in many other parts of the world. Scrap Council Tax and replace it with a local sales tax. Then the more you spend in Argyll & Bute the more sales tax will accrue to the council. It is not rocket science. If it can be done elsewhere then surely in can done in Scotland.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Treblet, sorry if we disagree on this, but if that property was falling apart in disrepair it would then have been “affordable” and would give a chance to a local person to take it on as a proper living breathing home and stop yet another family heading off to civilisation. And why should the rest of the council tax paying population be made to pay for second home owners 10% rebate? You take on a second home, you take on all the associated costs and that includes council tax and if you are in a position to own a second home I don’t think an extra 10% council tax is going to break the bank for you.
What about all the young people who cannot get a home in the area and have no choice other than to leave? What about all the families here who would love to raise their kids in a rural area but can’t because there are no 3 bedroom houses available to live in – just rent for a week at a time at astronomical costs?
Second home owners are playing a part in the de-population of the rural areas. What exactly do they bring to benefit local communities? Most don’t even involve themselves with locals.
As far as having a local sales tax… yes, just what we need – making things dearer right now and who does it hit the hardest? The poor. Those already living in poverty. Yes we have people in poverty in Argyll. Who already have higher living costs by choosing to live rurally and away from the big towns and cities. It will further drive a stake in the new “Highland clearances”. And tourists will have even more high prices to moan about as, lets be frank, most shops are ripping them off already. Then we’ll lose them too, jobs will go – but hey those people with second homes will be ok as they have nothing to worry about now they’ve escaped paying their council tax completely.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I have to agree with Crazy here – second home owners in our area have offered to pay more council tax if it would keep the schools open – they understand by having their second home a local family are having to go for affordable housing in the big towns therefore fewer kids for the school.
As far as I can see most second homes are in the smallest of communities and most affordable housing is being built in or nearer the towns – no forward thinking there for the school rolls. But that would be called insight and is lacking in any quantity at Kilmory!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Second homes are indeed a blight on rural Scotland (indeed pretty much rural anywhere).
The primary need in an area is for affordable housing to support the working population: second homes not only reduce the availability of housing stock but also drive up prices generally. This is a bad thing. People should be discouraged from buying second homes and one way of doing that is through taxation. I don’t see any justification for a discount at all. However, I agree that Council tax should be scrapped but rather than a local sales tax (which would be a disaster for both locals and for tourism) I would advocate a tax on land as the fairest means of wealth distribution – it would also help dampen down the ridiculous speculation around property that has in part led to us all being horribly in debt to the banks.
It is disingenuous to suggest that all second homes were formerly hovels falling into ruin. I am all for people holidaying in rural areas but let them stay in B&B’s, hotels or in self-catering accommodation and properly bring income to the area.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Receipts from the sale of council houses to their tenants could be used to pay for more homes to be built , but sadly this SNP administration has taken away the opportunity to buy despite the success and popularity of the policy in Argyll & Bute .
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
For Kintyre 1: It should be noted that the legislation on the Right to Buy Scheme has not changed yet. Even when it does change, all existing tenants will retain the Right to Buy. It will only be new tenacies that will not have that right.
It should also be noted that as a minority administration, the SNP Government cannot put any legislation through the Scottish Parliament without the support of the other political parties.
It was a popular policy that was introduced by Maggie Thatcher many years ago, but it was the tax payer who funded the massive discounts that were available to those who purchased their houses under the Right to Buy Scheme. It is also a policy that now sees many of our communities with no homes available to rent to local residents who cannot afford to get into the owner occupied market.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Also For Kintyre 1: What is the point in Council’s selling a house with discount at say £40,000 when it requires the tax payer to then find approximately £140,000 to replace it?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Denying an existing tenant the opportunity to own their council home will not increase the supply of houses available at all . The occupier will have to remain as a tenant .
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Kintyre 1 – how many ex-council houses are now owned as second homes? – that is the point – across Scotland some of the most sought after houses are ex-council. What were once seen as social housing are now nice large roomed houses with mature gardens in quiet areas.
To help save rural communities there should be a direct correlation between the number of holiday homes and affordable houses on a village by village basis – as I said previously there is no point in building an affordable house in Lochgilphead to replace a second home in Ulva, Achnamara or Kilchrenan.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
closuremumtoo
You tell me the number…..I am willing to bet it is a tiny percentage of the almost half a million council houses now sold
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Perhaps in Argyll it would be more relevent to find the number of ex-estate workers cottages, ex-forestry houses as well as council houses – but Kintyre 1 do you agree that the affordable housing is being built in the wrong place for rural development – for some reason this concept of affordable “social” housing always becomes a “scheme development” in or on the outskirts of a town rather than integrated into the smaller communities that really need it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I always have been, and always will be, opposed to the right to buy scheme. It was a dreadful policy which took the better housing stock out of circulation and left behind the worst ones for those in need. I find it very frustrating that public money funded the build of these houses for individuals to then profit by buying them at a vastly discounted rate and then selling them on for high profits.
It was another Thatcher scheme which increased the gap between the poor and the wealthy and contributed, along with many others, to Britain’s poverty rates rocketing.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
An Oban developer got permission to build his affordable housing 3 miles from the original development (ganavan).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“took the better housing stock out of circulation” , as far as I am aware the houses are still in use , the owners did not buy them to knock them down . You just have to look around and see the improvements carried out on the properties.
It stands to reason that if more people are home owners there is a reduction in the demand for social housing .
One route into home ownership I would be very keen to encourage would be self-build and the council should be doing all it can here to help meet the aspirations of those wishing to build their own home .
I support the use of council house sales revenues to build more affordable homes but have little confidence that the authorities can build them where they are needed most and I cannot understand the comment above that the sale of council houses contributed to “poverty rates rocketing”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Kintyre1
My point was that it took decent stock out of social housing circulation. I am sure there was improvements carried out. If I could get a £80k house for £30k I dare say I might do a little home improvement as well however that was not the purpose when social housing was built.
Over a 15 year period just shy of half a million houses were sold at discounted prices in Scotland alone and it shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone that we are now faced with a shortage of affordable housing with the Scottish Govt having to throw money at building new Council houses.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Apologies – forgot to respond to the point about rocketing poverty. Right to buy gave some people an opportunity for short term gain – opportunism/profiteering that social housing should never have facilitated however it also left large numbers of people with historical financial difficulties at the mercy of a housing market that they would always struggle to cope with. When the housing market took a plummet in the early 1990s excessive people fell into arrears, had their houses re-possessed and were often forced to sell due to not being to afford repayments – this leaving them with large debts due to negative equity.
What was designed as a support mechanism for those in need was turned into a financial crisis for them by a Tory Government which had little or no concern for people who they knew would never vote for them.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I don’t think you can have it both ways Integrity , you are claiming people made a killing at the expense of others while also claiming the policy pushed those who bought into poverty and hardship .
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I think it is quite easy to have it both ways kintyre1 – there probably isn’t a policy in the world that affects everyone uniformly – if that were so then politics would be a much easier game.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Aaargh damn this mouse! Submitted by accident before finishing.
What I am stating is that the right to buy policy allowed some to profiteer which social housing should never be used to do and pushed others into poverty. Neither are an accpetable consequence in my eyes.
Anyway apologies to newsroom for this going well off topic.
Right to buy was a ‘crime’ of the past – the A&B administration are committing a ‘crime’ of the present and I’ll reserve my animosity for them now as Thatcher (thank God) is well past her best!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0