The Thirsk and Malton area committee is set to meet on September 25 to discuss a petition that has gathered more than a thousand signatures. The document, prepared by the campaign group SHOUT (Second Homeowners Opposed to Unfair Taxation), asks North Yorkshire Council to suspend the 100% council tax premium on second homes while an independent review of its social and economic consequences is carried out.
The premium, introduced on 1 April 2025 effectively doubles the council tax bill for qualifying properties. It was approved by the full council in February 2024 and has since become a flashpoint in the debate over housing affordability, especially in rural and tourist-heavy areas such as Swaledale, where second-home ownership rates are high.
The petition’s core demands and the rationale behind them
SHOUT’s submission asks the council to undertake three concrete steps. First, a comprehensive impact assessment should be commissioned to measure how the surcharge influences local markets, community cohesion and the viability of small businesses. Second, the council ought to open a consultation with second-home owners, trade bodies and resident groups. Third, an independent adviser should be engaged to evaluate whether the policy unfairly skews the property market or drives permanent residents out of the area.
The campaigners argue that the premium not only raises the cost of ownership for holiday-makers but also has wider repercussions: reduced spending in local shops, fewer tradespeople willing to work in villages, and a strain on community services that rely on a stable resident base. They contend that many of the affected homes are either unsuitable for year-round living or simply unaffordable for permanent occupation, thereby exacerbating the housing shortage.
Council’s defence, financial backdrop and recent data
Council officers have responded that the evidence base does not yet justify a suspension. They point to the “Let’s Talk Money” consultation, which attracted 1,875 responses, of which 79% (1,474 respondents) supported maintaining the full-rate premium. Only 256 opposed it and 145 were undecided.
Financially, the surcharge has generated a considerable sum earmarked for housing initiatives. So far, £20 million of the revenue has been allocated to a dedicated housing fund, split between £4 million for rural housing, £4 million for community-led schemes, and £12 million for supported housing and associated services.
Recent statistics show a modest decline in the number of properties subject to the premium: from 7,078 in June 2025 to 6,132 in July 2026, a drop of 946. A targeted review of fifty properties that ceased paying the surcharge indicated that 44 had changed ownership and were subsequently used as primary residences, although officials caution against extrapolating these findings to the whole market.
Broader controversy: royal residences and the Scottish angle
While North Yorkshire wrestles with its own policy, a parallel dispute has erupted in Scotland. Aberdeen Central SNP MSP Jack Middleton has written to King Charles III seeking clarification on whether the monarchy is paying the higher rates imposed on second homes.
Midland points out that Aberdeenshire Council introduced a 200% council tax premium on second homes in September, meaning owners pay three times the standard rate. The Palace of Holyroodhouse in Edinburgh is slated to face a 300% premium effectively quadrupling the usual charge. Middleton asks the King to confirm whether Balmoral Castle and Holyroodhouse are being taxed at these elevated rates.
The MSP also inquired about the monarch’s position on a pending Scottish Government consultation for a “mansion tax”. The proposal would create two new council-tax bands for properties valued over £1 million. Balmoral is estimated at roughly £50 million and Holyroodhouse around £60 million, placing them squarely in the top tier of the suggested tax structure.
These Scottish developments underscore the national relevance of the second-home surcharge debate. Both English and Scottish councils argue that higher taxes on secondary properties help fund much-needed housing, yet critics argue that such measures can alienate owners who contribute to local economies, especially in tourist-dependent regions.
When the Thirsk and Malton committee convenes, councillors will have several options: they may take no further action, request additional monitoring data, refer the matter to the council’s Executive, or endorse the petition and ask the Executive to reconsider the premium. Under the council’s petition rules, SHOUT’s representative will be allotted five minutes to present the case before the debate proceeds.
