The Wiltshire Council met on Wednesday 7 January 2026 for an extraordinary meeting where councillors debated and voted on several key financial and policy matters. The meeting saw the rejection of a proposal to allocate £2.5 million for the freehold transfer of St Stephen's Multi-Storey Car Park in Trowbridge, but approved an increase to the council tax premium on long-term empty homes and a framework for fees and charges.

St Stephen's Multi-Storey Car Park, Trowbridge

Councillors debated a proposal to increase the capital budget by £2.5 million to facilitate the freehold transfer of St Stephen's Multi-Storey Car Park in Trowbridge to the owner of the adjacent Castle Place Shopping Centre. The car park is described as being in a state of disrepair, with significant costs associated with its maintenance and potential rebuilding. A legal covenant requires the council to provide over 400 free parking spaces, making it a financial liability.

Councillor Helen Belcher OBE, Cabinet Member for Economic Development, Regeneration and Assets, presented the report, outlining the options considered: disposing of the site on the open market, retaining and rebuilding the car park, or acquiring the shopping centre. Legal advice indicated a low probability of successfully challenging the covenant. The proposed disposal to the shopping centre owner was presented as the most cost-effective option with acceptable risk, with staged payments incentivising redevelopment.

However, the proposal was met with significant opposition. Councillors raised concerns about the lack of transparency, insufficient financial detail, and the potential loss of value for Wiltshire residents. Councillor Dominic Muns questioned the administration's handling of information regarding business rates for Castle Place Shopping Centre and alleged a lack of openness. Councillor Richard Clewer, Conservative Group Leader, expressed reservations about the financial figures presented and the perceived rush to make a decision without full information. Councillor Ed Rimmer, Reform UK Group Leader, opposed the proposal, arguing that challenging the covenant should be pursued.

Despite arguments from supporters that the £2.5 million was an investment in redeveloping a key brownfield site and would remove a significant liability, the proposal was ultimately rejected. Following a recorded vote, the motion was tied with 45 votes in favour and 45 against. The Chairman, Councillor Laura Mayes, used her casting vote against the proposal, meaning the motion was lost.

Introduction of a Council Tax Second Homes Premium

The council debated a proposal to introduce a 100% council tax premium on second homes, effective from 1 April 2027. Councillor Gavin Grant, Cabinet Member for Finance, presented the report, explaining that this measure, enabled by the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, aimed to encourage second home owners to make their properties available for permanent residency or long-term rental, thereby addressing housing shortages and generating additional revenue for the council. He highlighted that many other councils had already adopted similar policies.

The proposal faced considerable opposition. Councillor Richard Clewer, Conservative Group Leader, argued that the policy was unfair and premature, suggesting that the impact of such premiums in other areas was not yet clear. Councillor Ed Rimmer, Reform UK Group Leader, stated that people should not pay double council tax for owning an additional property. Councillor Zoë Clewer described the policy as invidious and argued it was a punitive tax on success. Councillor Ian Blair-Pilling questioned whether Wiltshire had the same issues with second homes as other parts of the country, suggesting the MOD's underutilised housing stock was a greater concern. Councillor Nabil Najjar described the policy as ideologically egregious, unfair, and impractical due to numerous loopholes.

Supporters, including Councillor Ian Thorn, Leader of the Council, and Councillor Jon Hubbard, Cabinet Member for Children's Services, argued that the premium was a fair way to ask those who could afford to contribute more to help fund essential services and preserve rural communities. Councillor Nick Baker highlighted the marginal gains this policy could offer in addressing the council's significant budget challenges.

However, the opposition's arguments, particularly regarding fairness, practicality, and the potential for revenue loss due to loopholes, resonated with a majority of councillors. In a recorded vote, the proposal was rejected with 44 votes in favour, 46 against, and one abstention.

Extension of the Council Tax Long-term Empty Homes Premium

Councillors voted to approve an increase to the council tax premium on long-term empty homes. The proposal, presented by Councillor Gavin Grant, aimed to implement the maximum permissible premium levels, escalating charges for properties left empty for longer periods. The new charges, effective from 1 April 2026, will be: a 100% premium for properties empty for 2 to 5 years (an increase from the current 2-year threshold), a 200% premium for properties empty for 5 to 10 years (an increase from the current 5-year threshold), and a 300% premium for properties empty for over 10 years (a new charge).

An amendment, moved by Councillor Philip Whitehead and seconded by Councillor Richard Clewer, proposed that the 100% premium would apply where a property was empty for between two and five years, rather than one to five years. Councillor Grant, after consulting with colleagues, accepted this amendment in the spirit of consensus.

The amended proposal was debated, with comments in support highlighting the benefits of bringing empty homes back into use, strengthening communities, and generating recurring funding for local priorities. Concerns were raised by some councillors, including Councillor Bridget Wayman and Councillor Elizabeth Threlfall, about potential underlying reasons for properties remaining empty and the risk of penalising owners without understanding their circumstances.

Ultimately, the amended motion was carried with 87 votes in favour, 3 against, and 1 abstention.

Fees and Charges Framework

The council approved a new framework for setting and reviewing fees and charges, along with proposed increases for 2026/27. Councillor Gavin Grant introduced the report, explaining that the framework aimed to ensure financial sustainability, transparency, and equitable service delivery. He noted that fees and charges were an important income stream for the council and should be reviewed annually in line with inflation.

Councillor Richard Clewer, Conservative Group Leader, proposed an amendment to the framework. This amendment sought to ensure that all fees and charges not set by central government would be automatically increased by a minimum of the September CPI inflation figure each year. It also stipulated that any exceptions to this rule would require agreement from the Section 151 officer in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Finance, and that this would be reported back as part of the budget process. Councillor Grant and Councillor Ian Thorn, Leader of the Council, accepted this amendment.

The amended proposal was debated, with general support for the principle of increasing fees in line with inflation. Councillor Bridget Wayman raised a query about specific environmental fees increasing by more than inflation, which Councillor Paul Sample offered to investigate and provide a written response.

The amended motion was carried unanimously.

The meeting concluded with the Chairman, Councillor Laura Mayes, noting that the next ordinary meeting would be the budget meeting on 24 February 2026.