PEOPLE who own more than one home are facing a 40 per cent council tax increase, according to a council report.

Lancashire County Council is set to raise council tax for people who own more than one home so that it can continue to fund a partnership with other councils.

A council report said that its Local Strategic Partnerships with district councils has had a positive impact and has been well received, so it needs the cash to keep the organisations going.

The report adds that withdrawing the support may have a negative impact on what people think of the County Council.

Councillors are set to recommend that the support be continued at a rate of £1,650 per district with the extra money raised from council tax supporting the project.

Lancashire County Council has made financial support available to the 12 District Local Strategic Partnerships for the past three years.

This money was intended to be used to support the council activities, including consultation and research and community engagement.

In Burnley, it has supported a health and wellbeing group and in the Ribble Valley it has been put towards administration costs.

A county spokesman said: "The withdrawal of this financial support is considered to be a challenge as it may be seen by some as a lack of commitment by Lancashire County Council."

A further council tax charge on second homes may, according to the council, increase the resources

available to some Local Strategic Partnerships in the future.

Council tax is charged on second homes at 50 per cent. New regulations mean that district councils, can if they wish, increase the rate of council tax on these homes to 90 per cent. This would produce extra income that would be spread out among Lancashire County Council and the 12 district councils.

Lancashire County would claim three quarters of the extra revenue, with 13 per cent going to the districts. The Police Authority would also get a nine per cent share while the Fire Authority would be given a three per cent cut.

However, the council admitted that some of the districts have so few second homes that the additional income would be negligible and would barely cover the administrative costs of collection.