To detest people that think they own beautiful parts of the world?

Oh i remember all those threads on here as well. And the silly posts about cars not being "local".

Yep.

People sell to whoever they can sell to, don't they.

When MIL died, her house was sold to someone who was going to rent it out. We felt a bit guilty about that, but we needed to get rid of it. I am sure the same applies to anyone selling a house anywhere. You can't consider ethics if you want to sell something, especially if you need or want to sell quickly.

Thinking back on it, I don't think it was so bad as it was for permanent occupation and she didn't live in a particularly desirable area anyway. And I suspect a lot of second home owners sell onto more second home owners. But still, the ideal is to sell to someone who is going to live in the house themselves.

Yeah quite. I left the Facebook group for the neighbouring village as they were moaning about "outsiders" walking there in lockdown. I live in the next village and it's very much on my dog walking route as it's only two miles. Ridiculous attitude.

Who is selling the holiday homes to the outsiders though?

Quite

A large part of our housing crisis is caused by the fact that over a million homes are second and holiday homes.

Not really. The UK has few second homes by the standards of our peer countries. Most comparable countries have far more second home ownership. I’ve no dog in this first personally, by the way; I can’t think of anything more tiresome than having a second home, but we all like different things.

Also lack of affordable housing and working infrastructure is a political issue that should be managed by councils and government. Being arsey to tourists won't help.

I agree.

We even get it where I live which is on a popular footpath and people come from London on the train (not far away) at the weekend to go for walks etc, and they spend money in shops and pubs. Yet locals moan about the "DFLs" (Down From London). The way it's going there won't be any local pubs and shops if people don't come and spend money at the weekend.

Some of these responses remind of the crazy lockdown threads “there are so many people in my town”, “we are overrun with Londoners”.

Now realistically Londoners didn’t wake up and feel the urge to be a Game of Thrones extra & head North or whatever for Christmas. People were going back to live with family…

The only time there may be restrictions on permanent occupation is where there are new houses built and then they should be for locals and incomers will just have to wait their turn

Just to clarify this comment - I didn't mean ANY new houses, but some are built to be affordable for local people (though what is classes as affordable is usually laughable).

The real problems arise when tourism creeps into formerly residential zones. residential housing needs to be preserved. That doesn’t mean it has to be preserved for people with a legacy connection to the area. It just means not allowing the housing stock to be bought up and converted into a mix of airbnb and houses that sit empty 50 weeks of the year. Residential housing should remain on the market only for people who want to live in the community the majority of the year.

Tourism should be in commercial areas. People who rent places to stay on holiday should be paying taxes on their temporary housing. This gives the community money to help run the unsexy services needed to make the area so tourist friendly, like extra refuse pickup and more lifeguards.

Who is selling the holiday homes to the outsiders though?

I'm currently away in a tourist hotspot that is rammed in the private school holidays and then it's like a ghost town apart from weekends when the glitterati decamp from London in their flash cars

They are probably not Londoners.

We do seem to be conflating two different issues here which isn’t helping. The OP mention tourists but we now seem to be including people who’ve moved here to live. Which may cause issues but those issues are insignificant in relation to housing being used as tourist accommodation or being left empty for most of the year.

Just out of interest, OP, how long have you lived in the tourist area you are in now?

I don't think that's true.

Where I live there's no doubt that prices are driven up by people selling rabbit hutches in London at silly prices and then buying a nice 4 bed family home here.

It's not young professionals driving up the prices in London, it's the fact that so much housing stock is bought by overseas investors and lies empty. I think as many as 1/4 of homes in London are empty? It's an incredible statistic anyway.

But most people moving to Cornwall and the Lakes aren't from London anyway, they are from all over the UK (and overseas).

There is definitely an issue with empty homes/2nd homes but banning any migration is ridiculous.

Sorry bit I do think people who were born and grew up in a scenic area have more of a right to live and make their living there than outsiders.

Not in non scenic areas?

Shall we ban any kind of migration all together?

I also think holiday homes are fine if in use for large chunks of time. Without them then the tourist trade would really suffer as lots of people simply don't want hotels anymore

If people don't want hotels/B&Bs then they'll have to camp or stay in a lodge. Lodges are fine because they don't take away homes from locals (you could take the argument further and say the land could be used for homes, but it's quite different to my mind than taking houses out of residential use).

Some houses just aren't suitable for residential use, and then it's fine to use them for holiday homes, so even if you got rid of a lot of holiday homes, there would still be some left.

If people want to move to desirable areas from other areas (whether desirable or not) they can do. Restrictions are for holiday and second homes, not for people who actually want to live in the area. The only time there may be restrictions on permanent occupation is where there are new houses built and then they should be for locals and incomers will just have to wait their turn.

Nobody has a right to live in a particular place but I think locals get first dibs.

A large part of our housing crisis is caused by the fact that over a million homes are second and holiday homes.

As a native Londoner I find it frustrating that people in other parts of the country take such a dim view of Londoners leaving the city and moving elsewhere. Yet when their darling DC grow up to be very clever and want a job at one of the big 4, the banks, the law firms etc they are happy to ship them off here without a care in the world so their career can thrive which has over time pushed the property and rent prices through the roof and driven the natives out. Works both ways.

What areas have "whole villages" under a S106 with local connection restriction? This just isn't happening in any great quantity to affect you, OP.

I completely agree OP.
Similarly when we lived in London people born there would complain when they couldn't afford to live there/were given social housing elsewhere due to demand. Welcome to the world the rest of us live in! You choose where you work and live and if your kids can't afford to live there that's just life! You cut your cloth.
It's not fair on those like yourself- no one should be forced to live somewhere unpleasant or pay through the roof just on principles that locals 'deserve' it more!

So, despite the tourist industry, locals clearly aren't making much out of it where you are, are they? They don't where I live now. It's very poorly paid and seasonal to boot. I don't work in a tourism based industry either here or in the tourist hotspot I lived before. I couldn't afford to. Where I live now, most of the tourism type jobs are advertised at minimum wage for 18 year olds. Very few people actually living in tourist areas who don't own businesses connected to tourism are working in the bulk of tourism related industries. The money isn't there. It's only there for the owners of the arcades, the restaurants, the coffee shops, or big attraction companies like Merlin.
I had 5 jobs to make ends meet at one point in the last place I lived. Tourism really doesn't bring a lot to the people who live and work in these areas. That's why most year-rounders either aren't doing it or trying to cash in on Airbnb.
A few people are making big money. As you have actually pointed out, it isn't the majority.
As I said before, that's not to say I don't agree with a lot of what you say. But if you actually talk to the local locals, many will tell you tourism isn't paying their bills.
Out of interest, do you work in tourism?

Sorry bit I do think people who were born and grew up in a scenic area have more of a right to live and make their living there than outsiders.

OP, your stance is nuts. Change 'UK tourist hotspot' to just 'UK' and apply your opinion to every person in world who lives in a more shitty country and would love to come here and live. Sometimes you just can't have what you want.

What makes me laugh is that the incomers - usually those with wealth - who buy because of the vibe of a place, then dismantle that vibe because they put the place out of reach of most ordinary folk.

I'm currently away in a tourist hotspot that is rammed in the private school holidays and then it's like a ghost town apart from weekends when the glitterati decamp from London in their flash cars. On Sunday night, ours was the only car left in the village. It was like we were the last people alive on earth. How can places not just survive, but thrive on this model?