Are second homes and short-term rental properties immoral?

[maranella]

We have a huge shortage of housing in this country and there and more and more stories about seaside towns and pretty villages being hollowed out by homes that stand empty half the year.

So I'm just wondering how other people feel about second homes and ones bought specifically to be holiday rentals? I really feel for people in places like Cornwall, Devon, north Norfolk, parts of Wales and the Lake District, who can't find affordable homes in the towns and villages where they've always lived and worked.

Such a strawman argument.

There’s always a ‘worse’ thing anyone could be doing. Doesn’t make what you’re doing ok.

So your issue should be with the council or house builders . Nothing stopping them putting a local occupancy clause on the properties when they grant planning. If they haven’t done that then anyone interested can buy the property. Purely anecdotally my experience has been that many of the new builds in scenic areas of cornwall are built by locals in gardens or on parcels of land they have owned for a while. None of these locals chose to put a local occupancy covenant on the properties when they sold them.

Such a strawman argument.

There’s always a ‘worse’ thing anyone could be doing. Doesn’t make what you’re doing ok.

Do you mean they earn £45p/h or that's what you pay?

They aren't the same thing.
I sometimes charge £15 for something that takes about 2 minutes . I don't earn £15 in 2 minutes!!

It’s not ok ‘in your opinion‘. That poster doesn’t seem to agree. It’s not a fact that having a second home is immoral, it’s just some people’s opinion. We have a second home, I think its an ok thing to do, as do lots of other people.

I do hope those people with strong feelings on what is immoral are examining all the things they do that may be seen as immoral by others and considering changing them. 🙄

I'm torn because I stay in holiday homes in the UK at least three times a year but I understand how this makes local people feel.

At the end of the day, I'm old and introverted and when i go away, i dont want to stay in a noisy communal hotel or B&B with other people and their children, with nowhere quiet to sit outside and no windows that open. I want a house to myself or whoever I'm with and I want it to be a home from home, not just a bedroom with a bathroom attached.

I think there should be a limit but Ive no idea how this would work practically.

Virtually all developments across the country now have "affordable" or full-time quotas but the developers sell them at market value which is absolutely unaffordable to the locals who have just been evicted. The properties sit idle for a while then the developers apply for a change to the planning permission, which when half the council are family is a foregone conclusion.

You really are advocating for the destruction of communities and displacement of families for the sole benefit of a few rich locals and thousands of entitled tourists. On what level are you okay with that?

So half the council are family i.e locals. So in that case you are actually saying that it is the locals who are responsible for these decisions. Or are they the wrong sort of locals?

So the wrong sort of locals then. Silly me, I thought you were advocating for the local community but it seems like you think this is some sort of class warfare.

I think your username is probably about right.

That doesn't mean an Airbnb though.

We have stayed in pubs that have outbuildings converted into self contained accommodation and farmhouse B&Bs the same. There are also things like cabins and caravans that are self contained, even canal boats!

If I were making the rules I would still allow self contained holiday accommodation but it would be limited in number and only in suitable locations, where it won't have a negative effect on locals and it would need to be properly regulated and serviced. I understand that for some a holiday cottage/villa is more practical and there should be options for them but it shouldn't be at the expense of local communities.

@astorsback require ALL residential properties that are primary domicile to pay 500% council tax. This would reduce the profit margins, and reduce property values returning properties back to local renters. it would provide a much needed income boost for local councils.

NOT primary domicile

My cleaner takes home £45 p/h because I pay her directly.

that’s what she earns. She does the property nextdoor for the same rate but it’s bigger so she earns more.

she does 5 hours in total at £45 p/h

its not a bad pay rate

So this isn’t really about community, daftasabroom, it’s about resentment of money and dislike of people who you consider to be ‘rich’, even if they are part of that community.

Eastangular2000 has nailed it.

The country and indeed the world is full off immoral happenings.
At the the end of the day, people will buy what they want, where they want. No one can stop them.

@PreColumbian So this isn’t really about community, daftasabroom, it’s about resentment of money and dislike of people who you consider to be ‘rich’, even if they are part of that community.

No this really isn't about rich vs poor, it's about selfish bullying rich people vs the people they bully. I know plenty of rich people that work incredibly hard to ensure their/our community has a sustainable future.

@Eastangular2000 hasn't nailed anything, they just happen to think that's okay that money buys you priveldge and it's okay to bully people.

The fastest and best way to sort the 2nd home problem out would be for councils to build council houses.

I live on the south coast in a tourist area where Londoners have second homes or move here to retire. There's 750 houses being built soon and if the council had chosen to use the land instead of a property developer then the majority of families renting private houses could have moved to council. The private renting market would suffer and house prices would go down. The second home owners seeing their investment going down in value would then want to sell up too.

Problem solved.

And the council/government would be better off as they'd be receiving rent instead of paying out millions in housing costs through housing benefit and UC

The government will never do this though as they're too invested personally in the property market

No, you have repeatedly on this thread dismissed communities different to your own as valueless and their loss as unimportant, their homeless as somehow less. That is why you get the reaction. The community I grew up in had value, even if we didn't have fields and beaches on the doorstep.

You could make the legitimate case that the state rental market in this country is a shambles and most of us would agree with you. But instead you insist that people living in beautiful areas must be protected in aspic and not be expected to move for opportunity like everyone else does.

So who do you vote for in elections? Do you vote for change or did you vote, like most of the area, for the same nepotistic vested interests because "local"? Every property in the tourist trade was put there by a local landowner or property owner.

I will take a different view to you, daft, having read the discussion I think that Eastangular has made the most consistent reasoned points without resorting to name-calling etc.
As a PP just said, people will buy what they want, where they want to, for all kinds of different reasons - and people will sell, on the same basis. Very few of us can claim to do nothing that some others would consider to be immoral, in any aspect of their lives.

Yes, so local people screwing local people - not rich townies.

So why do they keep getting elected? Oh by the same people they are screwing.

The fastest and best way to sort the 2nd home problem out would be for councils to build council houses.

And to solve housing problems generally.

So why do they keep getting elected?

Because most of the properties are owned by second home owners, perhaps? They’re not going to vote to their disadvantage, are they?