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.

Approx 20000 people in cornwall have second address i.e second home owners, hardly enough to outvote the locals in elections.

Depends on turnout. It’s notoriously low in local elections.

Well that is certainly not the fault of second homeowners😂😂😂. If people want to complain about council decisions but can’t actually be bothered to vote then they are not really worth engaging with.

Again - the responsibility of local voters.

In the areas with which I'm most familiar (and have relatives) its the incomers who tend to vote progressive whilst the locals vote for the big local families who have screwed them over repeatedly and who therefore keep the power to continue to screw them over.

Incidentally, you cannot vote from both addresses automatically - you have to be resident and even if you claim residency you will not be able to vote in both locations for all elections (including the Westminster and Europeans when applicable).

It's a way bigger issue than just the problem's tourist hotspots have. How on earth have we ended up with such a disparity of incomes that a significant number of people can afford two homes while a way bigger number struggle with rent never mind affording a mortgage. That's what seems 'immoral' to me but I can't really blame the people doing it (happy to make certain exceptions 😄) And such is the mess now I really don't see a way out - though as a PP said the enforced sale of social housing was a dreadful error and we could do something about that.

Some sort of regulation of the housing market should have been taken decades ago. it's not like we didn't see it coming. It must be 20 years ago there was a piece on TV with a local fisherman on his boat overlooking Salcombe at night in late autumn. He pointed out there was scarcely a house with a light on, all empty second homes and holiday lets.

Welsh councils can now impose 400% council tax on second homes or furnished unoccupied properties if they choose. As far as I know though, no local authorities have gone beyond 200%.

A lot of second home owners were evading tax by claiming that the second home was a business, but not making enough money to pass the threshold for paying business rates. They'd market the property for the legal minimum number of days (but make sure that no one would actually rent it) and "let" it (on paper at least) to friends. To clamp down on that, the Welsh government now requires holiday lets to be advertised for at least two thirds of the year and actually in use as such for at least half of the year before they are considered "businesses" and not second homes.

Makes sense really, you can't be a "non-dom" for tax purposes unless you are outside of the country for at least half of the year, so why should your property be considered a "business"(and benefit from the tax advantages that brings) if only actually used as such for 70 days per year?

At least with these changes the second home owners will have to contribute to local services.

Some of these areas are National Parks. Good luck getting housing developments approved in them.

And as we have established, expecting ‘locals’ to move away from a beauty spot or national park is positively inhumane.

So to sum up, only locals can own property in national parks or favoured tourist areas and it’s no good suggesting more houses are built as they can’t be built in those areas and to expect anyone to move would be unthinkable.

The rental market used to be far more regulated in the UK - not quite along European lines but regulated enough that tenants had some security and landlords would typically be the long term investment type rather than the BTL hobby landlords who want quick turnovers and tend to be the landlords causing the most problems for tenants.

That was thrown to the wind by the "deregulation" of the rental market in 80s , wholesale selling off of the better properties in public ownership and the insistence that the only model of housing worthy of government support and general respect was owner occupation. All conducted by the same party who are routinely re-elected locally and nationally in the areas under discussion.

Its always much easier though to blame a "them", be that Bodmin, Exeter, Westminster or Brussels and pretend that we have no input into those bodies.

Reverting to a more European model of rental would go some way to addressing the housing issues described on this thread. Dealing with developers who landbank and property owners who intentionally keep properties empty as they are solely interested in the asset growth would also help.

Some of these areas are National Parks. Good luck getting housing developments approved in them.

No need to. If enough council houses were built in the towns and cities then the buy to let landlords would sell up and there would be more housing available for everyone, buyers renters and councils tenants

Actually I've no objection to incomers at all. I am one myself, so it would be hypocritical. Just so long as they become permanent residents of course, not just visiting for the odd weekend.

Er - buy to let landlords (assuming that by "let" you are referring to proper tenancies, not holiday lets) aren't causing the shortage in supply. They aren't depriving people of a place to live, the property will be permanently occupied.

People who keep houses empty on the other hand - whether for all or part of the year - are depriving the country of homes during a housing crisis. That applies whether you are part of the Cheshire Set with a cottage in Morfa Nefyn or if you're a Russian oligarch whose wealth is tied up in empty townhouses in Knightsbridge.

Er - buy to let landlords (assuming that by "let" you are referring to proper tenancies, not holiday lets) aren't causing the shortage in supply. They aren't depriving people of a place to live, the property will be permanently occupied.

Private landlords are contributing to the price of housing increasing so much though, and therefore depriving buyers of a reasonably priced house.

If private landlords started selling up because all the tenants were moving into council houses the price of properties would go down. Making more house available to owner occupiers.

Untrue.

Abersoch is a favoured tourist destination and most houses are not owned by locals. No local can afford to build the houses designed there.

look at theses houses. They are sold by those living over Offa’s Dyke. Bought by those living over the border. They are empty in winter.

as a heavily agricultural area, many people cannot get planning permission to build a family home on their OWN land (I’m one of those. I could build a holiday home but nit one to live in) yet these hones are built as the local planners love nothing more that people with money and they are driving locals away.

the infrastructure cannot cope with the traffic, littering etc when these 2nd home owners are in town.

www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/find.html?locationIdentifier=REGION%5E1592&insId=1&googleAnalyticsChannel=buying

link for the houses

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.

When you clearly know the negative consequences on other people then yes, it is immoral. Making someone homeless so others can have a holiday, then blaming the council or the government or the locals for your actions is certainly immoral

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. There's a lot of wonky thought processes here! The fact someone who does the activity/thing under discussion thinks it is fine is no surprise - most people believe their own actions to be right. Different scale of harm/wrong (!!) but slave owners used to say they were right even in the face of growing opprobrium.

Do second homes damage communities? Yes. Is damaging communities bad? Most people would say yes. Which takes priority, the individual or community? This is something philosophers have debated forever.

What if they sell to someone else who wants it as a second home or to rent as a holiday home? You can't force your buyer to live in it!

You can't force your buyer to live in it! Precisely the issue, which is why nationally need to incentivise or regulate to change behaviour.

and yet just down the road there are houses and flats for sale that are 1/20th of the price of those. And a quick look at the details shows that they are certainly not holiday lets.

And as for comparing second home ownership to slavery, surely that is some sort of version of Godwin’s law 😂😂😂

Does it matter? The moral question? There’s no objective judgement on this, and even if one existed…what happens? Nothing. It’s not an enforceable value. If A thinks B is immoral because they want to buy a second home, does that mean B isn’t going to do it? No. B will do what B wants, and all A can do is sit there and be mad about it (which is something that also only effects A). A’s moral values only have power when it comes to A’s decisions making, not B’s.

if locals want to see a change in the law in regards to this, then they need to rally and prioritise it at the ballot box.

Well I think East was being sarcastic based on some of the daft comments up thread but presumably you will campaign and vote for the party who will promote more building? (I'm assuming you are talking about land classified as potential to build rather than with all the agricultural restrictions?)
When you have built the house, to whom will you sell it (or your current house if moving)? Will you sell only to a local or take the highest price?

If the infrastructure can't cope with people using their houses part time, how on earth would it cope with permanent residents and the extra school/GP/service places they would need?

Its easy to throw bricks at second home owners - they are a relatively small group and easy to point at as a "them" or "outsiders". However most of the people agreeing that they are the spawn of the devil will have rented holiday lets at some point.

Every single one of those properties was sold to "outsiders" by locals or converted to holiday lets by locals.

In the case of one village I know particularly well the second home owners are overwhelmingly a small pool of landowning local families who have bought them up and run AirBnB lets. Other lets are people converting their sheds or building annexes and so wouldn't be long term family housing anyway but they still appear in the numbers of holiday lets. In another, tenants were served eviction notices by local landowners to cash in on the covid exodus. In both, people keep reelecting the same representatives who only really represent the owners.

Way to miss the point.

@C8H10N4O2 my post clearly states I’m not allowed to build a house unless its a holiday home.