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.

I didn’t mean you directly. You clearly don’t care.

I didn’t say you were sad. Myself as a resident of a tourist town - I’m very sad that people are ‘past caring’ about the effects of their behaviour on the people I call friends.

I dont think you or anyone else should be noble but don't be a hypocrit.

No one should be using homes for holidays when so many families are desperate for a roof over thier heads.

It would be very unfair on those priced out of London and commuter belt areas if we now start ensuring that people born and raised in Devon and Cornwall can continue to live in the area. I would have loved to stay in Kent where I was born, as would most of my childhood friends. People moving about for work etc is just a fact of life.

I think second homes that stand empty for all but a handful of weeks a year are a problem, but short-term rentals?

Wouldn't the economic situation in seaside towns be even worse without the summer influx of holidaymakers?

On that basis @OhMerde we should all shrug at every social issue that comes our way.

The trouble is a lot of people buying second homes do so because they live in eg London in a flat most of the year and can’t afford a house there. Because London prices are too high and have been sold of to foreign investors etc. So where does it start and where does it end? I am all for regulating the entire property market to stop prices increasing further but would never back a big crash either. The economic situation is bad enough as it is.

The situation in London is completely different to that of places like small villages in Devon and cornwall! They are not comparable!
London businesses are not at risk because their is no workforce to run them. Or because there are so few patrons during the low season that the business becomes unviable.
London does not become a ghost town in winter. Tourist come all year round. London also has fantastic public transport when you compare it to rural cornwall. Commuting back into London to work is possible within a reasonable period of time. You move 50 miles from work in cornwall and it would not be anywhere near as easy to commute.

I live in London. I have literally never met anyone who owns a second home because in London they can only afford a flat. I do know quite a few people who own second homes, but mostly the demographic is that they bought a house in a good area of London back when it was relatively cheap. Their house has now appreciated massively in value, and they have paid off their mortgage. They then leverage this asset to buy a holiday home or BTL.

Do you think that people buy second homes because they like the local restaurants? No, they'll keep buying them so long as the beaches or mountains are there. They'll just whinge that there's nowhere to eat out any more. It's already happening, particularly in the Lake District.

" They are using it as a business opportunity" - this is exactly the point I am making.

They are making a change of use from a residential property to a holiday let and in my opinion should need to apply for planning permission to do this (although the law currently does not require this).

If I bought a residential property and wanted to use it as a hotel then I would need a change of permission so I don't see why using it as a holiday let (a business opportunity ) should be any different.

Of course whether they got permission would depend on the proportion of holiday let's already in that area.

It's a tough one.

If it's being rented out to tourists for a high percentage of the year then it's less immoral cos it's bringing in tourism.

If they are keeping it to themselves and leaving it empty most the year, then yes I think it's immoral.

I don't think they should be banned, but I'm all for caps on the number of properties that can be second homes. Plus a rule on the minimum number of weeks they have to be let out to help bring in tourism in winter months.

Most people don’t care about others, not when it really comes down to it, let’s not pretend they do. I used to. Now I really don’t. People’s behaviour over many years has really broken me to be honest. Now I do what is best for my family and look after out mental health. We use our second home for our holidays and spending time with family and friends. If people think it’s immoral, I can deal with that, I know very few people that don’t display some sort of immoral behaviours.

It’s hard to have much sympathy for those who had a childhood somewhere wonderful and now think that they have somehow inherited the right to stay there ahead of people who have the money and the desire to live there now.

FFS, seriously? It's not just "somewhere wonderful", it's the place that's been "home" to someone's family (sometimes for generations), where friends, support networks, and all their close ties are based. When people can no longer stay in their home area no matter what they do, families and communities are scattered and don't re-form.

Of course people who genuinely choose to live in a new place and intend to make a life there should be welcomed too, but non-locals buying a load of buildings to run as absentee landlords isn't the same thing. And even if prices rise mainly because people genuinely want to move in and stay, it's actually NOT hard to have sympathy for the individuals, families, and communities disrupted. And to recognise the broader harm it does.

Exactly @wackamole !

It takes a village to raise a child... unless that village is desirable in which case you can f-off and find elsewhere.

And what about the elderly in those places that won't have family nearby to help with care if they need it?

I think second homes left empty for 50 weeks a year are immoral, yes.

I live in a village that is often cited as being one of the most beautiful in the UK. The best houses which all have stunning sea views are mainly second homes owned by extremely wealthy people. I know of two houses where the owners have literally never been here. One has had over 2 million quid spent on doing it up but the owner has houses all over the world and doesn't have time to come here apparently.

Holiday lets are different because they bring tourism here. Even those non tourism jobs cited above piggy back off tourism- builders, car mechanics, hair dressers almost everyone has more work because of tourists. Of course there needs to be a balance- private rentals are non existent.

What is really immoral is that the social housing estate is now mainly owner occupied because Tbatcher sold them off. That's the real problem.

And yet, the local population continue to vote for them (in the West Country at least).

You said upthread that your DC could not buy houses because there was no work - what are your politicians doing to promote local business and industry? Its really common in all areas for young people to have to move for work and housing - this is not unique to tourist areas.
Tourists are rubbished on every thread like this as Emmets and Grockels who apparently should just send a cheque down to the SW and never pollute it with their presence.

In the areas where I have connections and some local knowledge, the money from home ownership and tourism is largely accumulated into the hands of a few local families, who get a free pass because "local". The fact that they exploited labour deregulation to sack staff (or make them self employed) and turn tied cottages into holiday lets whilst having enough friends and relatives on the local authorities to control planning, building work and investment in the area is a massive issues.

And yet their representatives continue to be elected by those who express surprise at the situation not changing.

Nor is this problem unique to tourist areas. Every city has had a similar issue with people priced out of the area. The community I was born into and grew up in doesn't exist any more - largely it went when landowning country dwellers bought up all the housing for pied a terres in the city.

There are good reasons to regulate the rental market more effectively and there is a great deal which can be done to manage levels of second home ownership and property prices - but some rural areas need to look closer to home as well to actually implement those controls.

@Movinghouseatlast What is really immoral is that the social housing estate is now mainly owner occupied because Tbatcher sold them off. That's the real problem

Not only was much of the family sized stock sold off but local authorities were prohibited from using the proceeds to build new stock.

The rental market needs much tighter regulation, ideally to favour landlords looking for long term relationships with their tenants (as in much or Europe) and against hobby landlords who want a quick turnaround with a price hike every year and do not understand the nature of long term investments.

That would address quite a lot of the issues with people being priced out of local areas. Then the locals need to vote for politicians who will actually address their issues rather than keep reelecting Fred, the local landowners' nominee and expecting change.

I say yes because we have an AirBNB next to us in the most ridiculous of places. We live in a modern town, not really close to anywhere in particular (not near to airports, London, major train stations etc) with nothing of great interest locally either. We are a good 30/40 mins walk from the town centre etc

we are in a big newish development and the house next door sold last year and is now an AirBnB and we can’t stand it for silly little reasons really.

people park anywhere and everywhere they like - an wedding party was getting ready there on Monday and they bought 10 cars, parked them over peoples front lawns, private parking spaces at the flats opposite etc. they were stood outside all chatting loudly for hours until they finally left for the venue. Both DP and I WFH and had to close windows as we were struggling on calls.

when the bins go out people obviously don’t bring them back in, they’re left halfway down the road/in other peoples gardens/driveways.

also just the general security risk it poses to neighbours - we never met the owners, they’ve never given us their details so we tracked them down on the app & kept details to hand incase we have any problems.

it’s also just one more 3-bed semi-detached house in this estate that a family who needs or wants it can’t buy.

We have a second home in the UK, its an old stable that had been on the market coming on five years as it didn’t have planning permission, services etc. It can’t be used as a permanent dwelling, so if it wasn’t a holiday let it would have just continued to stand empty. We use it, we also rent it out to adopters and fosterers. My husband also owns a summer house abroad, again, it can’t be used as a permanent dwelling.

In popular areas a cap with a system similar to the one used for HMOs would have probably been beneficial if it had been applied 15-20 years ago with a need to renew every so many years. New builds could be restricted to people who live in the area/have connections, this has been done before.

What we desperately need is a far far better rental system in the UK, what we have at the moment is shit.

Loads of people bought up in London can no longer afford to live there but all we ever hear about is people in scenic holiday areas whinging that their children can’t afford it any longer. Maybe they could commute for a hour like most Londoners have to do? No one has a right to cheap property. If you want it you need to move to a less desirable area, that’s the same for everyone.

@Twiglets1 your completely missing the point about London being nothing like rural areas. Commuting in and out of London is easily done. The distance you can travel in an hour is considerable on the train. Road links are good. You can easily travail 50-70 miles outside of London within an hours commute.
Cornwall is a completely different ball game. The train links are almost non existent as are duel carriageways. There are no buses. In an hour you would barely get 20 miles. You cannot commute to work in Cornwall from a a cheaper area because there is no cheaper area in commuting distance!

I commute from 50 miles north of London every day. The fast train is 35 minutes. It takes me less time to commute to work than my friend who actually lives in London.

Blame the system that allows it, or does not stop it, not the individuals who take part.

The figures I saw for second homes equate to three or four years of house building, never mind short-term rentals.

So where is it exactly that all properties have sky high prices? Because for example

www.rightmove.co.uk/properties/125310917#/media?id=media0&ref=photoCollage&channel=RES_BUY

this doesn’t seem to be excessively expensive.

and perhaps somethings equivalent outside London which apparently is nice and cheap

www.rightmove.co.uk/properties/124129271#/?channel=RES_BUY

doesn’t really back up what you are saying does it?

You clearly don't know Cornwall! That house is in a lets just say less desirable area of the county.

Houses in the honey pot areas are ridiculous prices now- that house if it were in Fowey or St Ives would be pribablt £200 k more. But that's the same anywhere. Run down housing estates in London have cheaper prices. Because fewer people want to live there.