To think that owning a second home to use as a holiday home is extremely selfish?

[benadrylcucumberpatch]

It would be a different story if there was a surplus of vacant properties . As it stands holiday home owners turn communities into ghost towns, inflate prices in desirable areas (many of which are rural with low wages) and displace people who would live in the property full time.

Aibu to think this is selfish and reprehensible? Why are such people not villified for taking more than they need in such an extreme way?

I don't own a holiday home. But I do rent them when I go on holiday.

Thus taking advantage of other's lack of morals I guess - or bringing in my touristy income to an area that is otherwise without much industry.

Would a hotel be allowed? Not as useful to me, of course as I prefer to sit in a room separate to my toddler at night. I could rent a suite, but I like to eat when kids are in bed, maybe one with a kitchenette. Maybe a flat. But then the kids are up early, a bit unfair to wake people below me. Maybe I could rent a self contained hotel suite in its own enclosed building. Maybe like a holiday home.

Or just stay home whilst I have kids

But didn't a lot of these rural homes come up for sale because there were no local jobs to support the locals?
So the working population in the region moved to where there are jobs, and the only people interested in buying the vacant homes are either retired or seeking holiday homes?

Didn't the same thing happen as a result of the industrial revolution? (Mass exodus from the country to towns)

Can all the people yelling 'jealous' blah blah blah not see the difference between a second holiday home that's empty probably around 8 months of the year and a second home that's let out nearly all year round?

This thread is extremely depressing with the I'm alright jack, ooh I'm part of the done well brigade.

I'll just reiterate, I'M NOT JEALOUS.

DPIL own a small house on the coast that is a second property. They don't rent it out. Even since they've retired, I would imagine that they only go down to it once a month and then sometimes only overnight to ensure that it is secure etc. It is an area that is very popular with holidaymakers who camp/caravan etc, but the houses are owner occupied. They all seem to buy in local shops a great deal and support the local businesses.

I haven't thought about it from the perspective of the other people who live there, but your point is valid. They bought the house from someone who lived there permanently. I can see that if the number of people buying in that village as a second home rises, there will be a negative impact on the local economy.

lakeswimmer

your post is spot on.

Not necessarily - in my village there is a development of nearly thirty modern terraced houses. Only two are lived in.

That sounds like your local council fouled up with the planning permission then. In the Lake District there are new housing developments where there's a stipulation that they must be used for local people (similar to the over 50's type of planning restriction). Local councils also have the power through planning permission to either say all the homes in a particular development must be for holiday rental, or the opposite, i.e. put a restriction saying they can't be. I had a client who did a barn conversion in the Lake District and the only way he could get PP was for them to be holiday lets - council imposed a limitation on number of weeks they could be occupied) - the council wanted holiday lets in that particular location. Only 1 sold as such and after 5 years of them being empty, the council finally relented and gave planning permission for them to be residential.

Ok, I've had a look at helford. It's gorgeous. Of course it should be expensive to live there.
I don't think growing up somewhere entitles you to automatically be able to live there. Most people have to move to a cheaper area initially to get on the housing market.

The point isn't that holiday homes should be banned - I too have dogs and children and find it easier and more affordable to stay in self catering on holiday - but that there needs to be a mix of affordable and open market housing in rural areas and expensive cities.

My second home is in the North. I paid stamp duty and on-going council tax. In this area there is a scheme that means suitable properties are only available to ‘locals’ thus keeping family homes affordable. Is there not a similar scheme for the South-West? There should be surely?
My extended family and I (we don’t rent it out) use the property approximately 120 days a year and when we’re there, we spend a (worthwhile) fortune on amazing local products and fabulous restaurants.
This property, combined with my main residence, would probably only buy a tiny place in central London, so surely that is a consideration when criticising second home owners. Additionally by holidaying in the UK we help the economy and don’t fly as much.
I actually do feel embarrassed by having the luxury of a holiday home but think I can justify it.

People buy to let or let holiday homes to supplement their income. After paying for service and maintenance, the rest of the rent is profit and will be taxed the same as any income. The idea that second home owners are always rich is not true, the ones I know are just regular people who have saved or inherited some money to put down as a deposit on the place. Those who are rich will be able to purchase outright but many do have mortgages on second homes.

I'm not jealous of people who have more than me, good luck to them and I hope they live to enjoy it all. When you've worked all your adult life and contributed to society, there's nothing wrong in having a secure, comfortable retirement and no one should resent them for it.

But didn't a lot of these rural homes come up for sale because there were no local jobs to support the locals?

Indeed. We've had a few decades now of all the big firms closing their regional offices and moving decent jobs to London and other big cities. People who used to live in rural areas, small towns, villages, etc used to be able to travel to the nearest "big town" for jobs in banks, national firms of accountants/solicitors, head offices of building societies and insurance companies, etc. Now the only local jobs are usually farming, retail and hospitality - i.e. low skilled and low paid. We desperately need to reverse the London-Centric nature of the economy and get decent jobs back into the regions.

In this area there is a scheme that means suitable properties are only available to ‘locals’ thus keeping family homes affordable.

I'm in the North too and this sort of thing only seems to be available on new builds round here?

Most people have to move to a cheaper area initially to get on the housing market.

But ironically have to move to more expensive cities just to get a decent job.

That sounds like your local council fouled up with the planning permission then. In the Lake District there are new housing developments where there's a stipulation that they must be used for local people

The houses I referred to were built before more recent planning restrictions came into force. And yes, pretty much all new developments do have occupancy restrictions on them, but in some areas it's closing the stable door after the horse has bolted!

I'm in the North too and this sort of thing only seems to be available on new builds round here?

Well, yes, of course. You can't put retrospective restrictions on planning permissions granted years/decades ago. You can only do it for conversions and new builds.

Yes, that battle has been going on in Helford for decades.

I'm not even sure that with 80 properties it even qualifies as a village, let alone a town and I imagine that most of the properties were built for wealthy outsiders, not local fishermen.

Totally disagree. Many people have moved to the cities for work, or their families did, and they would like a little bit of quality of life by spending their hard earned cash on a home they can enjoy and might retire to. It would be better still if there hadn't been the Highland Clearances, or the government actually stimulated the economy so that jobs weren't concentrated in a few areas, but considering they pay extra stamp duty and council and income tax on the money they use to buy said holiday home, YABU.

But all you end up with in preventing holiday homes is British people taking their cash elsewhere and buying a holiday home abroad, where they aren't necessarily penalised by stamp duty and council tax. Which to me, is crazy.

And remember, in oh-so-socialist Scandinavia and Russia, having a holiday home is normal and achievable for most people. And they aren't all tiny cabins in the woods.

Personally, I'd be quite happy with a tiny cabin as a holiday home, but the UK planning laws won't allow them, or if they are, they have to be on all year round camping sites with massive fees, since building plots in this country are so massively expensive.

I have a small house in Scotland which I've been trying to sell for 2 years, and can't, because the Scottish Government's taxes and failing economy have decimated the market, along with building vast swathes of new housing estates everywhere. It was never intended to be a holiday home, it was bought because I moved there for work - a mistake I will never make again!

I'm not jealous of people who have more than me, good luck to them and I hope they live to enjoy it all. When you've worked all your adult life and contributed to society, there's nothing wrong in having a secure, comfortable retirement and no one should resent them for it

You're missing the point. It isn't about being jealous or resenting people for having a comfortable retirement.

It isn't a problem in my area so really, personally, I don't care who has a second home but I can understand if it was the difference between you being able to live in your local area or moving away from your friends/family then it would be something I'd feel more strongly about.

You can only do it for conversions and new builds

Yes, I thoughts so. It doesn't help much in this scenario I wouldn't have thought. Most of the homes we are talking about I imagine won't be new builds. Especially not in 'holiday towns' like the lakes etc...

Just to mention that I'm not jealous of second home owners either - I'm sitting at home on a day off gazing at the mountains through my window and considering myself very lucky

I think it depends on the definition of holiday home. If, as some people have said, it's in use either by the family or by holiday makers practically all year round, I can't see the problem.

If the house is used almost year round then the occupants are using restaurants, car hire, leisure activities etc., in the area. And, actually, may be giving more business to some of those places than the locals do. For example, we go to our local stately home maybe twice a year (summer and Christmas) but tourists mean it's packed every weekend. Similarly with restaurants. We live in a small country town. We tend to eat at home. The tourists pack out our restaurants - we need them and they need somewhere to stay when they visit for a week or two. When we go on holiday we eat out three or four times a week - plus lunch. We don't do that at home.

We nearly always go self catering. When DS was small it was great to be able to get him to bed at a reasonable time and have a glass of wine in the garden or watch a bit of TV without having to worry about keeping him awake. As you would in a pokey hotel room.

Now he's older it means I or DH can have a lie in (we're on holiday after all) whilst he watches a DVD or a TV programme if he's up early. Can't do that in a hotel room without disturbing someone. Plus we can spread out, getting washing done (so we can travel light), eat what we want when we want without having to stick to a hotel menu or get dressed to go out if we want to slob by the pool (if we're abroad).

That holiday cottage/villa or flat has to be owned by someone!

It's the homes that are shut up most of the year and only used for a month in the summer and a week at Christmas that I think are wrong. They help no-one and are depriving the community of a living too.

That holiday cottage/villa or flat has to be owned by someone!

That's true, but as I've said upthread the people who clean it and maintain it for the owner and the staff in pubs and restaurants all need places to live. It's not getting a job that's the problem in many rural places its finding somewhere to live while you do it.

I live in the north east and it's waaaaaaaay prettier than the south!! In fact I can't think of anywhere prettier!!

I know that and you know that but let's keep it that way!

Forty years ago you couldn't sell property in North Norfolk then the green-wellie brigade 'discovered ' it, I blame the M11, and it's now priced out for anyone local. Never go in Waitrose on Friday afternoon anywhere on the route toNorth Norfolk.

Nothing wrong with a new build. People are just glad to get on the property ladder, first homes are rarely forever homes. Many like a modern home - house or flat - because they require less maintenance.

The flat we own which my husband occupies for some of the week is ideal, he's never had to do anything to it, pays an annual fee for any external maintenance and common parts, eg car park, and inside, entrance door and entry system, staircases, hall etc. Living there is easy and it's a lovely, light and airy second floor flat with all mod cons and private parking. The people who lived in it before we bought were a young, married couple, it was their first home and had just been built.

And remember, in oh-so-socialist Scandinavia and Russia, having a holiday home is normal and achievable for most people. And they aren't all tiny cabins in the woods.

Not sure of your point here? They're clearly running things well if most people can achieve a holiday home. Because it implies people can afford a main residence to begin with...

Nothing wrong with a new build

There isn't but there aren't that many new build developments in the rural areas we are talking about.