To be conflicted by the crackdown on 2nd homes

[chairz]

I complete understand the problems they cause & do agree with a higher levy but thenI have used holiday cottages lots of times in the past & plan to in the future.

Ok but honestly I'm far more concerned about adequate affordable housing and keeping small communities thriving than yours or anyone else's holiday options.

This is a serious issue and way more important than leisure time.

Not in all of London is airbnb an issue
Some boroughs dont allow it. Westminster only allow 90 days a year without planning permission and zero in ex LA properties

Well that’s fine and dandy, but using a property just for family still means a property isn’t available for a local family to live in, and that local prices haven’t been over inflated by second home ownership.

Yes but there won’t be as many holiday makers to spend the money in the shops and restaurants anyway, if there’s nowhere for them to stay so problem solved - businesses will close. And then where will the people who need the cheaper housing work anyway?

I’m not a second home owner but like to visit those picturesque places but if there are less places to stay then the prices will rise and it will become prohibitive to do so.

And you’re making a personal attack.

@mirrorballer
Ok but honestly I'm far more concerned about adequate affordable housing and keeping small communities thriving than yours or anyone else's holiday options.
This is a serious issue and way more important than leisure time

But how would these small communities thrive without tourism? (Keeping in mind that their local economy is tourism)
If you reduce accommodation to hotels & camping, how much in revenue would be lost to the communities?
Wouldn't locals still move away, this time not because they are out priced but because of luck of prospects?

@Changechangychange should have guessed

Holiday makers are not necessarily better for an area's economy than locals.

The holiday peak season might be 8-10 week long, but locals will be spending money all year round. Different sorts of spending, yes, but over a much longer period.

Sure, having fewer tourists will probably mean fewer restaurants and cafes. But it will also mean more of other things. More of the other kinds of business that a community needs.

A local family will be registered with a GP, that GP practice will employ people. They might have kids at the local school (more jobs there). Nurseries, hardware stores, car mechanics, dentists, local gyms, after school clubs... these sorts of jobs are supported by locals rather than tourism, and they tend to offer far better prospects than NMW work in an ice-cream shop.

Tourism can be important, sure. But the alternative to being dominated by tourism isn't an economic wasteland - it's a functioning local economy that also happens to offer things for tourists.

It can be quite hard actually if you have more than 2 children, or a disabled child or are disabled yourself.
I have 3 DC, one disabled. We can stay in a holiday cottage for a week or 2-3 days in a hotel or holiday complex - so pricewise holiday cottages work out much better. And we need the room and the space for our family situation.

We are huge fans of a static caravan! I know they're not for everyone but they're great for what we need, and the sites we stay on are brilliant for young families, and they're affordable too (she says knowing she has non school age children so can go term time 😭) I think it's a great way to get a UK holiday without contributing to the problem.

We'd love our own tourer one day, but out of our budget right now sadly.

They won't be affordable if there are no holiday lets

Wish there was a like button for this.

But if the local industries are dependent on tourism, would they not die if all homes were lived in by locals? I'm not condonind secondhomes - but most of my family live in a very touristy area and half of them rely on tourist industry jobs in the hospitality industry.

@Octomore our tourist season starts in March, with lambing, and runs through to about October. We get another bump in December for the Christmas festivals and Christmas itself. It peaks in summer but it’s a year round thing (just try and get parked anywhere 🤣)

Our local economy already functions, based on agriculture primarily. Tourism is important though because it really does keep all of the other amenities open and thriving for locals. If it wasn’t for tourists, the local spar and garage would close and it’d be 9 miles to the nearest town for a pint of milk and a paper!

I agree with you on the local nurseries and schools though - student recruitment is always an issue. The schools have got around this a bit by forming a federation and pooling resources. As a woman of child bearing age I often have people gently hinting as to whether I’ll be helping to up the numbers at some point. It’s rude but I take it lightly - that’s farmers for you!

@Mulhollandmagoo

My teen DC (DS & DD) wouldn't share a sardine tin room in a static caravan. Nor would I expect them to. Granted it's totally different when they are younger- been there done that!
A holiday cottage has at least decent sized rooms, plus kitchen and lounge...

The root problem is that successive governments have failed to build enough affordable homes. If there were enough affordable homes local people could buy them and stay in their communities. In these circumstances communities benefit from holiday cottages (presumably bought from members of the community) as they bring in money and provide jobs. Additionally the government taxes the income from the lets and that money goes into the general pot.

Also, as a Londoner, who can not afford to buy a bigger home, and whose children will never be able to buy a home in London I sometimes ask myself why there is no sympathy for those in my community. All my kids will be forced to move to places miles away if they want to have a family home of their own.

It’s a bit of a Catch 22 though. I used to live in the Lake District managing National Trust properties. I lived on the edge of the National Park as living in Grasmere where my office was based wasn’t an option. I didn’t qualify for the local status for housing and the rest were holiday cottages. Without the tourists though the funding to keep those lovely National Trust properties n great condition wouldn’t have been there. The area has relied on tourists since the 18th century, before it was described as desolate and barren. It certainly didn’t look like it does today.

Equally my family own a Lake House in America. It was an estate sale, had been vacant for two years and was rotting. Since purchasing four years ago, the area has been identified for development and now the house is worth four times as much and people are desperate to buy it. Surely it’s better that somebody bought it and it didn’t fall down?

There is sympathy for your situation too, it is not one group pitted against the other.

That's even worse !

I live in a place which has seen a big increase in the number of second homes/Air BnBs. Lots of the Air BnBs are owned by locals though. I think we’re at a stage where it’s a net benefit to the area. Yes, house prices have gone up, but the majority are still lived in full-time. The tourists bring money to the area and help us to sustain a v wide diversity of shops/cafes/pubs. They bring a bit more diversity to the local area too. There’s also a lot of affordable housing in easy travelling distance so less of a problem with people who work here being unable to find housing.

But I can see that there’s a point where there would be too much stock taken out of the local housing market and prices would be driven too high. I don’t know what the best way to manage the balance is. I’m not sure local occupancy restrictions are right - people need to move away and come back freely! Some sort of licensing from the local council so they could limit numbers would be better.

You definitely have my sympathy. I think the housing situation in London is a disgrace.

But you said that used to let it but you don't any more. There's no problem if you own a property that is lived in all year round by someone

I think the answer, nationwide, is a combination of:

• More good quality, council owned, social housing needs to be built for rental. Abolish right to buy
• Caps on the number of holiday lets. Perhaps a system where permits are granted by local councils. Priority should be give to those properties which do not have planning permission for residential use, and therefore cannot just be sold for use as a home.
• Only holiday lets that are let out for a large percentage of the year to get the associated tax breaks (and set the threshold higher than it currently is in most of the UK). Properties without residential planning permission should maybe be exempt from this.
• Stamp duty and council taxes on second homes to be significantly increased, to make owning a house that you rarely use an unattractive option for the majority of people.

Government policy is partly to blame as there was a surge of opposition to the buy-to-let investors so Government decided to stop them claiming tax relief on their mortgages, supposedly this would disincentivise people from buying second properties to let. Unfortunately, all the second property owners moved over to holiday lets. The income spread over the year is a bit more, but then there are more costs (utility bills, cleaning etc) but at least they can claim their mortgage interest as an expense.

I have a bit of spare cash in my pension that I could withdraw and maybe invest in property but it is hard work to run a holiday let and in some places it is now impossible to get cleaners because all the locals have been priced out so there are not enough cleaners to go round. I could let it as a residential let on a long tenancy but then I can't claim my mortgage interest against the rent and so the net income after tax is a pittance once the costs of renovations etc are taken into account.

So from a purely selfish point of view, the easiest and cheapest option for me would be to buy a property and just use it myself occassionally or let it to a few trustworthy friends. It is the most financially viable option.

Before everyone piles on at me, I don't own a second property but this is an explanation of what is happening and it is all caused by Government policy. As always, even a Government with good intentions gets it wrong. The unintended side effects are always a problem with any change in policy.

If its a farm then there are usually strict planning conditions that mean it can only be used as a holiday let and not accommodation. The planning application to change the barn into a holiday let will usually have been made on the basis that the farm needs to diversify and that the barn is redundant as an agricultural building.

Those kind of holiday lets are run as businesses, put money directly back into the local economy and allow farmers to continue to provide food below the true cost of production because they have another income from tourism.

They are exactly the kind of holiday lets that people should be trying to use.

The issue isn't holiday lets as such (although there are too many of them and I think it needs to become a local planning issue) the problem is second homes which are mostly unoccupied for large parts of the year.