Local Persons restriction seem a bit racist? Or am I overthinking?

[dartmoorgirl12]

We're house hunting on Dartmoor (clue's in the name!) at the moment, and we've seen a house with a Local Persons restriction on it. You have to live or work in the local or neighbouring parish for the previous five years. We actually qualify, but it got me thinking... Isn't it a bit weird that the "protected" group here are extremely likely to be white/broadly Christian. It just seems really exclusive for 2023. I do understand the idea that local communities should be protected, and that there is absolutely toxic housing pressure in Dartmoor at the moment. But ironically I live down here now because we got royally outpriced in the bit of London I grew up in. And there def doesn't seem to be any move to have Local Persons protections on various parts of London, which have been rapidly gentrified in recent times. I just thought it was interesting. Why is it that this group of white people get protected in this way?

No it’s to stop people buying it for a second home/ air B&B.

It's not about them being white, it's about ensuring local people are not priced out of the market.

There are some equivalents in London- in social housing for example, some properties will only be allocated to those who have been living and/or working in a particular borough.

I agree it would be good to extend this to houses for sale in London too.

It's all a bit Tubbs and Edward.

Is there anything to stop a London local authority to have a locals only policy?

It's to stop the area becoming a barren land filled with air b&bs that are empty half the year. It's a good thing.

Can they extend it to houses in counties on the London borders too?

It’s got nothing to do with racism. Some houses can only be used by agricultural workers, some have to have local connections, some to protect it for locals

you moved there,but for the first 5 years you wouldn’t qualify, so hats the same for anybody who moves to the area

It's to try and protect the area from people like you who come down from London with all your money and inflate the process so that locals can't afford to live there.
They should have introduced it years ago.

Although the purpose isn't necessarily racist it would have potentially discriminatory effect and so could be challenged by someone who was disadvantaged by it I reckon

It’s to protect against second-homers.

I’m sure there are people who aren’t white who have lived there for 5 years who are eligible ffs. This is absolutely nothing to do with racism and everything to do with protecting the local housing stock from, you know, people like you who plough down from London and out price the locals. Perhaps petition for your old London borough to do something similar if you’re unhappy.

It is really important to areas with a high density of second homes and airbnbs. I don't know how it would work in a city though, because of high turnover of people who move there to work and who tend to move on quite quickly, but there should absolutely be steps taken in London to clamp down on airbnbs. They're killing communities and pricing people out of the housing market in so many areas. Almost all the rental properties in my touristy town have switched to holiday lets. We have entire streets that are empty for months on end.

I kind of understand what you are saying, though I under their reasoning.

These areas have very very low levels of diversity compared to other parts of the UK, these policies will maintain that because they prevent other groups moving to the area.

I don’t know the answer to balance the two opposing needs, protection of the area, and supporting mobility across the UK for all groups. I’d hope it’s balanced by a mix of housing, some reversed to maintain the area as a viable family place to live, and some open to all.

Maybe harder restrictions on second homes or widening the group allowed to move in is better? A rural community clause or something? Open to all rural residents?

I think it's bloody brilliant. I live in a tourist town and my children will likely have to move out of the town they grew up in because there is no longer any affordable housing for them. I suppose they could stay in one of the hundreds and hundreds of airBnBs owned by people who've only ever set foot in the area on holidays as a kid but of course that's crazy.

It's not to protect against second homers. You can just put a restriction on it saying it has to be a primary home!

This is exactly what I mean, @HedgeWitchy They could easily introduce a primary home restriction, which would be far far far more effective for reducing the number of AirBNBs down here. This isn't that.

I think it's a good idea to do something to prevent second homes taking up the housing stock, but if its someone's primary home and they have a confirmed job offer in the local area then what's the issue? It's basically saying you need to have grown up here, have rented for 5 years or whatever when the issue is people buying them as second homes/air b&bs? Seems like they might lose out on some much needed professionals that way but their loss.

This.

The thing is that, no matter how worthy the motivation might be, if in fact this rule does favour an ethnic minority - which seems likely - it may well be found to be racist if challenged. That's particularly the case if they could achieve the same thing by having a primary home restriction.

Spot on . Wish we could have that. We are inundated and it has pushed the market beyond ever being affordable, Over a million £ for a flat brings in a lot over council tax which is spent on everything except roads schools etc
Good luck to them

Fairly sure Dartmoor isn't full of christians.. anyway it's a good thing to stop second home owners and local people not being able to buy where they live and work. When I lived in rural Devon a few decades ago 90% of the places locally were empty in the winter. Also many counties in England and Wales introduced free council tax for second home owners by dodgy councillors, things like these schemes are a good thing to try and rectify previous mistakes.
Nothing to stop anyone of any colour/religion etc of eventually meeting that criteria.

I can see both sides here. It does make sense to try and prevent holiday lets/second homes at the expense of actual housing. There isn't a straightforward way to prevent this.

However (even though I am personally/professionally interested in housing equality) yes I do understand the complaint. For example, people living in Cornwall whose children can't afford to buy in Cornwall. To me, that issue is a national one, as the majority can no longer afford to buy. I grew up in London, work hard and the idea I would ever be able to buy in London is laughable.

Second home ownership contributes to this problem significantly.

The solution would be to tackle second home ownership - although there is little to no legal provision for this.

I don't think ringfencing the property is the right answer, though.

It’s not just about second homers though but also local people who have grown up in the area & want to stay there being priced out by people moving in from wealthier areas because they can get more for their money and artificially inflating house prices. It’s happened massively here since covid - people who are now mainly working remotely moving further out from London but still expecting to pay London prices and feeling like they’re getting a bargain at a couple of hundred k less than they’d pay in London…so house prices have absolutely rocketed.

If you have a primary residence restriction how would you police it. Eviction if you put it on any letting site or Airbnb? I support the local people purchase scheme. I live in Somerset and there are areas here where people buy second homes in beautiful villages, killing them off

Thanks, @xol, you've summarised the issue precisely there. It does favour one ethnic minority over another, and that just seems weird in this day and age.