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?

Thanks for that - it just seemed quite obvious to me, but clearly lots of people on this thread didn't agree! (And totally don't mind a bit of debate, because the thread has actually been really helpful for clarifying my own views on it! Started off wondering if I was overreacting - not any more...)

Rural poverty is a thing. Plenty of people priced out of those own communities by the market. I still cloud afford to buy in the villiage I grew up in, even despite being on a decent salary. Plenty of people only stay living in these areas as property passes down who’d never afford them otherwise - which makes the property more rare to come by and more expensive).

I just googled it. Is it s157 of HA?
Because I am pretty sure actual lawyers looked at it (not just mn) and it's still fine in use...

Afaik it's not on all properties. Former council ones? Seems from the article by a lawyer I just had a look at.

Would you mind linking to the article, @Applesandcarrots ? This isn't ex council.

Sorry? Sorry, but where have I said anything of the sort? This is about inflated London prices where home owners there bought a place years ago, sell it and bring these huge amounts to buy properties in small, beautiful places- thus driving prices up, and eventually out of reach for those who work locally.

I'm sick of hearing about friends of friends who moved to London in the 90s, made big bucks in finance and then took the huge profits to buy a house outright in every coastal/ country beauty spot up and down the country. It means the local nurse can't get a property, or the area can't attract new professionals into the area/ business because houses are totally unaffordable.

It's happened across Cornwall- where I have relatives- and is happening in Northumberland as we speak (DS GF comes from there) as well as swathes of Scotland. My friend was able to rent a little cottage in Skye really cheaply 25 years ago - she worked as a shepard- now it's impossible to rent for less than a month's wages, never mind buy. It's just wrong and I fully support the 5 year rule.

Maybe so but quite often the lawyers advice is not tested until someone actually takes them to court...

And it's part of a s.106 agreement, @Applesandcarrots
They used to have something called the Devon Rule, but that's not it.

That's fine but if it's bought as a second home they could just declare the actual primary home as their secondary. We were priced out of our local city in our 20s, we are now 32 could afford to go back but have no desire. People should be able to live and buy where they want without restrictions.

I wish they would do that where I live.

I'm not sure if I'm missing something OP, but you're talking about one property having this restriction. How many others are available to purchase that don't have this restriction?
Is there anything to prevent people from outside of Dartmoor renting for five years and then being able to purchase the property?
Also is there a restriction on the property that once bought it can only be sold on to people in a similar situation or does it just go on the open market?

Ah just found s 106. Sorry my wrong, the other one right to buy.
Councils did equality impact assesments.
It could be discriminatory if it applied to all properties, but it looks like it does not.
It looks like it's used to allow for affordable housing (like we often see in developments that x% must be affordable housing).
So it's basically providing some number of affordable priperties for locals? That's what social housing does too. I believe most council use that? Ours did and we are not in some outstanding area of beauty ha.

Can't have a problem with affordable housing for local people tbh

Why on earth do you (and others in this thread) want to prop up greedy private landlords by forcing people to rent?

If you care about housing you'd want to stamp out private lettings.

I would like to know how the OP ended up in Dartmoor and what is her motivation to change these rules if she already is entitled to buy there.

Why does she care??

Two words ‘race baiting’ 🥺

@pansiesinmygarden Is it completely impossible for you to imagine that I might think that something that is potentially discriminatory and unfair might be interesting/worthy of debate even though I'm not directly harmed by it?

It not racist

So is it all housing or only few properties with the rest readily available?

I just found a scheme with some developer which only applies to locals in places like Manchester, Leeds etc. All over. It's gov scheme www.gov.uk/first-homes-scheme. Local councils can put conditions.

Explains probably how they manage to sell that tiny new builds....🙄

That was weird sentece. It's missing "EVEN in Manchester, Leeds etc"

These protective covenants have been around a long time. You have ones that restrict to farming families only and others that stipulate only those who work locally. The houses are bought below market value and then sold below market value to allow local people to afford accommodation.

primary residence doesnt actually put the local at the front of the queue does it?

Think about the problems that creates. Either having to move a long way and away from family support to buy an affordable house - exactly as you did from London.

If you're on minimum wage in dartmoor where are you supposed to move to? The North? How do you save money? Who looks after your kids?

Agricultural occupancy is a big blocker locally. There are a lot of properties with 1950s ag ties. on properties that no longer have a real reason to need them. You can buy one, but selling it into the open market means lifting the ag tie, and that costs a lot in legal fees. AN acquaintance did this 20 years ago; it cost roughly £20K in legal fees, but it increased the property value by £100k. And a very ordinary bungalow on a nice site has been progressively massively improved from a step up from a chicken shack to be worth (guessing) £900K+.

I don't think that it's that people can't see that this can be framed as a diversity issue (well maybe some can't).

It's that not everyone thinks that diversity is the highest priority here. It's that helping the rural working class and trying to prevent the loss of established communities may be as important as diversity.

We have had a large development built locally, and a lot of it was bought by Birmingham's housing authority, who moved people down. I don't know any of them personally, and I hope they are happy with their new houses. I hope they have found work and are learning to live with the Cornish they live among now. But there is a lot of resentment from all the local people who believed those houses were being constructed for local people when the plans were first shown.

You come from London, set up camp in a place (it's not yet clear why you have decided to force yourself on a place of natural beauty) and feel the compelling need to tell these people how to live their lives and what's best for them.

Everyone on the thread is telling you that it's not racist and that what you are proposing will harm local people. But you decide not to listen and look for legal loopholes, even though you can buy there.

Are people in this communit giving you a wide berth and hence you have decided it's a good idea to bring along some like-minded trouble makers with you? You sound like a handful. Embarassing and hypocritical

So its not only people who fail to come from the local gene pool you want to keep out - its also local people who have the temerity to go and find work outside that you want to block form returning?

Are they impure in some way as a consequence of working in a city?