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?

I live in an area where some houses have this kind of order on them and I think it's a good idea. We're in a rural area on the edge of a very popular holiday area which is now effectively "full" so tourism is spreading outwards. There are increasingly large numbers of houses being used as second homes/holiday homes and it has pushed property prices up a lot, pricing many young locals out of the market and leading to them moving away.
It's not a simple matter. Tourism is very important to the region economically so obviously accomodation is needed, but it's not a theme park and people do want and need to live permanently here. A lot of local jobs are not well paid - hospitality jobs in particular - so recently there's been issues with staff recruitment and retention in the tourism industry which has been at least partially attributed to the lack of affordable accomodation in the area.
There are quite a lot of initiatives here at present aimed at stemming the flow of young people out of the county but that will only work if they can find places to live. We also have problems attracting people like health care professionals to the area, and inward migration is necessary. So there is a balance to be struck, and ensuring adequate accomodation for all is difficult, particularly when you add the complication of planning restrictions/the need to preserve the countryside. It's easy to be critical of the planning authorities etc but it's a difficult job.
I think local occupancy clauses have a role to play as long as used judiciously, as do primary residence clauses. Some people are talking as though they make it impossible for people to move areas at all but that's not my experience. In our area it tends to be either lower cost property, particulary ex council houses, or agricultural properties that have local occupancy clauses. Self builds tend to have a primary residence clause and restrictions whereby they can't be sold to anyone else within a certain number of years. I guess that's to stop people getting round planning restrictions by pretending they are building for themselves and then immediately sell or use as an AirBnB. But it's a minority of houses that have restrictions.
I'm not against people moving from cities to the countryside. It would be very hypocritical of me if I was, as that's exactly what we did. But I came to do a job that was much needed and could not have been filled by a local person and I like to think we have contributed a lot to the community, not just taken from it. We have raised our children here, used local businesses, volunteered in various capacities and so on. In my experience incomers are welcomed if they actually become part of the community.
But it does need to be managed to some degree. The boom in holiday accommodation and second homes has a big impact on communities, and not just on property prices. Loss of permanent residents means things like fewer pupils in village schools, so funding cuts, local transport routes being dropped as they're not used, shops and pubs closing because there isn't enough year round trade etc all of which can be very detrimental to local people. So it is important to try to preserve rural communities, whilst recognising the role that new people and indeed tourism, play in such places. It's definitely not straightforward matter of right and wrong.

I'm referring to the large number of posters who want to see this as standard. Who think that communities in beauty spots should be kept exclusive whilst communities is towns and cities are of no value. Who are saying on this thread that they don't want outsiders even when they move into to make the community their permanent home and work and contribute to the local economy - which apparently is "stealing our jobs".

All outsiders are evil rich Londoners (even if they come from Preston), including any outsider coming in to work and contribute to the local economy as a nurse, teacher or care worker or to start a business.

These threads always go the same way.

what you are all saying is that we can only live and work in the community we were born into

no, just that new housing is restricted to local people. You can still buy older housing (as long as it's not used for holiday lets/second homes). We don't actually have a housing crisis in the UK, despite the common view. What we do have is a crisis in how it's allocated and owned. There is enough housing to go round but it's not allocated fairly or used efficiently.

You could apply the disproportionate effect argument to any area of public policy though.

If some ethnic groups are less likely to attend university than other groups then public funding for universities benefits some groups over others. Does that mean having public funded universities is racist?

All outsiders are evil rich Londoners (even if they come from Preston), including any outsider coming in to work and contribute to the local economy as a nurse, teacher or care worker or to start a business

In most cases teachers and care workers can't afford the house prices either. And the ones starting businesses are usually doing something useless like life coaching and it's a hobby job. Admittedly they might spend money in the local pub.

Also, people wanting to come in from elsewhere fuels green field developments, which wouldn't actually be needed if existing housing stock was equitably managed. And spoil the countryside so detract from what people come to the area to see anyway.

I haven't seen anyone say that no outsiders should come into these areas or that all properties should have local restrictions applied to them. Only that it's justifiable (and not racist!) for some properties to have local ownership restrictions.

Rightmove currently has 356 properties listed in Dartmoor. It's not as if outsiders can't currently move there.

Also it's possible to say local ownership only, or people with key job offers locally.

So you can't buy an affordable house in a new build development unless you are taking up employment as eg a care worker or a teacher. If you want to come and live in the area with your hobby job, you can't. You'll have to rent until you've met the 5 year residency requirement. Seems fair to me. Again, this sort of thing has been standard in the Channel Islands for decades (though still hasn't prevented ludicrous house prices).

That's the developers' and the Local Authorities' fault not the buyers.

I live on the edge of the London Green Belt. There's loads of disused industrial land here, but it's much cheaper and easier (ie more profitable) to build on virgin land, so that's what they do. The option to buy houses built on brown field sites, which will often be closer to infrastructure, isn't there

I saw these kind of restrictions on some houses in the Peak District when I was looking to buy. I think they’re fantastic.
I grew up in a Cotswold village - I am well and truly priced out of that entire area now. It’s sad, the area has just become a second-home/commuter/home-working area populated by townies with no idea of rural society and little to contribute to the rural economy.

Lots of people have argued that, hence there are schemes that aim to redress that balance (e.g. better offers for those whose parents didn't go to university, or who went to state school, etc.)

You excised the context from that quote which was describing the way these threads go.

If you want to put a community in aspic and prevent outsiders moving in and contributing to the economy, thereby keeping the community dependent on the same few landowners - fill your boots.

If you want more dynamism and opportunities in the local economy then part of that is more movement. What fascinates me in so many of these areas is that failure to see the connection between a thriving community and movement of people both in and out.

This is completely separate from the issue of second homes/holiday lets, for which local authorities already have considerable powers around primary residency, higher council tax and other deterrents. However local people need to vote for councils willing to implement those deterrents and also to support development of social housing (which makes less money for the local developer/landowners).

I'm priced out of the bit of London I grew up in, mainly due to people from outside London who have no idea of London society, many of whom will move back out to the countryside once they've made some money here. Do you think I should have got preferential treatment so I could buy a house there?

I think you need to educate yourself on racism.

It's a good idea! We only got our house because the owner didn't want to sell to a landlord. My great aunt accepted a lower offer because she wanted a family to buy her house instead of another landlord pricing regular families out.
I'll always think well of her for that.

I can't speak for the poster you quoted but I think you should.

It's a sorry state of affairs when housing stock is depleted to the detriment of communities in the interests of those who have no interest in said community. Gentrification has been a huge issue in London.

🤦‍♀️ 🤦‍♀️ 🤦‍♀️ Totally overthinking it. I know Dartmoor well and yes, the white people were probably there first. So? They just want to keep it local, if any local black people want to buy then they won’t be prevented. You’re seeing a problem where there isn’t one.

The thing is, I'm a 3rd-generation immigrant (from outside the UK) and I'm raising my children here, I hope they stay. Most of the people I know who have built their lives here are also 1st, 2nd, 3rd or 4th generation immigrants to the UK.

There is no way to distinguish on paper between those of us whose families moved here and see this as our home for the foreseeable future, and people who move here after 'uni' but then retreat back to the all-White, all-English countryside once they've had a couple of kids. And sometimes those people do decide to stay and make it their permanent home.

Some of my husband's relatives are exactly this type and yes, they have no interest in building or supporting the community around them - it's all about house prices and 'avo on toast'.

But even though I'd have benefited from it, I wouldn't support this kind of legislation at all. I love London because it's dynamic and ever-changing and always interesting. Any restrictions on 'incomers' is absolutely going to discriminate against those of different ethnicities and nationalities, even if that's not the primary motive for it. I don't want to live somewhere that's actively hostile to 'outsiders', even if they do annoy the fuck out of me when they stand on the left.

I don’t think it’s for all houses, just a proportion, and yes I think you should have that in London too.

I think some of the issues we have in this country could be helped by more of a sense of community, and part of that comes from people being able to live near family, continue on traditions and a way of life that they grew up with, and hope that their own children can do the same. You set down roots in a place you feel you belong, which for a lot of people is where they grew up, and you care more about what happens to that area and the people in it.

There are no local Black people. Oh sorry, there are 12.

(See stats posted above.)

Dartmoor is really not Christian. It's actually a place of Pagan origins. If you visit you will notice stones placed on top of each other in little villages. Lots of pagan symbolism and throughout certain events in the year, pagans ands covens congregate there to celebrate events of the year and things. I think if you go around talking about Christianity to the locals in Dartmoor you might offend quite a few people as obviously their whole way of life has been targeted by extremists in that religion. I'm not pagan but having lived in the area I'm aware, it's just not broadcasted as there can be a lot of hostility between groups and most people just want a peaceful life.

Other areas of Devon I don't think has this rule in place. But I'm not surprised dartmoor has as it's considered quite sacred land and locals are very protective of it, rightly so it's beautiful. I know people moving there might get annoyed but its not just a place to work or a home to some of the locals there, it's precious to them and some have lived their for generations. I'm sure in other countries there too is some areas protected for natives, and with so much choice to live anywhere I'm not sure why one tiny bit of area has to have issues that people can just make dibs on that too.

I don't live there just giving a bit of background info on the area, personally I would love people to move their who specialise in agriculture and land, as it has so much diversity with animals, land I would love it to remain protected. There a few historic woods and places that have already been destroyed by visitors or youngsters partying, which is so sad for the local wildlife.

Also so sorry about grammatical and spelling errors, I'm typing on a phone 😬

Yes, but in most areas of public policy, it is considered. Ie if a university had a policy in place that made it more likely to benefit to benefit one specific group over another, it would be told to sort it out. (Whether that would have any effect or not is another thread!)

Yes, but those 356 properties won't have 20% off the market price which is precisely the point.

It seems really weird that people can't see that these figures are... A little odd. And that maybe - just maybe - the fact that they are deliberately creating planning restrictions that are designed to reduce the number of "incomers" might have something to do with it. Particularly when it relates to one of the beautiful parts of the country.

I live on the edge of an incredibly tourist-y area which has these kind of restrictions on some properties (only a fairly small number though as it's specific to the planning permission that was given at the time of building in the last 25 years). A bit further away is a rural area that isn't as tourist-y but is still v attractive and LOTS of houses there are second homes - many not even used as Air BnBs, they just sit empty for 3-10 months of the year. I look at the way that area is declining rapidly and think that something should be done! There are no easy answers when it comes to this because we take a capitalist/free market approach to housing people in the UK which sees some people own multiple properties on the basis of "investment" while others don't have a secure roof over their heads.

I can't see how a primary residence requirement would help because it's virtually impossible to police unless the property is let out.