objections to affordable homes by snobby villagers - This makes me so angry!

[meemar]

Living in devon myself, this makes me so annoyed.

The worst of it is that most of them are 2nd home owners and don't even live there. And the proposal is only for six houses ffs.

I can't bear NIMBY attitudes.

I once asked someone the way in one of these very snobby South Hams villages. She took one disgusted look at our car (a battered old van), and at my jeans and khaki jacket, and replied in a contemptuous voice that she couldn't help me.

I could have said, "actually I have ancestors, a public school education and an Oxford degree, you snobby old cow" but of course being English, I said nothing.

This news is just disgusting. If we ever returned to the UK, I would like to live somewhere socially mixed. Does that exist in Britain, at least anywhere where you can get a job?
I find it very depressing, that so many places seem to be either middle class or working class ghettos, and I dont want to live in either.

quick check on rightmove. Of the 255 houses on the market in Cobham atm, c. 95 of them are over £1 million.

depressing, rindercella.

nighbynight there are still places which are mixed. Our town in Derbys has an interesting mix, from the time when it was industrial in C19th. You can still buy a house outright (not part oen, part rent) for under £100k or you can pay over £0.5 million. No million pound homes yet here!

It's interesting to look at the town and how it's grown, with the 'workers' cottages/houses close to the old mills and the house sizes increasing as you move away from there.

There are new developments though further out which just don't blend into this at all e.g. the council estate, some of which has been sold off is very much same-y housing and the newer developments further away again.

"cos I can't afford to buy a house around here." Guess that makes me less equal then Expat?

Then the ridiculous planning laws are keeping you further and further away from that.
There are more than enough houses in the uk and actually no really need to buy more as the next few years will prove when properties stand empty but the fact is it is bad for peoples mental health to be cramped into grey boxes miles away from their family and support systems because some area's are affordable and other are deemed not to be.

I did read that in salcombe house sales have plummeted by 80%

poor old Marchand Petit

I think that second home owners should have a say in development that might affect their property. I also think that the slant of "second homeowners scupper development" is simplistic - wrt to cornish slipway, the main objections came from English Nature I think, about the impact of the jetty on the environment. And the report I read made it clear that some second home owners had supported the fishermen, just as some had objected.

I agree that there should be more affordable houses in "desireable" areas. But this shouldn't IMO be at the expense of the local physical environment. Or rather, the Council should do what they are supposed to: assess whether the need for affordable housing justifies making an exception to planning policies. In the case linked to, the Councillors did grant planning permission, despite the objections (possibly because, as well as being a "good thing" they would have been aware that the 2nd home owners unlikely to be registered to vote in the area ) and against the officer recommendations. They assessed that the advantages of the scheme outweighed the negative impact of the development on the environment. Kind of demonstrates to me that the system does work.

By that I mean the planning system should see the provision of affordable housing as a massive plus, only to be refused if significant harm would ensue.

I don't mean that the system as a whole works - in terms of providing sufficient land and implementing affordable housing schemes - is an immensely complicated system involving the liaison between multiple agencies and often a certain amount of NIMBYism to contend with, that isn't unique to second home owners by a long shot.

I just think that anyone who owns land or property should have the same ability to comment on an application as someone who lives there or works there. The planning process is open to all - I could comment on an application 100 miles away if I wanted to, and if I raised valid planning reasons for commenting or objecting, those comments should be taken into account.

It is of course up to the local planners/Councillors what weight they give the objections received - their job to assess the validity of the concerns and how relevant they are to the planning issues.

And in fact, as has been demonstrated in the devon case, the Councillors are fully within their rights to say "we hear you, but disregard your concerns" and IMO are more likely to do so when the comments are made by second home owners who arguably have less sway in the election of Councils. In the helford(?) case the concerns regarding the environment were strongly supported and lent strength by the objections of natural england or some other national environmental pressure group/consultee.

And FWIW I think that the Council in devon made the right decision - affordable housing is extremely important in "desirable" rural areas and it is so hard to find the right sites at the right price where property prices are in general inflated that the opportunity should be seized with both hands, so long as the positives of the proposals outweigh the negatives.

looks like it's going to happen after all

here

Yes - that's the link the OP posted.

oops

Deffo they should pay full Council tax.

Is a really tricky situation - can't see how it can be changed really. The only thing I can think of is if the county councils had policies like they do in national parks now (I think) that any new homes have to be for occupancy of locals. But there's still the issue of where they get the land for new affordable houses from, and who will fund it. The woman in Devon who donated land and so on is a rare example unfortunately.

It is also tricky in areas where tourism is a major contribution to the local economy (parts of Cornwall for example). Second home owners who rent their houses out contribute to the local economy in providing holiday accommodation - without which areas like Cornwall would suffer massive financial losses.

Can't see an answer myself.

Sorry Pooka but the amount they contribute to the economy compared to someone living there full time is marginal, but in the process manage to kill off the locality the rest of the year.

Second homes should be limited in areas, once a % of second homes is an area is reached say max 25% (figure plucked out of air) no further second home owners should be allowed to buy in the area or only buy a house that is already used for that purpose. (with a waiting list / licence type system if necessary)

I realise this is possibly slightly fantacising (sp)in a difficult situation but I do feel there should be a register ( easy to do look at who is claiming 2nd home relief!), and those not on it should be fined. They should most definitely pay above rate on council tax as they are not supporting local services, causing them to die off.

Oh and anyone not registering should be given a heavy fine to "encourage" future compliance, or house to be rented by local housing assiations (now i really am gettimg silly!!!!)

me thinks I've thought a little too much on this can't tell I'm in Devon can you!!!!

The local occupancy rule will never work.

Speaking from experience as a second home hunter I have come across numerous sellers (often locals who want to make a quick profit) who are more than happy to sell to outsiders.

I'm not sure why council tax should be raised though ... if they are used less then they are emptied less yes ? and if the property is rented out then business rates are applied which is different again.

tbh pooka most "new homes" unless on the luxury end of the market have little appeal for 2nd home owners (ime) who want the quirky little cottage type outfit (normally in cenral location close to village pub and beach.

Like the idea of 1st 5 years for locals but then there may be eviction difficulties etc....

"well if these secind home owners are going to have a say, surely it is about time they started paying as much in council tax as the rest of us "

Yep, that sounds about right.

My father had a holiday home on the Isle of Mull. The difference being that it was always full, of holiday makers in the summer and locals on temporary lets in the winter (not every year though). We tended to fit in around other lets. We could have 'free' holidays which were paid for by the people who rented the house. And it did benefit the local economy. When dad sold it he took a lower price to sell it to a local business as an annexe to theit B&B.

FWIW because it was a business he ended up paying more council tax. Which is daft really.

The council tried to propose a few affordable homes in a village near here.

It's full of old codgers.

You'd have to pay me to live there anyway.

It's boring as all hell. There's not even a post office for miles.

Also village faces the wrong way and a lot of it is in a glen. The last thing you need in this part of the country is to be a location that gets even less sun and more midgies.

My DH thinks that 2nd homes should attract quadruple council tax to compensate the local community.

I effing second home owners full stop. They don't contribute to the local economy in the main (bring all their groceries from London) and think Devon is just a bloody holiday resort. Have you heard the hoo-ha about that fishing jetty (in Beer or Branscombe or somewhere? can't remember exactly) from 2nd home owners opposing the local fishermen's request for a jetty to unload their fish in the village. Like it has anything to do with them when they only spend 36 hours, at most 50x a year in the village, and the local economy depends on it. W@ankers. Do they realise/care what they average wage is in Devon (About £20,000 for full time workers, much less overall as lots of work is seasonal here)