For some unknown and lunatic reason the ownership of more than one home was encouraged by the last government. While some people are rubbing their hands at making a good investment, or setting up a holiday rental business, the effects of this practice has compounded a problem for many people living in this community, and other tourist hot-spots throughout the country.
A second home is a privilege (incidentally the origin of this word springs from the same root verb to ‘deprive’).
Second Homes Killing Communities
Taking a house ‘out of daily use’ brings down the population of a community, reduces the need for services such as shops, buses, schools and school transportation, it helps turn our villages into dormitories.
In addition to this social effect, the lack of availability of housing also drives up the prices of the existing housing stock and rental values. It may bring temporary economic benefits to builders or other services as a place is upgraded or changed, but the overall impact is that a building stands empty when there are people nearby that need homes. I cannot understand why this scandal was encouraged and I cannot see why this tax avoidance loophole cannot be closed.
Furthermore it means a new house needs to be created to fill the gap.
In this area, (outstanding natural beauty, SSSI, world heritage etc etc) building new houses is not the answer even though it would arguably remove the problem for decades. It would be unpopular, excruciatingly difficult to achieve, and in common sense terms unnecessary. The housing stock exists already, but it is not ‘available’ due to second home ownership.
According to Shelter’s Local housing watch web-site this area is not doing very well at all. It is performing at 9% of the targetted need for new housing projects.
The most recent waiting list figures for housing in West Dorset 2009/10 show 2313 households, (that’s families not individuals). This web-site also identifies an annual requirement for 737 social houses. Since 2008, 83 have been planned and 70 delivered. (There is a new yearly survey coming out shortly, but it is unlikely these figures will change significantly).
However the price of new builds is astronomical with land plots prohibitively expensive, and the consequent value of the properties exceeding average annual income for local workers. An average house price is 230,000, with an average income needed to buy this home is £50,750 p.a. The actual average wage in this area is under £20,000.
Dog in a Manger
There is also a moral question. It’s the dog in a manger scenario that many people myself included find abhorrent. You can’t drive two cars at the same time, or wear two pairs of shoes, equally, if you want to live somewhere then for everyone’s sake LIVE THERE. You cant be in two places at once, and for those that have the basic need for shelter, to be economically defeated by what appears to be another’s greed also brings bad feeling and animosity. Surely if someone can afford two homes they can afford to stay at a hotel rather than take a house out of commission for the few times it is ‘used’.
Double Council Tax
I think that this practice of having an extra house that is not used should be discouraged. The council tax for an unoccupied dwelling should be doubled or even trebled or more, and the money raised should be ploughed into new housing projects. That way the second home owner is doing their bit for their privilege, and a home is being replaced rather than lost. Also local people could look forward to living and working in their area, raising their families and contributing to the overall well-being of our communities.
If we don’t find a way to solve our housing problem it will never go away, and this area, beautiful and attractive as it is, will eventually be destroyed by it’s appeal.
Sean Geraghty
cold pillows
I agree, empty houses should be discouraged. There is an other way of looking at this:
In Switzerland if you build a new resort you need to prove that the apartments will not have any ‘cold pillows’ i.e. remain empty for too long.
Similarly, second home owners could be made to prove that the house will be filled for at least say 6 months of the year or pay high local taxes to counteract their not spending money locally.
Tourism brings money and employs people directly and indirectly, empty houses don’t.
Double Council tax?
Perhaps owners of ‘second’ homes should pay double the rate of council tax, this in a small way, will offset revenue lost to the local economy by being vacant for half the year.