Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
londislagerhound

No 2Nd Homes In St Ives - Referendum -- Merged Topics

Recommended Posts

Apols if posted elsewhere - I think this should remain on the main forum rather than the regional one too.

St Ives referendum: Second homes proposal approved by voters

A seaside town has voted to stop the building of second homes.

A referendum for the residents of St Ives was held after a surge in holiday homes in the Cornish town and a shortage of affordable housing.

The plans mean new housing projects will get planning permission only if reserved for full-time residents.

More than 80% of voters backed the ban. However, a judicial review bid has been lodged against Cornwall Council by a local firm for allowing the referendum.

Click here for live updates on this story as it develops

The authority said it would "carefully consider the grounds on which the claim for the review" were made, but it was confident the correct process had been followed.

The referendum, which asked residents to agree to a ban on building any housing other than "principal homes", came after the number of second homes in St Ives topped 25% of the total, according to the town council.

Cornwall Council said there was a 42.7% turnout, of which 83.2% voted for the ban.

Concerns over a lack of affordable housing have been pitched against the costs for landowners, and fears house prices would inflate further.

It may be the second place in the South West to impose a restriction on second homes, but the St Ives "primary residence" policy for new-builds is being seen as highly significant.

Cornwall Council's cabinet member for planning, Edwina Hannaford, told me she thinks it will be the first of many places in the county to bring in the measure - in fact, she says the local authority will be promoting it to other towns and parishes.

It has also been watched closely by other authorities in second home hotspots across the country.

"Local communities, like St Ives, are being threatened by our severe drought of genuinely affordable homes in this country and, understandably, more and more people are demanding solutions," Roger Harding from the charity Shelter said.

"Our housing crisis is reaching boiling point and is leaving families living in fear that their children will be forced out of the towns and villages they've grown up in, simply because they'll be priced out of a home of their own."

The seaside town's debate has reverberated around the world.

"I've been interviewed by media in Canada, New Zealand and Israel who have similar problems", town mayor Linda Taylor said.

She said she was "overwhelmed" by the "remarkable support for the mandate" and the "tremendous turnout".

She said: "St Ives should be incredibly proud", adding it was "one of the biggest changes for St Ives in recent times".

'Squeeze up' house prices

The ban, which is part of the St Ives Area Neighbourhood Development Plan, also means developers will not be allowed to sell buildings to anyone who has a residence elsewhere.

Christopher Balch, professor of planning at Plymouth University, said while he "entirely understood" housing affordability was "the big issue" facing residents in St Ives, there were definitely some risks involved in the plan.

The number of second homes in St Ives has topped 25% of the total, according to the town council

"We live in a society where we have free markets [and] if you choke off new homes, second home owners may start buying existing homes," he said, adding this could "squeeze up" current prices.

Prof Balch said other councils would be watching the impact of the policy in St Ives over the next 12 months.

Lynton and Lynmouth in Devon has already stopped the development of new second homes in its neighbourhood plan.

The BBC has approached the Department for Communities and Local Government for comment.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cornwall-36204795

Edited by rantnrave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cornwall-36204795

A vote for planning permission to be granted only for permanent residents with a lack of affordable housing cited as a reason. Words fail me, they really do.

42% NIMBY turnout with 83% in support of the ban. Who'd have thought it?

I agree - the measure will probably have the result of pushing up the price of the existing housing stock.

Triple council tax for 2nd homes would have been a more sensible measure given what they are seeking to achieve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree - the measure will probably have the result of pushing up the price of the existing housing stock.

Triple council tax for 2nd homes would have been a more sensible measure given what they are seeking to achieve.

Me too - it's a nice headliner and I can see why the locals liked it, but I think there may well be negative consequences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think they qualify as NIMBYs. As someone who has to compete with "London money" to live in the place I was born, I can really sympathise with them.

If/when price and demand crashes, I think this'll work out well for them. A lot of current 2nd homes will come onto the market. Hopefully they'll re-enact this to block Londoners from moving to rural Kent, too.

Edited by spunko2010

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I come an area blighted with holdiay homes (rented out) and 2nd homes.

Against bans.

For double ctax (seocnds homes) and higher taxation for holiday lets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It just amazes me that we're in a situation where entire housing estates can be built as de facto 2nd homes in the first place. In a normal world, houses are built for people who....errr....want to live in them. If there is such a need for holiday homes, why doesn't some enterprising company build a big fukc-off holiday park there?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I come an area blighted with holdiay homes (rented out) and 2nd homes.

Against bans.

For double ctax (seocnds homes) and higher taxation for holiday lets.

Double council tax would hardly make a dent for those who can afford a second home. Quadruple might be or better still land tax to he value of the property (for everyone that is not just the additional properties).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As mentioned on the previous thread the best solution would be to tax 2nd home owners heavily eg triple council tax or more. Introduce it gradually with plenty of warning and at the right level many would then sell up and likely prices would fall and locals could then afford them. This is similar to what is happening with BTL tax changes. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as I can tell, what they've voted for is to stop building new second-homes, but you can have a second home if you like anyway.

So, they've constrained supply and not reduced demand - presumably the result will be that the prices of already built second-homes goes up and the price of ordinary houses in the area goes up in concert (for the more wealthy second home buyer). They've not done anything to support increasing supply for primary homes.

Sounds like if you've already invested in a second home in the area then you're quids in. If you want to raise a family in the area then tough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The PROFESSOR (Yes, PROFESSOR) of PLANNING (Yes, PLANNING) says...

"We live in a society where we have free markets [and] if you choke off new homes, second home owners may start buying existing homes," he said, adding this could "squeeze up" current prices.

Christ on a bike.

Planning is a highly regulated state monopoly that severely restricts supply.

I can forgive this brain-moron for not knowing about housing benefit subsidizing investor demand by 25 billion of yield a year. I can forgive him not understand how banks further ratchet up demand by credit bubbles, and how govt adds to it via bribes and Help to buy

BUT HOW CAN A F'KIN PLANNING PROFESSOR CALL PLANNING "FREE MARKETS"???!!!

Plymouth university, fire this cretin, NOW!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Double council tax would hardly make a dent for those who can afford a second home. Quadruple might be or better still land tax to he value of the property (for everyone that is not just the additional properties).

Kinda funny how certain outlays have a disproportionate effect, for example VED on cars. Taken in the round, annual VED is a small expense in the overall cost of car ownership, but it has hugely affected buying habits. Maybe the council tax would be similar. Peanuts as you point out, but could prompt a big change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I come an area blighted with holdiay homes (rented out) and 2nd homes.

Against bans.

For double ctax (seocnds homes) and higher taxation for holiday lets.

I thought the idea for restrictions on holiday lettings was to ensure that an area didn't become overpopulated and some of its character preserved. Why the hostility towards it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kinda funny how certain outlays have a disproportionate effect, for example VED on cars. Taken in the round, annual VED is a small expense in the overall cost of car ownership, but it has hugely affected buying habits. Maybe the council tax would be similar. Peanuts as you point out, but could prompt a big change.

Agreed, the road are awash with zero tax shopping trolleys top speed 30mph hence why we can't get any where fast.

Perhaps the 82% of the 43% already owned home in st Ives and were looking for a quick 10% hpi?

Another little thing is the 3% charge on second homes. That may have the same affect as double CT.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought the idea for restrictions on holiday lettings was to ensure that an area didn't become overpopulated and some of its character preserved. Why the hostility towards it?

A BTL makes a comment that lines up with protecting high house prices.....quelle surprise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought the idea for restrictions on holiday lettings was to ensure that an area didn't become overpopulated and some of its character preserved. Why the hostility towards it?

I'm all in favour of the theory. It is the approach which is being criticised - mainly because it appears designed to increase the price of housing for those already invested; it will only make things worse for ordinary people trying to live their lives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm all in favour of the theory. It is the approach which is being criticised - mainly because it appears designed to increase the price of housing for those already invested; it will only make things worse for ordinary people trying to live their lives.

I'm puzzled by the holiday letting restriction. It doesn't really seem to solve any population density issues. The infrastructure needs to be in place to cope with visitors at certain times of the year in any case, so what does it actually achieve?

I've never been in favour of restricting anyone ability to live where they want, although I do accept that sometimes there is an over riding need to restrict building whatever you want where you want. Present planning policies seem to favour building large new communities on Greenfield sites to suit the major house builders economic wishes. Villages seemed to evolve attractively without the intervention of planners.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm puzzled by the holiday letting restriction. It doesn't really seem to solve any population density issues. The infrastructure needs to be in place to cope with visitors at certain times of the year in any case, so what does it actually achieve?

I've never been in favour of restricting anyone ability to live where they want, although I do accept that sometimes there is an over riding need to restrict building whatever you want where you want. Present planning policies seem to favour building large new communities on Greenfield sites to suit the major house builders economic wishes. Villages seemed to evolve attractively without the intervention of planners.

There is the population lack-of-density.

Schools need kids all year round. Good shops need customers all year round.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is the population lack-of-density.

Schools need kids all year round. Good shops need customers all year round.

Exactly, so why do planners restrict some dwellings to holiday lets only.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is the population lack-of-density.

Schools need kids all year round. Good shops need customers all year round.

Which leads to a viscious circle of ever-increasing population and sprawl. When the whole economy is geared towards large-scale and centralisation the story is "become big or die". With the way our society is set up you can be a big city, a dormitory for a big city (requiring either closeness or obnoxious heavy-duty transport links that detract everything in between), or dead (or creeping by by being full of tourists in summer). This is a very bad thing with no obvious solution. To a degree it's relative to the population elsewhere in a country.

Villages seemed to evolve attractively without the intervention of planners.

Most things that are to the detriment of their attractiveness are 20th century onward additions, and that's more down to coming up with new ways of building unpleasant crap quickly and cheaply than anything to do with planning (which has randomly helped and hindered). The most attractive villages tend to have the fewest 20th century additions whilst benefitting from the advances that mean the removal of all the older problems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

St Ives second home referendum backfires as housing market slows because outsiders don't feel welcome, estate agents warn

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08/01/st-ives-second-home-referendum-backfires-as-housing-market-slows/

So a referendum about making St Ives less attractive to second homeowners has backfired according to the DT as there have been 10% less enquiries from people wanting second homes.

These journalists have got all the pieces but they just can't put them together.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

St Ives second home referendum backfires as housing market slows because outsiders don't feel welcome, estate agents warn

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08/01/st-ives-second-home-referendum-backfires-as-housing-market-slows/

So a referendum about making St Ives less attractive to second homeowners has backfired according to the DT as there have been 10% less enquiries from people wanting second homes.

These journalists have got all the pieces but they just can't put them together.

+1... I did think the article was trying to be ironic.....

Edited by eek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   35 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.