What is wrong with local housing?

[Halfhidden]

As some of you know I've been away for the last month doing the census thing. Although I'm not allowed to talk about my work and was asked to sign the official secrets act, I am however allowed to generalise on what I did.

As a lad I spent a lot of time in Carbis Bay St Ives. It was a quaint little area that brings back warm memories. I remember the little cottages and the pleasant walk down to the golden sands on Carbis Bay beach.

Recently I revisited after nearly a 30 year break.
The area has changed significantly and where once stood Cornish cottages there are multi storey luxury flats. I was shocked how much the place had changed and how few actually live there any longer.
One property that caught my eye was a luxury bungalow with 5 bedrooms and a serious amount of grounds around it... That was £6,000 a week to rent. Other places were also luxurious, almost pent house status.

OK Carbis Bay is allowed to be developed and there is nothing wrong with capitalising on the beauty of the place, but what of the local economy? What of this money is actually staying here or there rather.
My best guess is that 70% of the population of Carbis Bay are holiday homes or second homes. This has pushed the housing prices up. The averaged house price at its cheapest is about £230,000 and only a few feet down the road £350,000.
So how much of this can the local person afford?
My question is is development good for the locals or not?

 

[symons55]

When locals are priced out of the housing market, no, it's not good for the locals. I work in many of these places and could never afford what I see in them let alone buy the property.

 

[Halfhidden]

Do you not feel like the Welsh did in the 80's?

 

[symons55]

Ok, what did they feel like? I can't remember.

 

[Halfhidden]

Uh they burnt the houses down in mass

 

[symons55]

Sort of....if I can't have them neither will you...........like it.

 

[tabtab13]

I don't think this sort of development is good for locals at all, I can't see the greater benefit. The builder(s) make money, the property owner(s) make money and I think a lot of this is down to the glut of house or house development/renovation programmes on tv where people think they can make a quick buck from property - though I guess they are not doing that well in the current housing market. I guess it's hard to work out just how much of that money filters back into the local economy.

But this is happening up and down the country as well, not just here. Perhaps a substantial tax on holiday homes or second homes could then be put into a Council building fund to be used for affordable housing for local people. After all, if you can afford a holiday or second home, then you're not short of a bob or two.

Spread the wealth.

 

[Halfhidden]

Well partly I agree with what you said but then there is a part of me saying what is fair?

For instance a second home that could well be empty for up to eleven and a half months in the year and only pay a few pennies towards the upkeep of the local refuge and so on seems bad. Yet on the other hand they aren't adding to the cost. An example of this is the gypsy. This is someone who could travel between districts and use resources but hard to track down and make them contribute equally to those areas.

 

[ratster]

but a true gypsy would nor be using the resourses that the council provide anyway so is it fair to force them to contribute. but if they are on a site then they should contribute. just a thought

 

[Halfhidden]

@ratster I agree in principle about the gypsy I was trying to find a group that could be used as an example. Basically the way I see it is these are the resources a second home uses (off the top of my head)
Sewage (collection and distribution of rain water)
Fire services (the fire fighters are on call whether the house is empty or not)
Police (an empty yet fully furnished house is a greater risk of burglary)

Also a second home brings in less revenue to the local economy.
Resources like the post office, local supermarkets, milk man, news agents and so on

So what I'm trying to say is that in some ways I agree that a second home should pay their way. Not necessarily based on the owners financial situation but on the fact that these homes are empty but still use resources.

Holiday homes and flats are far worse. The amount of rubbish generated by a holiday flat is often far greater than a domestic premises.
An example of what I've seen is this. I haven't yet seen one holiday flat/house with a recycling box that is in use. The most common scene on a Saturday morning (change over day) was a line of wheelie bin with their lids up because they were so full.
Sewage is also a point. A domestic premises would normally have a fixed amount of occupiers throughout the year, yet holiday flats/houses don't. A three bedroom holiday house could quite easily contain as much as double that of a domestic premises.

One thing that is common place with both second homes and holiday accommodations is that the local resources are stretched unfairly over a short period of time. And yes that does make it more expensive, why? Well for one thing if the resources were equally used throughout the year then more full time employees would be needed. Planning and implementation would be straightforward and under control. However this isn't the case when resources are suddenly used in excess. Take the job interview. This takes about hour to complete on average if you take into account correspondence as well as the actual interview. We all know that in the summer more part time jobs are created. Now take that 1 hour and multiple it by every job created to cope with the sudden use of local resources by the second home and holiday industry and tell me that they don't really need to pay more to the local economy.