ForumGarden

UK councils to outlaw the sale of holiday cottages to those who already own elsewhere  | Daily Mail Online

About time too.

I'm trying to translate the headline into English.

I presume a holiday cottage is somewhere owned by a person who already has a home, else it wouldn't be a holiday cottage it would be where he lives.

So "who already own elsewhere" can't mean "who already own a residence", or it would just say "UK councils to outlaw the sale of holiday cottages".

So it means you can't own more than one holiday home? If you try buying a second holiday home the councils of the UK will prevent you?

But the order only applies to sellers, not to buyers? UK councils to "outlaw the sale of"? Not the buying of?

So it comes down to if I offer to sell a holiday cottage, it's my duty to check that the potential buyer currently has no existing holiday cottage otherwise the sale will be banned by my council and fail to go through.

Or, of course, the headline is utter Daily Mail balls as usual.

Some more 'Balls'

BBC Balls

Telegraph Balls

International Business Times Balls

I think it is the right thing to do, but how can it be legal?

Bruv;1495558 wrote: Some more 'Balls'

BBC Balls

Telegraph Balls

International Business Times Balls

I think it is the right thing to do, but how can it be legal?


It's legal if there is a law making it so.

The local plan's key part is ensuring all new builds will be lived in as a main home rather than used as a holiday let or second home, using electoral roll and GP medical centre records to establish that the potential owners are living locally.


The local councils control planning permission they can't stop existing ones but they can stop developments that are solely intended for sale as holiday homes. This notion that you can't stop people with money buying whatever they want is not one we have to accept.

The flaw is that it only covers new builds ?

All the older homes will be snapped up as they come on the market, then as the new builds change hands ten years later, are they protected ?

Bruv;1495558 wrote: Some more 'Balls'
I opened those. I'm not going to pollute my computer by opening an online red-top tabloid cesspool like the Daily Mail - or the Mirror, Sun, Express or People - but I opened those.

So - what did the opening post say? "UK councils to outlaw the sale of holiday cottages to those who already own elsewhere?"

It's not "UK councils", it's St Ives.

It's not "the sale of", it's the construction of.

It's not "holiday cottages", it's all new build residential. It's a proposed restraint to apply to every single new residential unit constructed from now on in St Ives.

It's not "those who already own elsewhere", it would stop all existing home-owners and all non-locals - two completely distinct groups - from purchasing any new build residence. The only people to whom the builder of a new local residence would be allowed to sell it are locals joining the housing ladder.

You wouldn't have thought one headline could contain so many errors.

How it's proposed to distinguish someone local seems unclear. Born in West Penwith? Born in Cornwall? Currently renting within ten miles? Unable to move out of the local parental home? Native Cornish speaker?

What the story doesn't say is what the new rule is intended to achieve. The sole purpose of the new condition is to bring down the purchase price of new residential housing in St Ives while putting up the sale price of existing residential housing in St Ives. The number of possible buyers for new residential housing in St Ives will go down, so those prices will go down because there's less competition to buy them. The number of possible buyers for existing residential housing in St Ives won't go down, so those prices will go up because there's more competition to buy from a smaller range of properties.

So, who exactly was it who voted for this new rule? Existing property owners in St Ives? The same group as gets the resulting price hike when they sell their own property?

All done on the pretense that it has something to do with let's be kind to the poor?

I blame the Daily Mail, myself.

Far far too much time.......on your hands.

I wanted to know what the story was, that's all. To find out involves thinking.

spot thinks therefore he is - I think.

spot;1495577 wrote: I wanted to know what the story was, that's all. To find out involves thinking.


Over thinking ?

Why would that be banned? Any of it?

The voters benefit financially if the ban is accepted.

ZAP;1495585 wrote: Why would that be banned? Any of it?


In small villages that are places of natural beauty and attract lots of summer holiday makers, the locals fail to afford homes in their own place of birth.

The place in question has approximately 80% non resident homes, these are bought by outsiders that live in them for a few weeks every year. They visit at weekends carrying their own provisions so local shops lose custom. So local economies suffer 'out of season' because there is a depletion of real local trade.

This is a way of trying to reverse the death of picturesque villages and their way of life.

Ah. That too, yes.

Good answer.

Bruv;1495588 wrote: In small villages that are places of natural beauty and attract lots of summer holiday makers, the locals fail to afford homes in their own place of birth.

The place in question has approximately 80% non resident homes, these are bought by outsiders that live in them for a few weeks every year. They visit at weekends carrying their own provisions so local shops lose custom. So local economies suffer 'out of season' because there is a depletion of real local trade.

This is a way of trying to reverse the death of picturesque villages and their way of life.


That's the one.

The upside is that St Ives is a busy seaside town full of designer shops with the streets heaving in the summer.

As a local I avoid St Ives like the plague :wah:

Everyone is moaning my home town is a dump, there's no doubt it needs some money investing in it and our promenade needs more prettying up given it's meant to be the jewel in our crown.

But there's a big part of me that thinks whilst not too much is done with the area we are less likely to become like St Ives - full of emmets and hell on earth in the summer months.

For the first time ever in my life I'd like to move to Falmouth or maybe even Spain.

When's tyhe best rtime to visit cornwall in the summer and avoid most of the tourists? i was think beginning iof july. Cornwall and devon haven't been there since the last century wekll actually the eighties.

Probably after the schools go back in the first week of September. From then until the clocks go back it's still bright and warm, September more so than October.

gmc;1495607 wrote: When's tyhe best rtime to visit cornwall in the summer and avoid most of the tourists? i was think beginning iof july. Cornwall and devon haven't been there since the last century wekll actually the eighties.


Beginning of July is preferable to late July although lots of places may well be booked already. The only problem with September is that it is traditionally when all the Saga louts arrive :wah:

Betty Boop;1495612 wrote: Beginning of July is preferable to late July although lots of places may well be booked already. The only problem with September is that it is traditionally when all the Saga louts arrive :wah:


This saga lout is still working thanks to new labouir I can't retire for another six years.

Bruv;1495588 wrote: places of natural beauty ... the locals fail to afford homes in their own place of birth.


We have a place like that. It's called, "San Francisco."

Saint_;1495621 wrote: We have a place like that. It's called, "San Francisco."


This is a self-contained apartment in, so the map claims, "Dogpatch"... it looks moderately central. Walking distance anyway.



699 Pennsylvania Ave

San Francisco 94107

$550 1 Br Available Now

and it's cheaper than anywhere in my town. Prices for 1-bed apartments here start around $650.

spot;1495623 wrote: Prices for 1-bed apartments here start around $650.


That's pretty outrageous considering you can get a three bedroom house, with a den and living room, including a two car garage, and two acres of land around here for only $700 a month.

I expect your pizza is cheaper too.

Saint_;1495621 wrote: We have a place like that. It's called, "San Francisco."


Well............that's the American way after all.

spot;1495627 wrote: I expect your pizza is cheaper too.


Yeah probably. It's a trade-off. Living in America, you get cheap food, housing, and beautiful scenery...but you could get shot.

Saint_;1495630 wrote: Yeah probably. It's a trade-off. Living in America, you get cheap food, housing, and beautiful scenery...but you could get shot.


This is sorted into cheapest-first. Skip the flat-share. £100 is $144 today.

On top you also pay $120 a month renting-tax to the local authority.

And we all know what a den of iniquity St Ives is, with all their polygamous relationships.