Gransnet forums


Retirees bombarding our beautiful rural seaside area

(364 Posts)
Specs Sun 14-Apr-19 00:09:07

Okay,I think I am going to get bashed. Sorry folks who have retired to their holiday paradise land.
Our area is predominantly rural, with few large employers generating good incomes and thus pension pots are often low. But the big bonuses are beautiful scenery, beaches, no huge roads, friendly people and very little crime. Many of us are related, have long working relationships with each other, our children went to school together, we have kept local traditions going, supported countryside sports, football, rowing etc. In other words we have deep understanding and ties with each other and the land. We know the skeletons in our neighbours cupboards and that also bonds us.
But our lives have changed rapidly in recent years. There has always been a trickle of retirees. They have been welcomed and in their turn they have enriched our local community. Now virtually every time a house is sold it goes to an outsider. Often a cash buyer with a bigger pot of gold who can move quickly unlike the local person who cannot proceed with such speed.
Just like the icecaps our indigenous community is melting away because of the flood of retirees. Not only does it affect us as individuals, it affects our schools, sports clubs, our doctors surgery, our care of the elderly services etc.
Committees are often taken over by well meaning and well educated folk who have excessive time on their hands. Local knowledge is often not present anymore. Whenever a local entrepreneur wants to develop a business or a building project goes before planning there is a tremendous hue and cry. The new comers fight it with a vengeance. NIMBY. Social housing, so long as it isn’t next to the incomers.
Why do people retire to an area they have little connection with? Why do they in later years leave their friends and connections behind? Friends are quite different from acquaintances.

Nannarose Thu 18-Apr-19 18:02:15

We've had a few instances of developers submitting plans that include some social housing. Then part-way through they say they can't afford to continue and will leave the estate unbuilt unless they can axe the 'social' element.
I think that the council should call their bluff (and if need be,demand to take over the building) but the council don't, and acquiesce.
Having said that, the latest project, on old railway yards has a large proportion of social housing and is very pleasantly laid out.

notanan2 Thu 18-Apr-19 22:00:28

A lot of our social enterprise developments are shared ownership. Which noone really wants.

A few friends who went down that path in the past LOST money and made losses trying to off load them and ended up going back to full renting minus the deposit they had saved.

They are the equity release/time-share of the generation.

notanan2 Thu 18-Apr-19 22:02:55

They had to sell though the company they bought from and sold at such losses that they retained none of their deposits or any of the equity they had paid off.

The development wins every time. It looks like they can put in shared ownership in leu of actual social LA housing.

MawBroonsback Thu 18-Apr-19 22:12:56

Do many retirees go for shared ownership housing?
I always connected it with young couples trying to get a foot on the property ladder.
If not what is the relevance of this observation.

notanan2 Thu 18-Apr-19 22:35:12

Was a reply to nannarose 's comment re the loopholes in the requirement for new developments to include social housing units mawbroonsback

I was agreeing with that poster. Developments can avoid the requirement.

Jaxie Thu 09-May-19 15:41:56

If Margaret Thatcher hadn't sold off council houses the locals in my town would not be complaining so much about incomers snapping up the houses that are sold by locals at such grossly inflated prices to incomers.

lemongrove Thu 09-May-19 17:11:58

Hasn’t this ‘perceived’ problem of incomers, always been thus?
Just as change is looked upon.

Meg54 Fri 10-May-19 11:38:13

Presumably your friends and neighbours who have deep ties to the community and land are happy to sell to the highest/fastest bidders then?.
Any seller has a choice of who they sell to.
Gentrification and pricing is as much the sellers choice as the buyers.

varian Fri 10-May-19 11:49:38

Local Authorities do have powers to restrict the number of second homes and holiday homes and to reserve some new homes for local workers.

Tedber Fri 10-May-19 18:32:27

Reading this I got the vision of a village out of Midsomer Murders (and you know what happens there??)

Frankly, most people absolutely loathe change of any description but ...change happens! If you go back far enough, the place I live in was a sleepy little village (now quite well populated). Am sure people then would have been against development. BUT, how would the increasing families have managed if everyone got their way?

Personally, I can think of a LOT of worse things than retirement people moving in! Obviously, in time, it will mean new families moving in....but that is the circle of life and possibly won't affect you?

Live and let live and enjoy your life to the hilt....

MawBroonsback Fri 10-May-19 18:41:40

Talk about flogging a dead horse hmm

Tedber Fri 10-May-19 18:43:58

Erm...sorry Mawbroon...was that aimed at me? Only just seen the thread. Apologies if it has bored you smile

Witzend Tue 14-May-19 12:07:28

Certainly in one favourite seaside town of ours, any ex council properties may be sold only to people who've been living/working in the area for a specified period. At least 3 years, IIRC.

Council properties were in fact being sold off well before Thatcher, though I agree not on the same scale. A dd's ex council house was bought by the previous owners in 1971 - well before Maggie. (For almost exactly one percent of the price dd paid! - as we found out from a good old nose on the Land Reg.)

I agree that it was a misguided move , but TBH who on earth would have imagined house prices shooting into the stratosphere, as they did later? And I have to say that at least one staunch Labour-voting friend of mine was only too happy to buy hers, where she'd lived for 40 years.

Given how often there are moans from Labour about the evils of selling off of council property, why on earth didn't they stop it while they were in power? They had plenty of time in which to do so.
I suspect that the reason they didn't, is because they thought it would lose them votes.