Second home owners in Wales face soaring council tax bills after Labour-Plaid deal.

But they are paying the same rates as the locals and not even using the amenities and infrastructure for half the year. Why should they pay more?

Because schools need to be open all year for the local children; if attendances drop, schools close, staff lose their jobs and children have to travel further afield to another school which may, in turn, mean that transport has to be paid for.

Because whether 2nd home owners are in their properties for 2 weeks a year or 52 weeks a year, the council still has to pay for staff, vehicles maintenance, insurance and licenses for dustbins, recycling and waste to be dealt with all year.

Because librarys (where they still exist) need staff, premises upkeep, heating and lighting need to be paid for all year.

Because clinics, dentist's, GP surgeries need to be staffed all year, not just for the few weeks of the year of a sudden influx of part time residents. If those services aren't used efficiently, they get closed and the whole community suffers.

Because shops can't continue to trade when they get customers for only a few weeks of the year. So those shops close, staff lose their jobs and the council gets less business rates income.

mokryna

Shouldn’t the people who own the second house pay higher rates/tax because it isn’t their main residence and the community still provide and has to pay the cost for the amenities and infrastructure whether they use it or not.

But they are paying the same rates as the locals and not even using the amenities and infrastructure for half the year. Why should they pay more?

I live in Anglesey, I love winter time when our roads are virtually traffic free and the beaches are deserted for my daily walks. I’d close the bridge in summer to keep this island for us locals if we could afford to but what right would I have? None of us own Anglesey, Pembrokeshire, the Lake District or Cornwall. I thought we lived in a free country where we could live and own property anywhere without that being policed.
We must invest in our small communities, our seaside towns, our country villages so that those who choose to can live and work all year round, surely we have the technology to spread the job market more equally.
If these communities thrive there will
be room for second home owners too without having such a drastic impact on local economies.

mokryna

Shouldn’t the people who own the second house pay higher rates/tax because it isn’t their main residence and the community still provide and has to pay the cost for the amenities and infrastructure whether they use it or not.

I think so, yes.

Shouldn’t the people who own the second house pay higher rates/tax because it isn’t their main residence and the community still provide and has to pay the cost for the amenities and infrastructure whether they use it or not.

Chewbacca

If the balance of 2nd home owners, vs people who live in small communities full time is too high, the infrastructure suffers; their children are not attending the village schools and so numbers drop and schools close (this has just happened in Abersoch where 40% of homes are owned by 2nd home owners). Local people, who usually earner lower wages than those in cities, can't afford to live near their workplace and so have to commute further and further out. If people aren't living in the houses 52 weeks of the year, the local shops, such as butchers, bakers, greengrocers only have a "season" to trade and over the winter months can't trade enough to survive. If the shops close, they're not paying any local business rates which, in turn, affects the budget of the town council and what social services it can provide. Close knit communities aren't sustainable when 40% of the people who live there are transient; they're not there to support parish councils, local charities etc.

I come from a small community in North Wales and I've seen first hand how, once the summer school holidays have ended, it's like a ghost town. And every April, the council tax goes up higher and higher for those locals who are grimly hanging onto their family homes by the skin of their teeth.

??????????????

janeainsworth

Perhaps the bitterness that some feel towards second home owners should be directed towards those who sell their property to them?

I don't blame people for selling - most of us would take the highest offer. I'm not bitter, either. I don't live in a village or the city. We do have Air B&Bs in my hometown, and they will inflate house prices by making available housing scarcer, but not significantly.

I don't have children wanting to move to Hometown - they are settled elsewhere, so I have no 'skin in the game'. I'm just observing what happens in the villages in one direction from me and the city in the other.

If the balance of 2nd home owners, vs people who live in small communities full time is too high, the infrastructure suffers; their children are not attending the village schools and so numbers drop and schools close (this has just happened in Abersoch where 40% of homes are owned by 2nd home owners). Local people, who usually earner lower wages than those in cities, can't afford to live near their workplace and so have to commute further and further out. If people aren't living in the houses 52 weeks of the year, the local shops, such as butchers, bakers, greengrocers only have a "season" to trade and over the winter months can't trade enough to survive. If the shops close, they're not paying any local business rates which, in turn, affects the budget of the town council and what social services it can provide. Close knit communities aren't sustainable when 40% of the people who live there are transient; they're not there to support parish councils, local charities etc.

I come from a small community in North Wales and I've seen first hand how, once the summer school holidays have ended, it's like a ghost town. And every April, the council tax goes up higher and higher for those locals who are grimly hanging onto their family homes by the skin of their teeth.

The UK government should take a leaf out what happens in France. Here every town must have 20per cent of its housing stock for low income families. If this doesn’t happen the town has to pay extra taxes to central government until they reach the 20 per cent.

janeainsworth

Perhaps the bitterness that some feel towards second home owners should be directed towards those who sell their property to them?

all that is being suggested is tht people who buy second homes get taxed more so increases in house prices is curbed and local people who live there can afford to rent and buy

By the way, places where second home ownership is high have struggled to recruit seasonal staff the last few years because of the lack of permanent people living in the vicinity + Brexit+ the pandemic

When I lived in Suffolk it was always said that the second home owners arrived for the weekend on a Friday night with their cars laden with food - so they didn't shop locally.

One of my closest friends lives in a street where she is the ONLY permanent resident for streets
She says it is utterly miserable. They have lived there for years, since kids really, worked local. No one they know is there anymore.

Perhaps the bitterness that some feel towards second home owners should be directed towards those who sell their property to them?

That’s not being said though Doodledog? If you want to buy a house in Wales as your main residence there are no restrictions wherever you come from, this is specifically about second homes.
Just another point which I don’t think people perhaps are aware of, is that a lot of the second homes in Wales are owned by Welsh people who live in the cities - Pembrokeshire for example is the second home capital for residents of Cardiff, Newport and Swansea.

I'm now getting adverts for new homes on GN.

A friend of ours has a second home in South Wales it is in a hamlet in a beautiful part of the country. It was almost derelict when they bought it having been owned by an old lady for years but now they live in it almost half the year. The rest of the time, it is let out or lent to family members. The village had no bus service when they bought the house and still doesn't

I think that illustrates Laura's point quite .

Agreed, Coastpath. And with you, Shinamae.

LauraNorderr I agree that it is unfair to rent or sell only to 'locals', for the reasons you describe. It's great to have ring-fenced social housing if you live in Fabulous-by-the- Sea; but less so if you live in the Grim Estate in Grottsville.

I'm not talking about that (although it does happen - my sister works in Housing, and there are areas where only those with immediate family are even considered for rent), but about the principle of people owning homes they don't live in.

I don’t recollect saying that “ I own the place I live in” and I am vocal on behalf of my son who works very hard as a bricklayer out in all weathers and has a good deposit but is practically in tears sometimes because he has no hope at the moment of buying a property in the place he grew up and loves. Estate agents now don’t even bother getting back to him when he puts an offer in and it is soul destroying for him and other local people

I don't think we own our area but we do have the right to take steps to keep it a vibrant, alive and thriving community all year round for people who have lived here all there lives or who have given up everything else to make a home here.

A bolthole in paradise to the detriment of the people who live around it is no paradise.

I work hard in my little bit of paradise and pay tax the same as a city dweller. Sometimes I wouldn't mind a little pied a terre in the city. I wouldn't want one if it meant I was taking a home from a young nurse who wanted a home for her family near a hospital and so, when I go to the city I stay in a hotel or with friends or family.

I could not agree more with your final point about investment LauraNorderr

Coastpath

Building on what GillT57 said there is also a decline in service for local people. Holiday home owners don't need an optician, dentist, vet etc. These businesses become unviable and close and locals, often elderly, are forced to travel further for essential services. This is made more difficult as buses only operate during the summer...less residents mean they are unprofitable and don't run out of season.

Yes! This happens in villages around the town where I live. In summer they are bustling. The locals can't get parked, tables in restaurants are rare as hens' teeth, every shop is packed, so you can't just pop in for a loaf of bread without standing in a 10 minute queue, but at least the economy thrives.

In winter, the local shop is only open for an hour a day, so if you run out of bread you have to drive to a supermarket miles away (if you have a car), pubs close at 9.00pm and the place is like a ghost town. Most houses are empty, and people can be a bit scared of being alone, which causes problems with mental health.

Schools closed years ago, the bus service stopped not long after, so there are few families and older people who can't drive to a doctor, chemist of Post Office move out too - the village ones moved on when it wasn't worth being there. Holidaymakers don't need services like that, and villagers don't need postcards and seaside rock. Young people leave as soon as they can, and can't afford to come back when they have families.

In my city, 30 miles from the villages there are whole streets of student accommodation. Not the purpose-built type, but larger terraced houses that used to be ideal for families. They house 6 students each, but none of them pay council tax, despite getting bins emptied etc. The council is already on a shoestring budget thanks to cuts, so services for everyone drop, and families are driven out.

In both cases, the only winners are the landlords who rent out the holiday homes and student houses. I would tax both types of landlord - and don't get me started about Air B&B!

As I said previously I have mixed feelings.
I do notice that those who live in the most beautiful areas of Britain are most vocal. I do agree with much of what has been said but
Do we own these areas just because we live in them?
Do we have a right to make owning a second home in a beautiful part of the country difficult financially for someone who is forced to live in a big city to keep the wheels turning for us?
Perhaps a doctor or a nurse working in a big city hospital, replacing our hips or putting our family members back together after a bad accident, horrendous stress. Don’t they deserve to own a little bolt hole in paradise?
Maybe a factory worker sitting at a workbench day in day out making our favourite cheese or bottling our favourite ketchup. Are they destined to spend all but two weeks in their built up city apartment or house? Why shouldn’t they own a bit of what we have all year round.
While I agree that being asked to pay a bit more in rates won’t stop some, it may well stop the many.
I don’t get this idea that we all own the place we live in. We are certainly privileged but not entitled.
More investment in decent high end jobs might encourage young people to stay which would create more of a balance.

At last , so pleased

Brilliant hope it spreads to the rest of the UK . Having two homes is immoral.

And the lake district