Retirees bombarding our beautiful rural seaside area

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.

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

Talk about flogging a dead horse

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....

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Best keep quiet about that Gillybob, if you want to keep it so. That area is being gentrified too. The NE village where I lived has lost its shops, post office and bank, and primary school since the 1970s, so these centres of village life have departed.

Just noticed that I made a mistake and quoted notanan instead of the OP, sorry. Actually no one has noticed and I haven't had a reply but I do apologise when wrong.

I've come back to this thread to report that today in Scotland I've seen not exactly No Trespassers signs but ones that state 'Private Property No Entry'.

The owners of the land are as Scottish as anyone could be and they must also be ardent SNP voters, if the banners that go up at election time and the prolific YES signs that adorned their property during Indyref are anything to go by, so not quite Paddyann's portrait of the perfidious English.

What's more they gain a comfortable income from those same perfidious English folks, both local-dwellers and visitors, who use the tourist/catering facilities they operate!

I know the property Callistemon and have been inside when it was (generous/spacious) characterful flats because I know someone who rented there at one point. The whole top floor flat was ex staff quarters. It was NEVER a house for 2!

As I said before you in theory should not be reducing housing stock in this way according to local planning priorities. But there are loopholes depending on how conversions were classified.

Theres nothing to stoo cash buyers doing this. Nothing at all. But locals CANT compete, and it doesnt positively impact the wider community. At all.

I also personally know an ex London couple whose bungalow conversion is at a total standstill. (Yes. I am friends with INDIVIDUALS who are newcommers, it is the overall effect/phenomenon that makes me sad!) because tradespeople have had to move further out themselves. There are no local ones, and its hard to get them to travel in!

Retirees bombarding our beautiful rural seaside area

The definition of bombarding is: attack (a place or person) continuously with bombs, shells, or other missiles.

I'm not surprised you're upset Specs.

notanan you said "In rapidly reducing numbers Nonnie.

Such arrogance to assume that rural dwellers know nothing of the world and should sit down and be told by the wise hard working ex city dwellers!" Really? Where did I say that? I think you need to look at what I said after removing all your prejudice.

Of course you and your neighbours may think you know everything but that would make you and your villagers very arrogant wouldn't it? Travel has broadened my mind as has meeting new people, wherever they come from but then I have an open mind and are interested in new people.

What is problematic is that people who take on these projects have a NEGATIVE impact on the community they displace to make way for it.
What about falling-down-barn conversions? Are they a problem too?

And what of the 4 households evicted for this cash buyers project?
Are these people you know personally? Why is your local council not doing more?
I am just wondering which rural community you live in, notanan2 and what has happened in your area to upset you so?

As I have said over and over. There's nothing to stop them. But they are kidding themselves if they think they are doing a favour to anyone but themselves!

Nonnie we've been here for a long time now (only came here for two years but never left!).
If we went back to our 'roots' we'd be looked on as 'incomers' now.

I presume you know this house well and are not happy with the type of conversion and do not consider it to be 'sympathetic'

I actually pointed out that how sympathetic it is or isnt is irrelevant to the community since it only benefits the 2 people who now live there...

What is problematic is that people who take on these projects have a NEGATIVE impact on the community they displace to make way for it.

In rapidly reducing numbers Nonnie.

Such arrogance to assume that rural dwellers know nothing of the world and should sit down and be told by the wise hard working ex city dwellers!

I think you are arguing just for the sake of it notanan2

I presume you know this house well and are not happy with the type of conversion and do not consider it to be 'sympathetic'.

The council should be building more modern, affordable housing, easy to maintain and keep warm. Victorian houses converted into flats will still have high ceilings, draughty corners etc and generally are not suitable as 'affordable homes'.