So what's the solution?

Linton

ukcarper wrote: »

Where do you build all these properties in the worst affect areas for instance inside M25? . if you drive down the A3 from centrel London to the M25 you will see very little open land. The last town before you reach the M25 is Cobham where most of the large properties with large gardens have been pulled down and several smaller houses built on the plots yet Cobham still remains one of the most expensive areas outside London.

If you drive - yes because oddly enough houses tend to be built reasonably close to major roads. Now try walking the footpaths or cruising down the canals or looking out of the window whilst flying. There are vast areas of potential building land.

ukcarper

Linton wrote: »

If you drive - yes because oddly enough houses tend to be built reasonably close to major roads. Now try walking the footpaths or cruising down the canals or looking out of the window whilst flying. There are vast areas of potential building land.

As I said show me where it is inside the M25 especially on the west and south-west side of London.

Linton

ukcarper wrote: »

As I said show me where it is inside the M25 especially on the west and south-west side of London.

A quick look on the map shows me about 10 sq miles south of Cobham and between Oxshott and Epsom/Ewell. More south of Epsom/east of Leatherhead. Enough for a reasonably sized town or two I would have thought.

Of course there might be a little local opposition.

Graham_Devon

Really2 wrote: »

You have faild to understand what I said, if second home / holiday homes were taxed do you not think the people who owned them would not turn them in to loss making holiday lets.
EG do not rent them out just put in the odd fake booking each year.

If they have the money to use a place only a few weeks a year and gain no income from it I am sure they would have the brains to avoid a tax.

Maybe they would, maybe they wouldn't. It would probably put people off in the first place though.

All I said it's it's part of a bigger solution. Don't really want it argued to death.

ukcarper

The land south of Cobham that is inside the M25 is mainly the mole floodplain. The other is Oxshott and Ashstead commons you could build on these but they are the only open space in that area so not exactly vast areas, you could of course build on every bit of green space inside the M25.

Really2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

It would probably put people off in the first place though.

If people have got the money to buy second homes and only live in them a few weeks a year and not hire it out (like you said)

I really can't see them bing put off IMHO.

To be like that money money would have to be no object, so why would money stop them?

I understand you are thinking of ways to increase stock but surly it is better for all in your areas that more were built.
Not only do you take money from other areas (2nd homes) but also maintain holiday status.

The second option would be to encourage more business growth, I dare say part of the problem is wages in holiday areas.
But then you lose the "holiday look".
I think some times you have to think it's time to move away from your home town and give it the digit

Some areas, towns will always be out of the reach of locals unless they earn a lot more money. Either that or they build all over the town, but then the town loses it's desirability.

Some town's will always be expensive, that is where you decide to compete or fly IMHO.

Graham_Devon

Really2 wrote: »

If people have got the money to buy second homes and only live in them a few weeks a year and not hire it out (like you said)

I really can't see them bing put off IMHO.

To be like that money money would have to be no object, so why would money stop them?

I understand you are thinking of ways to increase stock but surly it is better for all in your areas that more were built.
Not only do you take money from other areas (2nd homes) but also maintain holiday status.

The second option would be to encourage more business growth, I dare say part of the problem is wages in holiday areas.
But then you lose the "holiday look".
I think some times you have to think it's time to move away from your home town and give it the digit

Some areas, towns will always be out of the reach of locals unless they earn a lot more money. Either that or they build all over the town, but then the town loses it's desirability.

Some town's will always be expensive, that is where you decide to compete or fly IMHO.

Tax disincentives put people off. Simple as that. Many are bought as investments. Tax increase would make these investments less worthwhile, so could invest in something else.

Jesus. It's just PART of a solution. Which means I'm open to other parts, including building more. Never have I said "dont build" I'm just looking at what we can do with existing stock alongside other solutions.

You have drowned me out though, so I'll step aside and let you carry on.

chucky

Really2 wrote: »

If people have got the money to buy second homes and only live in them a few weeks a year and not hire it out (like you said)

i really don't understand the issue with 2nd homes.

if people have the money and want a 2nd property increasing tax won't stop them - there will be alternatives for them to be able to get that 2nd home.

Really2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Tax disincentives put people off. Simple as that. Many are bought as investments. T

Make your mind up, you said they were holiday homes never let out, now they are investments?

Who in their right mind buys a holiday home as an investment and does not let it out?

Perhaps I should remove my logical head for this?

I see where you are coming from, but you have to see how easy it is to get around and unworkable it is.
Increasing the tax for second owners will not discourage ownership, it will just make it more expensive.
But more likely to be worked round like the example I gave you earlier.

lemonjelly

chucky wrote: »

i really don't understand the issue with 2nd homes.

if people have the money and want a 2nd property increasing tax won't stop them - there will be alternatives for them to be able to get that 2nd home.

I'm not convinced with this arguement chucky.

The premis is, I I have enough money to buy more than 1 house, why shouldn't I?

The counter debate is that it inflates prices, & there will be people who do need a house who are denied the resource.

Look at an analogy. I have a big enough army to take over country X. I've worked hard on my army, invested time & resources into it, and have greater armed forces than you or many others.
Does that mean I am entitled to just wade on in where-ever I want?