New build property for full time residents only

silvercar

lisyloo wrote: »

Why natives?
Why not restrict it to those who contribute I.e. Those working in London.

What's the argument for unwilling or unable natives to live where they wish?

Unwilling or unable natives generally rely heavily on their support networks. Giving them the option of staying put or moving elsewhere leaves them either living in unsuitable accommodation (why else would they want to move?) or with no support.

In any case, many people contribute to society without working.

zagubov

silvercar wrote: »

Unwilling or unable natives generally rely heavily on their support networks. Giving them the option of staying put or moving elsewhere leaves them either living in unsuitable accommodation (why else would they want to move?) or with no support.

In any case, many people contribute to society without working.

I would argue that they are working but not in a way that is recognised by, or fits, excessively narrowed definitions.

PasturesNew

vivatifosi wrote: »

..those with properties to rent would rather rent them out across the summer and leave them empty across the winter, as they can make more money than from a year round rental to locals.

Yes, that's been the case in a lot of the county for many years.

What you can get £400/month for all year round, renting full-time .... you can make £400-500/week for peak holiday season of 8 weeks/year, plus pick up £300/week for a further four weeks of the year.

£4800/year to have it tied up all the time
£4800/year to have it almost empty most of the time - enabling you to use it "for free" a lot of the time. Or just leave it empty ... it's going up in value all the time and with holiday lets you've no commitment and can sell very quickly.

lisyloo

zagubov wrote: »

I would argue that they are working but not in a way that is recognised by, or fits, excessively narrowed definitions.

Does their contribution e,g. Bringing up children, have to be done in central London? Or could it be done elsewhere?
Some jobs e.g. City it Westminster jobs, cannot be fine anywhere else in the country.

You haven't specified what contribution they are making but I'm asking us it London centric?

westernpromise

Of course the other scam here, which presumably the greedy locals have in mind, is that they expect to be able to buy a place new at an artificially reduced price, then flog it on after a week at full value to a non-local, to whom the ban no longer applies because it's not a new home.

Cunning, but doomed to fail because if the second homer will pay more than the local, developers will build where this restriction does not apply, and will collect the whole true value for themselves.

I couldn't afford to buy in St Johns Wood but you don't hear me !!!!!ing about it.

wotsthat

It's a cunning nimby plan to prevent building. When they drive out of St. Ives towards Carbis Bay and see some of the conversions of dilapidated buildings into fabulous holiday homes with amazing sea views they must be green wirh envy.

Generali

westernpromise wrote: »

Michaels nailed it above. If new homes can be sold only to locals, there won't be any.

Why would that be?

If someone can turn a profit selling to locals they will do so. If they don't despite the ability to make a profit, I will.

Fewer houses will be built but TBH from the sounds of things the locals don't really care.

vivatifosi

I wonder if part of the issue Gen is land banks, or on a smaller scale, land already paid for.

Developers may be reluctant to develop if the cost paid for land prior to decision was higher and it is harder to turn a profit. Having said that, this decision has been signposted for a while, so there has been opportunity to price this in.

I also find it interesting that this is not a UK only problem and other places are also looking for solutions... there is plenty of scope for cross pollination of ideas.

PasturesNew

As has been said, do the locals care if new homes are built or not.

The town is notorious for its character - it's all quaint and lovely. That's why people go there.

The locals don't want/need huge glass monstrosities that sell at £500-700k and are then occupied by wealthy people who are just "poncing about being smug" about how flash/expensive their place is.

What the locals want is to live in a nice, quaint, place and eat cockles from polystyrene cups on the seafront.

Once the character's destroyed, it's not the same place any more.

The developers are "cashing in" on the "good name" of the town, flogging "posh/modern styled homes that Londoners like" ... which will ultimately destroy all the character.... and the developers just trouser the profits until the gravy train stops for them and they'll move off... leaving St Ives with what? No character and a ton of almost unused holiday homes.

Developer builds. Expensive magazines wax lyrical about the "delights" of the area (paid for, no doubt, from some PR budget from those with a vested interest) - and Londoners are lead through the nose down to these "fab" places that all the shiny mags told them was "The Place" to be .....

These places aren't wanted/needed by anybody - it's just a powerful marketing exercise by people who want to make the most money possible before moving on.

Generali

vivatifosi wrote: »

I wonder if part of the issue Gen is land banks, or on a smaller scale, land already paid for.

Developers may be reluctant to develop if the cost paid for land prior to decision was higher and it is harder to turn a profit. Having said that, this decision has been signposted for a while, so there has been opportunity to price this in.

I also find it interesting that this is not a UK only problem and other places are also looking for solutions... there is plenty of scope for cross pollination of ideas.

If a builder has land with planning permission already they will make a loss, or at least less profit, on that. The reality is that a business model that relies on rent seeking for profit, in this case an artificial shortage of competition due to planning laws, is always going to have a political risk attached.