New build property for full time residents only

CLAPTON

one would love to know what percentage of 'residents' were even born in Cornwall let alone in the St Ives area.

mwpt

PasturesNew wrote: »

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.

I've got to say, my first instinct when reading about this was, NIMBYs. But after reading some of the thoughts here I have actually changed my mind. If the locals don't need much additional housing, and all they want is smaller more affordable local housing, then that seems reasonable to me. It may backfire on them, or it may not, guess we'll see.

CLAPTON

mwpt wrote: »

I've got to say, my first instinct when reading about this was, NIMBYs. But after reading some of the thoughts here I have actually changed my mind. If the locals don't need much additional housing, and all they want is smaller more affordable local housing, then that seems reasonable to me. It may backfire on them, or it may not, guess we'll see.

gosh, if you said the 'UK' instead of 'locals' you could join the the camp.

mwpt

CLAPTON wrote: »

gosh, if you said the 'UK' instead of 'locals' you could join the the camp.

Well, I'd consider a local as someone who lives and works there, regardless of where they were born. That person needs a house just the same as anyone else.

CLAPTON

mwpt wrote: »

Well, I'd consider a local as someone who lives and works there, regardless of where they were born. That person needs a house just the same as anyone else.

I partly agree.
Before they arrive they do not live and work there.
So the distinction is between those not living and working there and those that do, just like the national picture. Different rules for the people of the UK and those that don't live here (which of course you agree with, as you don't support unlimited migration.)

westernpromise

Generali wrote: »

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.

Because if a developer has a choice of building in location A, where the houses have to be sold to locals for the lower of market value or £100k, or in location B where they go to the highest bidder, obviously the developer will build in B. In the first case he makes the lower of £100k or market value and in the second he makes market value. Given that there is finite capital and trade labour, everyone will do the same.

Land will cost more in A too because since existing properties aren't affected they'll inflate in consequence. Crashy's rent, however, will still be £100 a week.

I reckon the whole scheme is likely to be ultra vires anyway. What specific power does a council have to prevent sales to certain individuals?

michaels

PasturesNew wrote: »

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.

So no new houses are built and the town remains an extremely attractive place for incomers so what hapens when one of the existing houses come up for sale? Almost certainly no 'locals' can afford it and it is bought by an incomer as a holiday home, and ponced up to an extent that a local will never be abel to afford it ever again. Then the locals have to get housed off the islands and travel in daily during the season to man the tea shops and clean the holiday homes. these jobs are nto that attractive and not year round so the locals probably sit in council accomodaton in Cornwall watching Jeremy Kyle whilst EU migrants do the seasonal work then go elsewhere/home during the off season.

Herzlos

westernpromise wrote: »

Because if a developer has a choice of building in location A, where the houses have to be sold to locals for the lower of market value or £100k, or in location B where they go to the highest bidder, obviously the developer will build in B. In the first case he makes the lower of £100k or market value and in the second he makes market value. Given that there is finite capital and trade labour, everyone will do the same.

They aren't required to build the same houses in each plot though.

They could still make money at location A, by building a lot of 2-4 bedroom smallish box-homes, for the reasonably priced local market.

I imagine it's still more profitable to build 4+ bedroom luxury places though, as that's all I see being built these days.

PasturesNew

The trouble with Londoners is they don't travel round on donkeys like the locals.

http://www.cornishman.co.uk/Campervan-gets-stuck-scaffolding-St-Ives/story-29242695-detail/story.html

westernpromise

Herzlos wrote: »

They aren't required to build the same houses in each plot though.

They could still make money at location A, by building a lot of 2-4 bedroom smallish box-homes, for the reasonably priced local market.

Why would they bother doing that?

Suppose you've got £5 million of development capital. You can spend this in 3 ways.

1/ building 100 new homes in St Ives that must be sold to locals, who'll pay £75k each, then sell second-hand to incomers at £200k each.

or

2/ building 20 identical new homes not in St Ives that will sell for £750k each.

or

3/ building 100 new homes as per 1/ but not in St Ives, so they sell to directly incomers at £200k each.

Return in case one: £2.5 million.
Return in case two: £10 million.
Return in case three: £20 million.

Remember there's only enough money to do one and there's only enough labour to do one.

Which one will you do?