[Brighton] Council imposing double council tax on second homes in Brighton & Hove.

[Insel affe]

What is wrong if you can afford to have 2 homes.

Brighton is not actually that big, why would you need two homes in such a small area.
It drives up the value of property and makes it unaffordable for new buyers, similar to the issues in Cornwall and Devon, when rich folk from the city are buying second homes and locals are being driven out.

what has it got to do with the council , or anybody else , too much interference with people’s rights by government and councils.

If they can afford a second home, they can afford to pay extra.

Brighton council is becoming more like a Russian state council

Really not comparable is it.

 

[beorhthelm]

Or encouraging people to stay/move up north? It’s a serious point as many people gravitate to London and the south.

i thought the problem was people want to "stay in the area". moving up north is an obvious solution to not affording one's own home, though not taken up by many.

 

[beorhthelm]

That is going to be well received in most quarters,.... it should be a nationwide policy, Cornwall and Devon in particular will benefit from the extra council revenue.

is the purpose to alter home ownership or raise revenue? if it succeeds in one, it'll disappoint in the other.

this is a problem using taxes to drive policy, they end up with conflicting priorities. e.g. sugar drinks tax, worked wonderfully at reducing sugar in drinks, far more sugar free options, smaller drinks to get lower tax. on flip side it hasn't raised the expected revenue and some related spending got binned.

 

[Weststander]

Shelter had already reported that the UK needs 3m new homes.

Now official projections show our population will increase by a further 6.6m by 2034. Not all families, that's a further 3m homes on top.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68139947

At some stage a government, planning authorities and nimbies need to start taking this seriously.

 

[Chicken Run]

Brighton is not actually that big, why would you need two homes in such a small area.

The only reason I can see somone who already owns a home in Brighton owning a second or more is properties that they rent out which won’t incur increased council tax, I genuinely don’t think a Brighton resident would own a holiday home? Unless of course it’s ABnB ?

 

[heathgate]

is the purpose to alter home ownership or raise revenue? if it succeeds in one, it'll disappoint in the other.

this is a problem using taxes to drive policy, they end up with conflicting priorities. e.g. sugar drinks tax, worked wonderfully at reducing sugar in drinks, far more sugar free options, smaller drinks to get lower tax. on flip side it hasn't raised the expected revenue and some related spending got binned.

You cannot take away the freedoms that our western capitalist system encourages, the rich ( richer) will always splash out on extravagant purchases.... in the case of some holiday regions this results in empty or rarely used properties, plus increased property prices as a side affect....... at least, by charging a premium tax on these second homes, there just may be the funds available for local authority/low cost housing to be provided for locals.

Lesson:… don't spend the money until you have it.

 

[BrightonCottager]

A few have mentioned the capacity of public transport, active travel and the roads in relation to current and future numbers of houses. Well, East Sussex County Council are currently consulting on their next Local transport plan: https://consultation.eastsussex.gov...environment/local-transport-plan-4-2024-2050/
Closes 25th February.

It is standard practice for the County Councils (in 2 tier areas) to be consulted on the impact of new homes on transport and they do insist / ask for financial contributions to meet needs. The problems occur when developers use 'permitted development ' rights to convert office buildings , warehouses etc which don't trigger the infrastructure payments.

The government consulted on introducing a new use class for short term holiday lets. Not been introduced yet. The proposal would not mean ones already operating would need to get retrospective planning permission, although they would come under a new licencing system which Councils could charge for and fund the kind of effective enforcement seen in @Herr Tubthumper 's home city.

 

[clapham_gull]

I doubt many buy a home to rent out as AirBnb. Due to personal circumstances they move in elsewhere with a new partner and want to tick it over.

Failing that they rent it out at a very high price, because it's in an area where people like to holiday.

All this skirts around the issue. There aren't enough houses and what is there is sold/rented at a premium.

Punitive taxes, restrictions on short term lettings don't increase the housing stock.

We are all just going to have to get used to having more neighbours and our house value going down if whoever gets in does the right thing.

It reminds me a bit of the social care problem. It needs massive investment, but as a society we could help if it was easier to move our elderly relatives in with us.

If you want a Government to change things, you also need to accept change yourself.

 

[Weststander]

I doubt many buy a home to rent out as AirBnb. Due to personal circumstances they move in elsewhere with a new partner and want to tick it over.

Failing that they rent it out at a very high price, because it's in an area where people like to holiday.

All this skirts around the issue. There aren't enough houses and what is there is sold/rented at a premium.

Punitive taxes, restrictions on short term lettings don't increase the housing stock.

We are all just going to have to get used to having more neighbours and our house value going down if whoever gets in does the right thing.

It reminds me a bit of the social care problem. It needs massive investment, but as a society we could help if it was easier to move our elderly relatives in with us.

If you want a Government to change things, you also need to accept change yourself.

I know folk who’ve bought properties in the last two years to use as Airbnb’s.

Perhaps these were sales by BTL landlords who were retiring or hit by mortgage rates?

 

[beorhthelm]

...

If you want a Government to change things, you also need to accept change yourself.

shocking idea, it'll never catch on.

 

[BLOCK F]

[I don’t own any investment properties].

If it’s social engineering to get landlords per se to throw in the towel, I have my doubts that:
1. The number of let properties overall will fall in the UK. More switched on and business like entities/couples will snap them up.
2. The Airbnb thing is growing apace, I know ordinary folk who’ve got into that, the profits are huge. People are switching from BTL.
3. Will rents fall? I’m certain they won’t, my BTL clients are increasing rents.

Housing boils down to just one main issue. Our population had risen by 9m since the 1997 GE, yet we’re millions short in decent homes. A vast housebuilding strategy is a must, now. If Starmer can carry that out, millions won’t be dependent on vast rents or living in slum private sector rent conditions.

Nimbys are alive and well where we live near Chichester and jump up and down making lots of noise if a development is proposed near them. These same bods are often the ones complaining that their offspring can’t afford to buy a property. Almost everyone’s house was built on what was once a field!
I hope Keir Starmer has the persistence and strength to face down excessive Nimbyism and change planning laws where necessary. He’ll face a tough battle I’m sure of that.

 

[happypig]

They really is only two solutions. Build more houses to sell or build more houses to be rented out by the local council with a fixed rent.

Third solution, Firstly remove "no fault" evictions. Once that's set in stone bring in a "right to buy" scheme for private tenants whereby they can purchase their homes at a significant discount (commensurate with the amount of rent they've paid).
If this means a landlord who's portfolio is built on repeated remortgaging to raise funds to buy more properties goes bust, hard luck, the value of investments can go down as well as up.

 

[Husty]

What is wrong if you can afford to have 2 homes ,
what has it got to do with the council , or anybody else , too much interference with people’s rights by government and councils,
Brighton council is becoming more like a Russian state council

The really depressing thing about this country is that people as thick as Tim here have managed to get along well, live very good lives & presumably afford to buy multiple homes in the process. Obviously they've no interest in seeing that generations after them enjoy similar opportunities...

 

[Chicken Run]

The really depressing thing about this country is that people as thick as Tim here have managed to get along well, live very good lives & presumably afford to buy multiple homes in the process. Obviously they've no interest in seeing that generations after them enjoy similar opportunities...

Can’t all be as clever as you eh…

 

[Husty]

Can’t all be as clever as you eh…

Not expecting everyone to be a genius, but am expecting the sort of basic human decency where people want to leave future generations with the same opportunities that they have enjoyed.

But, I concede that takes a certain amount of intelligence (frequently lacking) to view the world through a lens in which you realise you were lucky for the opportunities you've had rather than merely being someone who was 'prudent' or 'worked hard' for it

 

[BLOCK F]

Not expecting everyone to be a genius, but am expecting the sort of basic human decency where people want to leave future generations with the same opportunities that they have enjoyed.

But, I concede that takes a certain amount of intelligence (frequently lacking) to view the world through a lens in which you realise you were lucky for the opportunities you've had rather than merely being someone who was 'prudent' or 'worked hard' for it

Sweeping and rather pompous statement suggesting that anyone who owns more than one property lacks human decency.
Hmm, I’m not sure about that.
PS. I only own one property.

 

[Husty]

Sweeping and rather pompous statement suggesting that anyone who owns more than one property lacks human decency.
Hmm, I’m not sure about that.
PS. I only own one property.

Aimed at the fellow who thinks he's a tiger, actually...

 

[Chicken Run]

Sweeping and rather pompous statement suggesting that anyone who owns more than one property lacks human decency.
Hmm, I’m not sure about that.
PS. I only own one property.

I don’t own any property, I think he’s just bitter

 

[BLOCK F]

I don’t own any property, I think he’s just bitter

Bitter or just misguided, I don’t know.
Anyway, I hope he cheers up and adjusts that lens he is looking through, in order to get a more balanced view of things.

 

[BrightonCottager]

Nimbys are alive and well where we live near Chichester and jump up and down making lots of noise if a development is proposed near them. These same bods are often the ones complaining that their offspring can’t afford to buy a property. Almost everyone’s house was built on what was once a field!
I hope Keir Starmer has the persistence and strength to face down excessive Nimbyism and change planning laws where necessary. He’ll face a tough battle I’m sure of that.

What are these planning laws that need changing? The only ones that the Labour Party have referred to are derelict petrol stations in the Green Belt. This is already allowed under para 154g of the National Planning Policy Framework so it will need something more radical than that, like
1) strategically reviewing Green Belt boundaries, removing sites near public transport hubs (stations)
2) minimum density requirements
3) a national spatial plan to identify cities/ towns for growth / kepping going / decline with regionally set housing targets, trickled down to districts
4) requirements for developers to finish developments within a certain time period with punitive fines if they don't
5) (possibly) relaxing building restrictions in AONBs and National Parks
6) (preferably) increasing restrictions in areas at risk of flooding & coastal erosion.

This is only the housing bit of what needs to happen.