Communities are starting to fight back. Credit: Jeff J Mitchell/Getty Images
One wouldn’t expect to see a six-metre-tall witch in a quaint South Oxfordshire village. Nor to watch her be carried through the lanes, draped in branches and vines, to be ceremonially burned. This was not a celebration, but a protest — against the aristocratic owner of Mapledurham Estate’s decision to evict one of his long-term tenants. And it is not a scene from the 17th century, but from last November.
The witch is Esme Boggart. She represents a new collective established to campaign against no-fault evictions, and to support the families affected by them. In this case, the owner of the estate had commissioned an architect to refurbish the cottage. But, when the architect recommending demolishing and rebuilding the house instead, the tenants were handed their notice. A family of seven, they had lived on the estate for 26 years. “The owners of this property don’t live here,” reads Esme Boggart’s campaign literature. “They don’t know our community.”
Esme Boggart, in contrast, stands for “people who belong to a landscape, but don’t own an inch of it”. The people behind the protest use her name instead of their own because they are afraid to lose their own homes. “We are sick,” they write, “of this neo-feudalism that governs our lives.” Folksy as it is, the collective is identifying a modern twist on an ancient and serious problem: though stereotyped as a world of affluent comfort, the British countryside is a place of profound inequality. As a new UnHerd polling map shows, forgotten provincial regions are experiencing a cost-of-living crisis equal to the inner cities, compounding an existing problem of rural poverty and working-class displacement.
No-fault evictions are commonplace across the country — reports say they increased 76% in just three months last year — but there are no official statistics that break down how many take place in rural areas. If you speak to those who live in an Area of Natural Beauty, you’ll hear the same story again and again, of landlords evicting local people so they can make more money from their properties, often by turning them into holiday cottages. In some places in Wales, the Highlands, Cornwall and the Lake District, one in four properties are Airbnbs. When you add second homes to that statistic, there are villages like Elterwater in Cumbria where 80% of houses are unavailable to live in. Inevitably, it is the lower classes who are pushed out.
For hundreds of years, if you worked in the countryside, you were usually given a “tied” house to live in. Villages used to have a house for the doctor, the teacher, the policeman, and so on. Foresters were provided with cottages in far-flung, newly-planted forests. Cotton mills, which were first built in the depths of the countryside so that they could take advantage of the waterfalls to power their factories, provided dorm-like accommodation for their workers (who were mainly orphans: children were cheaper to employ). Slate, coal, copper and tin mining all provided rows and rows of badly insulated houses.
Many of these traditional rural industries are gone, and most with good reason. There is no point romanticising them. The homes they provided were often cramped and sometimes isolated. And if you lost the job, you lost the house too. The words of a Scottish crofter, from 1883, are evidence of the impact this insecurity had: “I want the assurance that I will not be evicted for I cannot bear evidence to the distress of my people without bearing evidence to the oppression and high-handedness of the landlord and his factor.” His words eerily echo those of Esme Boggart, a reminder that the old ways are not the best.
While the old schoolhouse might have been sold off, this ancient status quo still exists for farmers, who have lived in “tied” houses for centuries. If you rent the farm, usually a home will be provided too. Currently, around a third of England is farmed by tenant farmers. But having lived and worked on the land for decades, they often find themselves forced out of the landscapes they love. Christine, who lives on a tenant farm in Yorkshire, will have to leave her home when she and her husband can’t farm anymore. In preparation, they have bought a small house in the nearest market town. They would have preferred to stay in the countryside, but they simply can’t afford it.
And while people who have worked the land their whole lives are forced to move off it, people who work in cities are retiring to the countryside in droves. The Highlands and Islands Business Federation, for instance, is worried that some areas will simply become “glorified retirement communities”. If there are no children left to go to the local school, and no-one left to run the county show, put on the pantomime at Christmas or run the shop, these things cease to exist. Businesses are already shutting down because they can’t find enough local staff.
Some sectors still provide homes for workers — usually the ones that cater to outsiders. Big hotels need plenty of staff, and will provide rooms for bar managers, waitresses, chefs, and cleaners if necessary. Distilleries provide accommodation. The National Trust houses workers on some of its properties. But most restaurants and cafes do not, and slowly but surely, they are closing.
This is a sign that it’s not just the older generation, whose working days are done, being forced out of rural areas and into towns. Rachel grew up near Hawkshead, in the Lake District. When she first left home, she worked at a hotel in a neighbouring village. “Obviously I couldn’t afford to buy round Hawkshead,” she told me. Any houses that come on the market in the picturesque village get snapped up by people who can afford to pay sky-high prices. “The cheapest house was in Kendal,” about 20 miles away. But it was subject to a local occupancy clause, designed to keep houses in the hands of local people. It wasn’t very well designed: “They said I wasn’t local enough! My whole family is from either Kendal or Hawkshead area!” She wrote to the local councillor arguing her case, and was eventually allowed to buy a one-bedroom house in Kendal.
Ten years later, Rachel was married and pregnant with her first child. She and her husband applied for another local occupancy house in the same area but were, again, told no. This time the reason for refusal was because they didn’t have children. “I was about to have a baby!” And her choices were limited. There is still no way she could afford to buy in the village where she grew up. Opportunities to rent long-term are rare.
“It’s not a housing crisis, it’s an affordability crisis,” says author Catrina Davies. In other words, it’s not about building more. A decade ago, when she was in her early thirties, she wanted to move back to Cornwall, which has the largest number of second homes in England. Catrina spent her childhood there, but the only place she could afford was a shed. “Houses have become a luxury item”; they are supposed to be homes. The shed is over 100 years old and she has no running water, but it is just that: a home.
Rural areas have benefitted from the wealth of those who don’t live there for decades, but now the balance has tipped. Locals are being squeezed out by those with more money than them, and communities are starting to vanish. The government is, slowly, doing something about it. As of April 2023, a holiday home must be rented out for a minimum of 70 days a year to qualify for business rates as opposed to council tax. In Wales, local authorities have already been given the power to increase council tax on second homes by 300%. And in Scotland, properties intended to be used as holiday rentals will have to apply for a licence from local authorities.
In England, however, the crackdown is slower. In December last year, Cumbrian MP Tim Farron campaigned for more powers to restrict short-term lets. It was voted down by 321 votes to 172. It is worth noting, at this point, that MPs are three times as likely than the average citizen to own a second home.
With understandably limited faith in the authorities, communities are fighting back. There are now over 200 community-bought woodlands across the nation, for instance, used for a range of things, from forest schools to improving biodiversity. And collectives are buying land on which to build houses that can unequivocally belong to local people, locking in clauses to make sure they are never sold off as second homes. But many, like the anonymous campaigners behind Esme Boggart, are too afraid to directly challenge those with the power to evict them. As for the family in South Oxfordshire that the witch represents, they have been given another six months. What then, who knows.
Rebecca Smith is a writer from Cumbria. Her first book, Rural: The Lives of the Working-Class Countryside, is out in June.
beckorio 
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeWhilst I’m sure we can all sympathise with people facing no-fault evictions, I don’t see that this is uniquely a rural issue. Does anyone have a right to continue to live in the area where they grew up if it is now beyong their means ? And should they ? If so, how much is the rest of society prepared to pay to subsidise this privilege ?
I am really not convinced that creating two-tier housing markets where “locals” (however this might be defined) are privileged is the answer (Guernsey is a well known example of this). As the article notes, there is always a sharp edge where a very small difference in circumstances (being pregnant vs actually having a child) can result in a drastically different outcome.
And yet again, to write about housing with no reference to economics or supply and demand is fundamentally ignorant and can only lead to “solutions” that do not work:
““It’s not a housing crisis, it’s an affordability crisis,” says author Catrina Davies. In other words, it’s not about building more.”
Enough.
It is also about supply and demand. Population growth. Artifically cheap money (suppressed interested rates). Tax systems which encourage second home ownership and empty/under-used housing. And a restrictive planning system.
These are all fundamental causes which can and should be addressed. And would not require the sort of stupid and counterproductive attempts at market rigging like “help to buy” or local subsidies where some people are privileged over others.
Well said, brother.
Yes, one of the the two easiest ersatz remedies gummint can come up with are subsidies for the demand-side. So, we inflate the demand side … and prices go up. (!)
Then there are constraints on the supply-side, and, if those bind, prices go up. (!!)
Locally the loss of rental property, (exluding council rentals} is down to one factor. A great deal of local rental property was owned by one landowner who then died and property was left to younger relatives who only wanted to sell it all on, which they did. In the process many tenants, rightly or wrongly I wouldnt like to comment, were given notice or just left, either going into what council rental was available or leaving the area completely. Unsurprisingly the social face of the area began to change and quickly. Entire families moved into town or left opening the way for a strangely childless housing market to develop, which it did, and the school to close, which it also did having been expected too once older couples with no kids moved in, resulting in the present loss of village facilities as the financial imbalance between wealthy retirees and less wealthy families became apparent. Locals sold up sometimes in order to take advantage of price hikes where they owned houses but a far greater number of wealthy pensioners from elsewhere bought empty lets as second homes leaving the village silent and killing off the annual village events.
For instance, since the next door neighbour moved, his house has been bought as a second home by some people from the Midlands. They have spent a lot of money on it and its very pretty but they are rarely here. In fact Im not really sure why they have bought it other than for investment purposes.
The village green has had goal posts for probably 100 yrs but the last game was probably played by local kids a good 20 years ago.
Every village used to have a vicar. Now we see the vicar once every 9 weeks as he has 9 village churches to get round.
The village used to be lively with school events and annual events like the gala day where stalls of all sorts popped up, the local silver band tootled the day away under the trees and the village hall was filled with cake and tea for all the visitors who turned up. We still have tea and cake on summer Sundays where we support various charities with the proceeds but the whole affair is now dignified and elderly. No kids yelling and screaming or fighting over cake or red-faced in tears in fancy dress, nothing occurring on the village green except for the odd visiting grandchild hanging upside down from the footie bars. The shop is closed
If you’re a local you love it when youre buying at low price but hate it when you have to sell at low price so someone else can benefit. You see the “free market” value of your home and well it’s human nature.
Well said, brother.
Yes, one of the the two easiest ersatz remedies gummint can come up with are subsidies for the demand-side. So, we inflate the demand side … and prices go up. (!)
Then there are constraints on the supply-side, and, if those bind, prices go up. (!!)
Locally the loss of rental property, (exluding council rentals} is down to one factor. A great deal of local rental property was owned by one landowner who then died and property was left to younger relatives who only wanted to sell it all on, which they did. In the process many tenants, rightly or wrongly I wouldnt like to comment, were given notice or just left, either going into what council rental was available or leaving the area completely. Unsurprisingly the social face of the area began to change and quickly. Entire families moved into town or left opening the way for a strangely childless housing market to develop, which it did, and the school to close, which it also did having been expected too once older couples with no kids moved in, resulting in the present loss of village facilities as the financial imbalance between wealthy retirees and less wealthy families became apparent. Locals sold up sometimes in order to take advantage of price hikes where they owned houses but a far greater number of wealthy pensioners from elsewhere bought empty lets as second homes leaving the village silent and killing off the annual village events.
For instance, since the next door neighbour moved, his house has been bought as a second home by some people from the Midlands. They have spent a lot of money on it and its very pretty but they are rarely here. In fact Im not really sure why they have bought it other than for investment purposes.
The village green has had goal posts for probably 100 yrs but the last game was probably played by local kids a good 20 years ago.
Every village used to have a vicar. Now we see the vicar once every 9 weeks as he has 9 village churches to get round.
The village used to be lively with school events and annual events like the gala day where stalls of all sorts popped up, the local silver band tootled the day away under the trees and the village hall was filled with cake and tea for all the visitors who turned up. We still have tea and cake on summer Sundays where we support various charities with the proceeds but the whole affair is now dignified and elderly. No kids yelling and screaming or fighting over cake or red-faced in tears in fancy dress, nothing occurring on the village green except for the odd visiting grandchild hanging upside down from the footie bars. The shop is closed
If you’re a local you love it when youre buying at low price but hate it when you have to sell at low price so someone else can benefit. You see the “free market” value of your home and well it’s human nature.
Whilst I’m sure we can all sympathise with people facing no-fault evictions, I don’t see that this is uniquely a rural issue. Does anyone have a right to continue to live in the area where they grew up if it is now beyong their means ? And should they ? If so, how much is the rest of society prepared to pay to subsidise this privilege ?
I am really not convinced that creating two-tier housing markets where “locals” (however this might be defined) are privileged is the answer (Guernsey is a well known example of this). As the article notes, there is always a sharp edge where a very small difference in circumstances (being pregnant vs actually having a child) can result in a drastically different outcome.
And yet again, to write about housing with no reference to economics or supply and demand is fundamentally ignorant and can only lead to “solutions” that do not work:
““It’s not a housing crisis, it’s an affordability crisis,” says author Catrina Davies. In other words, it’s not about building more.”
Enough.
It is also about supply and demand. Population growth. Artifically cheap money (suppressed interested rates). Tax systems which encourage second home ownership and empty/under-used housing. And a restrictive planning system.
These are all fundamental causes which can and should be addressed. And would not require the sort of stupid and counterproductive attempts at market rigging like “help to buy” or local subsidies where some people are privileged over others.
We are in the process of sorting out my French mother-in-law’s estate. Lived in a Brittany resort town. Looking into local regs & short term lets forbidden as house is in a zone which has its quota. Occupancy or long term rental only. Rentals have to meet fairly strict energy efficiency levels too. Makes absolute sense:
Rentals/second homes mean my Cornish niece unlikely to ever own her home.
AirBnB should be banned, especially in areas with a shortage of houses to buy or rent. Any empty properties should be heavily taxed to discourage the practice, or at least raise funds to build more council houses
I don’t think banning is ever really the answer. Changing tax and regulation is far more likely to achieve what you want. That could include gathering more tax from notoriously tax-avoiding tech companies (I haven’t checked now much UK tax AirBnB currently pays, but I imagine it’s not much).
I also agree with higher taxes on unused properties. And land.
I don’t think banning second homes is the answer either. But they should certainly carry higher taxes than owner occupied properties. That’s something that might be done regionally – there may be run down areas of Britain which would benefit from second home owners doing up old properties.
here in Australia we have a ‘capital-gains tax’ applied to any property you sell that is not your full time home.
That is also generally the case in the UK (with a few exceptions).
In the US we pay capital gains tax on our full-time home.
That law applies in the U.K. too. It seems it’s no deterrent though.
That is also generally the case in the UK (with a few exceptions).
In the US we pay capital gains tax on our full-time home.
That law applies in the U.K. too. It seems it’s no deterrent though.
here in Australia we have a ‘capital-gains tax’ applied to any property you sell that is not your full time home.
I agree something has to be done but shunting locals, mostly young families with children into council houses so village houses can be sold to retirees and holiday makers is not the answer.I live in a small yorkshire village where my children went to school and grew up. The school is now someones house but they do at least have a son, one of the very very few children here. The village has been largely taken over by ‘Oft cummed uns’ which I need not translate who seem determined to change it into surburbia. Young couples can no longer afford to live here so locals are largely transplanted into council housing in the nearby small town. We are as much to blame as anyone else who retired here. We were forced to move for work but have come ‘home’ now that my husbands work is online. Otherwise we would still live half a days drive away in a place that made us homesick for half our lives. Our children have left the area for work and housing. Theres no denying , it is a beautiful place and things cant stay the same but the rush for holiday and retirement homes has caused the death of many many villages and it is heart breaking.
Back in the 1980s Somerset County Council sold off all their council housing. Now or so I’ve heard all the ex council houses in West Somerset are private and often second homes for (yes it’s a cliche,but Londoners).
I was told that the original council tenants used right to buy,did the house up a bit,stayed the requisite time,five years I think then sold the house for a zillion times more than they paid and went to live in a suburb of Minehead. I was told that by a local.
You could say that about anywhere in the country. A lot of former council houses are now in the hands of private landlords as a result. It would have been simple to have had a rule that would have prevented successive generations profiting from the sale of former council houses. Sadly it was never thought about
You could say that about anywhere in the country. A lot of former council houses are now in the hands of private landlords as a result. It would have been simple to have had a rule that would have prevented successive generations profiting from the sale of former council houses. Sadly it was never thought about
Back in the 1980s Somerset County Council sold off all their council housing. Now or so I’ve heard all the ex council houses in West Somerset are private and often second homes for (yes it’s a cliche,but Londoners).
I was told that the original council tenants used right to buy,did the house up a bit,stayed the requisite time,five years I think then sold the house for a zillion times more than they paid and went to live in a suburb of Minehead. I was told that by a local.
AirBnB also donated $$$’s to the violent racist hate group Black Lives Matter, and should be shunned by decent people for this reason.
I don’t think banning is ever really the answer. Changing tax and regulation is far more likely to achieve what you want. That could include gathering more tax from notoriously tax-avoiding tech companies (I haven’t checked now much UK tax AirBnB currently pays, but I imagine it’s not much).
I also agree with higher taxes on unused properties. And land.
I don’t think banning second homes is the answer either. But they should certainly carry higher taxes than owner occupied properties. That’s something that might be done regionally – there may be run down areas of Britain which would benefit from second home owners doing up old properties.
I agree something has to be done but shunting locals, mostly young families with children into council houses so village houses can be sold to retirees and holiday makers is not the answer.I live in a small yorkshire village where my children went to school and grew up. The school is now someones house but they do at least have a son, one of the very very few children here. The village has been largely taken over by ‘Oft cummed uns’ which I need not translate who seem determined to change it into surburbia. Young couples can no longer afford to live here so locals are largely transplanted into council housing in the nearby small town. We are as much to blame as anyone else who retired here. We were forced to move for work but have come ‘home’ now that my husbands work is online. Otherwise we would still live half a days drive away in a place that made us homesick for half our lives. Our children have left the area for work and housing. Theres no denying , it is a beautiful place and things cant stay the same but the rush for holiday and retirement homes has caused the death of many many villages and it is heart breaking.
AirBnB also donated $$$’s to the violent racist hate group Black Lives Matter, and should be shunned by decent people for this reason.
AirBnB should be banned, especially in areas with a shortage of houses to buy or rent. Any empty properties should be heavily taxed to discourage the practice, or at least raise funds to build more council houses
We are in the process of sorting out my French mother-in-law’s estate. Lived in a Brittany resort town. Looking into local regs & short term lets forbidden as house is in a zone which has its quota. Occupancy or long term rental only. Rentals have to meet fairly strict energy efficiency levels too. Makes absolute sense:
Rentals/second homes mean my Cornish niece unlikely to ever own her home.
Part of the problem which isn’t really addressed in this article is the lack of jobs in rural areas. This means that local people will never have the purchasing power to buy homes. I live in Pembrokeshire and like many people here, make my living from the tourist industry. There are few other local employers. Parts of Pembrokeshire are so poor that we used to get structural finding from the EU.
The Welsh government have already started penalising second homers and people doing holiday accommodation but I haven’t seen any evidence of locals buying up the newly available properties. These are still going to people from the cities who are either so wealthy they don’t care about double council tax or who lie and make this their principle residence and the city pad into their second home. Meanwhile, local people who let out their property as holiday rentals to make ends meet are facing higher tax and costs and of course they save by sacking their cleaner, laundry, gardener etc and doing the work themselves. I’ve got less work this year as a direct result. What’s the answer? I don’t know. But I’m convinced that the extra costs and regulations are a money making exercise by government and not at all about making our lives better
I understand your feelings totally. There is one highminded landowner locally who has houses that he will only let or sell to local people. Unfortunately he’s in a team of one. Locals are in the process of being priced out of everything and villages becoming part of Dorkingdale. It breaks my heart.
The thing about that is you have to put legal protection in to stop your first low cost purchaser from selling at a huge profit. Only buying is one mindset,selling us another. And they don’t like it!
The thing about that is you have to put legal protection in to stop your first low cost purchaser from selling at a huge profit. Only buying is one mindset,selling us another. And they don’t like it!
I understand your feelings totally. There is one highminded landowner locally who has houses that he will only let or sell to local people. Unfortunately he’s in a team of one. Locals are in the process of being priced out of everything and villages becoming part of Dorkingdale. It breaks my heart.
Part of the problem which isn’t really addressed in this article is the lack of jobs in rural areas. This means that local people will never have the purchasing power to buy homes. I live in Pembrokeshire and like many people here, make my living from the tourist industry. There are few other local employers. Parts of Pembrokeshire are so poor that we used to get structural finding from the EU.
The Welsh government have already started penalising second homers and people doing holiday accommodation but I haven’t seen any evidence of locals buying up the newly available properties. These are still going to people from the cities who are either so wealthy they don’t care about double council tax or who lie and make this their principle residence and the city pad into their second home. Meanwhile, local people who let out their property as holiday rentals to make ends meet are facing higher tax and costs and of course they save by sacking their cleaner, laundry, gardener etc and doing the work themselves. I’ve got less work this year as a direct result. What’s the answer? I don’t know. But I’m convinced that the extra costs and regulations are a money making exercise by government and not at all about making our lives better
Rural poverty is a severely overlooked issue in this country for all the reasons highlighted above and then some. While it is never easy to live in poverty, at least if you’re in a large town or city, you have access to support and facilities on your doorstep. In the countryside, you have none of that. What you do have, is abysmal or non-existent public transport that either won’t get you there or drops you off 10+ mins walking distance from said facilities.
But yes, sneering metropolitans criticising Sunak who barely spend any time outside the M25 with a few exceptions clearly know better on this…
Correct, and thus the £15 billion currently squandered on Northern Ireland and a similar amount on Scotland should diverted to aid rural England immediately.
It’s only a matter of adjusting the obsolete Barnett Formula.
Really? And what would you do with this money apart from the obvious such as education. Would you build more houses in the villages that village people exiled in council housing will still not be able to afford? There is a village not so far from here where a local landowner wont let or sell any of his housing to anyone unless they have jobs, history or relatives already living here. So many have been driven out by simply being unable to pay prices demanded for housing once wealthier people start artificially hiking prices up and turnng previously mixed vilages into pretty middle-class estates. Im tub-thumping I know I am but Ive got blood in this game and Im frustrated and angry. I have family, husband, events of all sorts and a life long attachement as have many others who have been forced to leave then unable to get back. We were lucky and we know it.
Yes I would build more ‘affordable’ housing and it doesn’t have to be ugly as some imagine.
In fact for £30billion should be able to build on a considerable scale.
As the normal the working routine seems to have been irretrievably wrecked but COVID and Public Sector unreliability (eg: Railway etc) perhaps an age of new ‘cottage industry/ work’ is upon us?
That sort of nepotism is everywhere. In at least two of the jobs in my working life no one got employed unless they already had a relative there. Both times some weird anomaly got me in but definitely a quirk of fate. That’s why I noticed it more I expect. Of course it was never written down anywhere.
Yes I would build more ‘affordable’ housing and it doesn’t have to be ugly as some imagine.
In fact for £30billion should be able to build on a considerable scale.
As the normal the working routine seems to have been irretrievably wrecked but COVID and Public Sector unreliability (eg: Railway etc) perhaps an age of new ‘cottage industry/ work’ is upon us?
That sort of nepotism is everywhere. In at least two of the jobs in my working life no one got employed unless they already had a relative there. Both times some weird anomaly got me in but definitely a quirk of fate. That’s why I noticed it more I expect. Of course it was never written down anywhere.
Really? And what would you do with this money apart from the obvious such as education. Would you build more houses in the villages that village people exiled in council housing will still not be able to afford? There is a village not so far from here where a local landowner wont let or sell any of his housing to anyone unless they have jobs, history or relatives already living here. So many have been driven out by simply being unable to pay prices demanded for housing once wealthier people start artificially hiking prices up and turnng previously mixed vilages into pretty middle-class estates. Im tub-thumping I know I am but Ive got blood in this game and Im frustrated and angry. I have family, husband, events of all sorts and a life long attachement as have many others who have been forced to leave then unable to get back. We were lucky and we know it.
Correct, and thus the £15 billion currently squandered on Northern Ireland and a similar amount on Scotland should diverted to aid rural England immediately.
It’s only a matter of adjusting the obsolete Barnett Formula.
Rural poverty is a severely overlooked issue in this country for all the reasons highlighted above and then some. While it is never easy to live in poverty, at least if you’re in a large town or city, you have access to support and facilities on your doorstep. In the countryside, you have none of that. What you do have, is abysmal or non-existent public transport that either won’t get you there or drops you off 10+ mins walking distance from said facilities.
But yes, sneering metropolitans criticising Sunak who barely spend any time outside the M25 with a few exceptions clearly know better on this…
Two cliches: “beware of what you wish for” and “join the dots”. I grew up on a farm in the Cotswolds and have lived for more than 3 decades in a very rural part of the Scottish Borders (in a house we built). Current problems are the long term consequence of deliberate but ill-considered policies driven by urban interests. First, the pressure for cheap food and maximum production accelerated mechanisation and the death of mixed farming, so that agricultural employment fell rapidly. Now, environmental concerns imply a future of forestry and hobby farming. Most existing farmers rely on tourism (holiday cottages) and tourist-type businesses to keep going – all promoted by government policy for “diversification”. Antipathy to aristocratic pursuits – hunting, shooting & fishing – reduces local jobs even more. What is left is up-market hotels & spas and day visitors, none of which generates lots of well-paid employment.
Public services in rural areas are neglected so that living in nearby towns is the only sensible option for most people. Hence, the market for new (and existing) housing is entirely focused on buyers or renters who have substantial incomes, no children and are able to look after themselves.
The point is that we have (collectively) chosen to kill the former economic structure. People have no idea what a working rural economy would look because the countryside is just a vehicle for expressing other obsessions of rural idylls or environmental havens or whatever.
Added note: There is widespread hostility to holiday lets or selling hour old cottages to incomers. But how do you expect any farmers, whether tenants or owners, to make money without such sources of income? In upland Scotland, all of the incentives are to plant large areas of forestry while retaining a few fields for hobby farming. Maybe farm shops work if you are within 10 miles of London, but you need to face the reality of what it is like to farm in most of the British countryside. It is hard, unrewarding work which is only viable with substantial income from tourism or similar sources.
Point of order: most hunters, shooters, and fishers are not aristocrats nowadays
… which strengthens Gordon’s argument.
… which strengthens Gordon’s argument.
Point of order: most hunters, shooters, and fishers are not aristocrats nowadays
Two cliches: “beware of what you wish for” and “join the dots”. I grew up on a farm in the Cotswolds and have lived for more than 3 decades in a very rural part of the Scottish Borders (in a house we built). Current problems are the long term consequence of deliberate but ill-considered policies driven by urban interests. First, the pressure for cheap food and maximum production accelerated mechanisation and the death of mixed farming, so that agricultural employment fell rapidly. Now, environmental concerns imply a future of forestry and hobby farming. Most existing farmers rely on tourism (holiday cottages) and tourist-type businesses to keep going – all promoted by government policy for “diversification”. Antipathy to aristocratic pursuits – hunting, shooting & fishing – reduces local jobs even more. What is left is up-market hotels & spas and day visitors, none of which generates lots of well-paid employment.
Public services in rural areas are neglected so that living in nearby towns is the only sensible option for most people. Hence, the market for new (and existing) housing is entirely focused on buyers or renters who have substantial incomes, no children and are able to look after themselves.
The point is that we have (collectively) chosen to kill the former economic structure. People have no idea what a working rural economy would look because the countryside is just a vehicle for expressing other obsessions of rural idylls or environmental havens or whatever.
Added note: There is widespread hostility to holiday lets or selling hour old cottages to incomers. But how do you expect any farmers, whether tenants or owners, to make money without such sources of income? In upland Scotland, all of the incentives are to plant large areas of forestry while retaining a few fields for hobby farming. Maybe farm shops work if you are within 10 miles of London, but you need to face the reality of what it is like to farm in most of the British countryside. It is hard, unrewarding work which is only viable with substantial income from tourism or similar sources.
How to dry up the private rented sector of the housing market: outlaw ‘no fault’ evictions. A classic example of the maxim that hard cases make bad law.
How to dry up the private rented sector of the housing market: outlaw ‘no fault’ evictions. A classic example of the maxim that hard cases make bad law.
There used to be something called Agricultural Dwelling House Advisory Committees; members of the local Great and Good with a secretary provided by MAFF – many years ago, that was me.
If a farm worker was being forced to leave a tied house, because of retirement or redundancy, the ADHAC could recommend that he or she went to the top of the local housing list. Then those lovely big rural council houses, on the edge of villages with big gardens and a room off the kitchen for boots, waterproofs and sheepdogs, were some of the first to be sold off under Right to Buy.
Whose idea was that I wonder?!
There used to be something called Agricultural Dwelling House Advisory Committees; members of the local Great and Good with a secretary provided by MAFF – many years ago, that was me.
If a farm worker was being forced to leave a tied house, because of retirement or redundancy, the ADHAC could recommend that he or she went to the top of the local housing list. Then those lovely big rural council houses, on the edge of villages with big gardens and a room off the kitchen for boots, waterproofs and sheepdogs, were some of the first to be sold off under Right to Buy.
Whose idea was that I wonder?!
The writer says she doesn’t want to romanticise the lives of country people in years gone by and then goes on to explain that modern ways are ruining the lives for people living there. On tenant farmers – they are renting the land. Why is this any different to a long-term business rental for an office? As she says, when you rent a tenant farm you normally get a house along with it which doesn’t happen in most business relationships. Again, most rural industries have gone and with no prospect of them coming back. Without something for them to do it is going to be hard to force younger people into the countryside. She forgets to mention that all these “unaffordable” properties were sold by country folk on the open market, presumably for the higher price rather than thinking of affordability for their kids. Life in the countryside has always been harder than in the city for the reasons already elaborated upon by other comments and there is going to be a movement back and forth between generations which I think has been accepted by most. You are always going to get a vocal minority who kick off about new blood moving in to a place but how else will village life survive with everyone having small families? Forgotten is that 100 years ago people had more than 2 children (often a lot more) so you can’t compare rural life then and now in a meaningful way. For me it should be a requirement for alms-houses to be built for cases such as the retired couple. This worked very well back in the day but the people in them weren’t expected to live for 30+ years after retirement. The problem there is high taxation so you can’t have it both ways. Also I don’t think that most retirees would want communal living in tiny houses – lots of alms-houses have now been knocked through to make spacious, 1-family accommodation rather than living quarters for more families.
2nd homes are a separate issue which I can get behind more regulation of (but not banning it like has happened in some places) though in my opinion it should be tax-relief for renting out to locals rather than more taxation for the 2nd home owners.
The writer says she doesn’t want to romanticise the lives of country people in years gone by and then goes on to explain that modern ways are ruining the lives for people living there. On tenant farmers – they are renting the land. Why is this any different to a long-term business rental for an office? As she says, when you rent a tenant farm you normally get a house along with it which doesn’t happen in most business relationships. Again, most rural industries have gone and with no prospect of them coming back. Without something for them to do it is going to be hard to force younger people into the countryside. She forgets to mention that all these “unaffordable” properties were sold by country folk on the open market, presumably for the higher price rather than thinking of affordability for their kids. Life in the countryside has always been harder than in the city for the reasons already elaborated upon by other comments and there is going to be a movement back and forth between generations which I think has been accepted by most. You are always going to get a vocal minority who kick off about new blood moving in to a place but how else will village life survive with everyone having small families? Forgotten is that 100 years ago people had more than 2 children (often a lot more) so you can’t compare rural life then and now in a meaningful way. For me it should be a requirement for alms-houses to be built for cases such as the retired couple. This worked very well back in the day but the people in them weren’t expected to live for 30+ years after retirement. The problem there is high taxation so you can’t have it both ways. Also I don’t think that most retirees would want communal living in tiny houses – lots of alms-houses have now been knocked through to make spacious, 1-family accommodation rather than living quarters for more families.
2nd homes are a separate issue which I can get behind more regulation of (but not banning it like has happened in some places) though in my opinion it should be tax-relief for renting out to locals rather than more taxation for the 2nd home owners.
There’s no such thing as a “no fault eviction”. It means that the landlord decides not to renew a tenancy or allow it to become periodic.
Is the general view that a landlord should be unable to end a tenancy for any reason? Or just for certain reasons? It’s a nonsense. A tenancy is just a contract like any other.
If you hire a car for a week, and the owner wants it back for the next customer at the end of the week, Is that an unfair eviction?
There’s no such thing as a “no fault eviction”. It means that the landlord decides not to renew a tenancy or allow it to become periodic.
Is the general view that a landlord should be unable to end a tenancy for any reason? Or just for certain reasons? It’s a nonsense. A tenancy is just a contract like any other.
If you hire a car for a week, and the owner wants it back for the next customer at the end of the week, Is that an unfair eviction?
In the 1980’s the Conservatives more or less solved the problem of rental housing shortages; they freed the market from most controls, giving landlords a reasonable return in a highly competitive market which kept charges to the the minimum economic level; by allowing the landlord to recover his property when he needed it – or if the tenant was bad; and so on. The available stock went up and the quality of it greatly increased, landlords had the income and motivation to keep their accommodation in good repair, tenants and landlords had flexibility and good tenants could always found somewhere to live. It was a brilliant example of the fairness and success of a market in action.
Of course there were a few bad landlords who ripped their tenants off, but not many, and improvements to the security of tenants deposits helped solve some of that.
And some tenants lose the house they may have lived in all their lives (as did my family (farmers)) but that is because things change and life moves on. It is sad but nobody has a right to be a hansom cab maker or artist at some one else’s expense.
But politicians and “action groups” can never leave anything alone. Tinker and chisel, tinker and chisel, so now there are restrictions once again, which coupled with our bizarre planning system, and hysteria every time a landlord does something to upset a tenant, which means; surprise surprise; landlords are exiting the market, rents are rising because the supply is restricted and getting ever tighter, there is no money for repairs, and like this disgraceful and sentimental article, every minor offending of a tenant by their landlord is blown up to a major event (their Mapledurham cottage is falling down!).
And it is a Conservative government that is the main culprit in this; it should argue for the beautiful benefits of the free market, but no, it must make things worse by its leaden handed and ill informed interference.
*Holiday lets and AirB&B is a very different issue
*I am not a landlord of any sort!
In the 1980’s the Conservatives more or less solved the problem of rental housing shortages; they freed the market from most controls, giving landlords a reasonable return in a highly competitive market which kept charges to the the minimum economic level; by allowing the landlord to recover his property when he needed it – or if the tenant was bad; and so on. The available stock went up and the quality of it greatly increased, landlords had the income and motivation to keep their accommodation in good repair, tenants and landlords had flexibility and good tenants could always found somewhere to live. It was a brilliant example of the fairness and success of a market in action.
Of course there were a few bad landlords who ripped their tenants off, but not many, and improvements to the security of tenants deposits helped solve some of that.
And some tenants lose the house they may have lived in all their lives (as did my family (farmers)) but that is because things change and life moves on. It is sad but nobody has a right to be a hansom cab maker or artist at some one else’s expense.
But politicians and “action groups” can never leave anything alone. Tinker and chisel, tinker and chisel, so now there are restrictions once again, which coupled with our bizarre planning system, and hysteria every time a landlord does something to upset a tenant, which means; surprise surprise; landlords are exiting the market, rents are rising because the supply is restricted and getting ever tighter, there is no money for repairs, and like this disgraceful and sentimental article, every minor offending of a tenant by their landlord is blown up to a major event (their Mapledurham cottage is falling down!).
And it is a Conservative government that is the main culprit in this; it should argue for the beautiful benefits of the free market, but no, it must make things worse by its leaden handed and ill informed interference.
*Holiday lets and AirB&B is a very different issue
*I am not a landlord of any sort!
An interesting article, somewhat spoiled by this absurd line:
“In other words, it’s not about building more”
Supply and demand is the most basic law of economics.
If you build more houses, they *will* get cheaper.
I also dispute the presumption that someone born in a place has an inalienable right to live there. Not every child in Manhattan or Monaco will be able to afford to stay there as an adult. They aren’t more deserving of that prime real estate than an outsider who works hard to move there.
The real problem is that despite having millions of acres of beautiful countryside, Britain has relatively few pleasant villages.
Lovely places shouldn’t be scarce. Build more. Build well.
Absolutely. Agree with all these points.
It was humans after all who built the attractive villages and created much of the way the countryside looks. There is no reason we cannot create more of these – or do even better – since our technology and possibilities are now far more advanced. The idea that all housing development must be bad is ludicrous and ignorant.
Peter – I agree with most of the points you make in the various comments. But when I look at the evidence about housing developments most are bad and of poor quality. What will they be like in 30 years? Ready for pulling down is my guess. So I understand NIMBYs and in my “ignorance” I can’t help but sympathise with them. The vas5 majority do not enhance the countryside or the towns. Developers build cheaply so at least some people can afford to buy. That is the driver. Of course design and quality can and must be improved. But we’ve been saying that for years. And to do both inevitably costs and puts them further out of reach.
Peter – I agree with most of the points you make in the various comments. But when I look at the evidence about housing developments most are bad and of poor quality. What will they be like in 30 years? Ready for pulling down is my guess. So I understand NIMBYs and in my “ignorance” I can’t help but sympathise with them. The vas5 majority do not enhance the countryside or the towns. Developers build cheaply so at least some people can afford to buy. That is the driver. Of course design and quality can and must be improved. But we’ve been saying that for years. And to do both inevitably costs and puts them further out of reach.
Absolutely. Agree with all these points.
It was humans after all who built the attractive villages and created much of the way the countryside looks. There is no reason we cannot create more of these – or do even better – since our technology and possibilities are now far more advanced. The idea that all housing development must be bad is ludicrous and ignorant.
An interesting article, somewhat spoiled by this absurd line:
“In other words, it’s not about building more”
Supply and demand is the most basic law of economics.
If you build more houses, they *will* get cheaper.
I also dispute the presumption that someone born in a place has an inalienable right to live there. Not every child in Manhattan or Monaco will be able to afford to stay there as an adult. They aren’t more deserving of that prime real estate than an outsider who works hard to move there.
The real problem is that despite having millions of acres of beautiful countryside, Britain has relatively few pleasant villages.
Lovely places shouldn’t be scarce. Build more. Build well.
very inaccurate and misleading article:
Tim Farron is a MP not a councillor
Tied cottages were/are available to agricultural workers not tenant farmers
Until recently agricultural workers did not pay tax on their tied cottage but now it is taxed as a benefit in kind. Because building new houses in rural areas is usually forbidden tied cottages ensured homes for workers or retired workers.
Agricultural tenancies sometimes are for bare land, sometimes with barns and often with barns and farmhouse. These tenancies (Farm Business Tenancies) are usually for seven years and are usually renewed. Tenancies are declining because farms need to be bigger for economies scale to compete in European and world markets or upland areas are being replanted with trees to meet carbon sequestration targets.
If a house needs to be demolished the tenant needs to leave; if a house is not safe, the tenant needs to leave.
very inaccurate and misleading article:
Tim Farron is a MP not a councillor
Tied cottages were/are available to agricultural workers not tenant farmers
Until recently agricultural workers did not pay tax on their tied cottage but now it is taxed as a benefit in kind. Because building new houses in rural areas is usually forbidden tied cottages ensured homes for workers or retired workers.
Agricultural tenancies sometimes are for bare land, sometimes with barns and often with barns and farmhouse. These tenancies (Farm Business Tenancies) are usually for seven years and are usually renewed. Tenancies are declining because farms need to be bigger for economies scale to compete in European and world markets or upland areas are being replanted with trees to meet carbon sequestration targets.
If a house needs to be demolished the tenant needs to leave; if a house is not safe, the tenant needs to leave.
The author has answered her own tirade here: “In this case, the owner of the estate had commissioned an architect to refurbish the cottage. But, when the architect recommending demolishing and rebuilding the house instead, the tenants were handed their notice.”
In a very few years all rented property will be legally obliged to have a minimum energy performance certificate of C. Hence the commission to refurbish the cottage, the outcome of which was that it was easier to knock it down and start again. If the landlord does not comply with the law the authorities will come down on him like a ton of bricks, because he is an evil landlord. Therefore he is evicting the tenants under section 21 while he still can.
I’ll hazard a guess that the author is not a critic of the policy of net zero and might even be an enthusiatic supporter. Well, this is the result.
The author has answered her own tirade here: “In this case, the owner of the estate had commissioned an architect to refurbish the cottage. But, when the architect recommending demolishing and rebuilding the house instead, the tenants were handed their notice.”
In a very few years all rented property will be legally obliged to have a minimum energy performance certificate of C. Hence the commission to refurbish the cottage, the outcome of which was that it was easier to knock it down and start again. If the landlord does not comply with the law the authorities will come down on him like a ton of bricks, because he is an evil landlord. Therefore he is evicting the tenants under section 21 while he still can.
I’ll hazard a guess that the author is not a critic of the policy of net zero and might even be an enthusiatic supporter. Well, this is the result.
I have deep sympathy for the rural English ethnically cleansed rom their ancestral lands by cruel urbanites. I wish them success and the most extreme determination in their just struggle.
I wouldnt mind so much if the krool urbanites actually did something locally. Granted our pair do attend village does when they are here which is perhaps 4 times a year so at least they leave a few bob behind at local teas.
I wouldnt mind so much if the krool urbanites actually did something locally. Granted our pair do attend village does when they are here which is perhaps 4 times a year so at least they leave a few bob behind at local teas.
I have deep sympathy for the rural English ethnically cleansed rom their ancestral lands by cruel urbanites. I wish them success and the most extreme determination in their just struggle.
Reduce immigration, duh!
Reduce immigration, duh!
In edge of commuter belt Kent it has long been that the agricultural labourers live in social housing in town and commute to work.
In edge of commuter belt Kent it has long been that the agricultural labourers live in social housing in town and commute to work.
We are being urged to champion the “locals”. That word is becoming increasingly meaningless. A tenuous suggestion would be three generations born and bred in the same area, accompanied by the “local” accent. Being born somewhere would not make you local. My girls were born in France and left at a young age. In the meantime, returning to where I was born and bred, was impossible due to soaring house prices. What happened? Rich arabs mostly. In the village where I settled the local accent is spoken by but a few very elderly. There is a sprinkling of weekenders (second homes are taxed higher) but most are incomers. They have helped the village to thrive, conserved its old traditional buildings, started a sports’ club, kept the village hall busy, organised charities, kept the church alive and filled the village school.
We are being urged to champion the “locals”. That word is becoming increasingly meaningless. A tenuous suggestion would be three generations born and bred in the same area, accompanied by the “local” accent. Being born somewhere would not make you local. My girls were born in France and left at a young age. In the meantime, returning to where I was born and bred, was impossible due to soaring house prices. What happened? Rich arabs mostly. In the village where I settled the local accent is spoken by but a few very elderly. There is a sprinkling of weekenders (second homes are taxed higher) but most are incomers. They have helped the village to thrive, conserved its old traditional buildings, started a sports’ club, kept the village hall busy, organised charities, kept the church alive and filled the village school.
In the 1970s a law was passed giving agricultural workers absolute security of tenure in their tied cottages. It didn’t matter if they were sacked for stealing – they couldn’t be kicked out of their cottage.
Time went by and farms needed fewer farm workers and these workers died or moved away – by which time their cottages had become valuable properties which could be let to townies who thought the whole idea of estates and cottages ‘quaint’.
However landlords would think twice about letting a house is]f they had no means of getting rid of the tenant
I understand that people need to be secure in their houses but if changes are made so that tenants can’t be removed then the whole rental market will dry up which is what happened when Labour gave tenants (not just farm workers) the right to be sitting tenants.
In the 1970s a law was passed giving agricultural workers absolute security of tenure in their tied cottages. It didn’t matter if they were sacked for stealing – they couldn’t be kicked out of their cottage.
Time went by and farms needed fewer farm workers and these workers died or moved away – by which time their cottages had become valuable properties which could be let to townies who thought the whole idea of estates and cottages ‘quaint’.
However landlords would think twice about letting a house is]f they had no means of getting rid of the tenant
I understand that people need to be secure in their houses but if changes are made so that tenants can’t be removed then the whole rental market will dry up which is what happened when Labour gave tenants (not just farm workers) the right to be sitting tenants.
Lots of issues here including that im once again sidetracked from the tasks I should be doing. Pros and Cons on both sides. Having some familiarity with a Somerset village area from the 1990s when visiting my late Auntie there this image we have of pure and innocent country girls and boys out seeking the first primrose of spring and hearing the chiff-chaff..well most of them are not like that and even if they have that element as we all do there is a lot of Wayne +Waynetta Slobs out there demanding the right to live in the village they grew up in just from a lack of imagination. And I heard a radio interview with a young woman with a husband and small children who was lucky enough to get one of those covenant protected houses in the village she grew up in and had lived there 10 happy years with husband and little kids. Now they wanted to move. Her irritation,anger and incomprehension in her voice as she told the interviewer,”we need to sell this house so we can make our move but there are all these rules and we can’t get what it’s really worth and we are limited to who we can sell it to and no one in that group is looking for somewhere right now,they ought to loosen up the rules for people like us”. Sorry but I had to laugh. A situation when you’re buying is so different to when you’re selling. Anyway the ELITE have now decided to rewild the land,remove surplus people and make access to nature a special privilege.
Lots of issues here including that im once again sidetracked from the tasks I should be doing. Pros and Cons on both sides. Having some familiarity with a Somerset village area from the 1990s when visiting my late Auntie there this image we have of pure and innocent country girls and boys out seeking the first primrose of spring and hearing the chiff-chaff..well most of them are not like that and even if they have that element as we all do there is a lot of Wayne +Waynetta Slobs out there demanding the right to live in the village they grew up in just from a lack of imagination. And I heard a radio interview with a young woman with a husband and small children who was lucky enough to get one of those covenant protected houses in the village she grew up in and had lived there 10 happy years with husband and little kids. Now they wanted to move. Her irritation,anger and incomprehension in her voice as she told the interviewer,”we need to sell this house so we can make our move but there are all these rules and we can’t get what it’s really worth and we are limited to who we can sell it to and no one in that group is looking for somewhere right now,they ought to loosen up the rules for people like us”. Sorry but I had to laugh. A situation when you’re buying is so different to when you’re selling. Anyway the ELITE have now decided to rewild the land,remove surplus people and make access to nature a special privilege.
More than three years after the last General Election, there has still been no ban on section 21 evictions, which increased by 121 per cent in the last financial year. Three cheers for the last Labour Government, which never banned them, either. In central and local government until 1979, the Conservatives used to take housing at least as seriously as anyone else did. But since 1997, even Labour in government has failed miserably on this issue.
We need a minimum of 100,000 new homes every year for at least 10 years, including council homes with an end to the Right to Buy, with the capital receipts from council house sales released in order to build more council housing, and with councils empowered to borrow to that end. We need a minimum of 50 per cent of any new development to be dedicated to affordable housing, with affordability defined as 50 per cent of average rents. We need rent controls, a ban on no-fault evictions, action against the buying up of property by foreign investors in order to leave it empty, repeal of the Vagrancy Act, and the outlawing of practices such as “poor doors” and discrimination in children’s play facilities based on the nature of their parents’ tenure.
We need a statutory requirement of planning permission for change of use if it were proposed to turn a primary dwelling into a secondary dwelling, a working family home into a weekend or holiday home. That would set the pattern for the empowerment of the rural working class, assisted both by the Land Value Tax and by a windfall tax on the supermarkets in order to fund agriculture and small business, with strict regulation to ensure that the costs of this were not passed on to suppliers, workers, consumers, communities, or the environment. Rent-to-buy schemes also demand serious attention, and we should be setting up one or more non-profit lettings agencies.”
It is entirely undesirable,” wrote Aneurin Bevan,”that on modern housing estates only one type of citizen should live. If we are to enable citizens to lead a full life, if they are each to be aware of the problems of their neighbours, then they should all be drawn from different sectors of the community. We should try to introduce what was always the lovely feature of English and Welsh villages, where the doctor, the grocer, the butcher and the farm labourer all lived in the same street.”In 1979, two fifths of people lived in council housing, an impossible figure for a mere “safety net for the poor”. Public provision, by definition, never is such a net. Not the NHS, not state education, not public transport, none of it. As recently as 1980, what is now a breathtaking 20 per cent of the richest tenth of the population lived in social housing. Now, after four decades of selling off the stock and of not building any more, the stringent criteria for new tenants effectively guarantee a large number of single mothers of dependent children who are thus unable to work full-time, if at all, and of people newly released from prison or newly discharged from psychiatric institutions.
Margaret Thatcher’s assault on council housing is the one thing that her supporters still feel able to defend unconditionally. But in reality, it created the Housing Benefit racket, and it used the gigantic gifting of capital assets by the State to enable the beneficiaries to enter the property market ahead of private tenants, or of people still living at home, who in either case had saved for their deposits. What, exactly, was or is conservative or Tory about that? Or about moving in the characters from Shameless either alongside, or even in place of, the respectable working class? Shameless began under Tony Blair’s model for any future majority Labour Government.
More than three years after the last General Election, there has still been no ban on section 21 evictions, which increased by 121 per cent in the last financial year. Three cheers for the last Labour Government, which never banned them, either. In central and local government until 1979, the Conservatives used to take housing at least as seriously as anyone else did. But since 1997, even Labour in government has failed miserably on this issue.
We need a minimum of 100,000 new homes every year for at least 10 years, including council homes with an end to the Right to Buy, with the capital receipts from council house sales released in order to build more council housing, and with councils empowered to borrow to that end. We need a minimum of 50 per cent of any new development to be dedicated to affordable housing, with affordability defined as 50 per cent of average rents. We need rent controls, a ban on no-fault evictions, action against the buying up of property by foreign investors in order to leave it empty, repeal of the Vagrancy Act, and the outlawing of practices such as “poor doors” and discrimination in children’s play facilities based on the nature of their parents’ tenure.
We need a statutory requirement of planning permission for change of use if it were proposed to turn a primary dwelling into a secondary dwelling, a working family home into a weekend or holiday home. That would set the pattern for the empowerment of the rural working class, assisted both by the Land Value Tax and by a windfall tax on the supermarkets in order to fund agriculture and small business, with strict regulation to ensure that the costs of this were not passed on to suppliers, workers, consumers, communities, or the environment. Rent-to-buy schemes also demand serious attention, and we should be setting up one or more non-profit lettings agencies.”
It is entirely undesirable,” wrote Aneurin Bevan,”that on modern housing estates only one type of citizen should live. If we are to enable citizens to lead a full life, if they are each to be aware of the problems of their neighbours, then they should all be drawn from different sectors of the community. We should try to introduce what was always the lovely feature of English and Welsh villages, where the doctor, the grocer, the butcher and the farm labourer all lived in the same street.”In 1979, two fifths of people lived in council housing, an impossible figure for a mere “safety net for the poor”. Public provision, by definition, never is such a net. Not the NHS, not state education, not public transport, none of it. As recently as 1980, what is now a breathtaking 20 per cent of the richest tenth of the population lived in social housing. Now, after four decades of selling off the stock and of not building any more, the stringent criteria for new tenants effectively guarantee a large number of single mothers of dependent children who are thus unable to work full-time, if at all, and of people newly released from prison or newly discharged from psychiatric institutions.
Margaret Thatcher’s assault on council housing is the one thing that her supporters still feel able to defend unconditionally. But in reality, it created the Housing Benefit racket, and it used the gigantic gifting of capital assets by the State to enable the beneficiaries to enter the property market ahead of private tenants, or of people still living at home, who in either case had saved for their deposits. What, exactly, was or is conservative or Tory about that? Or about moving in the characters from Shameless either alongside, or even in place of, the respectable working class? Shameless began under Tony Blair’s model for any future majority Labour Government.
Slate, coal, copper and tin mining all provided rows and rows of badly insulated houses.
An odd sentence, I thought. When mine owners were building these terraces insulation didn’t exist in any housing.
Slate, coal, copper and tin mining all provided rows and rows of badly insulated houses.
An odd sentence, I thought. When mine owners were building these terraces insulation didn’t exist in any housing.
Living in California I find that even having no fault eviction is “old school”. Here, in order to evict for any reason (a tree falls on a house during a storm and is condemned) and the only way to get the tenant out is to pay him to leave! $50k is typical of such a cost.
The children (20 or 30 somethings) very often live with family as not only can they not afford a house but they can’t afford the rents either.
They have now built a few hundred thousand new “dwellings” and there are a lot for lease, but, the prices have not come down.
The older lower cost apartment complexes are being torn down (over 1200 of these in the last 4 years) only to be replaced with new condos or $4k per month ( and that is not the highest rent either) apartments that are too high in price for most.
Thus lots of vacancy but no affordability. The one party state at it’s worst.
Living in California I find that even having no fault eviction is “old school”. Here, in order to evict for any reason (a tree falls on a house during a storm and is condemned) and the only way to get the tenant out is to pay him to leave! $50k is typical of such a cost.
The children (20 or 30 somethings) very often live with family as not only can they not afford a house but they can’t afford the rents either.
They have now built a few hundred thousand new “dwellings” and there are a lot for lease, but, the prices have not come down.
The older lower cost apartment complexes are being torn down (over 1200 of these in the last 4 years) only to be replaced with new condos or $4k per month ( and that is not the highest rent either) apartments that are too high in price for most.
Thus lots of vacancy but no affordability. The one party state at it’s worst.
Impose a minimum percentage of residential properties that are first homes. Put a time limit on building permits with the possibility of compulsory purchase of the land after the building permit ends and the value of the land has fallen. We need more homes built. Land is a finite resource and governments have the oral right to ensure that it is used for the nation’s needs and not for speculation.
Impose a minimum percentage of residential properties that are first homes. Put a time limit on building permits with the possibility of compulsory purchase of the land after the building permit ends and the value of the land has fallen. We need more homes built. Land is a finite resource and governments have the oral right to ensure that it is used for the nation’s needs and not for speculation.
“The government is, slowly, doing something about it.”
Be careful what you ask for!
Meanwhile, there are private initiatives: “And collectives are buying land on which to build houses that can unequivocally belong to local people, locking in clauses to make sure they are never sold off as second homes.”
This is a nice essay. Here’s an outstanding question: How does a community that has come to be dominated by out-of-towners function? Is there really no way for working folks–for the people who would staff the local eateries, hotels and other services–to support themselves? Or, is a community bereft of local eateries, hotels and services economically viable, because the new owners live off of delivery services? What happens when someone needs a plumber … on a freezing day in winter? Basically, what does the new equilibrium look like? Or maybe we haven’t yet reached something that looks like an equilibrium?
The new equilibrium will be the new aristocracy. In days of old the elite lived on vast country estates surrounded by parkland, walls and gates, as far as possible from the public highway with live-in servants. Millionaires like Guy Ritchie live like this today.
As each village in an area of outstanding natural beauty is converted into a cluster of beautifully renovated cottages for affluent retired folk and weekenders, the families with children and noisy teenagers will disappear leaving a peaceful luxurious oasis for the wealthy.
With fast Internet access and regular deliveries they won’t need any ordinary people to man local shops and services and they will be wealthy enough to happily pay extra for a plumber or car mechanic to come from the nearest town.
The only visitors will be friends and family.
With enormous top of the range TVs and multiple streaming services they won’t even need to go to the cinema.
Anyone with an Internet connection can now chat to anyone in the world via real time video link.
So why not live in a well-heeled quiet crime free village with none of those annoying ‘activities’ for local people?
You can doze your life away in peace without having to have much contact with the outside world.
That is the future of much of rural Britain.
While anyone would sympathise with people having to move home against their wishes, I’m not sure it is possible to protect the right of only some people to live somewhere without creating other injustices. And I don’t see it has much to do with absent rural landlords.
We all respond to economic pressures and incentives. That’s why rural populations moved to the cities. It may be that Airbnb tourists reduce the amount of housing available in an area, but so do divorces.
The root issue is relative poverty, and you can’t solve that with subsidy or regulation.
While anyone would sympathise with people having to move home against their wishes, I’m not sure it is possible to protect the right of only some people to live somewhere without creating other injustices. And I don’t see it has much to do with absent rural landlords.
We all respond to economic pressures and incentives. That’s why rural populations moved to the cities. It may be that Airbnb tourists reduce the amount of housing available in an area, but so do divorces.
The root issue is relative poverty, and you can’t solve that with subsidy or regulation.