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.

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…

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?