It is welcome news that councils are to be given the right to scrap the second homes council tax discount. There are currently over 4000 homes in the South Hams eligible for discounts and this amounts to a total of £700,000 in lost revenue.

The complication is that not all of this goes to South Hams, even though it is collected locally. Ideally I would like to see all this extra revenue going to support housebuilding but with so many other commitments for spending at Devon County Council, that is not possible. It does however address an issue of fairness, in that under the current system those who live here permanently pay disproportionately for the maintenance of local services.

Whilst second home owners do contribute greatly to the local economy, it is right that there is an incentive to let these properties rather than have them lying empty.

The heart of the issue remains that we have the least affordable housing outside London and a ratio of house prices to income of 16.7. It has been estimated that in the South Hams you would need an income of over £69,000 to obtain a mortgage. That is why I welcome the announcement that the Government is to help first time buyers to buy a home through a mortgage guarantee scheme which in partnership with house builders helps to reduce the deposit that has to be raised.

Whilst the draft national planning policy framework is controversial in some areas, we do need some measures that would make it easier to build affordable housing for local families. What would not be acceptable would be a massive increase in second home ownership and scrapping the discount on council tax will be welcome measure to put a brake on this sector.

I was contacted by a constituent and I have posted his comments below. I would be interested to hear your views. Please email me at sarah.wollaston.mp@parliament.uk

Constituent's comments:-

1. The debate about ownership

The debate about second home ownership has been around for decades. There are many properties in Salcombe which were originally built as holiday homes but many of the working houses formerly occupied by locally employed such as farm labourers and fishermen were sold off over time to those wishing to holiday in this area. Many of the second home owners have been involved with this area for generations and in many cases far longer than some of the current "local" population. The point here is that, for every second home there is a "first home" owner who sold up for his/her own reason. No-one forced the sale of these homes and one of the great strengths of the UK is its relatively free market in property. Had those homes that were sold been subject to some sort of "local restriction" there would have been an outcry. If "local restrictions" are placed on houses now there will be a cat and dog fight amongst the locals to avoid their houses being placed in this category. We are where we are and pointing the finger at a selected group of home owners is not helpful.

2. Employment and the economy

I do not have the precise data relating to employment in the South Hams .However, all of my team of staff and a very significant proportion of the workforce in the Salcombe area owe their jobs to the custom provided by second home owners, letters of second homes and the associated holiday business. The shops in Salcombe would not exist without this custom, there would be no Island Street, the hotels would disappear, the harbour would be empty of yachts...you get my point I hope. In addition, second home owners contribute very meaningfully to local charities, the sports clubs, the church etc. etc. I have long felt that this support should be channelled more effectively to remove some of the "us vs. them" sentiment but it is a real contribution nonetheless. The point here is that second home owners contribute very meaningfully to the economy of the South Hams and that they are in many respects very good citizens.

3. The need for housing

There is a clear need to provide housing for a sufficient workforce and its associated families etc. Where local families wish to retain their residence of birth this should also be catered for. But let's be clear, there should be no "right" to home ownership in any particular area. Home ownership is a luxury (and a burden) most cannot afford and that is the way of the world. Where there is an established need, a sufficient housing stock should be maintained for letting at affordable rents to those who are unable to fund their own accommodation in the open market. This need needs to be carefully assessed and then funded. Where possible, the already groaning infrastructure should not be further stretched by placing new housing in patently unsuitable locations (like East Portlemouth – no school, virtually no transport, no shop, no pub, no healthcare, appalling blight on views and landscape – ridiculous).

4. Council Tax

I think that all homes, regardless of first/second owner occupation should be charged the same rate. This should, in theory, result in a reduction in Council Tax for first home owners (by £700,000 according to the Gazette) because the second homes are clearly reduced users of the Council's services in virtually all areas of expenditure (and this would therefore benefit first home owners who would pay less). Alternatively, the extra £700,000 might be used to fund part of the need for rentable housing. This might be a good idea – if the housing is needed for a sufficient workforce. What is not needed is funding to support an ever growing housing stock to house non-contributors. This is the situation which prevails in Torquay and it has been a disaster for the town. Council Tax equalisation will also require careful planning because full payment will require full entitlement. As an example of a potential problem, Salcombe Harbour has long operated a discriminatory mooring allocation policy where second home owners have NOT been entitled to join the residents' waiting list for moorings. If all 692 second homes in Salcombe were to be required to pay the full rate they will expect and demand the same rights as locals. This may backfire on locals who currently pay a rate for moorings equivalent to about a third of the open market rate.