Please remove all planning regulations on use of holiday homes whereby an owner can not "reside" in his home, but he can "occupy" it, i.e. he has to prove he has a permanent home somewhere else in order to use it. He can let it to holiday makers all year round if the site has a 12 month licence, but he is not allowed to live in it himself for 12 months. This is utter nonsense. Does it really matter who occupies/resides in it? It is there to be used. The excuses from councils are that these homes are not well insulated like bricks and mortar. LET THE PEOPLE DECIDE. If they are prepared to live in them, let them. Councils seem to enjoy the power they have over the people in respect of holiday homes and it should be stopped – it is against human rights. It also costs us a fortune paying councils to enforce it.

There are many holiday home sites all over the country with different licences allowing owners to use their mobile homes/pine lodges for 10, 11 or 12 months. A huge number of these homes are owned by elderly people enjoying their retirement years.

If these sites were to be given FULL RESIDENTIAL licences, a great many, elderly people especially, would sell their family homes and live permanently in their holiday homes, thus PROVIDING HOUSES for young families. The homes are there. They should be used, and we NEED TO USE THEM if we are to keep our countryside. 

Why is this idea important?

This idea is important because:

Councils have too much power over holiday home owners and can make peoples’ lives a misery;

We do not want to build new homes on our green fields if we can help it;

Young people need family homes;

The elderly would be provided for in a community where they’ll feel safe.

12 Replies to “Remove all planning regulations on use of holiday homes”

  1. This is a very good idea and does create absurd breaches of human rights relating to private life affairs.

  2. Good idea,how can pensioners afford to run 2 properties when we are told to cut back just a waste.

  3. good idea. I have retired and want to leave my family home, freeing it up for a family.All I can find in the area I wish to move to are holiday homes which I cant buy because I would have no other address. I am not so decrepit that I would be a drain on the community, hopefully I would be a benefit to the local economy, not a drain.

  4. Yes 100% in agreement provided council tax is paid It makes total nonsence as it is

    Many councils ignore the regulations, residents provide false address, so in short it is time consuming to enforce. Sadly some sites. are operated by rogues, so what little rights you do have can become worthless, as there is NO government legislation to protect you. And don’t forget that if you’re lucky enough to be allowed to sell, 15% of goes into the site owners back pocket

    Nice people to do business with eh?

  5. My partner and I are still working professionals in our late 50’s and want to live In a holiday home because we are unable to buy and are finding private renting increasingly out of reach.

    We would be more than happy to pay council tax if we were able to live in a holiday home year round. This should be personal choice, especially with the housing crisis and a lack of affordable housing.

  6. Cannot agree more with all of the above comments. If you pay Community Bill at place of residence then enough said and if that be a “holiday” home then what is the problem?

    It would also ease the burden on many strapped for cash in later years. To be able to afford these type of homes and live securely and happily must surely make for a better society. Just give us the right to own our own AFFORDABLE home in lovely surroundings instead of this becoming a perk of the rich and famous!

  7. Great idea but you have got to remember that the poor old site owners & managers of holiday site will be very reluctent to change their sites to residential because it will cut down their huge income from the site fees that are extortionate (& back pocket income).
    If holiday home sites became residential, it would mean that everyone living on the site would have to pay council tax (which we don’t mind), thus cutting down the site fees per year by approx £1,000 per holiday home(council tax) & if there are e.g. 20 holiday homes on the site, the owner would loose approx £20,000 per year at least. That’s unfair say the site owner who has been raking in the coffers for X amount of years, but what a difference it would make to the council budget (great idea), but who has the guts & mentallity in the council & the government to suggest or do something about the situation. Probably none as they are all quite happy to go to work everyday, do the same old things, abide by the rules that the so called intelligent council staff (der) & government MP’s (der) have created without a thought or considering about anything & anyone who owns a holiday home.
    What would these intelligent councilors & government MP’s think or try to do if they if they owned holiday homes & were in our position?
    Would they think the same way about their local intelligent councilors & government MP’s if they owned holiday homes?

    Let’s hope someone up there on their pedestal can see what is happenening & do something about this stupid situation & realise that the best thing to do for the home owners & the money it will bring in to the government from council tax is to make holiday sites into RESIDENTIAL SITES ???????????????????????

  8. I agree , my wife and I live in a pine lodge, we are directors of the management company and own our lease and land. However the planning permission states that none of the eight lodges can be lived in as a main residence. We pay full council tax plus 25% but are unable to live in it. How ridiculous is that.

  9. Absolutely agree with this idea. I am 71 and live alone (apart from 4 cats) in a detached 3-bedroom house in 0.75 acres of land. I would like to sell it and downsize to a 2 bed chalet, in a rural environment (comparable to what the cats have). Could do this in loads of places apart from this inexplicable and ‘capitalist’ rule.
    Do you think we should try to get the 100k votes to get it debated in parliament.
    As has been pointed out, this type of solution would free up larger homes and make the building stock better match housing requirements. A no-brainer in my view. Helps everyone (incl. rural councils who would get more council tax income, thus aiding rural self-sufficience) — apart from chalet site owners — who have already made ample — and could make reasonable income from fees to convert occupancy to tenancy/ownership rights.


  10. Annoyingly, I had to pay the extra 3% stamp duty for a “second home” when I bought a little holiday chalet that has a covenant that only allows 7 months occupation a year and which also has a council planning restriction against full time occupancy. I wrote to the tax office and got a “too bad you have to pay” response.

  11. Great idea, especially for sites that permit 12 month occupancy as you just need to be able to provide a second address (and not receive mail at the ‘holiday property’).
    Most modern lodges are built to residential specs anyway so no problem there.

  12. I think it would be a brilliant idea, you own it, whatever is the difference if it’s one set of people who live in it, as a posed to loads of different people living in it every week, it just makes no sense, I think if you own it, surely you should be able to do as you please,
    It would be great, if some clever solicitor could fight our corner,

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.