REMOVE ALL PLANNING REGULATIONS ON USE OF HOLIDAY HOMES
Suggested by hazela and tagged caravan, caravan sites, chalets, civil liberties, elderly, family homes, freedom, greenbelt, holiday sites, homeowners, homes, housing, housing problems, human rights, keeping greenbelt, liberty, lodges, mobile homes, pine lodges, planning conditions, planning process, property rights, red tape, regulations, unnecessary restrictions. 2 Comments.
The big idea
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 does this matter?
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.
This is a very good idea and does create absurd breaches of human rights relating to private life affairs.
Good idea,how can pensioners afford to run 2 properties when we are told to cut back just a waste.