ABSTRACT
The objective of this penultimate chapter – the final in our three-part examination of policy options – is to present a possible policy framework for responding to second home pressures – in the context of wider economic and social concerns – in rural areas. The framework builds on the analysis undertaken in previous chapters, especially the British and mainland European case studies presented in Part 2 and the examination of past policy suggestions and restrictive planning mechanisms contained in Chapters 7 and 8 respectively. As well as providing a new framework that mixes housing policy, fiscal and planning tools, it is also our intention to compare what might be done in 2005 with a similar framework offered by Mark Shucksmith in 1983. Comparing potential responses today with suggested policies from the past allows us to consider the evolving – or static – nature of second home pressures in the UK. The new policy ideas set out in this chapter draw on work undertaken for the Countryside Agency in 2002. This study focused on England, though many of the messages emerging from the study are relevant to the wider British situation. Twenty years ago, Second homes: a framework for policy appeared in the
journal ‘Town Planning Review’ (Shucksmith, 1983, pp.174-193). The paper represented an attempt to draw together a range of ideas on how current planning and housing policy – and future policy – might respond to second home concentrations in some rural areas. As we noted in Part 1 of this book, a large number of local studies examining the effects of second homes across rural areas of Britain had been carried out in the previous decade (including those by Bielckus et al, 1972; de Vane, 1975; Jacobs, 1972; Pardoe, 1974; Pyne, 1973; South West Economic Planning Council, 1974; and Tuck, 1973), and each had contributed to an expanding body of evidence suggesting that second home purchasing, at the very least, deserved greater attention amongst policy makers. Shucksmith brought together many of the ideas emerging from these studies, but was careful to locate his analysis in the balance of arguments for and against second homes, contending that some:
As we have argued throughout this book, second homes continue today to evoke strong emotion and opposing views remain as polarised as ever. It is also the case that, as in 1983, there is a continued failure ‘‘[ . . . ] to view the phenomenon in a rational framework’’ (ibid. p.174; see also Gallent, Mace and Tewdwr-Jones, 2003a). Work carried out for the Countryside Agency aimed to provide ‘policy
advice on second homes in rural areas’ and hence contribute to the creation of such a rational framework. The advice eventually provided to the Agency drew partly on a survey of housing departments, planning departments and National Park Authorities in England. A total of 294 questionnaires were sent out and 119 (or 40.5 per cent) were returned. The survey focused in part on how authorities are already responding to second home pressures, whether they believe current powers should be extended, and which potential new responses they feel might be most appropriate. Questions to the authorities were framed around the most obvious options: building more affordable homes, ending Council Tax discounts, strengthening occupancy controls, introducing change of use powers, or releasing additional land for house building. Authorities were prompted to consider such options, and they were also asked for their own ideas. Using this approach, a possible framework for policy was built on a foundation of local knowledge.
