My Lords, I will address the four amendments in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Shipley and comment on some of the others. We have already heard numerous examples describing why we need to address the issues around empty homes, second homes and properties available for short-term rent. As noble Lords are aware, some parts of the United Kingdom have already introduced measures to tackle some of them; for example, certification of tourist accommodation in Northern Ireland and licensing schemes for short-term lets in Scotland and Wales. Sadly, at the moment, England is being left behind.
I am pleased that at long last the Government are tackling one issue—the way in which some second home owners have gamed the system so that they pay neither council tax nor business rates—but many other problems remain. I live in east Suffolk, close to the popular seaside town of Southwold. With the recent growth in second home ownership and the rapid rise in properties available for short-term rent, of the 1,400 properties, now only 500 have full-time residents, while 500 are second homes and 400 are short-term lets; in other words, nearly two-thirds are not permanently lived in, and this has had a significant impact.
5 pm
House prices and long-term rents have risen steeply. Local families are being forced out and those working in the local tourism industry cannot find or afford local accommodation, so they go elsewhere. As a result, many of the bars, restaurants and hotels now have staff vacancies. As local councillor David Bevan said recently, soon people will not want to visit
“a soulless toytown where no one lives any more”.
Sadly, similar problems exist in my former constituency of Bath, with the added concern that students from its two universities are having increased problems finding accommodation. So I welcome the Government’s
appreciation that something needs to be done. In their recent consultation on a way forward, they provided detailed descriptions of the problems and a long list of places where such problems exist, from Devon and Cornwall to York and Cumbria. However, I am simply not convinced that the way forward as presented in the Bill goes far enough.
On empty dwellings, as with second homes and properties for short-term let, we need more data than is currently available. So, on these Benches, we support Amendment 166 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock. A partial solution to the problems caused by second homes does lie in allowing councils freedom to increase council tax on such properties. On these Benches, we have argued previously for a maximum premium of 300%, not the lower amount argued for by the Government; so we also support Amendment 167 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage,
The Government’s plans for registration of short-term lets are necessary but insufficient. We believe that a full licensing regime is preferable so we support Amendment 445C in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, as well as her probing Amendment 422, which explores ways in which councils could restrict the number of short-term lets in their area. However, I believe that we can go even further: hence Amendments 264 and 265, which propose the establishment of new use class orders for both second homes and holiday rentals. Adoption of these new use class orders—incidentally, supported by the LGA, of which I too am not a vice-president—would significantly improve data on the situation right across the country.
More importantly, when coupled with a licensing scheme, new use classes would enable councils to maintain, among other things, the stock of long-term rental properties in their area. It would give communities the power to decide their own destiny. We have already heard from the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, and the noble Earl, Lord Devon, that their Amendment 294 also calls for a new use class order, at least for short-term rental properties, with change of use to STL conditional on registration. I am more than happy to accept that theirs may be a neater solution—I am totally open-minded—but, clearly, we want to move in exactly the same direction. I also entirely agree with the noble Lord about the need for speedy action on these issues and not the rather long timescale currently proposed by the Government.
I am aware that, in its excellent report on short-term lets, your Lordships’ Built Environment Committee argued against nationwide measures of this sort. It argued that it should be for councils themselves to decide. Adopting such an approach, I believe, has two drawbacks. First, it would mean that we would not have nationwide data about second homes and properties for short-term rent. Secondly, it would mean that councils, which would not be able to get the necessary agreement to adopt and then implement such an approach quickly, could potentially be too late to adopt control measures.
After all, we have seen very rapid rises in short-term lets in some parts of the country. In Cornwall, for example, short-term listings went up by 661% in the
five years to September 2021, while in South Lakeland there was an increase of just 32% in just one year. However, we will of course listen to the arguments and the Minister’s own thoughts. Whatever route is finally decided, there needs to be adequate enforcement—a problem that has been acknowledged in London, which already has some of the measures that we are supporting. It would be helpful if the Minister could share her thinking on the issue of enforcement and the possibility of strong penalties for those platforms that list unlicensed or unregistered short-term lets.
Given the importance that we in this House have rightly placed on neighbourhood plans, we have tabled Amendment 228, which would enable neighbourhood plans to include policies that related to the proportion of dwellings that may be second homes and short-term holiday lets under the use classes in the earlier amendments. I am aware that the powers to do so may already exist in relation to new properties in the neighbourhood plan area, although in the case of St Ives it took a High Court decision to confirm that. Our amendment would enable the control of changes of use of existing properties as well as ensuring beyond all doubt the power in relation to new properties.
I welcome the Government’s intention to address the problems that I and others have outlined, but I believe that the amendments in this group, including those proposed by my noble friend Lord Shipley and me, argue that even more needs to be done. I hope I will hear words of encouragement from the Minister when she responds.