Katrina Burroughs should have researched before writing her article.
Here in Coniston the most recent housing survey showed that 50% of the houses are now second or holiday homes.
When we came to live in our terraced house in 1969 a neighbouring street of 11 cottages housed 5 families with 10 children between them, 3 retired couples and three elderly people living on their own. Different age groups helped each other out, children played - it was a living happy community blessed with a wonderful view out over the lake. 38 years on there is one retired couple remaining, two second homes, and the rest are tarted up holiday cottages with twee names on twee nameplates. Yes we all need holidays but at what cost? Coniston Parish Plan asked for the names of young people who would soon need homes in the village, and for the names of anyone forced to live away from the village who would like to return. The number in the return? 60.
Coniston has the advantage of still being an industrial village - quarries are working and needing skilled help - and we would be the first to say we cannot do without the tourist industry, but buying property, sending in a home grown team of jerry builders, and letting an agency do all the work - is immoral.
Katrina's need to spend a whole page of your newspaper justifying her ownership of a second home smacks of a saving grace of guilt, and I have to say that some of our best friends are second home owners who have spent a large amount of their lives and some of their income here; but when we see our young people priced out of their right to a home in their own surroundings - we are filled with sadness and often despair

Elizabeth Brown, Coniston, Cumbria

Life is unfair simple as that and legislators should stop trying to tweak the balance as somebody will always lose out. In the case of this government the hard worker in the middle pay bracket. I work in central london but could not afford to live there. In the same way that a rural community competes with rich londoners, Londoners we have to compete with the global rich, Russians, Saudis, subsidised locals in affordable housing. As such I have a long commute on much busier roads than the long commute, to the next village in Cornwall.
Why should rural towns be the preserve of those who were born there, these communities are already massively subsidised at a government level, typically by those of us who endure the pollution and hassle of places like London.
My experience also shows that it is the village life that people who buy second homes often aspire to, and as such often add far more to a community in both local events and patronage of local pubs etc than some of the locals.

Dan, Kent, UK

For many years I have owned a second home in an area of Cornwall which relies on tourism for its main income. We along with many other distant as well as local second home owners let our property out to visitors whose spending supports the tourism economy providing jobsand helping to create thriving businesses. Without these selfcatering lets the local economy would not be so healthy.

By letting our property out to visitors it would be easy to support any suggested extra charge levied as this can be easily offset by including it in the rent. I run it as a business, generating enough income to keep it in good repair and up to English Tourist Boards standards

I fully appreciate the need for cheaper local housing and support any reasonable measure to increase this. In our area of Cornwall new housing is built under section 106 agreements which stop the future sale of the property to anyone other than local residents thus keeping the price below the open market levels.

Nan, Birmingham,

What next? No buy-to-lets allowed by people who already own in London? No foreigners allowed to buy (surely that pushes prices up in localised areas too - St John's Wood, Chelsea, Kensington etc). Why should "rural" areas get treated any differently? Why is an inquiry like this led by a "rural" MP?

Present me with some compensatory elements - no council tax exemptions, an extra fixed fee for second home owners and we can have a debate at least.

This proposal? Complete nonsense. And yet another reason why this country is heading rapidly down the tubes.

Julian, London, UK

I used to live in a village in Cornwall which had a village shop, a PO, a pub, a tea shop and also a small petrol garage with one incredibly slow pump. About 10 years ago people ‘discovered’ the village and started buying up places left right and centre and initially we thought it was ok as there were only a few second homes. Since then nearly 70% of the village has been turned to 2nd homes and this has had a massive knock on effect on the local community which is now becoming very evident. The shop has had to merge with the PO, the pub is thankfully OK as is the tea shop although it is now only open in the summer but we have lost the petrol station. Village events are now poorly attended due to the lack of general population and the village primary school may have to be closed (nearest other primary school is at least 15 miles away). There also used to be a ramblers club, cricket team and pub darts team – all sadly now defunct due to the lack of people now in the village.

Dani, Plymouth, Devon

Not all second home owners are selfishly keeping two or more properties for themsleves. In thousands of cases, they have no choice. In many areas of the country, local planners are only granting planning permission if owners comply with strict occupancy restrictions. In the Cotswold Water Park (a brown field gravel extraction site) occupancy is for 11 months, only to be used for holidays and not to be used a prime residence.

This forces the homes to be used soley as second homes and the owners must occupy another residence. It is sheer planning madness! We would like to retire to our 'holiday home' but will also have to occupy another property, thus taking it away from the housing stock.

Irene Andrews, Cirencester,

This is just another example of the ridiculous and idiotic bureaucratic loony left lengths to which this government will go to interfere in our lives without having a clue as to the likely consequences of their actions. They have gone a long way along the road to destroying rural life and communities and now seem intent on destroying the unique culture of this country and replacing its 'britishness' with the culture of others, when it is exactly that 'britishness' that makes the country so admired abroad, making others want to come here. Country homes in Britain have been part of that culture for many generations as they have been in France and all other countries, especially European countries and when some lucky few have a few quid left after the taxes imposed and want to buy another house, what right does government have to interfere in that decision. It'll be a one-child policy before too long at this rate . . . oh sorry, that's only for the British!

Richard Yeats Brown, Nr Worksop, Nottinghamshire, UK