'Airbnb bill' aimed at taxing Cornwall's second homeowners
'Tougher regulation'
Mr Brown added: "It must sit alongside tougher regulation and a robust registration system for short-term lets. "If it deters those looking to extract profit from Cornwall without putting anything back — good. "If it helps restore housing stock for local people, even better. "And if it ensures our hospitality and tourism sectors can find workers with secure housing, then it's a win for all of Cornwall.".Describing a "surplus" of Airbnb homes, he said there were 14,000 second homes in the county, while 22,000 people were on the housing waiting list. The bill follows a campaign led by Mr Maguire, who put the proposal directly to the Housing Minister in order to "deliver deep change for North Cornwall".He added: "The bill is about restoring fairness in our system and giving local people a better chance at owning their own home," he added.
Double council tax
In January 2023, Cornwall Council approved plans for owners of second homes in the county to be charged double council tax.In September 2024, Airbnb called for Cornwall Council to be given more data, powers and tools to regulate short-term rentals.The US online rental platform said it had written to local MPs and councillors across Cornwall to inform them of its support for new rules being implemented in the county.Airbnb also said it also supported the introduction of a registration scheme for people who wanted to let their homes to tourists.The BBC has contacted Airbnb and the The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government for comment.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
20 minutes ago
- The Independent
Barclays becomes second UK bank to quit industry's net zero group
Barclays has become the second UK bank to leave the industry's global alliance for setting climate targets. The lender announced it would be leaving the Net Zero Banking Alliance (NZBA) on Friday after 'the departure of most of the global banks'. HSBC became the first British institution to leave the alliance earlier this month in the wake of several major US banks. Campaigners called Barclays' decision to step away 'incredibly disappointing' as it marks a fresh blow to international efforts to co-ordinate climate action. Assembled in 2021 by the UN Environment Programme's finance initiative but led by banks, the NBZA commits members to align their lending, investment and capital markets activities with cutting planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2050. In a statement published online on Friday, Barclays said: 'After consideration, we have decided to withdraw from the Net Zero Banking Alliance. 'With the departure of most of the global banks, the organisation no longer has the membership to support our transition.' The bank said it remains committed to its ambition to be a net zero bank by 2050 as well as its targets to cut financed emissions, and to mobilise 1 trillion US dollars of sustainable and transition financing. 'We continue to work with our clients on their transition, finance the transition and scale climate tech, while helping to ensure energy security for our customers and clients,' the lender said. 'This is an important commercial opportunity for Barclays; in 2024, we generated approximately half a billion pounds in revenues from sustainable and transition-related activity.' The bank made the announcement three days after it published an update to its climate transition plans, which reiterated its green commitments. Jeanne Martin, co-director of corporate engagement at ShareAction, which campaigns for responsible investment, said Friday's announcement has therefore sent 'mixed signals' to governments and companies around the world. 'Barclays' decision to leave the NZBA is incredibly disappointing and a step in the wrong direction at a time when the dangers of climate change are rapidly mounting,' she said. 'As the financial risks of global heating multiply and climate impacts like heatwaves, floods and extreme weather events become more intense and frequent, we cannot afford half-measures. 'Responsible investors will be watching closely and raising the pressure on the bank to protect long-term economic prosperity and the livelihoods of people everywhere.' The corporate world's retreat from diversity policies and green commitments has accelerated since Donald Trump's return to the White House. Six of the largest US banks – JP Morgan, Citigroup, Bank of America, Morgan Stanley, Wells Fargo and Goldman Sachs – all left the NZBA following his election in November. But UK banks had stuck with the alliance until HSBC announced its departure this month. With Barclays now leaving, British lenders listed as NBZA members as of Friday afternoon still include Lloyds, NatWest, Standard Chartered and Nationwide. The alliance said its members have been making 'important progress' with well over 100 banks setting individual and independent science-based targets for their financed emissions.
The Independent
20 minutes ago
- The Independent
Like Sadiq Khan, I'm a Heathrow nimby – here's what I'd really like to do to the airport…
Andrew Adonis once told me that the third runway at Heathrow would never be built because the airport is surrounded by housing: 30 per cent of homes in the whole of Europe affected by aircraft noise louder than 55 decibels are around Heathrow. This was after he had been transport secretary in the last Labour government, when he was trying to get it built, so he knew what he was talking about. He thought there were just too many votes too close to the airport to make it a viable option. But the jumbo project does seem to be, finally, lumbering towards take-off. The Conservatives were against it, when David Cameron was in his green chameleon phase, but then they were in favour. Boris Johnson, the green convert and former mayor of London who had promised to lie in front of the bulldozers, had to be sent on a trip to Afghanistan while parliament voted for it to go ahead. Then came the coronavirus lockdowns; the skies over London were silent and people could hear birdsong again. The project was put back in the hangar. Now it is taxiing again, as the Labour government has confirmed that it supports a third runway plan. Ed Miliband, the keeper of the party's green conscience, opposed it while Labour was in opposition, but is now in favour of it. Heidi Alexander, the current occupant of Adonis's musical chair, will decide later this year between rival bids: a full-length third runway going over the M25, or two cheaper plans for a short runway that won't involve re-routing a motorway. Whatever she decides won't be built until at least 2035, which seems an absurdly early estimate. As my colleague Simon Calder explains, there will be a public consultation and legal challenges, including from Sadiq Khan, Johnson's successor as mayor of London. I agree with Sadiq. The really courageous decision by Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves would be to cancel the plan now. Save us the delays and legal fees and paperwork and vast quantities of clever people's time. It would be right because the case for Heathrow expansion is weak, and it would be brave because the unthinking consensus is that Britain should build more infrastructure to stimulate economic growth. This is infrastructure, therefore we should build it. No, we shouldn't. To build one bit of infrastructure is to choose not to build another. I think there is better infrastructure to build. People only want to build this one because the existing airport is 'full'. But that is the classic 'predict and provide' fallacy. We have learned that it doesn't work for roads. If a road is congested and another road is built, it creates more traffic until that road is congested, too. When Heathrow's third runway is 'full' there isn't anywhere to put a fourth, so that game would have to come to an end. Why not bring an end to it now? Any model of growth that depends on ever-increasing air travel is one that is not worth having, in any case. I am not a fan of the net zero carbon target, but I am in favour of reducing greenhouse gas emissions if there are low-cost ways of doing so. One low-cost way would be to avoid increasing air travel. That might have some effect on GDP in the 2040s, but that is a trade-off worth making compared with some of the costs being loaded on energy bills now. We should make that trade-off as economically productive as possible by embracing the free market: as runways around London are a scarce resource, we should charge more for them so as to ensure that resource is allocated most efficiently. Miliband's argument that the environmental rules will ensure that airport expansion is compatible with his climate-change policies is unconvincing, and may well be the basis of a successful legal challenge to Heathrow expansion – because those climate-change targets have been written into law. There is no low-carbon alternative to flying apart from doing less of it. Everyone knows that sustainable aviation fuel is magical thinking: flying planes on vegetable oil is never going to be economic. But it is not just the green case against air travel that makes Heathrow expansion such a bad idea: it is that it is another example of the HS2 fallacy – 'the railways to and from London are full; we must build some more; London must be made even more privileged in the UK economy'. If air travel is good for growth, let us have more of it in other parts of the country. London is a successful city, the best city in the world, partly because of the constraints of the green belt and runway and road space. It does not need any more runways in its back yard.
BBC News
20 minutes ago
- BBC News
Sunderland Uni denies glass centre land sale suggestions
A university vice-chancellor has said it is "simply wrong" to suggest a glass centre was closing so that the land could be sold for David Bell, Sunderland University's vice-chancellor, denied the claim in response to Labour councillor Denny Wilson who wrote to the university about his worries over the closure of the National Glass Centre (NGC).Wilson said there were concerns about a "rush to demolish" the building so that the land could be sold to a housing developer and that "surely demolition must be the last resort".However, in an open letter Sir David said the university had "diligently governed" the site and the land was "not of significant value". His letter said more than £15m had been spent on the NGC between 2011 and 2023. "It is simply wrong to suggest that the university's intention to close the NGC building was driven by a desire to 'sell off the land'," Sir David said."Indicative external advice suggests that the land is not of significant value and even that would be largely offset by the cost of demolishing the building and undertaking any potential landscaping."Sir David added that it was likely that the building would be demolished "properly and safely at the earliest possible opportunity, including temporarily landscaping the site, before determining next steps". The centre is due to close in July next year, with unaffordable repair costs blamed for the decision. Up to 25 people will be made redundant. Castle ward councillor Wilson said bulldozing the building would affect "civic pride, city status, and cultural prestige". He also said it would damage the city's "credibility as a great place to invest"."There are lots of intelligent people living and working in Sunderland," he said. "Can the university reach out and involve them to seek credible alternatives to demolition?"Surely demolition must be the last resort." 'Financial subsidy' Sir David's letter said the university had "diligently" governed the site since becoming its custodian in 2010."However, the university has had to provide - or plan to provide - a significant financial subsidy in excess of £1m each year," he said."This is a pattern repeated every year since the university took ownership of the NGC."He also said repair estimates for the building were of a scale that could "never possibly" be contemplated and it was likely they had gone up with inflation since a 2022 survey said the report had recommended a roof replacement at £14m. A further £45m estimate also included remediation work on the steel beams and the replacement of roof ventilation. But campaigners from Save the National Glass Centre group said that according to the report, the £14m estimate also included the replacement of a structure, which had already been done. They said the sum also included steelwork painting and installing solar panels and that the repairs detailed in the £45m estimate were already part of the £14m cost."I have looked at the £14m estimate in detail and even this does not stand up to scrutiny. "The construction costs within that are only £6.5m," Nigel Taylor, a former civil engineer and member of Save the National Glass Centre, previously said."The rest is a mix of risk, fees, contingencies and inflation, all of which appear very high to suit the university's narrative."The university has previously said there might be alternative replacement roofing options which could reduce the total cost by between £2.5m and £4.5m, but still none were affordable as its income was derived from student tuition. Follow BBC Sunderland on X, Facebook, Nextdoor and Instagram.
