Editor

I refer to a letter in your edition dated, Thursday 1 April,unfortunately no name was given.

However I did agree with their sentiment about second homes (in England they are called occasional homes with much reduced tax because they are not using all the facilities).

I understand a large extended family would enjoy a second home away from a city. They have paid for it and upkeep it using local services, in other words bringing much-needed money into the local economy all year round. Have the council thought what the alternative will be? Perhaps empty properties slowly deteriorating, or put homeless people in their place who can’t afford to live here with no jobs because the wealth creators are being turned away by unfair taxes.

Remember when Covid is over they can always go to the continent where the sun shines every day and it will be cheaper.

As I say the alternative to rehouse homeless people the council will have to pay benefits from their coffers, subsidised rents and no council tax. What’s the point of that?

Let’s encourage these second home owners. Most eventually will live here so make them welcome, we’re all British.

F C Oliver Fairbourne

Have your say on the local issues affecting you - email [email protected] or join in the conversation on our Facebook page