Ake - A little fairness, please! Over 70's don't create "dormitory villages". Over 70's generally live where they buy, & are much more likely to contibute to the local community than the real dormitory types, or the holiday home owners.

The 'dormitory' is created by those who buy the picturesque, but live, or work, the week in the big town (often, but not always, London) where salary is better. Culpable, certainly, but perhaps not criminal. The holiday homes are the ones that really ought to be taxed out of existence. They are the ones who live less than 6 weeks of the year in their "cheap" or "investment" second homes & blight places like the Lake District & the West Country, destroying communities by absenteeism.

On the other hand, who sold them all these properties in the first place? Surely it wasn't the local owners who made a profit by selling for the best price? Noooooo! Human nature, I'm afraid. :-/

I can see both sides of this argument. I'm London born & bred, I'm not a stockbroker-type, I would ultimately like to get away from the endless concrete, & I hope I would be a part of the community I'd like to move into. Where does this discriminatory rule leave me? The BBC website had an interesting "Have your say" thread on this topic"...

I don't think this is the right way to handle the problem. Tax hell out of the second home & place the burden of proof of residence (utility bills, frex) on the homeowner is perhaps the best option.