A group of Welsh holiday cottage owners has joined a campaign calling for reform of what they describe as a “punitive” rule that is forcing responsible tourism businesses to close whilst doing little to address the housing crisis it was designed to solve.
Let’s Review 182, led by Gwynedd farmer and tourism entrepreneur Gwion Llwyd, calls for urgent reform of the 182-night minimum occupancy rule for self-catering businesses in Wales to qualify for business rates.
The campaign argues that while the Welsh Government may have intended to address housing availability, the main outcome of the 182-night threshold has been to harm small business owners who have invested in legitimate tourism enterprises – raising serious ethical questions about policy-making that sacrifices individual livelihoods for debatable outcomes.
“The current rule doesn’t just set a high bar – it punishes responsible business owners for a housing problem they didn’t create,” says Gwion Llwyd, founder of the Let’s Review 182 campaign.
“Wales is demanding 182 nights for holiday cottage businesses to qualify for business rates – that’s 2.6 times more than Scotland or England, which both set the bar at just 70 nights. This isn’t about second homes in disguise – these are real small businesses that provide local families with income and keep local cleaners, tradespeople, shops, and cafés – a whole tourism supply chain – in work.”
The Let’s Review 182 campaign has two clear asks:
- Reduce the threshold to 105 nights – the figure most widely supported in the Welsh Government’s own consultation.
- Introduce a two-year grace period – so genuine businesses are not harshly penalised for a single difficult year.
Tourism and hospitality businesses contribute £3.8 billion to the Welsh economy, supporting 40,000 jobs. Holiday cottages account for more than a third of all bed-nights in Wales, but with shorter breaks on the rise, inflation squeezing household budgets, and bookings still below pre-pandemic levels, many small operators say reaching 182 nights is impossible. When they fall short, properties are reclassified as second homes and hit with council tax bills that in some areas of Wales could include a 300% premium charge.
Gwion is well-known in North Wales as the founder of Dioni Holiday Cottages, one of the region’s leading holiday letting agencies.
Starting the holiday let business by converting two empty barns on his own land, he was soon approached by other farmers who recognised the opportunity to diversify. Growing from there, Dioni now markets holiday cottages from Denbigh to Pembrokeshire, directly employing six local staff and many more in the supply chain. Gwion also manages the family’s 200-acre hill farm, giving him an unusual perspective on both agriculture and tourism – twin pillars of Gwynedd’s economy.
“Running a holiday cottage business in Wales has never been more challenging. Rising costs, shifting booking patterns, and the lasting impact of Covid have left many owners working harder than ever just to stay afloat. The 182-night rule has added another layer of difficulty at exactly the wrong time.”
Two and a half years on from the introduction of the 182 rule in April 2023, industry figures suggest around 40% of holiday lets in Wales have failed to meet the threshold.
One North Wales cottage owner, who wishes to remain anonymous due to recent online hostility towards accommodation owners, describes how the rule ended her family’s holiday let business. After her parents died in 2018, she and her husband purchased the empty home from the family estate and converted it into a fully accessible holiday let, investing their life savings in renovations. “We wanted to keep the cottage in the family, but also make it a positive, sustainable business,” she says.
Their first guests arrived in April 2021, delayed by Covid lockdowns. By 2023, the business was thriving with repeat visitors and strong bookings. But when the 182-night threshold was applied retrospectively to 2022-23 – a year when their bookings totalled 146 nights while still recovering from the pandemic – they received a council tax bill for more than £6,000.
“The shock was enormous. We hadn’t received any information explaining the retrospective rule. We spoke to Gwynedd Council, who referred us to the Valuation Office. The Valuation Office didn’t know the rules themselves. We were bounced around for weeks.”
Unable to absorb the cost and facing the risk of similar penalties in future, the couple closed the business in August 2024. The cottage is now occupied as a long-term rental, but the annual shortfall in income is around £4,000.
“Our tenant’s rent doesn’t come close to what we earned from holiday lets. The tradespeople we used regularly no longer get the same work. The local shops and cafés have lost the additional visitor spend. The 182 rule isn’t just hurting cottage owners – it’s draining life from our rural communities.”
The family, who are Welsh mother tongue and have been firmly rooted in their community for generations – supports a two-year grace period: “Bookings can dip for reasons outside your control – illness, family crises, bad weather. Punishing a business based on one bad year is brutal. We fully support making housing more affordable for local families – we are a local family and want our children to be able to afford to live here too – but the Government needs to recognise the reality of the impact of the new rule. All we’re asking for is a fair system that recognises the realities of running a seasonal business in rural Wales.”
Gwion has launched the Let’s Review 182 campaign website with a bilingual letter template for cottage owners, tourism businesses and other supporters of the campaign to download and send to their Senedd representative; supporters can also sign up for regular campaign updates.
“I understand the housing pressures in Gwynedd – my family lives here, my children grew up here, and I want them to have a future here,” he says. “But the 182-night rule isn’t solving the housing crisis. It’s just forcing viable businesses to close. We need balanced policies that address housing and protect the rural economy – not a blunt instrument that damages both.”
