Luxurious Lake District chalet comes with a £675,000 price tag

The Westmorland Gazette: Luxurious Lake District chalet comes with a £675,000 price tag Luxurious Lake District chalet comes with a £675,000 price tag

A LUXURY chalet on the shore of Windermere — described the UK’s most expensive holiday lodge — has been put up for sale at £675,000.

The wood-built structure at Bowness, is being sold for £125,000 more than the previous costliest lodge, which sold at Abersoch in Wales.

The Windermere lodge is the largest on the Fallbarrow Park site, boasting 1,144 sq ft of living space — more than a typical city apartment.

The sellers, South Lakeland Parks, described the lodge as the “closest you can get to the lake without actually being in it”. But the downside is that it cannot be lived in for six weeks of the year.

The owner, who is not allowed to use the lodge as a main residence, will also have to stump up an annual site licence fee of £6,000.

And the lodge can only be kept on the site for 50 years, after which it will have to be removed.

Looking directly out onto England’s largest lake, the luxury three-bedroom property has split level decking reaching the water’s edge. It is the last lakeshore lodge to be built on the Fallbarrow site.

It has a modern open plan kitchen, dining and living areas, which all have uninterrupted views from floor to ceiling doors onto the lake and stretching out to the Lake District fells.

Related links

The master bedroom has the same view from the king sized bed as well as having a spacious dressing room and en-suite wetroom with underfloor heating.

The sellers claim it is the most technically advanced of its kind available today and has been fitted with all the latest mod cons; from dial-in controlled lighting and heating to an integrated FM sound system that runs throughout the entire property.

Because of planning restrictions, the lodge can only be occupied between March 1 and January 14 every year.

Fallbarrow will hold an open day to market the lodge on May 26 and 27.

Comments (14)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

2:31pm Thu 10 May 12

suziedevon says...

Silly money. Hope it floats when the next floods happen...
Silly money. Hope it floats when the next floods happen... suziedevon

3:13pm Thu 10 May 12

blade stall says...

you may not be far from the truth as lodges in flood risk areas are now equipped with
large floatation kits which lift the lodge as the water rises.!!
you may not be far from the truth as lodges in flood risk areas are now equipped with large floatation kits which lift the lodge as the water rises.!! blade stall

4:28pm Thu 10 May 12

Ger-onimo says...

I've had a look around this lodge and the outlook is amazing! Quite sure it will be snapped up before long and if I could afford it, I'd buy it! Its on stilts and is well above the 1000 year flood line so shouldn't be any issue there.
I've had a look around this lodge and the outlook is amazing! Quite sure it will be snapped up before long and if I could afford it, I'd buy it! Its on stilts and is well above the 1000 year flood line so shouldn't be any issue there. Ger-onimo

7:39pm Thu 10 May 12

Roysyboy says...

Okay for Tory parasites who can afford such prices!
Okay for Tory parasites who can afford such prices! Roysyboy

8:00pm Thu 10 May 12

lakesailor says...

Are you a throwback to the '70s?
Are you a throwback to the '70s? lakesailor

7:50am Fri 11 May 12

Moonbase says...

675k for a shed.......If that sells who says philanthropy is dead?
675k for a shed.......If that sells who says philanthropy is dead? Moonbase

11:39am Fri 11 May 12

life cycle too says...

Roysyboy wrote:
Okay for Tory parasites who can afford such prices!
Do socialist millionaires not desire waterfront properties then?

What do they spend THEIR money on?
[quote][p][bold]Roysyboy[/bold] wrote: Okay for Tory parasites who can afford such prices![/p][/quote]Do socialist millionaires not desire waterfront properties then? What do they spend THEIR money on? life cycle too

7:20pm Fri 11 May 12

FrontalLobe says...

lakesailor wrote:
Are you a throwback to the '70s?
I think you may be being a little hard on Rosyboy. I know everyone has the right to spend their money however they wish. However it is hardly surprising that what seems like a hugely inflated price for a large wooden structure, albeit on the lake shore would cause some resentment at a time such as this with many struggling to pay the tehir way or find anywhere to live at all.
[quote][p][bold]lakesailor[/bold] wrote: Are you a throwback to the '70s?[/p][/quote]I think you may be being a little hard on Rosyboy. I know everyone has the right to spend their money however they wish. However it is hardly surprising that what seems like a hugely inflated price for a large wooden structure, albeit on the lake shore would cause some resentment at a time such as this with many struggling to pay the tehir way or find anywhere to live at all. FrontalLobe

7:21pm Fri 11 May 12

FrontalLobe says...

Apologies for the typo.
Apologies for the typo. FrontalLobe

9:55am Sun 13 May 12

exiled_to_stoke says...

Although we live in a free country, and people can spend their money however they wish, I still find it offensive that a small proportion of the population have sufficient wealth to be able to afford such luxuries whilst the majority of the population battle through every day scrimping and saving.

The cost of this lodge to its new owners will be a minimum of £19,500 per year (£13,500 per year over the maximum 50 years, plus site fees of £6,000 per year).

The minimum wage works out at just over £12,600 per year (gross) if you are lucky enough to get a 40 hour week, year round. Gross weekly pay for 50% of the population is £21,000 or less.

Thus, someone is going to spend more per year on a holiday chalet than nearly half of the population earn.

Perhaps there is a need for some wealth redistribution?
Although we live in a free country, and people can spend their money however they wish, I still find it offensive that a small proportion of the population have sufficient wealth to be able to afford such luxuries whilst the majority of the population battle through every day scrimping and saving. The cost of this lodge to its new owners will be a minimum of £19,500 per year (£13,500 per year over the maximum 50 years, plus site fees of £6,000 per year). The minimum wage works out at just over £12,600 per year (gross) if you are lucky enough to get a 40 hour week, year round. Gross weekly pay for 50% of the population is £21,000 or less. Thus, someone is going to spend more per year on a holiday chalet than nearly half of the population earn. Perhaps there is a need for some wealth redistribution? exiled_to_stoke

3:02pm Sun 13 May 12

lakesailor says...

FrontalLobe wrote:
lakesailor wrote:
Are you a throwback to the '70s?
I think you may be being a little hard on Rosyboy. I know everyone has the right to spend their money however they wish. However it is hardly surprising that what seems like a hugely inflated price for a large wooden structure, albeit on the lake shore would cause some resentment at a time such as this with many struggling to pay the tehir way or find anywhere to live at all.
My point is that Roysboy seems to have the "Power to the People" attitude of Wolfie Smith that anyone who has available money is a Conservative.
Perhaps the many Conservatives without jobs or homes would like to put him right.
Me, I am apolitical. Don't have any money either.
[quote][p][bold]FrontalLobe[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]lakesailor[/bold] wrote: Are you a throwback to the '70s?[/p][/quote]I think you may be being a little hard on Rosyboy. I know everyone has the right to spend their money however they wish. However it is hardly surprising that what seems like a hugely inflated price for a large wooden structure, albeit on the lake shore would cause some resentment at a time such as this with many struggling to pay the tehir way or find anywhere to live at all.[/p][/quote]My point is that Roysboy seems to have the "Power to the People" attitude of Wolfie Smith that anyone who has available money is a Conservative. Perhaps the many Conservatives without jobs or homes would like to put him right. Me, I am apolitical. Don't have any money either. lakesailor

7:21pm Sun 13 May 12

FrontalLobe says...

lakesailor wrote:
FrontalLobe wrote:
lakesailor wrote:
Are you a throwback to the '70s?
I think you may be being a little hard on Rosyboy. I know everyone has the right to spend their money however they wish. However it is hardly surprising that what seems like a hugely inflated price for a large wooden structure, albeit on the lake shore would cause some resentment at a time such as this with many struggling to pay the tehir way or find anywhere to live at all.
My point is that Roysboy seems to have the "Power to the People" attitude of Wolfie Smith that anyone who has available money is a Conservative.
Perhaps the many Conservatives without jobs or homes would like to put him right.
Me, I am apolitical. Don't have any money either.
Yes, fair point. However as 'exiled to stoke' says above there are moral implications about how wealth is distributed. Of course when most of us are fairly comfortably off and the economy is doing well it matters less to people and iniquities in the system go largely uncommented upon. It is at times like this that some basic assumptions start to be questioned. Although left-of-centre on most things myself I still believe strongly that in most cases people should have a large amount of freedom over their own resources. However we cannot escape the fact that we live in a society (whatever Thatcher thought) and owe a duty of care to each other. There is a serious housing shortage in this country and this kind of thing throws the suffering of the unfortunate (and most are unfortunate and not simply feckless) into stark relief. I know that the buying and selling of wooden holiday huts probably has little effect on the overall situation but along with the gross greed of bankers and others does reveal the fact that we are most certainly not 'all in it together'.
[quote][p][bold]lakesailor[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FrontalLobe[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]lakesailor[/bold] wrote: Are you a throwback to the '70s?[/p][/quote]I think you may be being a little hard on Rosyboy. I know everyone has the right to spend their money however they wish. However it is hardly surprising that what seems like a hugely inflated price for a large wooden structure, albeit on the lake shore would cause some resentment at a time such as this with many struggling to pay the tehir way or find anywhere to live at all.[/p][/quote]My point is that Roysboy seems to have the "Power to the People" attitude of Wolfie Smith that anyone who has available money is a Conservative. Perhaps the many Conservatives without jobs or homes would like to put him right. Me, I am apolitical. Don't have any money either.[/p][/quote]Yes, fair point. However as 'exiled to stoke' says above there are moral implications about how wealth is distributed. Of course when most of us are fairly comfortably off and the economy is doing well it matters less to people and iniquities in the system go largely uncommented upon. It is at times like this that some basic assumptions start to be questioned. Although left-of-centre on most things myself I still believe strongly that in most cases people should have a large amount of freedom over their own resources. However we cannot escape the fact that we live in a society (whatever Thatcher thought) and owe a duty of care to each other. There is a serious housing shortage in this country and this kind of thing throws the suffering of the unfortunate (and most are unfortunate and not simply feckless) into stark relief. I know that the buying and selling of wooden holiday huts probably has little effect on the overall situation but along with the gross greed of bankers and others does reveal the fact that we are most certainly not 'all in it together'. FrontalLobe

10:29pm Sun 13 May 12

life cycle too says...

exiled_to_stoke wrote:
Although we live in a free country, and people can spend their money however they wish, I still find it offensive that a small proportion of the population have sufficient wealth to be able to afford such luxuries whilst the majority of the population battle through every day scrimping and saving.

The cost of this lodge to its new owners will be a minimum of £19,500 per year (£13,500 per year over the maximum 50 years, plus site fees of £6,000 per year).

The minimum wage works out at just over £12,600 per year (gross) if you are lucky enough to get a 40 hour week, year round. Gross weekly pay for 50% of the population is £21,000 or less.

Thus, someone is going to spend more per year on a holiday chalet than nearly half of the population earn.

Perhaps there is a need for some wealth redistribution?
Surely they ARE redistributing some of that wealth... to the operators of the Fallbarrow Park - so we should be asking what they intend to do with it?

At a guess, they employ a number of people, and provide a facility where others can stay, and hopefully clients and staff spend money at other local shops and facilities.
[quote][p][bold]exiled_to_stoke[/bold] wrote: Although we live in a free country, and people can spend their money however they wish, I still find it offensive that a small proportion of the population have sufficient wealth to be able to afford such luxuries whilst the majority of the population battle through every day scrimping and saving. The cost of this lodge to its new owners will be a minimum of £19,500 per year (£13,500 per year over the maximum 50 years, plus site fees of £6,000 per year). The minimum wage works out at just over £12,600 per year (gross) if you are lucky enough to get a 40 hour week, year round. Gross weekly pay for 50% of the population is £21,000 or less. Thus, someone is going to spend more per year on a holiday chalet than nearly half of the population earn. Perhaps there is a need for some wealth redistribution?[/p][/quote]Surely they ARE redistributing some of that wealth... to the operators of the Fallbarrow Park - so we should be asking what they intend to do with it? At a guess, they employ a number of people, and provide a facility where others can stay, and hopefully clients and staff spend money at other local shops and facilities. life cycle too

3:20pm Tue 15 May 12

nixon1 says...

life cycle too wrote:
exiled_to_stoke wrote: Although we live in a free country, and people can spend their money however they wish, I still find it offensive that a small proportion of the population have sufficient wealth to be able to afford such luxuries whilst the majority of the population battle through every day scrimping and saving. The cost of this lodge to its new owners will be a minimum of £19,500 per year (£13,500 per year over the maximum 50 years, plus site fees of £6,000 per year). The minimum wage works out at just over £12,600 per year (gross) if you are lucky enough to get a 40 hour week, year round. Gross weekly pay for 50% of the population is £21,000 or less. Thus, someone is going to spend more per year on a holiday chalet than nearly half of the population earn. Perhaps there is a need for some wealth redistribution?
Surely they ARE redistributing some of that wealth... to the operators of the Fallbarrow Park - so we should be asking what they intend to do with it? At a guess, they employ a number of people, and provide a facility where others can stay, and hopefully clients and staff spend money at other local shops and facilities.
good point
[quote][p][bold]life cycle too[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]exiled_to_stoke[/bold] wrote: Although we live in a free country, and people can spend their money however they wish, I still find it offensive that a small proportion of the population have sufficient wealth to be able to afford such luxuries whilst the majority of the population battle through every day scrimping and saving. The cost of this lodge to its new owners will be a minimum of £19,500 per year (£13,500 per year over the maximum 50 years, plus site fees of £6,000 per year). The minimum wage works out at just over £12,600 per year (gross) if you are lucky enough to get a 40 hour week, year round. Gross weekly pay for 50% of the population is £21,000 or less. Thus, someone is going to spend more per year on a holiday chalet than nearly half of the population earn. Perhaps there is a need for some wealth redistribution?[/p][/quote]Surely they ARE redistributing some of that wealth... to the operators of the Fallbarrow Park - so we should be asking what they intend to do with it? At a guess, they employ a number of people, and provide a facility where others can stay, and hopefully clients and staff spend money at other local shops and facilities.[/p][/quote]good point nixon1

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree