Neither seen nor heard - the havens that exclude kids

12 July 2010

While it would be awfully hard to say goodbye to all the opening nights, book signings, free holidays and other dollops of corporate entertainment that come my way, between you and me I rather fancy being retired.

Before this week the problem was where to retire to.

My good friend Rioja is forever urging me to flee to southern Spain to live on a diet of San Miguel, paella, hard cheese and chewy ham, and I have to say it’s not an unattractive thought.

But all that changed when I read about the welcoming village of Firhall on the outskirts of Nairn in the Scottish Highlands.

As you know, Scotland is a wet, dreary place where men wearing skirts drink whisky for breakfast and British governments traditionally trial unpopular policies.

But Firhall is a diamond in the rough because none of the households there are allowed to have resident children. Brilliant. I wish I’d thought of it.

Don’t get me wrong, I do like kiddie winkles but I couldn’t eat a whole one.

In fact, I used to be a child myself once and can clearly recall the old bird next door being incandescent with rage when I, along with the other lads from the estate, used her side wall as a goal.

Apparently, Firhall is a haven of peace and tranquility where even grandchildren are permitted to visit for a short time only - which I hope means 15 minutes every other Tuesday.

Firhall is a diamond in the rough because none of the households are allowed to have resident children

Basically, it sounds like the sort of place Ecology Building Society would want to lend on.

You may think this is a unique state of affairs but it’s not. On Curzon Street in London’s swanky Mayfair there stands a sizeable mansion block called Chesterfield House whose leases prohibit children under 18 living there.

I’ve often wondered what happens if you buy a place in Chesterfield House as a couple and then produce a child.

I have mooted this possibility to the management company but have never received a clear response - I can hardly imagine you would be forced to leave.

As with most things, the Victorians probably got kids right.

By my estimation, in those days it was possible to father a son and then not see him for 40-odd years.

Nanny would look after him for the first five years after which he was packed off to boarding school.

When he reached 18 he would be sent to Sandhurst, from whence he would graduate to fight in the Boar War or some such unpleasantness.

He would then seek his fortune by investing in a South African gold mine so with luck you wouldn’t see him until he returned home aged 45 and minted.

If you enjoyed this article, sign up here to receive daily email updates from Mortgage Strategy and Follow @mortgagestrat