English: To try to answer the question, there could be more benefit in holiday accommodation than in terms of second homes. And the reason for that is, well, if the criteria were to apply to a holiday accommodation so that there was that turnover attached to it, rather than one family using it only on weekends, then there would be benefits to that, because there would be different people using it. And the alternative to that is that you have one property that's used by one family, that's used for less time in a year. But at the moment, the criteria that we have for use of holiday accommodation are very low, and it doesn't encourage sufficient turnover in terms of use by different people throughout the year. In my view, holiday accommodation should be accommodation that is used for over 200 days a year, or more possibly, so that that is a minimum. At the moment, what we have as criteria is that you have to let it for 30 days and offer it for up to 140 days. Well, that just isn't enough. And it allows, perhaps, a family who actually uses it as a summer home, for example, to get tax relief because of that use. And so that in itself damages our economy in an indirect way. So, holiday accommodation should have more economic benefits than a holiday home, but, again, that process could be improved. But both kinds of accommodation do exclude local people from the housing market. In my opinion, some houses should not be able to be holiday accommodation or holiday homes, because they eat into the housing stock that we have. What we have in Nefyn, as a recent pattern, is that houses on the high street turn into holiday accommodation or holiday homes. And that has been pretty unprecedented in terms of previous years. It is clear that people are turning their accommodation into Airbnbs and they are buying all kinds of different properties and not just detached houses on the seafront.
Welsh: I drio ateb y cwestiwn, mi all bod mwy o fudd mewn llety gwyliau nag ail dai - tai haf, os liciwch chi. Y rheswm am hynny ydy, wel, petai'r meini prawf yn codi ar lety gwyliau nes bod yna drosiant go lew o bobl yn ei ddefnyddio fo, yn hytrach nag un teulu, am ychydig o dymhorau, yna mae'n mynd i gael budd economaidd, achos mae yna bobl yn mynd i ddod yna, a gwahanol fathau o bobl hefyd. Yn wahanol i hynny, pan mae gennych chi dŷ haf, sef tŷ sydd ym mherchnogaeth un teulu, sydd ddim yn llety gwyliau, mae hwnna'n cael ei ddefnyddio am gyfnod llai, fel rheol. Ond ar y funud, mae'r meini prawf sydd gennym ni ar gyfer defnydd llety gwyliau yn isel iawn, a dydy o ddim efallai'n sbarduno digon o drosiant rhwng denu pobl wahanol trwy'r flwyddyn. Achos, yn fy marn i, dylai llety gwyliau fod yn llety gwyliau mewn gwirionedd sy'n cael defnydd am dros 200 diwrnod y flwyddyn o osod, a mwy o bosib, fel bod hynny yn minimwm. Beth sydd gennym ni ydy meini prawf ar y funud eich bod chi'n gorfod gosod am 30 diwrnod a'i gynnig e i'w osod am 140, dwi'n credu. Wel, dydy hynny jest ddim yn ddigon. Ac mae'n caniatáu, efallai, i deulu sydd yn ei ddefnyddio fo fel tŷ haf mewn gwirionedd gael rhyddhad o drethi oherwydd hynny. Ac felly, mae hynny ynddo'i hun yn niweidio ein heconomi ni mewn modd anuniongyrchol. Felly, mi ddylai fod llety gwyliau efo mwy o fudd economaidd na thŷ haf, ond, eto, mae yna fodd i wella hynny. Ond mae'r ddau - llety gwyliau a thŷ haf - yn amlwg, yn amddifadu pobl leol o dai. Yn fy marn i, dylai rhai tai ddim gallu bod yn dŷ haf neu'n llety gwyliau, achos, fel arall, maen nhw'n mynd i amddifadu neu fwyta mewn i'r stoc sydd gennym ni. Beth rydyn ni'n gweld yn Nefyn, yn batrwm diweddar, ydy bod tai ar y stryd fawr yn troi'n llety gwyliau neu'n dai haf. Ac mae hynny wedi bod yn eithaf di-gynsail ar hyd y blynyddoedd, ynghynt felly. Mae'n amlwg bod pobl yn mentro efo Airbnbs, sy'n rhyw fath o ffactor, a phobl yn prynu pob math o dai bellach - dim jest tai detached ar lan y môr.