The most significant domestic news for today - which I think I'm the only one to mention so far - is Labour publishing plans to grant councils compulsory purchase powers for green belt land, without their being required to pay for excessive planning gain.
That has the potential to shift the dial.
Theft, in other words.
Not exactly. They'll be buying land at prices well above its current market value - but well below market value with planning permission for building. But without the compulsory purchase there won't be the planning permission, and vice versa. The value created is not something they will be depriving current owners of, as without the compulsory purchase, that value will not exist.
You might think that somewhat casuistical, but if it significantly helps the economy, and ameliorates the housing crisis, then I think it a price worth paying.
They are depriving the landowner of the potential for a future increase in value.
Historically compulsory purchase has been at generous prices because by definition it is not a willing buyer/willing seller deal
Councils will make a massive amount of money from this - a cute way to rebuild their balance sheets but little better than the Peronistas in Argentina
The most significant domestic news for today - which I think I'm the only one to mention so far - is Labour publishing plans to grant councils compulsory purchase powers for green belt land, without their being required to pay for excessive planning gain.
That has the potential to shift the dial.
So, legalised theft then? That is shifting the dial somewhat.
Land without planning permission (current state) is worth X; with permission is worth multiples of X. Market value is actually X plus a bit - with the premium representing a possibility it will get permission later. I think it's that price they are going for.
That's what the current rules say. They are wanting to change them.
The price on a presumption of no planning permission will be much less than a new presumption of planning permission following a policy change. It looks the policy makers want the price to be the first; not the second.
I'm happy to accept that next Tory leader is a market I can't predict, and don't much care what the outcome is. Whomever they choose, they're going to have to make some hard choices over the next few years, and any one of Badenoch, Tugendhat, Jenrick etc aren't going to change that.
The idea that they can swing right, pick up the supporters of Reform, and pivot back to the centre to grab votes there, all within an electoral cycle, just doesn't seem a realistic one.
I think it's just possible if they pick someone really bad, and Labour overperform, we might see Lib Dems become official opposition. I would love to see it!
Oh FFS, we've just had months of "LibDem official oppositon?" bollocks. Give it a rest - for maybe four years? We can all revisit the notion then.
The most significant domestic news for today - which I think I'm the only one to mention so far - is Labour publishing plans to grant councils compulsory purchase powers for green belt land, without their being required to pay for excessive planning gain.
That has the potential to shift the dial.
And in any event surely the most significant domestic news of the day is that today is the 35th anniversary of the birth of my eldest child* who is now expecting my first grandchild and that we are going out tonight to celebrate both.
Ok, this may be taking "domestic" to a fairly extreme length.
Has it been noted that "I went into a riot situation with a knuckleduster because it was stuck on my fingers and I couldn't get it off" man has received 12 months, which was double the sentence for the possession example I posted this morning.
The most significant domestic news for today - which I think I'm the only one to mention so far - is Labour publishing plans to grant councils compulsory purchase powers for green belt land, without their being required to pay for excessive planning gain.
That has the potential to shift the dial.
Theft, in other words.
As I mentioned a couple of weeks ago, the current system is pretty much that anyway. Current compulsory purchase rules say the Government have to give you up to 10% over the current market value for your home but with a cap at £15K for a property. Which to be honest is nothing. So the only way you can get the full 10% is if your home is worth less than £150K
For land it is just the current market value.
In France the standard amount is 1.5x the market value with no cap.
Then the proposal is about giving councils CPO powers rather than changing the rules for CPOs as such?
The most significant domestic news for today - which I think I'm the only one to mention so far - is Labour publishing plans to grant councils compulsory purchase powers for green belt land, without their being required to pay for excessive planning gain.
That has the potential to shift the dial.
So, legalised theft then? That is shifting the dial somewhat.
Land without planning permission (current state) is worth X; with permission is worth multiples of X. Market value is actually X plus a bit - with the premium representing a possibility it will get permission later. I think it's that price they are going for.
It can’t be that mathematically
If they issue a CPO the probability approaches 100%. If they don’t it approaches zero.
I am quite interested that the far-ish right-ish Musk-ish Usonians who are all over twitter demanding that arrests for sentences for incitement to violent disorder or whatever they are for are all about "arrests for social media posts", which is exactly the same type of claim made by Chris Packham and the sleb chorus about Roger Hallam being locked up for 'talking online about holding a peaceful protest on the M25'.
I'd call it the same sort of brain worm on both extremes, and I have very little tolerance for either version of the same rhetorical tactic.
On the subject of planning, I was surprised to see that in Dorset at least, some of our Council Tax is spent on planning. I had assumed planning and building control were self-funding.
My proposal would be for councils to charge 50% of the land value uplift for the the grant of PP. So if you have an acre of land worth £20k without PP and £500k with, the fee for the grant of PP should be £240k. That would help with council finances.
The most significant domestic news for today - which I think I'm the only one to mention so far - is Labour publishing plans to grant councils compulsory purchase powers for green belt land, without their being required to pay for excessive planning gain.
That has the potential to shift the dial.
So effectively the council gets to expropriate the planning gain for itself?
Some of it, yes. Which is the only way our semi-bankrupt local authorities will be able to afford development.
Sounds like a good idea to me, unless you are a landowner hoping to get an unearned windfall. Don't think most landowners would be so entitled though
But for a lot of landowners the land is a source of income through usage. So compulsory purchase of the land is removing the livelihood of the owner above the value of the land itself. There should certainly be compensation for that.
Er, isn't that already predicated in the value of the land anyway? My shares in Big Widget PLC go up in value when the dividend is higher, and go down when the dividend is zero.
The most significant domestic news for today - which I think I'm the only one to mention so far - is Labour publishing plans to grant councils compulsory purchase powers for green belt land, without their being required to pay for excessive planning gain.
That has the potential to shift the dial.
Theft, in other words.
As I mentioned a couple of weeks ago, the current system is pretty much that anyway. Current compulsory purchase rules say the Government have to give you up to 10% over the current market value for your home but with a cap at £15K for a property. Which to be honest is nothing. So the only way you can get the full 10% is if your home is worth less than £150K
For land it is just the current market value.
In France the standard amount is 1.5x the market value with no cap.
Many years ago I heard (don't know whether it is true) that planning the high speed routes in France was easy because people were happy to give up their land for a windfall rather than here where they get less so fight it. It is quite a disruption to lose your home or have your land cut in half or have noise and deserves a premium to make you go away. It helps that France is much less densely populated as well.
The most significant domestic news for today - which I think I'm the only one to mention so far - is Labour publishing plans to grant councils compulsory purchase powers for green belt land, without their being required to pay for excessive planning gain.
That has the potential to shift the dial.
Theft, in other words.
Not exactly. They'll be buying land at prices well above its current market value - but well below market value with planning permission for building. But without the compulsory purchase there won't be the planning permission, and vice versa. The value created is not something they will be depriving current owners of, as without the compulsory purchase, that value will not exist.
You might think that somewhat casuistical, but if it significantly helps the economy, and ameliorates the housing crisis, then I think it a price worth paying.
They are depriving the landowner of the potential for a future increase in value.
Historically compulsory purchase has been at generous prices because by definition it is not a willing buyer/willing seller deal
Councils will make a massive amount of money from this - a cute way to rebuild their balance sheets but little better than the Peronistas in Argentina
We need more houses. The government can't afford to pay market rates with planning permission.
The options are the landowners get nothing, or they get a decent profit but less than current market rates.
Its effectively another windfall tax, and that is what we are left with given our economy and politics.
The most significant domestic news for today - which I think I'm the only one to mention so far - is Labour publishing plans to grant councils compulsory purchase powers for green belt land, without their being required to pay for excessive planning gain.
That has the potential to shift the dial.
And in any event surely the most significant domestic news of the day is that today is the 35th anniversary of the birth of my eldest child* who is now expecting my first grandchild and that we are going out tonight to celebrate both.
Ok, this may be taking "domestic" to a fairly extreme length.
The most significant domestic news for today - which I think I'm the only one to mention so far - is Labour publishing plans to grant councils compulsory purchase powers for green belt land, without their being required to pay for excessive planning gain.
That has the potential to shift the dial.
So effectively the council gets to expropriate the planning gain for itself?
Some of it, yes. Which is the only way our semi-bankrupt local authorities will be able to afford development.
Give it planning permission and let the owners sell on the open market. The government will get CGT which they can give to the local authorities
The most significant domestic news for today - which I think I'm the only one to mention so far - is Labour publishing plans to grant councils compulsory purchase powers for green belt land, without their being required to pay for excessive planning gain.
That has the potential to shift the dial.
So, legalised theft then? That is shifting the dial somewhat.
Land without planning permission (current state) is worth X; with permission is worth multiples of X. Market value is actually X plus a bit - with the premium representing a possibility it will get permission later. I think it's that price they are going for.
It can’t be that mathematically
If they issue a CPO the probability approaches 100%. If they don’t it approaches zero.
Exactly. It's probably not a huge premium on the agricultural value of the land but it does exist and the premium would continue to exist if the speculator sold the land on because there is always a possibility of development on green belt land.
The most significant domestic news for today - which I think I'm the only one to mention so far - is Labour publishing plans to grant councils compulsory purchase powers for green belt land, without their being required to pay for excessive planning gain.
That has the potential to shift the dial.
So, legalised theft then? That is shifting the dial somewhat.
No, they'll be paying the current market rate. If the council doesn't buy it, it will never get PP so the landowner is not disadvantaged.
They will be paying well over the current market rate. Just not 20 - 100 times the current value.
Fair point. How much over will they be paying? I can't see it from a quick skim of the article.
No idea, as it's not yet settled: ..The prime minister’s spokesperson confirmed that the government was consulting on plans to cap the amount landowners could receive, and said it would provide more details after the consultation closes...
The most significant domestic news for today - which I think I'm the only one to mention so far - is Labour publishing plans to grant councils compulsory purchase powers for green belt land, without their being required to pay for excessive planning gain.
That has the potential to shift the dial.
So, legalised theft then? That is shifting the dial somewhat.
No, they'll be paying the current market rate. If the council doesn't buy it, it will never get PP so the landowner is not disadvantaged.
They will be paying well over the current market rate. Just not 20 - 100 times the current value.
Fair point. How much over will they be paying? I can't see it from a quick skim of the article.
If it's anything like current CPO's, a miserly amount. Often not enough to compensate an owner for buying a new place and moving (in the case of homeowners).
Ok well I'd like to see a small premium to compensate for the disruption, say 10-20%.
If the land is treated as already having the PP though the premium would 1000%-2000% which is idiotic.
The most significant domestic news for today - which I think I'm the only one to mention so far - is Labour publishing plans to grant councils compulsory purchase powers for green belt land, without their being required to pay for excessive planning gain.
That has the potential to shift the dial.
So effectively the council gets to expropriate the planning gain for itself?
Some of it, yes. Which is the only way our semi-bankrupt local authorities will be able to afford development.
Give it planning permission and let the owners sell on the open market. The government will get CGT which they can give to the local authorities
Are you sure? Agricultural land CGT exemption for agricultural land is a huge gap in the CGT rules. And isn't compulsory land purchase itself free of CGT?
The most significant domestic news for today - which I think I'm the only one to mention so far - is Labour publishing plans to grant councils compulsory purchase powers for green belt land, without their being required to pay for excessive planning gain.
That has the potential to shift the dial.
So effectively the council gets to expropriate the planning gain for itself?
Some of it, yes. Which is the only way our semi-bankrupt local authorities will be able to afford development.
It might even be seen as a cheap and less controversial way of trying to rescue them from the financial black hole they've been sucked into in the last 15-20 years.
As I noted pre-election.
I said back then that it would be one of the few ways in which they might manufacture sufficient capital to do anything more than tinker at the edges of local authority finances. Or kick start large housing development. It seems as though they might actually give it a serious shot.
Musk is awkward, he admits he's on the spectrum, he's socially unskilled, he's hesitant and a bit weird (personally, I also think he's a genius, but let's set that aside for now)
He'll be interviewing a raging narcissist with significant cognitive decline and a tendency to lose the plot, or lie absurdly
It might be compelling viewing, but not in the way they hope
Musk *claims* to be on the spectrum. He also frequently lies.
I dislike people saying "I'm on the spectrum!" as a way of self-excusing shitty behaviour. Plenty of people 'on the spectrum' manage to live normal, ordinary lives without being shitty. The chances are many such people would be shitty anyway.
He certainly evinces plenty of spectrummy behaviourisms, his oddly meek voice, his inability to look eye to eye, the stiff body language, the halting sentences and quite odd sense of humour, and the fact he offends people quite easily, often without meaning to
It doesn't matter anyway. I agree with your thesis. This interview has all the ingredients for a trainwreck
Yep. Trump ain't no Rishi. That said, presumably Elon will be asking the questions and I imagine they will be soft pat-a-ball, and the two "tycoons" will happily agree that they are both stable geniuses. It won't necessarily be a meltdown as Trump won't be challenged and he'll be in congenial company.
The most significant domestic news for today - which I think I'm the only one to mention so far - is Labour publishing plans to grant councils compulsory purchase powers for green belt land, without their being required to pay for excessive planning gain.
That has the potential to shift the dial.
So effectively the council gets to expropriate the planning gain for itself?
Some of it, yes. Which is the only way our semi-bankrupt local authorities will be able to afford development.
It might even be seen as a cheap and less controversial way of trying to rescue them from the financial black hole they've been sucked into in the last 15-20 years.
As I noted pre-election.
I said back then that it would be one of the few ways in which they might manufacture sufficient capital to do anything more than tinker at the edges of local authority finances. Or kick start large housing development. It seems as though they might actually give it a serious shot.
So suppose a farmer got 150% of the value as farm land.
The farmer is getting a significant uplift allowing him to move elsewhere if he wants to.
The only people losing out would be those who had paid over the odds in the hope of a future windfall from planning permission..
The most significant domestic news for today - which I think I'm the only one to mention so far - is Labour publishing plans to grant councils compulsory purchase powers for green belt land, without their being required to pay for excessive planning gain.
That has the potential to shift the dial.
Theft, in other words.
Not exactly. They'll be buying land at prices well above its current market value - but well below market value with planning permission for building. But without the compulsory purchase there won't be the planning permission, and vice versa. The value created is not something they will be depriving current owners of, as without the compulsory purchase, that value will not exist.
You might think that somewhat casuistical, but if it significantly helps the economy, and ameliorates the housing crisis, then I think it a price worth paying.
They are depriving the landowner of the potential for a future increase in value.
Historically compulsory purchase has been at generous prices because by definition it is not a willing buyer/willing seller deal
Councils will make a massive amount of money from this - a cute way to rebuild their balance sheets but little better than the Peronistas in Argentina
We need more houses. The government can't afford to pay market rates with planning permission.
The options are the landowners get nothing, or they get a decent profit but less than current market rates.
Its effectively another windfall tax, and that is what we are left with given our economy and politics.
The other point is that the areas of land under discussion will have many different owners. Open market sales might delay the process by years; CPOs with a fixed premium should shortcut the process massively.
If anything is going to be done in this parliament, then it's pretty well the only way it happens.
The most significant domestic news for today - which I think I'm the only one to mention so far - is Labour publishing plans to grant councils compulsory purchase powers for green belt land, without their being required to pay for excessive planning gain.
That has the potential to shift the dial.
So effectively the council gets to expropriate the planning gain for itself?
Some of it, yes. Which is the only way our semi-bankrupt local authorities will be able to afford development.
Give it planning permission and let the owners sell on the open market. The government will get CGT which they can give to the local authorities
That would be fine if you want development some time in the late 2030s.
The most significant domestic news for today - which I think I'm the only one to mention so far - is Labour publishing plans to grant councils compulsory purchase powers for green belt land, without their being required to pay for excessive planning gain.
That has the potential to shift the dial.
And in any event surely the most significant domestic news of the day is that today is the 35th anniversary of the birth of my eldest child* who is now expecting my first grandchild and that we are going out tonight to celebrate both.
Ok, this may be taking "domestic" to a fairly extreme length.
The most significant domestic news for today - which I think I'm the only one to mention so far - is Labour publishing plans to grant councils compulsory purchase powers for green belt land, without their being required to pay for excessive planning gain.
That has the potential to shift the dial.
So, legalised theft then? That is shifting the dial somewhat.
No, they'll be paying the current market rate. If the council doesn't buy it, it will never get PP so the landowner is not disadvantaged.
They will be paying well over the current market rate. Just not 20 - 100 times the current value.
Fair point. How much over will they be paying? I can't see it from a quick skim of the article.
If it's anything like current CPO's, a miserly amount. Often not enough to compensate an owner for buying a new place and moving (in the case of homeowners).
Ok well I'd like to see a small premium to compensate for the disruption, say 10-20%.
If the land is treated as already having the PP though the premium would 1000%-2000% which is idiotic.
Why is it 'idiotic' ?
What happens if the land increases in value by those amounts (because that's the market rate...), and the council then sells off parcels of it to developers? The council grabs the money that the landowner should have got.
The most significant domestic news for today - which I think I'm the only one to mention so far - is Labour publishing plans to grant councils compulsory purchase powers for green belt land, without their being required to pay for excessive planning gain.
That has the potential to shift the dial.
Theft, in other words.
Not exactly. They'll be buying land at prices well above its current market value - but well below market value with planning permission for building. But without the compulsory purchase there won't be the planning permission, and vice versa. The value created is not something they will be depriving current owners of, as without the compulsory purchase, that value will not exist.
You might think that somewhat casuistical, but if it significantly helps the economy, and ameliorates the housing crisis, then I think it a price worth paying.
They are depriving the landowner of the potential for a future increase in value.
Historically compulsory purchase has been at generous prices because by definition it is not a willing buyer/willing seller deal
Councils will make a massive amount of money from this - a cute way to rebuild their balance sheets but little better than the Peronistas in Argentina
We need more houses. The government can't afford to pay market rates with planning permission.
The options are the landowners get nothing, or they get a decent profit but less than current market rates.
Its effectively another windfall tax, and that is what we are left with given our economy and politics.
The other point is that the areas of land under discussion will have many different owners. Open market sales might delay the process by years; CPOs with a fixed premium should shortcut the process massively.
If anything is going to be done in this parliament, then it's pretty well the only way it happens.
The most significant domestic news for today - which I think I'm the only one to mention so far - is Labour publishing plans to grant councils compulsory purchase powers for green belt land, without their being required to pay for excessive planning gain.
That has the potential to shift the dial.
So effectively the council gets to expropriate the planning gain for itself?
Some of it, yes. Which is the only way our semi-bankrupt local authorities will be able to afford development.
Give it planning permission and let the owners sell on the open market. The government will get CGT which they can give to the local authorities
That would be fine if you want development some time in the late 2030s.
I don't think it's about expropriating planning gain - they already get about £7bn - £10bn a year of that through S106, CIL commuted sums etc, though developers play endless games of planning and legal chess to undermine the gain.
Although an extra slice for Local Government funding to help recovery and capacity building after 15 years of starvation funding is needed.
It's more about creating
1 - A controllable process that cannot be gamed so easily. 2 - A process which will undermine incentives for Councils to pander to NIMBYs - so creating an aligned process rather than political war.
The most significant domestic news for today - which I think I'm the only one to mention so far - is Labour publishing plans to grant councils compulsory purchase powers for green belt land, without their being required to pay for excessive planning gain.
That has the potential to shift the dial.
So, legalised theft then? That is shifting the dial somewhat.
No, they'll be paying the current market rate. If the council doesn't buy it, it will never get PP so the landowner is not disadvantaged.
They will be paying well over the current market rate. Just not 20 - 100 times the current value.
Fair point. How much over will they be paying? I can't see it from a quick skim of the article.
If it's anything like current CPO's, a miserly amount. Often not enough to compensate an owner for buying a new place and moving (in the case of homeowners).
Ok well I'd like to see a small premium to compensate for the disruption, say 10-20%.
If the land is treated as already having the PP though the premium would 1000%-2000% which is idiotic.
Why is it 'idiotic' ?
What happens if the land increases in value by those amounts (because that's the market rate...), and the council then sells off parcels of it to developers? The council grabs the money that the landowner should have got.
The same council making the decision on planning permission. Definitely no conflict of interest there, not at all…
The most significant domestic news for today - which I think I'm the only one to mention so far - is Labour publishing plans to grant councils compulsory purchase powers for green belt land, without their being required to pay for excessive planning gain.
That has the potential to shift the dial.
So, legalised theft then? That is shifting the dial somewhat.
No, they'll be paying the current market rate. If the council doesn't buy it, it will never get PP so the landowner is not disadvantaged.
They will be paying well over the current market rate. Just not 20 - 100 times the current value.
Fair point. How much over will they be paying? I can't see it from a quick skim of the article.
If it's anything like current CPO's, a miserly amount. Often not enough to compensate an owner for buying a new place and moving (in the case of homeowners).
Ok well I'd like to see a small premium to compensate for the disruption, say 10-20%.
If the land is treated as already having the PP though the premium would 1000%-2000% which is idiotic.
Why is it 'idiotic' ?
What happens if the land increases in value by those amounts (because that's the market rate...), and the council then sells off parcels of it to developers? The council grabs the money that the landowner should have got.
Why should the landowner get it - the land is currently green belt land.
The value is enhanced by the granting of planning permission which is given by the council. Why shouldn’t the council pocket most of the gain?
The most significant domestic news for today - which I think I'm the only one to mention so far - is Labour publishing plans to grant councils compulsory purchase powers for green belt land, without their being required to pay for excessive planning gain.
That has the potential to shift the dial.
So, legalised theft then? That is shifting the dial somewhat.
No, they'll be paying the current market rate. If the council doesn't buy it, it will never get PP so the landowner is not disadvantaged.
They will be paying well over the current market rate. Just not 20 - 100 times the current value.
Fair point. How much over will they be paying? I can't see it from a quick skim of the article.
If it's anything like current CPO's, a miserly amount. Often not enough to compensate an owner for buying a new place and moving (in the case of homeowners).
Ok well I'd like to see a small premium to compensate for the disruption, say 10-20%.
If the land is treated as already having the PP though the premium would 1000%-2000% which is idiotic.
Why is it 'idiotic' ?
What happens if the land increases in value by those amounts (because that's the market rate...), and the council then sells off parcels of it to developers? The council grabs the money that the landowner should have got.
The same council making the decision on planning permission. Definitely no conflict of interest there, not at all…
The decision is usually made by the council years before planning permission is granted - the land needs to be appropriately designated in the local plan first.
The most significant domestic news for today - which I think I'm the only one to mention so far - is Labour publishing plans to grant councils compulsory purchase powers for green belt land, without their being required to pay for excessive planning gain.
That has the potential to shift the dial.
So effectively the council gets to expropriate the planning gain for itself?
Some of it, yes. Which is the only way our semi-bankrupt local authorities will be able to afford development.
Give it planning permission and let the owners sell on the open market. The government will get CGT which they can give to the local authorities
That would be fine if you want development some time in the late 2030s.
I don't think it's about expropriating planning gain - they already get about £7bn - £10bn a year of that through S106, CIL commuted sums etc, though developers play endless games of planning and legal chess to undermine the gain.
Although an extra slice for Local Government funding to help recovery and capacity building after 15 years of starvation funding is needed.
It's more about creating
1 - A controllable process that cannot be gamed so easily. 2 - A process which will undermine incentives for Councils to pander to NIMBYs - so creating an aligned process rather than political war.
Pass and I don't think she will have a considered view for a while. Remember she's a national park planner - that has very different criteria for what is acceptable..
The most significant domestic news for today - which I think I'm the only one to mention so far - is Labour publishing plans to grant councils compulsory purchase powers for green belt land, without their being required to pay for excessive planning gain.
That has the potential to shift the dial.
Theft, in other words.
Not exactly. They'll be buying land at prices well above its current market value - but well below market value with planning permission for building. But without the compulsory purchase there won't be the planning permission, and vice versa. The value created is not something they will be depriving current owners of, as without the compulsory purchase, that value will not exist.
You might think that somewhat casuistical, but if it significantly helps the economy, and ameliorates the housing crisis, then I think it a price worth paying.
They are depriving the landowner of the potential for a future increase in value.
Historically compulsory purchase has been at generous prices because by definition it is not a willing buyer/willing seller deal
Councils will make a massive amount of money from this - a cute way to rebuild their balance sheets but little better than the Peronistas in Argentina
We need more houses. The government can't afford to pay market rates with planning permission.
The options are the landowners get nothing, or they get a decent profit but less than current market rates.
Its effectively another windfall tax, and that is what we are left with given our economy and politics.
The other point is that the areas of land under discussion will have many different owners. Open market sales might delay the process by years; CPOs with a fixed premium should shortcut the process massively.
If anything is going to be done in this parliament, then it's pretty well the only way it happens.
They could CPO without this change.
No, they couldn't, since there wouldn't be any point to it. It will costs local authorities a lot of money to provide the infrastructure for new development, Without their taking a slice of the planning gain, it simply won't happen.
It's not going to be Patel, she blew it with that interview, perhaps deliberately, for her own reasons. It's not going to be Tugendhat, he's too anonymous and wet and I agree his campaign has been invisible. I imagine the MPs will select Cleverly as the centrist candidate and one of Jenrick or Badenoch as the "right" candidate
So it will be
Cleverly versus Jenrick or Badenoch
And I suspect the rightwing candidate will win with the members, but I am not sure. Cleverly might do OK
You call Jenrick the right wing candidate. Really he is a centrist who hates murals.
The most significant domestic news for today - which I think I'm the only one to mention so far - is Labour publishing plans to grant councils compulsory purchase powers for green belt land, without their being required to pay for excessive planning gain.
That has the potential to shift the dial.
So, legalised theft then? That is shifting the dial somewhat.
No, they'll be paying the current market rate. If the council doesn't buy it, it will never get PP so the landowner is not disadvantaged.
They will be paying well over the current market rate. Just not 20 - 100 times the current value.
Fair point. How much over will they be paying? I can't see it from a quick skim of the article.
If it's anything like current CPO's, a miserly amount. Often not enough to compensate an owner for buying a new place and moving (in the case of homeowners).
Ok well I'd like to see a small premium to compensate for the disruption, say 10-20%.
If the land is treated as already having the PP though the premium would 1000%-2000% which is idiotic.
Why is it 'idiotic' ?
What happens if the land increases in value by those amounts (because that's the market rate...), and the council then sells off parcels of it to developers? The council grabs the money that the landowner should have got.
Why should the landowner get it - the land is currently green belt land.
The value is enhanced by the granting of planning permission which is given by the council. Why shouldn’t the council pocket most of the gain?
"Why should the landowner get it - the land is currently green belt land."
Because, as I said above, it is perfectly possible to build on green belt land. Except in this new world, there's zero chance of councils giving planning permission for anything outside *their* plans.
"Why shouldn’t the council pocket most of the gain?"
Because they don't own it. And it also creates a mahoosive conflict of interest for the council, who have control of local plans, planning, and massive advantages in land purchases.
The most significant domestic news for today - which I think I'm the only one to mention so far - is Labour publishing plans to grant councils compulsory purchase powers for green belt land, without their being required to pay for excessive planning gain.
That has the potential to shift the dial.
So, legalised theft then? That is shifting the dial somewhat.
No, they'll be paying the current market rate. If the council doesn't buy it, it will never get PP so the landowner is not disadvantaged.
They will be paying well over the current market rate. Just not 20 - 100 times the current value.
Fair point. How much over will they be paying? I can't see it from a quick skim of the article.
If it's anything like current CPO's, a miserly amount. Often not enough to compensate an owner for buying a new place and moving (in the case of homeowners).
Ok well I'd like to see a small premium to compensate for the disruption, say 10-20%.
If the land is treated as already having the PP though the premium would 1000%-2000% which is idiotic.
Why is it 'idiotic' ?
What happens if the land increases in value by those amounts (because that's the market rate...), and the council then sells off parcels of it to developers? The council grabs the money that the landowner should have got.
Why should the landowner get it - the land is currently green belt land.
The value is enhanced by the granting of planning permission which is given by the council. Why shouldn’t the council pocket most of the gain?
The government, especially councils, are skint and people are suggesting a massive windfall goes to rich speculators rather than councils.
The most significant domestic news for today - which I think I'm the only one to mention so far - is Labour publishing plans to grant councils compulsory purchase powers for green belt land, without their being required to pay for excessive planning gain.
That has the potential to shift the dial.
So, legalised theft then? That is shifting the dial somewhat.
No, they'll be paying the current market rate. If the council doesn't buy it, it will never get PP so the landowner is not disadvantaged.
They will be paying well over the current market rate. Just not 20 - 100 times the current value.
Fair point. How much over will they be paying? I can't see it from a quick skim of the article.
If it's anything like current CPO's, a miserly amount. Often not enough to compensate an owner for buying a new place and moving (in the case of homeowners).
Ok well I'd like to see a small premium to compensate for the disruption, say 10-20%.
If the land is treated as already having the PP though the premium would 1000%-2000% which is idiotic.
Why is it 'idiotic' ?
What happens if the land increases in value by those amounts (because that's the market rate...), and the council then sells off parcels of it to developers? The council grabs the money that the landowner should have got.
Why should the landowner get it - the land is currently green belt land.
The value is enhanced by the granting of planning permission which is given by the council. Why shouldn’t the council pocket most of the gain?
When you say "the council", what you really mean is the existing residents, who have made the community what it is. And helped define the value of the land.
The alternative is the property speculator - perhaps even a foreigner - who buys up the land and makes a quick profit.
The most significant domestic news for today - which I think I'm the only one to mention so far - is Labour publishing plans to grant councils compulsory purchase powers for green belt land, without their being required to pay for excessive planning gain.
That has the potential to shift the dial.
So, legalised theft then? That is shifting the dial somewhat.
No, they'll be paying the current market rate. If the council doesn't buy it, it will never get PP so the landowner is not disadvantaged.
They will be paying well over the current market rate. Just not 20 - 100 times the current value.
Fair point. How much over will they be paying? I can't see it from a quick skim of the article.
If it's anything like current CPO's, a miserly amount. Often not enough to compensate an owner for buying a new place and moving (in the case of homeowners).
Ok well I'd like to see a small premium to compensate for the disruption, say 10-20%.
If the land is treated as already having the PP though the premium would 1000%-2000% which is idiotic.
Why is it 'idiotic' ?
What happens if the land increases in value by those amounts (because that's the market rate...), and the council then sells off parcels of it to developers? The council grabs the money that the landowner should have got.
Why should the landowner get it - the land is currently green belt land.
The value is enhanced by the granting of planning permission which is given by the council. Why shouldn’t the council pocket most of the gain?
The government, especially councils, are skint and people are suggesting a massive windfall goes to rich speculators rather than councils.
The 'rich speculators' is a red herring. The majority of people the councils will be stealing from will be long-term farmers.
*If* the government put a caveat on their plans like: "Any land that has been sold in the last ten years..." then I'd be more ready to accept it. But it doesn't sound as if they have. and have put the 'speculators' line in to make it sound more acceptable.
The most significant domestic news for today - which I think I'm the only one to mention so far - is Labour publishing plans to grant councils compulsory purchase powers for green belt land, without their being required to pay for excessive planning gain.
That has the potential to shift the dial.
So, legalised theft then? That is shifting the dial somewhat.
No, they'll be paying the current market rate. If the council doesn't buy it, it will never get PP so the landowner is not disadvantaged.
They will be paying well over the current market rate. Just not 20 - 100 times the current value.
Fair point. How much over will they be paying? I can't see it from a quick skim of the article.
If it's anything like current CPO's, a miserly amount. Often not enough to compensate an owner for buying a new place and moving (in the case of homeowners).
Ok well I'd like to see a small premium to compensate for the disruption, say 10-20%.
If the land is treated as already having the PP though the premium would 1000%-2000% which is idiotic.
Why is it 'idiotic' ?
What happens if the land increases in value by those amounts (because that's the market rate...), and the council then sells off parcels of it to developers? The council grabs the money that the landowner should have got.
Why should the landowner get it - the land is currently green belt land.
The value is enhanced by the granting of planning permission which is given by the council. Why shouldn’t the council pocket most of the gain?
The government, especially councils, are skint and people are suggesting a massive windfall goes to rich speculators rather than councils.
Yes, I don't think public opinion is going to fall on the side of landowners. The likelihood is that they'll get some decent windfalls on their land. I can't see many people manning the barricades on their behalf.
The most significant domestic news for today - which I think I'm the only one to mention so far - is Labour publishing plans to grant councils compulsory purchase powers for green belt land, without their being required to pay for excessive planning gain.
That has the potential to shift the dial.
So, legalised theft then? That is shifting the dial somewhat.
No, they'll be paying the current market rate. If the council doesn't buy it, it will never get PP so the landowner is not disadvantaged.
They will be paying well over the current market rate. Just not 20 - 100 times the current value.
Fair point. How much over will they be paying? I can't see it from a quick skim of the article.
If it's anything like current CPO's, a miserly amount. Often not enough to compensate an owner for buying a new place and moving (in the case of homeowners).
Ok well I'd like to see a small premium to compensate for the disruption, say 10-20%.
If the land is treated as already having the PP though the premium would 1000%-2000% which is idiotic.
Why is it 'idiotic' ?
What happens if the land increases in value by those amounts (because that's the market rate...), and the council then sells off parcels of it to developers? The council grabs the money that the landowner should have got.
Why should the landowner get it - the land is currently green belt land.
The value is enhanced by the granting of planning permission which is given by the council. Why shouldn’t the council pocket most of the gain?
"Why should the landowner get it - the land is currently green belt land."
Because, as I said above, it is perfectly possible to build on green belt land. Except in this new world, there's zero chance of councils giving planning permission for anything outside *their* plans.
"Why shouldn’t the council pocket most of the gain?"
Because they don't own it. And it also creates a mahoosive conflict of interest for the council, who have control of local plans, planning, and massive advantages in land purchases.
And they have a requirement to
1) build a lot of houses 2) pay for the infrastructure for those houses 3) ideally build at prices that allow a lot of affordable housing to be included within the plans
3 is the all important bit here - extortionate Land prices has resulted in many projects using viability tests to reduce the amount of social housing included in the mix. And the best fix for that is let Councils purchase the land and ensure that the price it's sold on at allows the social housing mix to be correctly included.
And currently every part of the profit your mates are seeking is coming from trying to convince a council that x land is listed as housing in the next local plan rather than y land. The council is the person who is generating the profit yet isn't the person making the profit from it.
I'm sorry but as a person who hasn't purchased thousands of acres green belt land in the hope of a profit I really don't see that your argument has any weight.
The most significant domestic news for today - which I think I'm the only one to mention so far - is Labour publishing plans to grant councils compulsory purchase powers for green belt land, without their being required to pay for excessive planning gain.
That has the potential to shift the dial.
So, legalised theft then? That is shifting the dial somewhat.
No, they'll be paying the current market rate. If the council doesn't buy it, it will never get PP so the landowner is not disadvantaged.
They will be paying well over the current market rate. Just not 20 - 100 times the current value.
Fair point. How much over will they be paying? I can't see it from a quick skim of the article.
If it's anything like current CPO's, a miserly amount. Often not enough to compensate an owner for buying a new place and moving (in the case of homeowners).
Ok well I'd like to see a small premium to compensate for the disruption, say 10-20%.
If the land is treated as already having the PP though the premium would 1000%-2000% which is idiotic.
Why is it 'idiotic' ?
What happens if the land increases in value by those amounts (because that's the market rate...), and the council then sells off parcels of it to developers? The council grabs the money that the landowner should have got.
Why should the landowner get it - the land is currently green belt land.
The value is enhanced by the granting of planning permission which is given by the council. Why shouldn’t the council pocket most of the gain?
When you say "the council", what you really mean is the existing residents, who have made the community what it is. And helped define the value of the land.
The alternative is the property speculator - perhaps even a foreigner - who buys up the land and makes a quick profit.
I'm sure some of the multi-generational farmers I know with green belt land will be bemused that they, and their great-grandfathers, are 'property speculators'.
I also LOL at your (shock! horror! addition of ' perhaps even a foreigner')!!! Nice to see what leftists really think of foreigners ...
The most significant domestic news for today - which I think I'm the only one to mention so far - is Labour publishing plans to grant councils compulsory purchase powers for green belt land, without their being required to pay for excessive planning gain.
That has the potential to shift the dial.
So, legalised theft then? That is shifting the dial somewhat.
No, they'll be paying the current market rate. If the council doesn't buy it, it will never get PP so the landowner is not disadvantaged.
They will be paying well over the current market rate. Just not 20 - 100 times the current value.
Fair point. How much over will they be paying? I can't see it from a quick skim of the article.
If it's anything like current CPO's, a miserly amount. Often not enough to compensate an owner for buying a new place and moving (in the case of homeowners).
Ok well I'd like to see a small premium to compensate for the disruption, say 10-20%.
If the land is treated as already having the PP though the premium would 1000%-2000% which is idiotic.
Why is it 'idiotic' ?
What happens if the land increases in value by those amounts (because that's the market rate...), and the council then sells off parcels of it to developers? The council grabs the money that the landowner should have got.
Why should the landowner get it - the land is currently green belt land.
The value is enhanced by the granting of planning permission which is given by the council. Why shouldn’t the council pocket most of the gain?
"Why should the landowner get it - the land is currently green belt land."
Because, as I said above, it is perfectly possible to build on green belt land. Except in this new world, there's zero chance of councils giving planning permission for anything outside *their* plans.
"Why shouldn’t the council pocket most of the gain?"
Because they don't own it. And it also creates a mahoosive conflict of interest for the council, who have control of local plans, planning, and massive advantages in land purchases.
And they have a requirement to
1) build a lot of houses 2) pay for the infrastructure for those houses 3) ideally build at prices that allow a lot of affordable housing to be included within the plans
3 is the all important bit here - extortionate Land prices has resulted in many projects using viability tests to reduce the amount of social housing included in the mix. And the best fix for that is let Councils purchase the land and ensure that the price it's sold on at allows the social housing mix to be correctly included.
I'm sorry but as a person who hasn't purchased thousands of acres green belt land in the hope of a profit I really don't see that your argument has any weight.
Again, your last sentence shows the problem: you've swallowed the red herring about speculators.
The most significant domestic news for today - which I think I'm the only one to mention so far - is Labour publishing plans to grant councils compulsory purchase powers for green belt land, without their being required to pay for excessive planning gain.
That has the potential to shift the dial.
So, legalised theft then? That is shifting the dial somewhat.
No, they'll be paying the current market rate. If the council doesn't buy it, it will never get PP so the landowner is not disadvantaged.
They will be paying well over the current market rate. Just not 20 - 100 times the current value.
Fair point. How much over will they be paying? I can't see it from a quick skim of the article.
If it's anything like current CPO's, a miserly amount. Often not enough to compensate an owner for buying a new place and moving (in the case of homeowners).
Ok well I'd like to see a small premium to compensate for the disruption, say 10-20%.
If the land is treated as already having the PP though the premium would 1000%-2000% which is idiotic.
Why is it 'idiotic' ?
What happens if the land increases in value by those amounts (because that's the market rate...), and the council then sells off parcels of it to developers? The council grabs the money that the landowner should have got.
Why should the landowner get it - the land is currently green belt land.
The value is enhanced by the granting of planning permission which is given by the council. Why shouldn’t the council pocket most of the gain?
When you say "the council", what you really mean is the existing residents, who have made the community what it is. And helped define the value of the land.
The alternative is the property speculator - perhaps even a foreigner - who buys up the land and makes a quick profit.
I'm sure some of the multi-generational farmers I know with green belt land will be bemused that they, and their great-grandfathers, are 'property speculators'.
I also LOL at your (shock! horror! addition of ' perhaps even a foreigner')!!! Nice to see what leftists really think of foreigners ...
Hey the farmers may need to purchase a new farm if they wish to continue farming but I suspect they will have more than enough money to make up for the effort required..
The most significant domestic news for today - which I think I'm the only one to mention so far - is Labour publishing plans to grant councils compulsory purchase powers for green belt land, without their being required to pay for excessive planning gain.
That has the potential to shift the dial.
So, legalised theft then? That is shifting the dial somewhat.
No, they'll be paying the current market rate. If the council doesn't buy it, it will never get PP so the landowner is not disadvantaged.
They will be paying well over the current market rate. Just not 20 - 100 times the current value.
Fair point. How much over will they be paying? I can't see it from a quick skim of the article.
If it's anything like current CPO's, a miserly amount. Often not enough to compensate an owner for buying a new place and moving (in the case of homeowners).
Ok well I'd like to see a small premium to compensate for the disruption, say 10-20%.
If the land is treated as already having the PP though the premium would 1000%-2000% which is idiotic.
Why is it 'idiotic' ?
What happens if the land increases in value by those amounts (because that's the market rate...), and the council then sells off parcels of it to developers? The council grabs the money that the landowner should have got.
Why should the landowner get it - the land is currently green belt land.
The value is enhanced by the granting of planning permission which is given by the council. Why shouldn’t the council pocket most of the gain?
The government, especially councils, are skint and people are suggesting a massive windfall goes to rich speculators rather than councils.
Yes, I don't think public opinion is going to fall on the side of landowners. The likelihood is that they'll get some decent windfalls on their land. I can't see many people manning the barricades on their behalf.
That's the thing about good government: they should try and do the right thing, even if doing the wrong thing might be more popular. This is a sig of a very bad government.
Remarkable outrage on here on behalf of the oppressed property speculator who might be unjustly thwarted from realising mahoosive windfalls at the expense of - well, everyone else.
I do actually know one of these guys. Firstly he's immensely rich. Secondly he's totally capable of looking after himself and has an army of lawyers, accountants etc to help him get his way. Thirdly, while I don't hold any grudge against him, I am unaware of him having done anything at all to benefit mankind beyond raking in the millions.
The most significant domestic news for today - which I think I'm the only one to mention so far - is Labour publishing plans to grant councils compulsory purchase powers for green belt land, without their being required to pay for excessive planning gain.
That has the potential to shift the dial.
So, legalised theft then? That is shifting the dial somewhat.
No, they'll be paying the current market rate. If the council doesn't buy it, it will never get PP so the landowner is not disadvantaged.
They will be paying well over the current market rate. Just not 20 - 100 times the current value.
Fair point. How much over will they be paying? I can't see it from a quick skim of the article.
If it's anything like current CPO's, a miserly amount. Often not enough to compensate an owner for buying a new place and moving (in the case of homeowners).
Ok well I'd like to see a small premium to compensate for the disruption, say 10-20%.
If the land is treated as already having the PP though the premium would 1000%-2000% which is idiotic.
Why is it 'idiotic' ?
What happens if the land increases in value by those amounts (because that's the market rate...), and the council then sells off parcels of it to developers? The council grabs the money that the landowner should have got.
Why should the landowner get it - the land is currently green belt land.
The value is enhanced by the granting of planning permission which is given by the council. Why shouldn’t the council pocket most of the gain?
When you say "the council", what you really mean is the existing residents, who have made the community what it is. And helped define the value of the land.
The alternative is the property speculator - perhaps even a foreigner - who buys up the land and makes a quick profit.
It may be a slow profit - there are a lot of tax advantages to owning 50/100 acres of prime farm land that you let to a farmer while waiting for the big pay day of redesignation even before planning permission.
Once Putin is defeated these Ukrainian troops are going to be a hugely valuable source of battlefield wisdom. I hope that NATO embraces Ukraine, and most specifically ensures that the wisdom of these veterans isn't lost.
The most significant domestic news for today - which I think I'm the only one to mention so far - is Labour publishing plans to grant councils compulsory purchase powers for green belt land, without their being required to pay for excessive planning gain.
That has the potential to shift the dial.
So, legalised theft then? That is shifting the dial somewhat.
No, they'll be paying the current market rate. If the council doesn't buy it, it will never get PP so the landowner is not disadvantaged.
They will be paying well over the current market rate. Just not 20 - 100 times the current value.
Fair point. How much over will they be paying? I can't see it from a quick skim of the article.
If it's anything like current CPO's, a miserly amount. Often not enough to compensate an owner for buying a new place and moving (in the case of homeowners).
Ok well I'd like to see a small premium to compensate for the disruption, say 10-20%.
If the land is treated as already having the PP though the premium would 1000%-2000% which is idiotic.
Why is it 'idiotic' ?
What happens if the land increases in value by those amounts (because that's the market rate...), and the council then sells off parcels of it to developers? The council grabs the money that the landowner should have got.
Why should the landowner get it - the land is currently green belt land.
The value is enhanced by the granting of planning permission which is given by the council. Why shouldn’t the council pocket most of the gain?
The government, especially councils, are skint and people are suggesting a massive windfall goes to rich speculators rather than councils.
Yes, I don't think public opinion is going to fall on the side of landowners. The likelihood is that they'll get some decent windfalls on their land. I can't see many people manning the barricades on their behalf.
That's the thing about good government: they should try and do the right thing, even if doing the wrong thing might be more popular. This is a sign of a very bad government.
Remarkable outrage on here on behalf of the oppressed property speculator who might be unjustly thwarted from realising mahoosive windfalls at the expense of - well, everyone else.
I do actually know one of these guys. Firstly he's immensely rich. Secondly he's totally capable of looking after himself and has an army of lawyers, accountants etc to help him get his way. Thirdly, while I don't hold any grudge against him, I am unaware of him having done anything at all to benefit mankind beyond raking in the millions.
What do you do for the affected people who are *not* property speculators?
On the CPO of land at a fixed premium point, it sounds like it might reverse the usual dynamic of private sector / government transactions whereby the taxpayer gets the raw end of the deal.
The most significant domestic news for today - which I think I'm the only one to mention so far - is Labour publishing plans to grant councils compulsory purchase powers for green belt land, without their being required to pay for excessive planning gain.
That has the potential to shift the dial.
So, legalised theft then? That is shifting the dial somewhat.
No, they'll be paying the current market rate. If the council doesn't buy it, it will never get PP so the landowner is not disadvantaged.
They will be paying well over the current market rate. Just not 20 - 100 times the current value.
Fair point. How much over will they be paying? I can't see it from a quick skim of the article.
If it's anything like current CPO's, a miserly amount. Often not enough to compensate an owner for buying a new place and moving (in the case of homeowners).
Ok well I'd like to see a small premium to compensate for the disruption, say 10-20%.
If the land is treated as already having the PP though the premium would 1000%-2000% which is idiotic.
Why is it 'idiotic' ?
What happens if the land increases in value by those amounts (because that's the market rate...), and the council then sells off parcels of it to developers? The council grabs the money that the landowner should have got.
Why should the landowner get it - the land is currently green belt land.
The value is enhanced by the granting of planning permission which is given by the council. Why shouldn’t the council pocket most of the gain?
When you say "the council", what you really mean is the existing residents, who have made the community what it is. And helped define the value of the land.
The alternative is the property speculator - perhaps even a foreigner - who buys up the land and makes a quick profit.
I'm sure some of the multi-generational farmers I know with green belt land will be bemused that they, and their great-grandfathers, are 'property speculators'.
I also LOL at your (shock! horror! addition of ' perhaps even a foreigner')!!! Nice to see what leftists really think of foreigners ...
Hey the farmers may need to purchase a new farm if they wish to continue farming but I suspect they will have more than enough money to make up for the effort required..
No.
AIUI currently CPO for farmland is at market value, with no extra compensation. Which means that even if a farmer can find a suitable area of viable farmland elsewhere to buy (without the price going up...), they've got the massive costs of moving.
And we need farmers. I know a lot of townies (including this government...) are disconnected from the countryside, but we need farmers. It's a shame that so many people on this thread seem to think of them as money-sucking vampires.
The most significant domestic news for today - which I think I'm the only one to mention so far - is Labour publishing plans to grant councils compulsory purchase powers for green belt land, without their being required to pay for excessive planning gain.
That has the potential to shift the dial.
So, legalised theft then? That is shifting the dial somewhat.
No, they'll be paying the current market rate. If the council doesn't buy it, it will never get PP so the landowner is not disadvantaged.
They will be paying well over the current market rate. Just not 20 - 100 times the current value.
Fair point. How much over will they be paying? I can't see it from a quick skim of the article.
If it's anything like current CPO's, a miserly amount. Often not enough to compensate an owner for buying a new place and moving (in the case of homeowners).
Ok well I'd like to see a small premium to compensate for the disruption, say 10-20%.
If the land is treated as already having the PP though the premium would 1000%-2000% which is idiotic.
Why is it 'idiotic' ?
What happens if the land increases in value by those amounts (because that's the market rate...), and the council then sells off parcels of it to developers? The council grabs the money that the landowner should have got.
Why should the landowner get it - the land is currently green belt land.
The value is enhanced by the granting of planning permission which is given by the council. Why shouldn’t the council pocket most of the gain?
The government, especially councils, are skint and people are suggesting a massive windfall goes to rich speculators rather than councils.
Yes, I don't think public opinion is going to fall on the side of landowners. The likelihood is that they'll get some decent windfalls on their land. I can't see many people manning the barricades on their behalf.
That's the thing about good government: they should try and do the right thing, even if doing the wrong thing might be more popular. This is a sig of a very bad government.
I'm at a loss as to what your idea of good government is?
Because it seems to be allowing landowners to charge top dollar for housing reducing the viability of the scheme at a time when we need to build a lot of houses and ideally a lot of houses at a time when building costs have risen to take prices outside the level most people can afford.
RealClearPolitics seem to be lingering on a Republican tint. They lavishly use a republican red, but a sensible blue seems not to feature in their palate.
The most significant domestic news for today - which I think I'm the only one to mention so far - is Labour publishing plans to grant councils compulsory purchase powers for green belt land, without their being required to pay for excessive planning gain.
That has the potential to shift the dial.
So, legalised theft then? That is shifting the dial somewhat.
No, they'll be paying the current market rate. If the council doesn't buy it, it will never get PP so the landowner is not disadvantaged.
They will be paying well over the current market rate. Just not 20 - 100 times the current value.
Fair point. How much over will they be paying? I can't see it from a quick skim of the article.
If it's anything like current CPO's, a miserly amount. Often not enough to compensate an owner for buying a new place and moving (in the case of homeowners).
Ok well I'd like to see a small premium to compensate for the disruption, say 10-20%.
If the land is treated as already having the PP though the premium would 1000%-2000% which is idiotic.
Why is it 'idiotic' ?
What happens if the land increases in value by those amounts (because that's the market rate...), and the council then sells off parcels of it to developers? The council grabs the money that the landowner should have got.
Why should the landowner get it - the land is currently green belt land.
The value is enhanced by the granting of planning permission which is given by the council. Why shouldn’t the council pocket most of the gain?
The government, especially councils, are skint and people are suggesting a massive windfall goes to rich speculators rather than councils.
Yes, I don't think public opinion is going to fall on the side of landowners. The likelihood is that they'll get some decent windfalls on their land. I can't see many people manning the barricades on their behalf.
That's the thing about good government: they should try and do the right thing, even if doing the wrong thing might be more popular. This is a sig of a very bad government.
I'm at a loss as to what your idea of good government is?
Because it seems to be allowing landowners to charge top dollar for housing reducing the viability of the scheme at a time when we need to build a lot of houses and ideally a lot of houses at a time when building costs have risen to take prices outside the level most people can afford.
A good government should try to be fair to everyone. Not look at people with something they want and steal it.
Because it might happen to you. I know you won't own land affected by this, but in other ways.
As I said below: if they put a clause in saying that it only occurs if the land has been sold in (say) the last ten years, then I'd be happier. Or even twenty. But this is plain and simply wrong; as is people assuming that everyone affected will be 'speculators'.
The most significant domestic news for today - which I think I'm the only one to mention so far - is Labour publishing plans to grant councils compulsory purchase powers for green belt land, without their being required to pay for excessive planning gain.
That has the potential to shift the dial.
So, legalised theft then? That is shifting the dial somewhat.
No, they'll be paying the current market rate. If the council doesn't buy it, it will never get PP so the landowner is not disadvantaged.
They will be paying well over the current market rate. Just not 20 - 100 times the current value.
Fair point. How much over will they be paying? I can't see it from a quick skim of the article.
If it's anything like current CPO's, a miserly amount. Often not enough to compensate an owner for buying a new place and moving (in the case of homeowners).
Ok well I'd like to see a small premium to compensate for the disruption, say 10-20%.
If the land is treated as already having the PP though the premium would 1000%-2000% which is idiotic.
Why is it 'idiotic' ?
What happens if the land increases in value by those amounts (because that's the market rate...), and the council then sells off parcels of it to developers? The council grabs the money that the landowner should have got.
Why should the landowner get it - the land is currently green belt land.
The value is enhanced by the granting of planning permission which is given by the council. Why shouldn’t the council pocket most of the gain?
When you say "the council", what you really mean is the existing residents, who have made the community what it is. And helped define the value of the land.
The alternative is the property speculator - perhaps even a foreigner - who buys up the land and makes a quick profit.
I'm sure some of the multi-generational farmers I know with green belt land will be bemused that they, and their great-grandfathers, are 'property speculators'.
I also LOL at your (shock! horror! addition of ' perhaps even a foreigner')!!! Nice to see what leftists really think of foreigners ...
Hey the farmers may need to purchase a new farm if they wish to continue farming but I suspect they will have more than enough money to make up for the effort required..
No.
AIUI currently CPO for farmland is at market value, with no extra compensation. Which means that even if a farmer can find a suitable area of viable farmland elsewhere to buy (without the price going up...), they've got the massive costs of moving.
And we need farmers. I know a lot of townies (including this government...) are disconnected from the countryside, but we need farmers. It's a shame that so many people on this thread seem to think of them as money-sucking vampires.
So this is a consultation - make the obvious point that CPO should be at a reasonable premium above the market value so that the farmer is in a position to start again / retire...
Currently your argument is - the farmer should be able to walk away with millions because his farm happens to be the next few fields need to extend the town...
The most significant domestic news for today - which I think I'm the only one to mention so far - is Labour publishing plans to grant councils compulsory purchase powers for green belt land, without their being required to pay for excessive planning gain.
That has the potential to shift the dial.
So, legalised theft then? That is shifting the dial somewhat.
No, they'll be paying the current market rate. If the council doesn't buy it, it will never get PP so the landowner is not disadvantaged.
They will be paying well over the current market rate. Just not 20 - 100 times the current value.
Fair point. How much over will they be paying? I can't see it from a quick skim of the article.
If it's anything like current CPO's, a miserly amount. Often not enough to compensate an owner for buying a new place and moving (in the case of homeowners).
Ok well I'd like to see a small premium to compensate for the disruption, say 10-20%.
If the land is treated as already having the PP though the premium would 1000%-2000% which is idiotic.
Why is it 'idiotic' ?
What happens if the land increases in value by those amounts (because that's the market rate...), and the council then sells off parcels of it to developers? The council grabs the money that the landowner should have got.
Why should the landowner get it - the land is currently green belt land.
The value is enhanced by the granting of planning permission which is given by the council. Why shouldn’t the council pocket most of the gain?
When you say "the council", what you really mean is the existing residents, who have made the community what it is. And helped define the value of the land.
The alternative is the property speculator - perhaps even a foreigner - who buys up the land and makes a quick profit.
I'm sure some of the multi-generational farmers I know with green belt land will be bemused that they, and their great-grandfathers, are 'property speculators'.
I also LOL at your (shock! horror! addition of ' perhaps even a foreigner')!!! Nice to see what leftists really think of foreigners ...
Hey the farmers may need to purchase a new farm if they wish to continue farming but I suspect they will have more than enough money to make up for the effort required..
You think a family farm is just a business that can be uplifted to another location at a moments notice? Dear me.
The most significant domestic news for today - which I think I'm the only one to mention so far - is Labour publishing plans to grant councils compulsory purchase powers for green belt land, without their being required to pay for excessive planning gain.
That has the potential to shift the dial.
So, legalised theft then? That is shifting the dial somewhat.
No, they'll be paying the current market rate. If the council doesn't buy it, it will never get PP so the landowner is not disadvantaged.
They will be paying well over the current market rate. Just not 20 - 100 times the current value.
Fair point. How much over will they be paying? I can't see it from a quick skim of the article.
If it's anything like current CPO's, a miserly amount. Often not enough to compensate an owner for buying a new place and moving (in the case of homeowners).
Ok well I'd like to see a small premium to compensate for the disruption, say 10-20%.
If the land is treated as already having the PP though the premium would 1000%-2000% which is idiotic.
Why is it 'idiotic' ?
What happens if the land increases in value by those amounts (because that's the market rate...), and the council then sells off parcels of it to developers? The council grabs the money that the landowner should have got.
Why should the landowner get it - the land is currently green belt land.
The value is enhanced by the granting of planning permission which is given by the council. Why shouldn’t the council pocket most of the gain?
When you say "the council", what you really mean is the existing residents, who have made the community what it is. And helped define the value of the land.
The alternative is the property speculator - perhaps even a foreigner - who buys up the land and makes a quick profit.
I'm sure some of the multi-generational farmers I know with green belt land will be bemused that they, and their great-grandfathers, are 'property speculators'.
I also LOL at your (shock! horror! addition of ' perhaps even a foreigner')!!! Nice to see what leftists really think of foreigners ...
Hey the farmers may need to purchase a new farm if they wish to continue farming but I suspect they will have more than enough money to make up for the effort required..
No.
AIUI currently CPO for farmland is at market value, with no extra compensation. Which means that even if a farmer can find a suitable area of viable farmland elsewhere to buy (without the price going up...), they've got the massive costs of moving.
And we need farmers. I know a lot of townies (including this government...) are disconnected from the countryside, but we need farmers. It's a shame that so many people on this thread seem to think of them as money-sucking vampires.
So this is a consultation - make the obvious point that CPO should be at a reasonable premium above the market value so that the farmer is in a position to start again / retire...
Currently your argument is - the farmer should be able to walk away with millions because his farm happens to be the next few fields need to extend the town...
And your argument is - the council, who control the local plan and the planning process, should be able to walk away with millions because they control everything.
The most significant domestic news for today - which I think I'm the only one to mention so far - is Labour publishing plans to grant councils compulsory purchase powers for green belt land, without their being required to pay for excessive planning gain.
That has the potential to shift the dial.
So, legalised theft then? That is shifting the dial somewhat.
No, they'll be paying the current market rate. If the council doesn't buy it, it will never get PP so the landowner is not disadvantaged.
They will be paying well over the current market rate. Just not 20 - 100 times the current value.
Fair point. How much over will they be paying? I can't see it from a quick skim of the article.
If it's anything like current CPO's, a miserly amount. Often not enough to compensate an owner for buying a new place and moving (in the case of homeowners).
Ok well I'd like to see a small premium to compensate for the disruption, say 10-20%.
If the land is treated as already having the PP though the premium would 1000%-2000% which is idiotic.
Why is it 'idiotic' ?
What happens if the land increases in value by those amounts (because that's the market rate...), and the council then sells off parcels of it to developers? The council grabs the money that the landowner should have got.
Why should the landowner get it - the land is currently green belt land.
The value is enhanced by the granting of planning permission which is given by the council. Why shouldn’t the council pocket most of the gain?
The government, especially councils, are skint and people are suggesting a massive windfall goes to rich speculators rather than councils.
Yes, I don't think public opinion is going to fall on the side of landowners. The likelihood is that they'll get some decent windfalls on their land. I can't see many people manning the barricades on their behalf.
That's the thing about good government: they should try and do the right thing, even if doing the wrong thing might be more popular. This is a sig of a very bad government.
Addressing our housing crisis (with action not just words) is both popular and right imo.
The most significant domestic news for today - which I think I'm the only one to mention so far - is Labour publishing plans to grant councils compulsory purchase powers for green belt land, without their being required to pay for excessive planning gain.
That has the potential to shift the dial.
So, legalised theft then? That is shifting the dial somewhat.
No, they'll be paying the current market rate. If the council doesn't buy it, it will never get PP so the landowner is not disadvantaged.
They will be paying well over the current market rate. Just not 20 - 100 times the current value.
Fair point. How much over will they be paying? I can't see it from a quick skim of the article.
If it's anything like current CPO's, a miserly amount. Often not enough to compensate an owner for buying a new place and moving (in the case of homeowners).
Ok well I'd like to see a small premium to compensate for the disruption, say 10-20%.
If the land is treated as already having the PP though the premium would 1000%-2000% which is idiotic.
Why is it 'idiotic' ?
What happens if the land increases in value by those amounts (because that's the market rate...), and the council then sells off parcels of it to developers? The council grabs the money that the landowner should have got.
Why should the landowner get it - the land is currently green belt land.
The value is enhanced by the granting of planning permission which is given by the council. Why shouldn’t the council pocket most of the gain?
When you say "the council", what you really mean is the existing residents, who have made the community what it is. And helped define the value of the land.
The alternative is the property speculator - perhaps even a foreigner - who buys up the land and makes a quick profit.
I'm sure some of the multi-generational farmers I know with green belt land will be bemused that they, and their great-grandfathers, are 'property speculators'.
I also LOL at your (shock! horror! addition of ' perhaps even a foreigner')!!! Nice to see what leftists really think of foreigners ...
Hey the farmers may need to purchase a new farm if they wish to continue farming but I suspect they will have more than enough money to make up for the effort required..
You think a family farm is just a business that can be uplifted to another location at a moments notice? Dear me.
Yes; a remarkable view of farming and their connection with the land. And also a contempt of farmers and farming.
Remarkable outrage on here on behalf of the oppressed property speculator who might be unjustly thwarted from realising mahoosive windfalls at the expense of - well, everyone else.
I do actually know one of these guys. Firstly he's immensely rich. Secondly he's totally capable of looking after himself and has an army of lawyers, accountants etc to help him get his way. Thirdly, while I don't hold any grudge against him, I am unaware of him having done anything at all to benefit mankind beyond raking in the millions.
What do you do for the affected people who are *not* property speculators?
They sold out to the property speculator. They did OK. My acquaintance isn't the Mafia.
The most significant domestic news for today - which I think I'm the only one to mention so far - is Labour publishing plans to grant councils compulsory purchase powers for green belt land, without their being required to pay for excessive planning gain.
That has the potential to shift the dial.
So, legalised theft then? That is shifting the dial somewhat.
No, they'll be paying the current market rate. If the council doesn't buy it, it will never get PP so the landowner is not disadvantaged.
They will be paying well over the current market rate. Just not 20 - 100 times the current value.
Fair point. How much over will they be paying? I can't see it from a quick skim of the article.
If it's anything like current CPO's, a miserly amount. Often not enough to compensate an owner for buying a new place and moving (in the case of homeowners).
Ok well I'd like to see a small premium to compensate for the disruption, say 10-20%.
If the land is treated as already having the PP though the premium would 1000%-2000% which is idiotic.
Why is it 'idiotic' ?
What happens if the land increases in value by those amounts (because that's the market rate...), and the council then sells off parcels of it to developers? The council grabs the money that the landowner should have got.
Why should the landowner get it - the land is currently green belt land.
The value is enhanced by the granting of planning permission which is given by the council. Why shouldn’t the council pocket most of the gain?
The government, especially councils, are skint and people are suggesting a massive windfall goes to rich speculators rather than councils.
Yes, I don't think public opinion is going to fall on the side of landowners. The likelihood is that they'll get some decent windfalls on their land. I can't see many people manning the barricades on their behalf.
That's the thing about good government: they should try and do the right thing, even if doing the wrong thing might be more popular. This is a sig of a very bad government.
Addressing our housing crisis (with action not just words) is both popular and right imo.
But it's not addressing our housing crisis, is it? It's one small part, and one whose effects might be achievable in other ways.
As I said below, if the government put a caveat in that this was only targeted at speculators (by saying the sale had to be within the last decade or two), I'd be happier. Oh, and that would not include inheritance in families.
One of the things that I think aims to be undermined is the ability of big developers with a portfolio of proposals, and serious advisers, and many options, to shaft landowners who do not have large portfolios of land, and play planning chess with Councils.
I brought forward a relatively small package of family land, but enough for a decent sized housing estate.
No developer (we spoke to all the regionals and nationals) would consider it without PP, which required 100k 10 years ago upfront for consultants, fees to get to planning committee and possible appeal, with the possibility of losing all of the 100k to a parish pump political decision.
We got some very good advisers, rolled the dice, and won at Appeal, but received 1/3 of the initially predicted sale price, with an S106 package valued at roughly what we made in the end - so essentially 50:50 benefit for us / Council. Which was a nice pension boost for family members, but not Malaga-with-6-blondes mone.
The tactics of the big developers were FILTHY, including some trying to lay off their potential losses if they made mistakes on us with clawbacks. They were summarily kicked. Others were hard but straight, but still used all the levers they could find. It's about risk vs money tradeoffs, but is esoteric and complex. Even so, the first thing done was to change the development to strip out cost, starting with densification.
The fact that Planning Permission turns into a pumpkin after 3 years (requires another 100k for another try, as Planners put an expiry date on reports and want another full set), makes it a game of poker with a time limit. That cost us about 25%.
It's very much a big boys game at present. A lot of landowners who are not as big as developers with similar weight (think land portfolio owners, estates or say the Church Commissioners for the biggies) will welcome a more orderly process.
If the process is less laden with risk and unpredictability, a *lot* of smaller landowners (say single famers or grandma's smallholding owners who are currently sitting on it waiting) will come forward.
Remarkable outrage on here on behalf of the oppressed property speculator who might be unjustly thwarted from realising mahoosive windfalls at the expense of - well, everyone else.
I do actually know one of these guys. Firstly he's immensely rich. Secondly he's totally capable of looking after himself and has an army of lawyers, accountants etc to help him get his way. Thirdly, while I don't hold any grudge against him, I am unaware of him having done anything at all to benefit mankind beyond raking in the millions.
What do you do for the affected people who are *not* property speculators?
They sold out to the property speculator. They did OK. My acquaintance isn't the Mafia.
????
I'm talking about people who own land who did not sell out to speculators.
I know a fair few people who are in that position, and who are not rich. Many farmers are not, you know, even when they own their land.
The most significant domestic news for today - which I think I'm the only one to mention so far - is Labour publishing plans to grant councils compulsory purchase powers for green belt land, without their being required to pay for excessive planning gain.
That has the potential to shift the dial.
So, legalised theft then? That is shifting the dial somewhat.
No, they'll be paying the current market rate. If the council doesn't buy it, it will never get PP so the landowner is not disadvantaged.
They will be paying well over the current market rate. Just not 20 - 100 times the current value.
Fair point. How much over will they be paying? I can't see it from a quick skim of the article.
If it's anything like current CPO's, a miserly amount. Often not enough to compensate an owner for buying a new place and moving (in the case of homeowners).
Ok well I'd like to see a small premium to compensate for the disruption, say 10-20%.
If the land is treated as already having the PP though the premium would 1000%-2000% which is idiotic.
Why is it 'idiotic' ?
What happens if the land increases in value by those amounts (because that's the market rate...), and the council then sells off parcels of it to developers? The council grabs the money that the landowner should have got.
Why should the landowner get it - the land is currently green belt land.
The value is enhanced by the granting of planning permission which is given by the council. Why shouldn’t the council pocket most of the gain?
The government, especially councils, are skint and people are suggesting a massive windfall goes to rich speculators rather than councils.
Yes, I don't think public opinion is going to fall on the side of landowners. The likelihood is that they'll get some decent windfalls on their land. I can't see many people manning the barricades on their behalf.
That's the thing about good government: they should try and do the right thing, even if doing the wrong thing might be more popular. This is a sig of a very bad government.
I'm at a loss as to what your idea of good government is?
Because it seems to be allowing landowners to charge top dollar for housing reducing the viability of the scheme at a time when we need to build a lot of houses and ideally a lot of houses at a time when building costs have risen to take prices outside the level most people can afford.
Good government is not stealing someones land in a way that benefits the Government but adversely affects the landowner. I know you are a socialist with all the guff about 'all property is theft' but most of us don't believe that and think that if the state is going to inconvenicence us then they should not be allowed to leave us out of pocket whilst doing it.
I mean for Christ's sake, even the French get this.
Off topic: One more thought about the Olympics, this one from Dr. Leanna Wen: "For swimming fans like me, the Paris Olympics will be remembered for American Katie Ledecky becoming the most decorated female swimmer of all time and for hometown favorite Léon Marchand animating France with his four gold medal performances.
The most significant domestic news for today - which I think I'm the only one to mention so far - is Labour publishing plans to grant councils compulsory purchase powers for green belt land, without their being required to pay for excessive planning gain.
That has the potential to shift the dial.
So, legalised theft then? That is shifting the dial somewhat.
No, they'll be paying the current market rate. If the council doesn't buy it, it will never get PP so the landowner is not disadvantaged.
They will be paying well over the current market rate. Just not 20 - 100 times the current value.
Fair point. How much over will they be paying? I can't see it from a quick skim of the article.
If it's anything like current CPO's, a miserly amount. Often not enough to compensate an owner for buying a new place and moving (in the case of homeowners).
Ok well I'd like to see a small premium to compensate for the disruption, say 10-20%.
If the land is treated as already having the PP though the premium would 1000%-2000% which is idiotic.
Why is it 'idiotic' ?
What happens if the land increases in value by those amounts (because that's the market rate...), and the council then sells off parcels of it to developers? The council grabs the money that the landowner should have got.
Why should the landowner get it - the land is currently green belt land.
The value is enhanced by the granting of planning permission which is given by the council. Why shouldn’t the council pocket most of the gain?
The government, especially councils, are skint and people are suggesting a massive windfall goes to rich speculators rather than councils.
Yes, I don't think public opinion is going to fall on the side of landowners. The likelihood is that they'll get some decent windfalls on their land. I can't see many people manning the barricades on their behalf.
That's the thing about good government: they should try and do the right thing, even if doing the wrong thing might be more popular. This is a sign of a very bad government.
We'll have to agree to disagree.
So you disagree with what JJ said. I assume you therefore believe that Government should not try to do the right thing and should in fact do the wrong thing so long as they can get away with it. That is the direct implication of your comment.
The most significant domestic news for today - which I think I'm the only one to mention so far - is Labour publishing plans to grant councils compulsory purchase powers for green belt land, without their being required to pay for excessive planning gain.
That has the potential to shift the dial.
So, legalised theft then? That is shifting the dial somewhat.
No, they'll be paying the current market rate. If the council doesn't buy it, it will never get PP so the landowner is not disadvantaged.
They will be paying well over the current market rate. Just not 20 - 100 times the current value.
Fair point. How much over will they be paying? I can't see it from a quick skim of the article.
If it's anything like current CPO's, a miserly amount. Often not enough to compensate an owner for buying a new place and moving (in the case of homeowners).
Ok well I'd like to see a small premium to compensate for the disruption, say 10-20%.
If the land is treated as already having the PP though the premium would 1000%-2000% which is idiotic.
Why is it 'idiotic' ?
What happens if the land increases in value by those amounts (because that's the market rate...), and the council then sells off parcels of it to developers? The council grabs the money that the landowner should have got.
Why should the landowner get it - the land is currently green belt land.
The value is enhanced by the granting of planning permission which is given by the council. Why shouldn’t the council pocket most of the gain?
The government, especially councils, are skint and people are suggesting a massive windfall goes to rich speculators rather than councils.
Yes, I don't think public opinion is going to fall on the side of landowners. The likelihood is that they'll get some decent windfalls on their land. I can't see many people manning the barricades on their behalf.
That's the thing about good government: they should try and do the right thing, even if doing the wrong thing might be more popular. This is a sig of a very bad government.
I'm at a loss as to what your idea of good government is?
Because it seems to be allowing landowners to charge top dollar for housing reducing the viability of the scheme at a time when we need to build a lot of houses and ideally a lot of houses at a time when building costs have risen to take prices outside the level most people can afford.
Good government is not stealing someones land in a way that benefits the Government but adversely affects the landowner. I know you are a socialist with all the guff about 'all property is theft' but most of us don't believe that and think that if the state is going to inconvenicence us then they should not be allowed to leave us out of pocket whilst doing it.
I mean for Christ's sake, even the French get this.
As I see it, the interest in the Planning Gain substantially belongs to the community expressed through the Council, and the terms of trade need some adjustment, and interests some realignment.
Remarkable outrage on here on behalf of the oppressed property speculator who might be unjustly thwarted from realising mahoosive windfalls at the expense of - well, everyone else.
I do actually know one of these guys. Firstly he's immensely rich. Secondly he's totally capable of looking after himself and has an army of lawyers, accountants etc to help him get his way. Thirdly, while I don't hold any grudge against him, I am unaware of him having done anything at all to benefit mankind beyond raking in the millions.
What do you do for the affected people who are *not* property speculators?
They sold out to the property speculator. They did OK. My acquaintance isn't the Mafia.
????
I'm talking about people who own land who did not sell out to speculators.
I know a fair few people who are in that position, and who are not rich. Many farmers are not, you know, even when they own their land.
They are not necessarily rich, but I'm not sure what your point is. That if they haven't sold out individual farmers should be able to claim a windfall of many times what the land is worth but professional speculators not?
The most significant domestic news for today - which I think I'm the only one to mention so far - is Labour publishing plans to grant councils compulsory purchase powers for green belt land, without their being required to pay for excessive planning gain.
That has the potential to shift the dial.
So, legalised theft then? That is shifting the dial somewhat.
No, they'll be paying the current market rate. If the council doesn't buy it, it will never get PP so the landowner is not disadvantaged.
They will be paying well over the current market rate. Just not 20 - 100 times the current value.
Fair point. How much over will they be paying? I can't see it from a quick skim of the article.
If it's anything like current CPO's, a miserly amount. Often not enough to compensate an owner for buying a new place and moving (in the case of homeowners).
Ok well I'd like to see a small premium to compensate for the disruption, say 10-20%.
If the land is treated as already having the PP though the premium would 1000%-2000% which is idiotic.
Why is it 'idiotic' ?
What happens if the land increases in value by those amounts (because that's the market rate...), and the council then sells off parcels of it to developers? The council grabs the money that the landowner should have got.
Why should the landowner get it - the land is currently green belt land.
The value is enhanced by the granting of planning permission which is given by the council. Why shouldn’t the council pocket most of the gain?
The government, especially councils, are skint and people are suggesting a massive windfall goes to rich speculators rather than councils.
Yes, I don't think public opinion is going to fall on the side of landowners. The likelihood is that they'll get some decent windfalls on their land. I can't see many people manning the barricades on their behalf.
That's the thing about good government: they should try and do the right thing, even if doing the wrong thing might be more popular. This is a sig of a very bad government.
I'm at a loss as to what your idea of good government is?
Because it seems to be allowing landowners to charge top dollar for housing reducing the viability of the scheme at a time when we need to build a lot of houses and ideally a lot of houses at a time when building costs have risen to take prices outside the level most people can afford.
One of the podcasts I listen to is The Expert Factor (Paul Johnson of the IFS, Hannah White of IofG and Anand Menon from UK in a Changing Europe). I recent episode was on Housing with Toby Lloyd as a guest expert.
1. To unleash a wave of New Civic Housebuilding across England: • Masterplan new high quality suburbs, urban regenerations and settlements. Give city-regions and combined authorities the power to create New Home Zones where land can be bought at its existing use value plus a compensation. – New Home Zones should be included as form of nationally significant infrastructure under the NSIP regime. – Compensation for landowners under the 1961 Land Compensation Act should be amended to reduce the cost of land in these schemes to a level which reflects its existing use value plus compensation. – Section 106 and CIL should not apply to these sites, as they will have planned in the use of the planning gain from the start. - Deliver these new communities through development vehicles, such as Development Corporations, with powers of land acquisition and assembly. The Corporations will act as master- developer: giving landowners the opportunity to invest their land as equity, putting in basic infrastructure, and selling serviced plots to local builders, housing associations, self-builders, Build to Rent providers and others. - Allow Neighbourhood Exception Sites to be allocated in Neighbourhood Plans, based on the rural exception site model, for small housing sites not already allocated in the Local Plan. Neighbourhood Fora could specify aspects of design for the sites, and they would have to provide as many permanently affordable homes as possible. Neighbourhood Exception Sites should be allowed on green belt sites with no environmental protection status. • Public land should be invested into partnerships to deliver both long term revenues for the public sector and high quality, locally affordable housing schemes, rather than being sold for the highest price to speculative developers.
The most significant domestic news for today - which I think I'm the only one to mention so far - is Labour publishing plans to grant councils compulsory purchase powers for green belt land, without their being required to pay for excessive planning gain.
That has the potential to shift the dial.
So, legalised theft then? That is shifting the dial somewhat.
No, they'll be paying the current market rate. If the council doesn't buy it, it will never get PP so the landowner is not disadvantaged.
They will be paying well over the current market rate. Just not 20 - 100 times the current value.
Fair point. How much over will they be paying? I can't see it from a quick skim of the article.
If it's anything like current CPO's, a miserly amount. Often not enough to compensate an owner for buying a new place and moving (in the case of homeowners).
Ok well I'd like to see a small premium to compensate for the disruption, say 10-20%.
If the land is treated as already having the PP though the premium would 1000%-2000% which is idiotic.
Why is it 'idiotic' ?
What happens if the land increases in value by those amounts (because that's the market rate...), and the council then sells off parcels of it to developers? The council grabs the money that the landowner should have got.
Why should the landowner get it - the land is currently green belt land.
The value is enhanced by the granting of planning permission which is given by the council. Why shouldn’t the council pocket most of the gain?
The government, especially councils, are skint and people are suggesting a massive windfall goes to rich speculators rather than councils.
The 'rich speculators' is a red herring. The majority of people the councils will be stealing from will be long-term farmers.
*If* the government put a caveat on their plans like: "Any land that has been sold in the last ten years..." then I'd be more ready to accept it. But it doesn't sound as if they have. and have put the 'speculators' line in to make it sound more acceptable.
I dont really care who it is going to. If a government planning policy change creates a windfall in the tens of billions, I prefer the government getting most of that windfall. It is just common sense. The landowners will still be better off than if the change didn't happen.
On the land purchase thing. There, *already* in a law, the ability for a Council to ask the Sec. State to reduce/eliminate the estimated gain for planning permission in the case of projects involving education, social housing or health. For a compulsory purchase.
The most significant domestic news for today - which I think I'm the only one to mention so far - is Labour publishing plans to grant councils compulsory purchase powers for green belt land, without their being required to pay for excessive planning gain.
That has the potential to shift the dial.
So, legalised theft then? That is shifting the dial somewhat.
No, they'll be paying the current market rate. If the council doesn't buy it, it will never get PP so the landowner is not disadvantaged.
They will be paying well over the current market rate. Just not 20 - 100 times the current value.
Fair point. How much over will they be paying? I can't see it from a quick skim of the article.
If it's anything like current CPO's, a miserly amount. Often not enough to compensate an owner for buying a new place and moving (in the case of homeowners).
Ok well I'd like to see a small premium to compensate for the disruption, say 10-20%.
If the land is treated as already having the PP though the premium would 1000%-2000% which is idiotic.
Why is it 'idiotic' ?
What happens if the land increases in value by those amounts (because that's the market rate...), and the council then sells off parcels of it to developers? The council grabs the money that the landowner should have got.
Why should the landowner get it - the land is currently green belt land.
The value is enhanced by the granting of planning permission which is given by the council. Why shouldn’t the council pocket most of the gain?
The government, especially councils, are skint and people are suggesting a massive windfall goes to rich speculators rather than councils.
Yes, I don't think public opinion is going to fall on the side of landowners. The likelihood is that they'll get some decent windfalls on their land. I can't see many people manning the barricades on their behalf.
That's the thing about good government: they should try and do the right thing, even if doing the wrong thing might be more popular. This is a sign of a very bad government.
We'll have to agree to disagree.
So you disagree with what JJ said. I assume you therefore believe that Government should not try to do the right thing and should in fact do the wrong thing so long as they can get away with it. That is the direct implication of your comment.
No, I think in this case they are doing the right thing.
Though clearly we'll have to wait for the details post consultation to be certain of our respective opinions.
"Two women admit being 'agitators' in disorder outside Manchester hotel
Two women have admitted to being "agitators" in disorder outside a hotel housing asylum seekers in Manchester on 31 July. Tracy Pearson, 53, and Michelle Jibson, 45, pleaded guilty to violent disorder during the incident. After being remanded into custody, Pearson shouted over the judge: "Don't care. Freedom of speech is gone. Joke.""
On the land purchase thing. There, *already* in a law, the ability for a Council to ask the Sec. State to reduce/eliminate the estimated gain for planning permission in the case of projects involving education, social housing or health. For a compulsory purchase.
Ukraine military chief in Kursk says that his army are now holding around 1,000 sq km of Russian territory in the region, following more progress made over the weekend. Russian officials are hurriedly evacuating tens of thousands of civilians.
The government doesn't need to compulsorily purchase green belt land. It just needs to issue planning permission more readily for existing green belt land and let either the private or public sector build on it.
I accept there are some rare instances where compulsory purchase is necessary (major rail lines, for example), but building in an area where the main current obstacle is the government's own planning rules is definitely not one of them.
The most significant domestic news for today - which I think I'm the only one to mention so far - is Labour publishing plans to grant councils compulsory purchase powers for green belt land, without their being required to pay for excessive planning gain.
That has the potential to shift the dial.
So effectively the council gets to expropriate the planning gain for itself?
Some of it, yes. Which is the only way our semi-bankrupt local authorities will be able to afford development.
Give it planning permission and let the owners sell on the open market. The government will get CGT which they can give to the local authorities
That would be fine if you want development some time in the late 2030s.
I don't think it's about expropriating planning gain - they already get about £7bn - £10bn a year of that through S106, CIL commuted sums etc, though developers play endless games of planning and legal chess to undermine the gain.
Although an extra slice for Local Government funding to help recovery and capacity building after 15 years of starvation funding is needed.
It's more about creating
1 - A controllable process that cannot be gamed so easily. 2 - A process which will undermine incentives for Councils to pander to NIMBYs - so creating an aligned process rather than political war.
Pass and I don't think she will have a considered view for a while. Remember she's a national park planner - that has very different criteria for what is acceptable..
Cheers.
I've posted a fairly candid account of my big project in a separate comment. The MRTPI we employed was very high powered and quite expensive who was an representative or expert at High Court level multiple times per year, and I have a lot of practical domain knowledge - starting with a dad who was a Town Architect then in Private Practise, and a lifelong interest in planning law and practice - plus 20 years around self-builders.
I feel this Government *may* get this about right, or at least knock out a lot of the stakeholders whose interests do not align.
But independent professionals and capacity building at Council Level will be crucial.
The most significant domestic news for today - which I think I'm the only one to mention so far - is Labour publishing plans to grant councils compulsory purchase powers for green belt land, without their being required to pay for excessive planning gain.
That has the potential to shift the dial.
So, legalised theft then? That is shifting the dial somewhat.
No, they'll be paying the current market rate. If the council doesn't buy it, it will never get PP so the landowner is not disadvantaged.
They will be paying well over the current market rate. Just not 20 - 100 times the current value.
Fair point. How much over will they be paying? I can't see it from a quick skim of the article.
If it's anything like current CPO's, a miserly amount. Often not enough to compensate an owner for buying a new place and moving (in the case of homeowners).
Ok well I'd like to see a small premium to compensate for the disruption, say 10-20%.
If the land is treated as already having the PP though the premium would 1000%-2000% which is idiotic.
Why is it 'idiotic' ?
What happens if the land increases in value by those amounts (because that's the market rate...), and the council then sells off parcels of it to developers? The council grabs the money that the landowner should have got.
Why should the landowner get it - the land is currently green belt land.
The value is enhanced by the granting of planning permission which is given by the council. Why shouldn’t the council pocket most of the gain?
The government, especially councils, are skint and people are suggesting a massive windfall goes to rich speculators rather than councils.
Yes, I don't think public opinion is going to fall on the side of landowners. The likelihood is that they'll get some decent windfalls on their land. I can't see many people manning the barricades on their behalf.
That's the thing about good government: they should try and do the right thing, even if doing the wrong thing might be more popular. This is a sign of a very bad government.
We'll have to agree to disagree.
So you disagree with what JJ said. I assume you therefore believe that Government should not try to do the right thing and should in fact do the wrong thing so long as they can get away with it. That is the direct implication of your comment.
No, I think in this case they are doing the right thing.
Though clearly we'll have to wait for the details post consultation to be certain of our respective opinions.
An interesting facet of this policy is that hard-pressed councils may not have much green belt within their jurisdiction. Birmingham, for example, has covered every inch of its grubby footprint with concrete and bricks and there's a stark transition to open Arden countryside when entering Warks or Worcs. Will a council be allowed (indeed, encouraged) to invade a neighbouring authority to build houses? And who would receive the council tax?
The government doesn't need to compulsorily purchase green belt land. It just needs to issue planning permission more readily for existing green belt land and let either the private or public sector build on it.
I accept there are some rare instances where compulsory purchase is necessary (major rail lines, for example), but building in an area where the main current obstacle is the government's own planning rules is definitely not one of them.
If local authorities are going to be able to provide the infrastructure required for any substantial developments, then it definitely is.
The most significant domestic news for today - which I think I'm the only one to mention so far - is Labour publishing plans to grant councils compulsory purchase powers for green belt land, without their being required to pay for excessive planning gain.
That has the potential to shift the dial.
So, legalised theft then? That is shifting the dial somewhat.
No, they'll be paying the current market rate. If the council doesn't buy it, it will never get PP so the landowner is not disadvantaged.
They will be paying well over the current market rate. Just not 20 - 100 times the current value.
Fair point. How much over will they be paying? I can't see it from a quick skim of the article.
If it's anything like current CPO's, a miserly amount. Often not enough to compensate an owner for buying a new place and moving (in the case of homeowners).
Ok well I'd like to see a small premium to compensate for the disruption, say 10-20%.
If the land is treated as already having the PP though the premium would 1000%-2000% which is idiotic.
Why is it 'idiotic' ?
What happens if the land increases in value by those amounts (because that's the market rate...), and the council then sells off parcels of it to developers? The council grabs the money that the landowner should have got.
Why should the landowner get it - the land is currently green belt land.
The value is enhanced by the granting of planning permission which is given by the council. Why shouldn’t the council pocket most of the gain?
The government, especially councils, are skint and people are suggesting a massive windfall goes to rich speculators rather than councils.
Yes, I don't think public opinion is going to fall on the side of landowners. The likelihood is that they'll get some decent windfalls on their land. I can't see many people manning the barricades on their behalf.
That's the thing about good government: they should try and do the right thing, even if doing the wrong thing might be more popular. This is a sig of a very bad government.
I'm at a loss as to what your idea of good government is?
Because it seems to be allowing landowners to charge top dollar for housing reducing the viability of the scheme at a time when we need to build a lot of houses and ideally a lot of houses at a time when building costs have risen to take prices outside the level most people can afford.
Good government is not stealing someones land in a way that benefits the Government but adversely affects the landowner. I know you are a socialist with all the guff about 'all property is theft' but most of us don't believe that and think that if the state is going to inconvenicence us then they should not be allowed to leave us out of pocket whilst doing it.
I mean for Christ's sake, even the French get this.
As I see it, the interest in the Planning Gain substantially belongs to the community expressed through the Council, and the terms of trade need some adjustment, and interests some realignment.
A CPO should really be reserved for critical infrastructure, not a few red boxes of dubious value.
The state doing things by force should be avoided unless there is no alternative.
A windfall tax seems fair, though. So, offer 150% or 200% of land value. Take it, or don't.
"Two women admit being 'agitators' in disorder outside Manchester hotel
Two women have admitted to being "agitators" in disorder outside a hotel housing asylum seekers in Manchester on 31 July. Tracy Pearson, 53, and Michelle Jibson, 45, pleaded guilty to violent disorder during the incident. After being remanded into custody, Pearson shouted over the judge: "Don't care. Freedom of speech is gone. Joke.""
This would be good for everyone, and a lot cheaper for all those americans badgered to pony up cash all the time
Did Kamala accidentally stumble into a new model for a very short campaign? What if the a party pushed all the primaries into the weeks before the convention? The long American campaigns have a real downside. https://nitter.poast.org/semaforben/status/1823009761375277338#m
"Two women admit being 'agitators' in disorder outside Manchester hotel
Two women have admitted to being "agitators" in disorder outside a hotel housing asylum seekers in Manchester on 31 July. Tracy Pearson, 53, and Michelle Jibson, 45, pleaded guilty to violent disorder during the incident. After being remanded into custody, Pearson shouted over the judge: "Don't care. Freedom of speech is gone. Joke.""
"Two women admit being 'agitators' in disorder outside Manchester hotel
Two women have admitted to being "agitators" in disorder outside a hotel housing asylum seekers in Manchester on 31 July. Tracy Pearson, 53, and Michelle Jibson, 45, pleaded guilty to violent disorder during the incident. After being remanded into custody, Pearson shouted over the judge: "Don't care. Freedom of speech is gone. Joke.""
One of the things that I think aims to be undermined is the ability of big developers with a portfolio of proposals, and serious advisers, and many options, to shaft landowners who do not have large portfolios of land, and play planning chess with Councils.
I brought forward a relatively small package of family land, but enough for a decent sized housing estate.
No developer (we spoke to all the regionals and nationals) would consider it without PP, which required 100k 10 years ago upfront for consultants, fees to get to planning committee and possible appeal, with the possibility of losing all of the 100k to a parish pump political decision.
We got some very good advisers, rolled the dice, and won at Appeal, but received 1/3 of the initially predicted sale price, with an S106 package valued at roughly what we made in the end - so essentially 50:50 benefit for us / Council. Which was a nice pension boost for family members, but not Malaga-with-6-blondes mone.
The tactics of the big developers were FILTHY, including some trying to lay off their potential losses if they made mistakes on us with clawbacks. They were summarily kicked. Others were hard but straight, but still used all the levers they could find. It's about risk vs money tradeoffs, but is esoteric and complex. Even so, the first thing done was to change the development to strip out cost, starting with densification.
The fact that Planning Permission turns into a pumpkin after 3 years (requires another 100k for another try, as Planners put an expiry date on reports and want another full set), makes it a game of poker with a time limit. That cost us about 25%.
It's very much a big boys game at present. A lot of landowners who are not as big as developers with similar weight (think land portfolio owners, estates or say the Church Commissioners for the biggies) will welcome a more orderly process.
If the process is less laden with risk and unpredictability, a *lot* of smaller landowners (say single famers or grandma's smallholding owners who are currently sitting on it waiting) will come forward.
Interesting you say that planning permission has a time limit. Not on the jobs I have been concerned with it doesn't. I know of companies sitting on land for a decade or more with planning permission and not having any time limit on it. All they had to do to say works had started was put a drop kerb in at the roadside.
“An 11-year-old girl has been taken to hospital after she and her mother were stabbed by a stranger in the West End.
“The Metropolitan Police said its officers went to the scene of a stabbing in Leicester Square, London, on Monday where the girl and a 34-year-old were attacked.
“The force said a man had been arrested and was in custody. Police do not believe the suspect knew the victims and said they did not believe the attack to be terror-related.”
The most significant domestic news for today - which I think I'm the only one to mention so far - is Labour publishing plans to grant councils compulsory purchase powers for green belt land, without their being required to pay for excessive planning gain.
That has the potential to shift the dial.
So, legalised theft then? That is shifting the dial somewhat.
No, they'll be paying the current market rate. If the council doesn't buy it, it will never get PP so the landowner is not disadvantaged.
They will be paying well over the current market rate. Just not 20 - 100 times the current value.
Fair point. How much over will they be paying? I can't see it from a quick skim of the article.
If it's anything like current CPO's, a miserly amount. Often not enough to compensate an owner for buying a new place and moving (in the case of homeowners).
Ok well I'd like to see a small premium to compensate for the disruption, say 10-20%.
If the land is treated as already having the PP though the premium would 1000%-2000% which is idiotic.
Why is it 'idiotic' ?
What happens if the land increases in value by those amounts (because that's the market rate...), and the council then sells off parcels of it to developers? The council grabs the money that the landowner should have got.
Why should the landowner get it - the land is currently green belt land.
The value is enhanced by the granting of planning permission which is given by the council. Why shouldn’t the council pocket most of the gain?
The government, especially councils, are skint and people are suggesting a massive windfall goes to rich speculators rather than councils.
Yes, I don't think public opinion is going to fall on the side of landowners. The likelihood is that they'll get some decent windfalls on their land. I can't see many people manning the barricades on their behalf.
That's the thing about good government: they should try and do the right thing, even if doing the wrong thing might be more popular. This is a sig of a very bad government.
I'm at a loss as to what your idea of good government is?
Because it seems to be allowing landowners to charge top dollar for housing reducing the viability of the scheme at a time when we need to build a lot of houses and ideally a lot of houses at a time when building costs have risen to take prices outside the level most people can afford.
Good government is not stealing someones land in a way that benefits the Government but adversely affects the landowner. I know you are a socialist with all the guff about 'all property is theft' but most of us don't believe that and think that if the state is going to inconvenicence us then they should not be allowed to leave us out of pocket whilst doing it.
I mean for Christ's sake, even the French get this.
As I see it, the interest in the Planning Gain substantially belongs to the community expressed through the Council, and the terms of trade need some adjustment, and interests some realignment.
A CPO should really be reserved for critical infrastructure, not a few red boxes of dubious value.
The state doing things by force should be avoided unless there is no alternative.
A windfall tax seems fair, though. So, offer 150% or 200% of land value. Take it, or don't.
Our history is that we use master planning and larger coordinating bodies where we consider it necessary. I'd say that the practice in more recent times is perhaps the anomaly.
And we don't know that CPO will be used for "a few houses".
We use CPO all over the shop for eg tiny strips to make a roundabout bigger which is not "critical", so I don't see the problem around housing developments within a deliberate local plan process. I'll be interested to see what the tests are for significance.
I feel like I've been hearing about pubs closing in numbers my entire adult life. I'm sure it is true, and there were just that many pubs around previously, but it doesn't really have an impact. It's nice to have them, people may regret losing quite so many, but is it a tragedy if people enjoy doing other things?
I can say that I used to pass 6 pubs on my 1 mile journey home, and now I pass 3 (2 have been turned into housing, the third is seeking to be turned into housing).
The most significant domestic news for today - which I think I'm the only one to mention so far - is Labour publishing plans to grant councils compulsory purchase powers for green belt land, without their being required to pay for excessive planning gain.
That has the potential to shift the dial.
So, legalised theft then? That is shifting the dial somewhat.
No, they'll be paying the current market rate. If the council doesn't buy it, it will never get PP so the landowner is not disadvantaged.
They will be paying well over the current market rate. Just not 20 - 100 times the current value.
Fair point. How much over will they be paying? I can't see it from a quick skim of the article.
If it's anything like current CPO's, a miserly amount. Often not enough to compensate an owner for buying a new place and moving (in the case of homeowners).
Ok well I'd like to see a small premium to compensate for the disruption, say 10-20%.
If the land is treated as already having the PP though the premium would 1000%-2000% which is idiotic.
Why is it 'idiotic' ?
What happens if the land increases in value by those amounts (because that's the market rate...), and the council then sells off parcels of it to developers? The council grabs the money that the landowner should have got.
Why should the landowner get it - the land is currently green belt land.
The value is enhanced by the granting of planning permission which is given by the council. Why shouldn’t the council pocket most of the gain?
The government, especially councils, are skint and people are suggesting a massive windfall goes to rich speculators rather than councils.
Yes, I don't think public opinion is going to fall on the side of landowners. The likelihood is that they'll get some decent windfalls on their land. I can't see many people manning the barricades on their behalf.
That's the thing about good government: they should try and do the right thing, even if doing the wrong thing might be more popular. This is a sig of a very bad government.
I'm at a loss as to what your idea of good government is?
Because it seems to be allowing landowners to charge top dollar for housing reducing the viability of the scheme at a time when we need to build a lot of houses and ideally a lot of houses at a time when building costs have risen to take prices outside the level most people can afford.
Good government is not stealing someones land in a way that benefits the Government but adversely affects the landowner. I know you are a socialist with all the guff about 'all property is theft' but most of us don't believe that and think that if the state is going to inconvenicence us then they should not be allowed to leave us out of pocket whilst doing it.
I mean for Christ's sake, even the French get this.
Crudely, it's all about a number, isn't it?
The ratio between the value of pure farmland and farmland with planning permission is massive at the moment. That gap is one of the things gumming up the building of houses.
According to Wikipedia, the first generation of New Towns nabbed all that differential, which paid for the infrastructure. At present, the owner of the land (who may or may not be the farmer) gets a very large slice- possibly so large that most developments can't happen and so the land stays as farmland.
Question is whether there's a fraction somewhere between those two limits that serves everyone better. Personally, I'd be surprised if there wasn't.
I guess this means no torrent of posts on this one from Leon. Phew indeed! That would have been hard yards.
There are further, more complicating details - ignored by this tweet - but as I am a master of restraint and also do not want to be banned, I shall spare you
The government doesn't need to compulsorily purchase green belt land. It just needs to issue planning permission more readily for existing green belt land and let either the private or public sector build on it.
I accept there are some rare instances where compulsory purchase is necessary (major rail lines, for example), but building in an area where the main current obstacle is the government's own planning rules is definitely not one of them.
If local authorities are going to be able to provide the infrastructure required for any substantial developments, then it definitely is.
No it isn't. There are myriad ways to raise funds. Compulsory purchase is not the sole solution.
For instance, you could approve planning permission of green belt land subject to an agreed infrastructure levy to compensate the council for the cost incurred there. That would avoid the 'forced purchase' part, while creating opportunities for house building in the public and private sector equally.
Ukraine military chief in Kursk says that his army are now holding around 1,000 sq km of Russian territory in the region, following more progress made over the weekend. Russian officials are hurriedly evacuating tens of thousands of civilians.
Comments
Historically compulsory purchase has been at generous prices because by definition it is not a willing buyer/willing seller deal
Councils will make a massive amount of money from this - a cute way to rebuild their balance sheets but little better than the Peronistas in Argentina
Ok, this may be taking "domestic" to a fairly extreme length.
If they issue a CPO the probability approaches 100%. If they don’t it approaches zero.
I am quite interested that the far-ish right-ish Musk-ish Usonians who are all over twitter demanding that arrests for sentences for incitement to violent disorder or whatever they are for are all about "arrests for social media posts", which is exactly the same type of claim made by Chris Packham and the sleb chorus about Roger Hallam being locked up for 'talking online about holding a peaceful protest on the M25'.
I'd call it the same sort of brain worm on both extremes, and I have very little tolerance for either version of the same rhetorical tactic.
My proposal would be for councils to charge 50% of the land value uplift for the the grant of PP. So if you have an acre of land worth £20k without PP and £500k with, the fee for the grant of PP should be £240k. That would help with council finances.
The options are the landowners get nothing, or they get a decent profit but less than current market rates.
Its effectively another windfall tax, and that is what we are left with given our economy and politics.
..The prime minister’s spokesperson confirmed that the government was consulting on plans to cap the amount landowners could receive, and said it would provide more details after the consultation closes...
If the land is treated as already having the PP though the premium would 1000%-2000% which is idiotic.
I said back then that it would be one of the few ways in which they might manufacture sufficient capital to do anything more than tinker at the edges of local authority finances. Or kick start large housing development.
It seems as though they might actually give it a serious shot.
The farmer is getting a significant uplift allowing him to move elsewhere if he wants to.
The only people losing out would be those who had paid over the odds in the hope of a future windfall from planning permission..
If anything is going to be done in this parliament, then it's pretty well the only way it happens.
What happens if the land increases in value by those amounts (because that's the market rate...), and the council then sells off parcels of it to developers? The council grabs the money that the landowner should have got.
Although an extra slice for Local Government funding to help recovery and capacity building after 15 years of starvation funding is needed.
It's more about creating
1 - A controllable process that cannot be gamed so easily.
2 - A process which will undermine incentives for Councils to pander to NIMBYs - so creating an aligned process rather than political war.
What Mrs @eek think?
The value is enhanced by the granting of planning permission which is given by the council. Why shouldn’t the council pocket most of the gain?
It will costs local authorities a lot of money to provide the infrastructure for new development, Without their taking a slice of the planning gain, it simply won't happen.
Because, as I said above, it is perfectly possible to build on green belt land. Except in this new world, there's zero chance of councils giving planning permission for anything outside *their* plans.
"Why shouldn’t the council pocket most of the gain?"
Because they don't own it. And it also creates a mahoosive conflict of interest for the council, who have control of local plans, planning, and massive advantages in land purchases.
The alternative is the property speculator - perhaps even a foreigner - who buys up the land and makes a quick profit.
*If* the government put a caveat on their plans like: "Any land that has been sold in the last ten years..." then I'd be more ready to accept it. But it doesn't sound as if they have. and have put the 'speculators' line in to make it sound more acceptable.
I can't see many people manning the barricades on their behalf.
1) build a lot of houses
2) pay for the infrastructure for those houses
3) ideally build at prices that allow a lot of affordable housing to be included within the plans
3 is the all important bit here - extortionate Land prices has resulted in many projects using viability tests to reduce the amount of social housing included in the mix. And the best fix for that is let Councils purchase the land and ensure that the price it's sold on at allows the social housing mix to be correctly included.
And currently every part of the profit your mates are seeking is coming from trying to convince a council that x land is listed as housing in the next local plan rather than y land. The council is the person who is generating the profit yet isn't the person making the profit from it.
I'm sorry but as a person who hasn't purchased thousands of acres green belt land in the hope of a profit I really don't see that your argument has any weight.
I also LOL at your (shock! horror! addition of ' perhaps even a foreigner')!!! Nice to see what leftists really think of foreigners ...
I do actually know one of these guys. Firstly he's immensely rich. Secondly he's totally capable of looking after himself and has an army of lawyers, accountants etc to help him get his way. Thirdly, while I don't hold any grudge against him, I am unaware of him having done anything at all to benefit mankind beyond raking in the millions.
AIUI currently CPO for farmland is at market value, with no extra compensation. Which means that even if a farmer can find a suitable area of viable farmland elsewhere to buy (without the price going up...), they've got the massive costs of moving.
And we need farmers. I know a lot of townies (including this government...) are disconnected from the countryside, but we need farmers. It's a shame that so many people on this thread seem to think of them as money-sucking vampires.
Because it seems to be allowing landowners to charge top dollar for housing reducing the viability of the scheme at a time when we need to build a lot of houses and ideally a lot of houses at a time when building costs have risen to take prices outside the level most people can afford.
Because it might happen to you. I know you won't own land affected by this, but in other ways.
As I said below: if they put a clause in saying that it only occurs if the land has been sold in (say) the last ten years, then I'd be happier. Or even twenty. But this is plain and simply wrong; as is people assuming that everyone affected will be 'speculators'.
Currently your argument is - the farmer should be able to walk away with millions because his farm happens to be the next few fields need to extend the town...
As I said below, if the government put a caveat in that this was only targeted at speculators (by saying the sale had to be within the last decade or two), I'd be happier. Oh, and that would not include inheritance in families.
Would you be against that?
I brought forward a relatively small package of family land, but enough for a decent sized housing estate.
No developer (we spoke to all the regionals and nationals) would consider it without PP, which required 100k 10 years ago upfront for consultants, fees to get to planning committee and possible appeal, with the possibility of losing all of the 100k to a parish pump political decision.
We got some very good advisers, rolled the dice, and won at Appeal, but received 1/3 of the initially predicted sale price, with an S106 package valued at roughly what we made in the end - so essentially 50:50 benefit for us / Council. Which was a nice pension boost for family members, but not Malaga-with-6-blondes mone.
The tactics of the big developers were FILTHY, including some trying to lay off their potential losses if they made mistakes on us with clawbacks. They were summarily kicked. Others were hard but straight, but still used all the levers they could find. It's about risk vs money tradeoffs, but is esoteric and complex. Even so, the first thing done was to change the development to strip out cost, starting with densification.
The fact that Planning Permission turns into a pumpkin after 3 years (requires another 100k for another try, as Planners put an expiry date on reports and want another full set), makes it a game of poker with a time limit. That cost us about 25%.
It's very much a big boys game at present. A lot of landowners who are not as big as developers with similar weight (think land portfolio owners, estates or say the Church Commissioners for the biggies) will welcome a more orderly process.
If the process is less laden with risk and unpredictability, a *lot* of smaller landowners (say single famers or grandma's smallholding owners who are currently sitting on it waiting) will come forward.
I'm talking about people who own land who did not sell out to speculators.
I know a fair few people who are in that position, and who are not rich. Many farmers are not, you know, even when they own their land.
I mean for Christ's sake, even the French get this.
"For swimming fans like me, the Paris Olympics will be remembered for American Katie Ledecky becoming the most decorated female swimmer of all time and for hometown favorite Léon Marchand animating France with his four gold medal performances.
Sadly, it will also be forever tainted as the sporting event where 12 members of the Chinese swim team failed to be sanctioned after testing positive for banned substances — in some cases more than once."
source$: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/08/12/olympics-china-swimming-doping-paris-2024/
Dr. Wen has impressive credentials: https://www.washingtonpost.com/people/leana-s-wen/
Getting together with colleagues is dying out as a result of remote working and the rise of sober young workers, a report has found" (£)
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/healthcare/article/last-orders-for-post-work-drinks-as-gen-z-shuns-alcohol-wpfjkp9gd
This policy seems to be similar to the proposal that he was suggesting on the podcast. More information can be found in a Shelter policy document which he co-authored. https://england.shelter.org.uk/professional_resources/policy_and_research/policy_library/report_new_civic_housebuilding
1. To unleash a wave of New Civic Housebuilding across England:
• Masterplan new high quality suburbs, urban regenerations and settlements. Give city-regions and combined authorities the power to create New Home Zones where land can be bought at
its existing use value plus a compensation.
– New Home Zones should be included as form of nationally significant infrastructure under the NSIP regime.
– Compensation for landowners under the 1961 Land Compensation Act should be amended to reduce the cost of land in these schemes to a level which reflects its existing use value plus
compensation.
– Section 106 and CIL should not apply to these sites, as they will have planned in the use of the planning gain from the start.
- Deliver these new communities through development vehicles, such as Development Corporations, with powers of land acquisition and assembly. The Corporations will act as master- developer: giving landowners the opportunity to invest their land as equity, putting in basic infrastructure, and selling serviced plots to local builders, housing associations, self-builders, Build to Rent providers and others.
- Allow Neighbourhood Exception Sites to be allocated in Neighbourhood Plans, based on the rural exception site model, for small housing sites not already allocated in the Local Plan.
Neighbourhood Fora could specify aspects of design for the sites, and they would have to provide as many permanently affordable homes as possible. Neighbourhood Exception Sites should be allowed on green belt sites with no environmental protection status.
• Public land should be invested into partnerships to deliver both long term revenues for the public sector and high quality, locally affordable housing schemes, rather than being sold for the highest price to speculative developers.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2023/55
https://www.fwi.co.uk/business/business-management/planning-permission/councils-gain-compulsory-purchase-powers-without-paying-hope-value
EDIT: Has it been used?
Though clearly we'll have to wait for the details post consultation to be certain of our respective opinions.
https://x.com/narindertweets/status/1823011308343554540?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q
Two women have admitted to being "agitators" in disorder outside a hotel housing asylum seekers in Manchester on 31 July. Tracy Pearson, 53, and Michelle Jibson, 45, pleaded guilty to violent disorder during the incident. After being remanded into custody, Pearson shouted over the judge: "Don't care. Freedom of speech is gone. Joke.""
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/clyg90d4d14t
Seems sensible to me.
The pre-emptive outrage seems slightly OTT, as far as I'm concerned.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/08/12/ukraine-russia-war-latest-news21/
I accept there are some rare instances where compulsory purchase is necessary (major rail lines, for example), but building in an area where the main current obstacle is the government's own planning rules is definitely not one of them.
I've posted a fairly candid account of my big project in a separate comment. The MRTPI we employed was very high powered and quite expensive who was an representative or expert at High Court level multiple times per year, and I have a lot of practical domain knowledge - starting with a dad who was a Town Architect then in Private Practise, and a lifelong interest in planning law and practice - plus 20 years around self-builders.
I feel this Government *may* get this about right, or at least knock out a lot of the stakeholders whose interests do not align.
But independent professionals and capacity building at Council Level will be crucial.
The state doing things by force should be avoided unless there is no alternative.
A windfall tax seems fair, though. So, offer 150% or 200% of land value. Take it, or don't.
Did Kamala accidentally stumble into a new model for a very short campaign? What if the a party pushed all the primaries into the weeks before the convention? The long American campaigns have a real downside.
https://nitter.poast.org/semaforben/status/1823009761375277338#m
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/08/12/girl-stabbed-leicester-square/
“An 11-year-old girl has been taken to hospital after she and her mother were stabbed by a stranger in the West End.
“The Metropolitan Police said its officers went to the scene of a stabbing in Leicester Square, London, on Monday where the girl and a 34-year-old were attacked.
“The force said a man had been arrested and was in custody. Police do not believe the suspect knew the victims and said they did not believe the attack to be terror-related.”
And we don't know that CPO will be used for "a few houses".
We use CPO all over the shop for eg tiny strips to make a roundabout bigger which is not "critical", so I don't see the problem around housing developments within a deliberate local plan process. I'll be interested to see what the tests are for significance.
I can say that I used to pass 6 pubs on my 1 mile journey home, and now I pass 3 (2 have been turned into housing, the third is seeking to be turned into housing).
The ratio between the value of pure farmland and farmland with planning permission is massive at the moment. That gap is one of the things gumming up the building of houses.
According to Wikipedia, the first generation of New Towns nabbed all that differential, which paid for the infrastructure. At present, the owner of the land (who may or may not be the farmer) gets a very large slice- possibly so large that most developments can't happen and so the land stays as farmland.
Question is whether there's a fraction somewhere between those two limits that serves everyone better. Personally, I'd be surprised if there wasn't.
For instance, you could approve planning permission of green belt land subject to an agreed infrastructure levy to compensate the council for the cost incurred there. That would avoid the 'forced purchase' part, while creating opportunities for house building in the public and private sector equally.
LOL.
Another sign that he is rattled. He can't afford to be off the main site for political chat and ludicrous memes