Friday 9 October 2009

NIMBYs of the week

Here's an aerial photo' of Chigwell, on the very outskirts of London, but still with a Tube Station in Zone 4. As you can see, it's surrounded by a thousand acres of fields (the map is about four square miles and there are 660 acres in a square mile), there's not much to the north of that but fields either, to the south it's increasingly densely built up all the way to London and it's on relatively high ground, there's no flood risk or anything. Pretty much the perfect place to build a few houses, you might think, fresh air for the kids but not too far from the city...

Nope. The council have given planning for 69 homes (plus possibly another 21 flats), which at modern densities is about five acres, in other words slightly smaller than one of the yellow labels with the green borders showing the road numbers on that map. And the locals are Up In Arms about it.

Now, unlike the residents of Chigwell or the local council, I don't like trying to impose things on people, so I think, seeing how important The Hallowed Greenbelt is to the locals, they should be given a choice:

a) They can buy up that plot of land, complete with planning permission, for its market value of £20 million so that they can keep it green In All Eternity (because once the land truly belongs to the residents, then they are perfectly entitled to do with it what they want. Except build houses on it, of course, that would be hypocritical). Those who were on the housing waiting list get a share of that money to buy a house somewhere else. (The council can then auction off planning permission for the next five acres of land, and the lucky landowner can then sell that to the local residents as well, and so on until either everybody on the housing waiting list has been paid off or the residents have gone bankrupt), or

b) Enlarge The Hallowed Greenbelt by demolishing the entire village of Chigwell and planting some trees instead.

15 comments:

Anonymous said...

Maybe i am just a nimby.

Whilst restirctions may be to much and to inflexible, a large portion of people just don't have the funds or control to determine the quality of the enviroment they live in. They will never be able to compete with big buisness buying up the land and building lego houses.

Ross said...

Anon: If land were readily available then no one would have to settle for the "lego houses" that the builders foist on people.

dearieme said...

c) Accept that people bought the existing houses with the understanding that Green belt land was subject to a permanent ban on building, and tell the developers to pay compensation for the loss of that right.

Tim Almond said...

dearieme,

What "understanding"? Just because numerous governments have promised not to do it doesn't mean that a new government won't come along and do so. And that has nothing to do with property rights, or the general laws on planning permission (such as right to light).

If people bought homes on the gamble that government wouldn't devalue their homes through building others, then they don't deserve anything.

dearieme said...

"If people bought homes on the gamble that government wouldn't devalue their homes through building others,..": that's a fair point about anywhere that isn't in a Green Belt, but a feeble point about anywhere that is in a Green Belt.

Mark Wadsworth said...

D, The Greenbelt is a wide trip of land around towns and cities, it covers about ten per cent of the UK (as does the developed bit). The other eighty per cent is non-hallowed farmland.

Do you think it's a better idea to build new developments in the middle of the countryside, far away from existing towns and cities?

Mark Wadsworth said...

Anon "They will never be able to compete with big buisness" Would it change your view if I told you that the housing was being built by a local building company using local sub-contractors and local labour? Or indeed people from the area who wanted to 'self-build'? Blaming 'Big Business' is like driving a car and slagging off oil companies.

Tim Almond said...

"If people bought homes on the gamble that government wouldn't devalue their homes through building others,..": that's a fair point about anywhere that isn't in a Green Belt, but a feeble point about anywhere that is in a Green Belt."

Why?

The greenbelt isn't about preserving people's house prices. It's about environmental protection and providing spaces for people to go and play. It is, in effect, a contract between the government and the people of the urban area to provide that space for them to enjoy. It is not a contract with people who happen to own homes in those areas.

So, if we decide that actually, there's more than enough space, the only consideration is in terms of the urban dwellers.

The thing is that if we had LVT then people just wouldn't care. We wouldn't have this anti-development planning approach in this country and could get on with building plenty of homes nearer to where people work and giving everyone a better quality of life.

James Higham said...

Leaning towards [b] at this moment.

neil craig said...

The problem is that the power & the cost of using it are not balanced. Virtually anybody can exercise a veto, at least for several years, over anybody building on their own land. The cost to them is a bit of leafleting & some hours writing to the council & finding neighbours to sign their letter. The cost to the lands owner is millions.

If the Green Belt promise holds for eternity then the owners of Green Belt land are also entitled to compensation equivalent to the difference in value between their land as agricultural & development land since they had the right to use their property any way they wanted until the government created the Belt.

bayard said...

@ neil I beg to differ. The cost to the landowner is not millions. The land is only worth millions when it has planning permission to build on it. If the landowner has PP, then there's nothing to stop him going ahead and selling it to a builder or building himself. If he doesn't get planning permission then the land is only worth a few thousands, which is what he paid for it in the first place and what he would get for it if he sold it. The opportunity cost to the landowner not getting PP is millions, but that is a different matter.
Anyway, I don't see why individuals should benefit financially from supposedly disinterested decisions by the state. If the increase in land value caused by the granting of change of use was subject to a 95% tax, there'd be a lot less corruption and bad planning decisions.

Anonymous said...

or alternatively, stop our ludicrous policy of mass immigration, especially of people who like to breed so much.

Simple really.

Mark Wadsworth said...

Neil, agreed (of course).

Bayard, Development Land Taxes or 95% taxes on the planning gain just stifle development, we've tried it and it never 'worked'. OTOH, Land Value Tax would it all out nicely (encourage development AND raise revenues AND prevent windfall gains or losses), but failing that, councils could auction off planning permission in situations like this.

PoA, I share your distaste of mass immigration of hundred of thousands of Islamists and other undesirables, but they had only a minuscule part to play in the fact that UK house prices trebled over a fifteen year period. Absolutely completely different issue. Those on waiting lists for social housing lost out, but only slightly.

bayard said...

Mark "we've tried it and it never 'worked'"

We have? When? I'm amazed!

Since most of the actual building appears to be done by contractors who make a profit on building houses, while the developers simply "develop" the land, i.e. make a profit out of a Planning Officer's decision, I can't see why Development Land Taxes should stifle the demand for land for building on, though I can see why it might stifle "development" (as defined above), but that's a good thing, isn't it?

Agreed, however,LVT would be better, because the LA then claws back the cost of improvements like, for instance, bypassing settlements, without having to start fiddling with speed limits and KSI stats to get the cost benefit analysis to add up.

Mark Wadsworth said...

@ Bayard.

We had Development Land Tax from 1976 to 1985. This was the third time since 1945 that such a tax had been introduced and then scrapped again.

As you might guess, it stifles 'development' and hence construction, not just of houses but of everything. So it raises very little revenue in a very economically damaging fashion.

They started muttering about a Planning Gains Supplement in 2004 or so, but scrapped that idea in 2007.

Some councils have roof taxes (I don't know what the statutory basis for this is).

And of course we have s106 agreements and the fact that councils can make developers hand over x% of units to the council for 'affordable' housing.

AFAIAC, all of these schemes should go in the bin and rolled into LVT (at whatever rate).