Local authority planners seldom plan. Planning permission isn't, it's change of use permission. NIMBYs hop up and down, partly because they have no say in what gets built where, or how it looks when it gets built.
A thought experiment:
- LAs put an embargo on PP on greenfield sites. The planning department decides where it would be a good idea to have new housing and produces a local plan. Local people then have their input through the usual "democratic" process.
- The LA will be far more amenable to demands for houses that look like they've always been there, to accord with the FBRI, like Poundbury. It doesn't have to build the damn' things, and, if it makes the land less valuable, they don't care, because they are going to make a big gain for the council coffers anyway.
- Eventually a plan is produced where everyone is equally unhappy (because you can't please all the people any of the time). The council then buys the land at slightly above agricultural rates, to make it worthwhile Farmer Giles selling, and gives itself PP.
The council then sells off the development land at auction. All the capital gain remains with the LA.
Forbidden Bible Verses — Genesis 42:18-28
2 hours ago
6 comments:
It's a very sensible idea and local councils already do it in one form or other, my favourite is the way that the Boscombe artifical reef was financed.
And what if after going through all the process the landowner chooses not to sell?
S, do you mean Farmer Giles? He doesn't go through any process at all, the council rings him up and offers to buy x acres from him for a small premium to agricultural values, if he's not interested, that's the end of the matter.
The council then rings Farmer Jim instead and offers him a slightly higher figure etc until sooner or later one of the farmers cracks.
No, in the example, there was a planning process whereby a particular area was identified as the best one for development - both by the planners and the local population via a local plan consultation.
Its only then that they approach the landowner to see if he wants to sell. And as they've just gone through an expensive planning process he has them over a barrel doesn't he? They either pay what he wants, or face having to go through the entire process again, with possibly the same result somewhere else.
Of course they could just approach local landowners until they found one that was prepared to sell at a suitable price, but then the planning and democratic process would have to go hang, because the location would entirely depend on which landowner was prepared to sell up and move.
And don't forget, large developments often cover land owned by multiple people. So how do you get a scheme off the ground if one or more of them doesn't want to play ball? What if the council buys land off one person, but another then refuses to deal? The council taxpayer is going to be considerably out of pocket.
Sobers: "he has them over a barrel doesn't he?"
As I've said before, land ownership is a [local] monopoly, and you denied this was true. It helps if you try to be consistent. All rents go back to the fact that the landowner has people over a barrel.
Sobers,
They do it first - that is they get an agreement to sell for each proposed site before the consultation starts. If Farmer Giles refuses to sell on the ground that the Gileses have owned the land since the Domesday Book or wants too much money, then they just go elsewhere.
My experience is that most rural housing developments are on sites that were part of a single farm, following the well worn process of farm comes up for sale, farm is bought by speculator, speculator rents it out and begins the long battle for planning permission on part or all of the land.
Post a Comment