Compare and contrast, two articles from The Daily Mail about land use:
Thousands of empty shops will never re-open and new uses must be found for them if the blight of ‘ghost towns’ is to be halted.
The warning comes in a report – Too Many Shops – which reveals that the percentage of shops that are empty has risen to a high of more than one in seven – 14.6 per cent.
In some places one in three shops is empty. It has been suggested high streets could be given over to new homes, schools and gyms to revitalise them.
George Osborne’s push to reform planning laws and allow building on green belt land has come under attack from the country’s most senior planning officer.
Malcolm Sharp, president of the Planning Officers’ Society, said the proposals would fail because developers' lack of finance and the weak state of the economy were the obstacles to building and not red tape. 'I don’t think that it is the planning system that is the issue. It’s the wider economy,' he said.
As a matter of fact, we have far too much greenbelt, but the reason why developers love building on it is because there is a massive windfall gain to be had by whoever 'owns' the land when planning permission is granted. The reverse applies to empty buildings on the high street, there's no massive windfall gain on a change of use, and if you expand commercial premises, you increase your own tax bill (Business Rates).
Now, how would people respond if the windfall gain on planning for green belt were soaked up by LVT, or if the rate of LVT (i.e. Business Rates or Council Tax) in town centres were exactly the same regardless of how each individual plot is used - derelict, residential or commercial?
The higher the tax, the more efficiently the land will be used (which might mean leaving farm land as farm land instead of building satellite villages on it; or building upwards in town centres; or discouraging under-occupation of existing homes; whatever) and the more money will be available for cutting taxes on 'the wider economy'.
Huw Edwards, a lucky man in many respects
3 hours ago
5 comments:
"..discouraging over-occupation of existing homes.."
Wouldn't that be an increase in efficiency? More people per sq metre?
VFTS, it's not just about density. There are x million people living on y million acres of land. Overall average density is unchanged however you arrange things.
But imagine: young couple with kid in two-bed flat; Poor Widow in three bed house.
Is that not less 'efficient' (in the sense of maximising the enjoyment use we get) than e.g. young couple with kid in three-bed house, Slightly Less Poor Widow in two-bed flat?
It's exactly the same as bringing vacants in town centres back into use is more efficient than leaving them to rot and building on the green belt.
VFTS, ah, I see what you mean. A couple in a flat is under-occupying but the flat is over-occupied. I changed that bit.
But LVT sorts out both under-utilisation and over-crowding as my previous example explains.
"but the reason why developers love building on it is because there is a massive windfall gain to be had by whoever 'owns' the land when planning permission is granted."
The other reason is that the new development will be surrounded by fields because it is, er, the Green Belt and therefore will be that much more valuable. Sort of giving the goose that lays the golden eggs a death by a thousand cuts.
B, ultimately it's a weird slash and burn type approach. Build on green field, easy to build, huge planning gain. Then build more and more houses in the area until you've got yourself a little town going. Then let the town centre gradually die off, build nicer satellite villages further out. Rinse and repeat.
Post a Comment