How do we stop the building of the current influx of !!!!!! new housing

Hereward

Alan_M wrote:

No I don't want it all built on, but I would like to make use of land that is laying vacant and being paid for by the tax payer to lay vacant when it could be used for housing stock...

If you are talking about land that is currently used as set-a-side in farming, then removing this land forces many smaller farmers to go bust as the subsidies for not using the land are the only thing that keeps them going (low food prices). If these farmers do go bust then either the rich farmers, with huge farms, buy up more land or more land becomes derelict. In addition this land is not vacant, as the fields are swapped periodically to enable the land to recover from the intensive farming methods; this in turn helps crop yields.

As an aside how many people currently living in a city would want to move to the countryside, away from their jobs and other resources or accept the average pay for people in that area?

lynzpower

exactly hereward.

the OP wants somewhere in commuting distance of london- obviously this will restrict the amount and type of properties available in OPs price range.

Guy_Montag

seven-day-weekend wrote:

It is still my country, I can still vote in Parliamentary elections, I still have a house in the UK (lived in by my son), my husband still pays taxes to the UK, and one day we'll come back again.

So yes, it is up to me.

That's nice, well when you come back you can complain about it being all fields round here when I was young. In the mean time, leave this country to be run for the benefit of people who actually live here. It should not be run for the benefit of ex-pats, so they can come back for a taste of olde England.

Alan_M_2

Hereward wrote:

If you are talking about land that is currently used as set-a-side in farming, then removing this land forces many smaller farmers to go bust as the subsidies for not using the land are the only thing that keeps them going (low food prices). If these farmers do go bust then either the rich farmers, with huge farms, buy up more land or more land becomes derelict. In addition this land is not vacant, as the fields are swapped periodically to enable the land to recover from the intensive farming methods; this in turn helps crop yields.

As an aside how many people currently living in a city would want to move to the countryside, away from their jobs and other resources or accept the average pay for people in that area?

Actually you've highligted my point exactly, many of these businesses are unprofitable and unsustainable which is why so many of them are turing their land/buildings into business parks.

Name me any other private industry or private business that when it becomes unprofitable for the owners to run is given handouts of taxpayers money to support it so it can continue to lose money.

Allow these farms to develop a certain percentage of land giving them an income equal to or greater than the subsidy the that is being provided allowing them to become self sustaining.

I happen to currently rent a warehouse on a farm that is being slowly converted into a business park, the farm in total is around 100 acres, 90% of it unused land straddling the M25. The farmer can do nothing with it, doesn't want it, but can't sell it or do anything useful with it whatsoever, He also doesn't have a pot to pee in and is being kept afloat by subsidies.

Do you really not see the nonsence of this situation?

Hereward

Alan_M wrote:

Actually you've highligted my point exactly, many of these businesses are unprofitable and unsustainable which is why so many of them are turing their land/buildings into business parks.

Name me any other private industry or private business that when it becomes unprofitable for to run is given handouts of taxpayers money to support it so it can continue to lose money.

Allow these farms to develop a certain percentage of land giving them an income equalt to or greater than the subsiy the that is being provided allowing them to become self sustaining.

I happen to currently rent a warehouse on a farm that is being slowly converted into a business park, the farm in total is around 100 acres, 90% of it unused land straddling the M25. The farmer can do nothing with it, doesn't want it, but can't sell it or do anything useful with it whatsoever, He also doesn't have a pot to pee in and is being kept afloat by subsidies.

Do you really not see the nonsence of this situation?

Most farms are not unprofitable; it’s just that the profit generated from farming is not enough to support the farmer. The subsidies are in place to ensure that the farmers can actually live, without claiming state benefits. Of course, if everybody is willing to pay extra for their food then this problem would disappear. In addition to this it is sensible to try to produce enough food for our population to reduce food miles.

Farmers are allowed to develop a small percentage of their land for other purposes, but as most farms fall outside of local plans the use of the developed land is some what restricted. In the example that you cite it sounds like the farmer wants to retire, but cannot pass on the farm to his family, or he is waiting for permission to turn it into a large housing estate as it trying to convince his council that farming the land is not a realistic proposition, and then hoping to pocket the huge profit he would make from sell his land to a property developer.

Alan_M_2

Hereward wrote:

Most farms are not unprofitable; it’s just that the profit generated from farming is not enough to support the farmer. The subsidies are in place to ensure that the farmers can actually live, without claiming state benefits. Of course, if everybody is willing to pay extra for their food then this problem would disappear. In addition to this it is sensible to try to produce enough food for our population to reduce food miles.

Farmers are allowed to develop a small percentage of their land for other purposes, but as most farms fall outside of local plans the use of the developed land is some what restricted. In the example that you cite it sounds like the farmer wants to retire, but cannot pass on the farm to his family, or he is waiting for permission to turn it into a large housing estate as it trying to convince his council that farming the land is not a realistic proposition, and then hoping to pocket the huge profit he would make from sell his land to a property developer.

If a business cannot support itself and it's employees, it is unprofitable, I'm not quite sure how you see this any other way. After all it is a business and the idea of a business is to make money. If you see this any other way then maybe you should lobby the government to give farms charitable status, that's effectively what you're suggesting.

The farmer I'm discussing is in his 30's and want's to develop a proportion of his property as a small business park so his farm becomes self sufficient (less than 5% of total land area). The rest is green belt and will under no circumstances ever be given planning permission for residential use.

I don't see a problem with this at all, it wouldn't be brain surgery to allow legislation to be introduced to allow farms to dedicate a certain percentage of grounds to other uses to provide enough income to cover any requirement for subsidies they may have. Any surplus over and above this they might actually start paying tax or even pay it back into the system that's been supporting them for many years.

This is a straight business argument and is black and white in that respect.

If you want to introduce an enviromental argument into the equation (food miles) this changes the context of the problem which then becomes ethical and not financial.

Guy_Montag

What are subsidies if not state benefits?

Hereward

Alan_M wrote:

If a business cannot support itself and it's employees, it is unprofitable, I'm not quite sure how you see this any other way. After all it is a business and the idea of a business is to make money. If you see this any other way then maybe you should lobby the government to give farms charitable status, that's effectively what you're suggesting.

Most one man businesses cannot support its owner on its own as they end up earning less than the minimum wage, but the owner views this as acceptable becuse there is potential for the business to expand and profits rise. Farming is not different, its just the its customers, mainly suppermarkets, set the price that they are willing to pay close to the cost of production so the farmers make very little profit.

The farmer I'm discussing is in his 30's and want's to develop a proportion of his property as a small business park so his farm becomes self sufficient (less than 5% of total land area). The rest is green belt and will under no circumstances ever be given planning permission for residential use.

In your previous post you stated that 90% of his farm is unused, so it sounds like the farmer is speculating on the land price, and is hope that the greenbelt status of the farm is removed.

I don't see a problem with this at all, it wouldn't be brain surgery to allow legislation to be introduced to allow farms to dedicate a certain percentage of grounds to other uses to provide enough income to cover any requirement for subsidies they may have. Any surplus over and above this they might actually start paying tax or even pay it back into the system that's been supporting them for many years.

This is a straight business argument and is black and white in that respect.

If you want to introduce an enviromental argument into the equation (food miles) this changes the context of the problem which then becomes ethical and not financial.

I agree it would make more sense to allow farmers to use some of their land for other purposes so that theya re less dependent of subsidies, but most rural areas are very conservative in nature: they just do not like change.

Alan_M_2

Hereward wrote:

Most one man businesses cannot support its owner on its own as they end up earning less than the minimum wage, but the owner views this as acceptable becuse there is potential for the business to expand and profits rise. Farming is not different, its just the its customers, mainly suppermarkets, set the price that they are willing to pay close to the cost of production so the farmers make very little profit.

Err, but any business outside farming won't get subsidied if it doesn't make a profit, and correct 2 in 3 business fail within their first thre years, unless it's afarm I doubt they got a penny from the government. The problem as you correctly point out is monopolies, I still fail to see why the government should bail out a failing business when clearly assets are in situ that could be utilised to make the business self supporting.


In your previous post you stated that 90% of his farm is unused, so it sounds like the farmer is speculating on the land price, and is hope that the greenbelt status of the farm is removed.

That just isn't going happen, it's in the middle of green belt heaven, Surrey - although if it did all his Christmases would come at once.

I agree it would make more sense to allow farmers to use some of their land for other purposes so that theya re less dependent of subsidies, but most rural areas are very conservative in nature: they just do not like change.

This text must be at least blah blah....answers embedded.

seven-day-weekend

Guy_Montag wrote:

That's nice, well when you come back you can complain about it being all fields round here when I was young. In the mean time, leave this country to be run for the benefit of people who actually live here. It should not be run for the benefit of ex-pats, so they can come back for a taste of olde England.

My house in the UK is an inner-city Victorian mid-Terrace, so it hasn't been fields for a long time.

The government obviously think we still have a stake in the UK, they allow us to vote and pay taxes.

It is my country, my home, and always will be wherever I'm living, why shouldn't I have a stake in it?

FYI, the main reason we live full-time in Spain at the moment is the cost of living; we only have a tiny income and can't afford to live in the UK until my State Pension kicks in in three years time. My husband could not stay in his job any longer due to health problems and had to take early retirement. Ideally we would like the Spanish house to be a holiday home. When we have more income we will be resident in the UK again.

Although I don't see why I should need to justify things.