Are Developers and Builders Sitting on Unused Land?

ILW

antrobus wrote: »

Define 'unused' and 'development'.

Off the top of my head, development would be where PP has already been granted. Unused could be where no other use has been registered.

System

antrobus wrote: »

Sadly the local councils don't have any money. Something to do with an annual government deficit of £150 billion or so I believe.

I know. I forgot to put the T-I-C emoticon in

antrobus

ILW wrote: »

Off the top of my head, development would be where PP has already been granted. Unused could be where no other use has been registered.

At which point you'll discover that developers land banks largely consist of land on which a) no outline PP has been applied for, and b) is being used.

P.S. Not sure what you mean by "where no other use has been registered". I wasn't aware that there was a 'register of land use'.

CLAPTON

let me explain how a land tax might work

the idea is an annual tax that would replace council tax

land, as opposed tp the property sitting on it would be valued depending upon it's potential commercial value; so if agricultural it would be relatively 'cheap' but if it had planning permisiion for deleveopment then it would be relatively expensive


the tax would be some sort of percentage of the value. not dis-simiallar in principle to the old rates but only based on the land value and not property value

now any land with planning permission would be taxed at the high rate whether or not houses had actually been built. this would give an direct incentive for delevopers to either build or sell the land as they would now to taxed !!! if houses were actually build

it would also incentivise owners of review their land useage and encourage new developments both commercial and domestic.


worth thinking about.

System

ILW wrote: »

Off the top of my head, development would be where PP has already been granted. Unused could be where no other use has been registered.

But land will be registered for some sort of use regardless.

antrobus

!!!!!! wrote: »

I know. I forgot to put the T-I-C emoticon in

You're forgiven. Personally I think Council Houses are a Good Thing and am disappointed that the last Labour government quite forgot to build any.

antrobus

CLAPTON wrote: »

let me explain how a land tax might work

the idea is an annual tax that would replace council tax...

Like rates?

CLAPTON

antrobus wrote: »

Like rates?

yes that's what I said in my post

the important difference is that rates were levied on the notional rental value of the property; the idea of a land tax is that its based on the notional rental value of the developed land whether or not the property has been actually been built.

this would make holding land with planning permission expensive and so incentivice either developement or selling

e.g. its well known that supermarket chains own large amounts of land which they have no intention of building on, just to stop a rival chains from building...
obviously they had the cost of purchase but the recurring yearly costs are small; with a land tax they would be charged as if a supermarket had been built.


the principle being you would be taxed on the potential of the land and not what's actually on it.

antrobus

CLAPTON wrote: »

...
this would make holding land with planning permission expensive and so incentivice either developement or selling...

And therefore an incentive not to apply for PP.

CLAPTON wrote: »

e.g. its well known that supermarket chains own large amounts of land which they have no intention of building on, just to stop a rival chains from building...
obviously they had the cost of purchase but the recurring yearly costs are small; with a land tax they would be charged as if a supermarket had been built.


the principle being you would be taxed on the potential of the land and not what's actually on it.

Yes, but I think the problem is (and a lot of people don't get this) that a lot of land that is banked is simply land that could be developed (it fits in with the regional development land or whatever). There is no PP on it, outline or otherwise, and no reason to apply for it until you have the definite intention of actually developing it.

MacMickster

Surely the answer is for the government to compulsorily purchase land which it considers suitable for development.

The land could then be sold or leased to any developer covenanting to actually develop the land within an agreed timescale. Any further quantative easing (which is surely now just a matter of time) could be directed towards the construction sector to stimulate the economy rather than towards the banking sector.