Ministers get ready to go for green-belt grab

A._Badger

michaels wrote: »

I don't understand - if a public utility like a train line or third runway is built then the land can be compulsorily purchased but if it is for a public utility such as additional housing it can never be?

As another example, although you may own a property you do not own the rights to any minerals that are subsequently found to lie underneath the land.

Because a CP order is usually made as last resort where a public utility is required - e.g. a road, an airport or a power station - not a house on which an individual will make a profit.

Can you not see the essential difference?

chewmylegoff

michaels wrote: »

I don't understand - if a public utility like a train line or third runway is built then the land can be compulsorily purchased but if it is for a public utility such as additional housing it can never be?

As another example, although you may own a property you do not own the rights to any minerals that are subsequently found to lie underneath the land.

but the compulsory purchase of land is executed at its market value (supposedly anyway, obviously the govt just make up a market value which is lower than the real market value to save themselves some cash).

if you remove green belt planning restrictions then the value of green belt land will increase accordingly - but what you appear to be advocating is that the compulsory purchase in this scenario would have no regard to that uplift in market value, the govt would effectively just pretend that the land was worth 10% of its true market value.

michaels

It's market value in its current use - not it's market value as the last bit of the runway without which the whole of the rest of the runway can not go ahead.

So I am advocating the compulsory purchase of farmland at its value as farmland (plus extra for inconvenience). The public as owners of the farmland can then decide to award themselves any extra value from allowing the land to be built on, no private profit is being given to any builder developer. Any planning gain goes to the exchequer and is distributed between the citizens of the country according to the will of the electorate.

A._Badger

michaels wrote: »

It's market value in its current use - not it's market value as the last bit of the runway without which the whole of the rest of the runway can not go ahead.

So I am advocating the compulsory purchase of farmland at its value as farmland (plus extra for inconvenience). The public as owners of the farmland can then decide to award themselves any extra value from allowing the land to be built on, no private profit is being given to any builder developer. Any planning gain goes to the exchequer and is distributed between the citizens of the country according to the will of the electorate.

First they came for the farmers....

chewmylegoff

michaels wrote: »

It's market value in its current use - not it's market value as the last bit of the runway without which the whole of the rest of the runway can not go ahead.

So I am advocating the compulsory purchase of farmland at its value as farmland (plus extra for inconvenience). The public as owners of the farmland can then decide to award themselves any extra value from allowing the land to be built on, no private profit is being given to any builder developer. Any planning gain goes to the exchequer and is distributed between the citizens of the country according to the will of the electorate.

the market value of farmland will be much higher as soon as the government changes the law so that you can build houses on it, so it's market value in current use would reflect the potential for building houses to sell onwards on it (in the same way that if you had a block of non-green belt land without planning permission on it, its value would reflect the potential to build houses on it).

also, what happens if the land isn't owned by a farmer, but is owned by a misguided retail investor who has invested in a land banking scheme. would they be allowed to profit from their investment, or is it just the capital gains of farmers you would seek to confiscate?

note_2

lol @ michaels first off.

lets put this idea of building loads of houses on green belt land into the real world.

near me is a local beauty spot that a american corporation bought with the sole intention of building 300 or so houses on (didnt of course tell anyone when they bought it for £1 plus operating expenses).

they have submitted numerous planning applications, each one rejected.

if the developement goes through, all the houses would devalue, and we would not be able to utilise the beauty spot (though they've fenced the whole thing off so forget that).

and an american corporation gets about 1/3 x 300 x ~ £400k = £40m

it would break my heart to see newbuild developements on greenbelt land.

Graham_Devon

note wrote: »

it would break my heart to see crappy newbuild developements on greenbelt land.

Presumably you live in a house near this beauty spot, therefore, your house is also, likely to have been bult on a beauty spot. Does that break your heart?

ukcarper

michaels wrote: »

I don't understand - if a public utility like a train line or third runway is built then the land can be compulsorily purchased but if it is for a public utility such as additional housing it can never be?

As another example, although you may own a property you do not own the rights to any minerals that are subsequently found to lie underneath the land.

It ceases to be a public untlity when its sold they could of coarse build social housing on it with no right to buy.

note_2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Presumably you live in a house near this beauty spot, therefore, your house is also, likely to have been bult on a beauty spot. Does that break your heart?

its a reservoir that was built slap bang in the middle of the area in the victorian times.

i suppose if you go back to the 1800's roughly speaking when our property was built then yes you'd have a case.

so a 'fail' on your part sir.

chewmylegoff

note wrote: »

its a reservoir that was built slap bang in the middle of the area in the victorian times.

i suppose if you go back to the 1800's roughly speaking when our property was built then yes you'd have a case.

so a 'fail' on your part sir.

so if we build some more houses on it, it will be ok in 200 years time.