Ministers get ready to go for green-belt grab

A._Badger

chewmylegoff wrote: »

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

That's "OK" as in Croydon is OK now? Or Ashford? Or Stevenage?

Loughton_Monkey

So desperate is the Treasury in its search for growth that George Osborne is said to want to redesignate protected land to kickstart large-scale housing schemes. Developers wanting to build on protected sites would have to provide new "green belt" elsewhere.

Can anyone de-code what this actually means? How do you 'create' green belt?

Surely, rather than give the developer access to the green belt, and make him 'create' green belt from other land that (by definition) cannot be green belt, they should just tell them to build on the other land?

macaque_2

note wrote: »

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.

Its a question of choice and it was never my personal choice to see the UK become one of the most crowded countries in Europe. The reality is that millions of voters felt otherwise seeing a population explosion as a route to personal gain through house price inflation and cheap imported labour.

We are now stuck with a large population and these people need proper housing. This means more tower blocks as well as building on greenbelt.

Farmers should be entitled to some premium when selling land for development but this should be proportionate. Farmers hold rights to the land for farming. The rights for a change of use however belong to 'the people' and a substantial part of the profits that arise from a change of use should go to 'the people'.

note_2

chewmylegoff wrote: »

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

your missing the point mate..... all i'm saying is that building on greenbelt land just makes a small amount of people win the lottery when selling their land, and we lose what little amount of green land we have in the city for good.

if you look at my area on google maps you have the golf course, and this piece of green land, take that away and we have no-where in the near area to walk our dogs etc.

how would you feel in this situation?

Generali

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.

Maybe a better way would be to identify suitable areas for building and then invite farmers to tender their land to be sold into a scheme to provide extra land for building. The farmers prepared to sell at the lowest prices 'win'. After all, the value of a particular field to a farmer may be very high, much higher than the value the market would assign to it.

Loughton_Monkey

Generali wrote: »

Maybe a better way would be to identify suitable areas for building and then invite farmers to tender their land to be sold into a scheme to provide extra land for building. The farmers prepared to sell at the lowest prices 'win'. After all, the value of a particular field to a farmer may be very high, much higher than the value the market would assign to it.

When we have to import £37 billion of food [exports £18 billion], I think we should let farmers get on and farm. We need to boost the farming trade to narrow our trade gap.

Where's all this 'brown belt' land that the Government used to keep on about? Far better to build on that.

MacMickster

I recall that in Ireland a few years ago it wasn't unusual to see agricultural land up for sale described as "having stunning sea views".

Either the cattle in Ireland particularly enjoy a good vista, or farmers were cashing in by selling agricultural land at a premium on the off chance that the buyer would get planning permission to develop it.

How long will we have to wait for the same to happen here?

Eellogofusciouhipoppokunu

Wouldnt we be better using up all of the brownfield sites before we further destroy the countryside? There are derelict former industrial sites than could be used. There are empty properties that could be put back into use. We somehow managed to find a site in London to build an olympic stadium, park and village. Im sure that we can find a site large enough fro some tower blocks. We should build up not out, like New York, Tokyo and other cities.

moneyinmypocket

Houses won't be built without done kind of profit being made by builders, there baley making profits at current prices let alone if prices dropped

michaels

Not at all - builders profit is fairly fixed - it is the price of land that is the variable factor.

moneyinmypocket wrote: »

Houses won't be built without done kind of profit being made by builders, there baley making profits at current prices let alone if prices dropped