Do we need Land Reform in England?

robskillz

I've only separated off England as I know there are different laws in other sections of the UK.

I'm wondering if we need some sort of Land Reform? i.e. reforming how land is allocated both for usage and to whom. Should land 'ownership' be a right for all rather than a privilege for those who can afford it?

My thinking is that there seems to be this "land banking" going on where development companies buy up any and all residential land then sit on it for decades, not developing it, thereby driving up land prices due to high demand and lack of supply. Then they will develop a tiny proportion of it and sell the properties at extortionate prices.

Could something like making land only registerable to individuals rather than companies work? And limit the amount that can be registered to one person? The registry could force a gradual sell-off of unused residential land which is being hogged, or maybe use something like compulsory purchase and re-sell it on the open market at such a volume that it drives prices down.

I understand that when you 'buy' land you're only buying a right to use it for a period of time. Could this be altered so that failure to use it means the forfeit of your right and it gets de-registered and re-allocated?

Any thoughts on this?

Loughton_Monkey

The problem to which you allude (if indeed it is a problem) could be solved far more easily than using any form of "land reform".

Land with planning permission is worth a lot of money. Land without planning permission is worth very little money by comparison.

So to resolve the problem, all it needs is some form of 'condition' attached to any planning permission granted. This could be designed to be as draconian as you want. In ascending order of difficulty.....

• Provide planning permission with a (say) 3 year time limit. If foundations have not been built (or other measurable definition of progress) then the permission expires and must be re-sought.
• Same as above, but with come sort of penalty. A fine. Or maybe a 3 year moratorium on reapplying for permission.
• Same as the last one, but deny the owner any further chance for planning permission. So owner must sell to someone who is willing to wait 3 years and reapply.
• Confiscate the land and transfer ownership to the local authority without compensation. They could then sell it to a new owner or develop it themselves.

Can't see any reason to interfere with a long standing, well understood, land ownership system for all land already developed or already owned without planning permission. To do that, you'd need the most bloody revolution [a la France or Russia] after which if you win, it would be an easy matter to nationalise all land, thereby turning all house owners into 'tenants', who could (if they wished) remain living in their own bricks and mortar at either a draconian rent, or forcing the tenant into some form of slavery.

A bit like being a BTL landlord really.....

CLAPTON

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

The problem to which you allude (if indeed it is a problem) could be solved far more easily than using any form of "land reform".

Land with planning permission is worth a lot of money. Land without planning permission is worth very little money by comparison.

So to resolve the problem, all it needs is some form of 'condition' attached to any planning permission granted. This could be designed to be as draconian as you want. In ascending order of difficulty.....

• Provide planning permission with a (say) 3 year time limit. If foundations have not been built (or other measurable definition of progress) then the permission expires and must be re-sought.
• Same as above, but with come sort of penalty. A fine. Or maybe a 3 year moratorium on reapplying for permission.
• Same as the last one, but deny the owner any further chance for planning permission. So owner must sell to someone who is willing to wait 3 years and reapply.
• Confiscate the land and transfer ownership to the local authority without compensation. They could then sell it to a new owner or develop it themselves.

Can't see any reason to interfere with a long standing, well understood, land ownership system for all land already developed or already owned without planning permission. To do that, you'd need the most bloody revolution [a la France or Russia] after which if you win, it would be an easy matter to nationalise all land, thereby turning all house owners into 'tenants', who could (if they wished) remain living in their own bricks and mortar at either a draconian rent, or forcing the tenant into some form of slavery.

A bit like being a BTL landlord really.....

current law is that anyone at all can apply for planning permission on any land whatsoever

planning permission is unrelated to ownership

Loughton_Monkey

CLAPTON wrote: »

current law is that anyone at all can apply for planning permission on any land whatsoever

planning permission is unrelated to ownership

In that case, it would probably still be possible to substantially change the rules to prevent 'land banking' [if indeed there was an appetite to do it].

They could grant permission which would automatically expire in (say) 12 months. It would be guaranteed that at any time within that 12 months, the owner of the land would have the right to lodge an intention to build according to the permission, after which a 2 or 3 year 'clock' could be ticking. No such lodgement? Then permission expires, and can only be resurrected by a huge fat fee....

I assume that on small plots, they tend to be sold with 'outline' permission. Who other than the owner [or an associated company] would go through full detailed planning process and then seek to sell the land?

AndyGuil

They will just throw some scaffolding into a field to get around the rules. They will be building technically.

CLAPTON

between 2008-12 /13 housing building was low and prices dropped:
mortgages were very hard to get and one needed 20-25% deposit:
demand was low as a result:
profits of building companies dropped to lose :
dividends paid were zero.


since 2012/3 mortgages rationing has eased and now mortgages are available for people with only 5%:
house building is booming:
profits of building companies are up:
dividends will be paid:

this all conclusively proves that building companies have deliberating not been building houses and have hoarding land

obviously it shows that they make more profit not building houses and inflating land price than they do by actually selling houses

government definitely need to act.

C_Mababejive

The problem to which the OP refers runs much deeper than issues of land banking and house building.

It is about the very nature of our tenure and existence on the land of England.

It is about the nature of land ownership, its occupation and feudalism.

In short ,no one owns land in the UK. The Crown has ultimate rights over all lands in the UK and out to the 12 mile limit including foreshores.

By entering into a contract to buy a house, you are given a tenancy in fee simple, to float your pile of bricks on land which is owned ultimately by the Crown.

By occupying a home ,you are effectively agreeing to be a lessee of the Crown and as such,agree to pay feu duties.

Those feu duties are currently bundled up in the form of various taxes.

When HM Land registry was set up under the land regsitry act of 1862 that was the time that a great deception occurred. The whigs were the majot party at that time as tut labour party and socialists were a small minorty and largely of little significance.

The Whigs ensured that the land registry act only made it law that land only had to be registered if it was traded. This had the outcome of ensuring that vast tracts of land gifted in the past or stolen from the people and now "owned" by the aristocrats,rich and powerful did not need to be registered..and that is still largely the situation today.

Further attempts to register ALL land have similarly been thwarted.

And so people,this isnt about land banking,,it is about the larger matter of land ownership and its occupation in Feudal Britain.

antrobus

C_Mababejive wrote: »

....When HM Land registry was set up under the land regsitry act of 1862 that was the time that a great deception occurred. The whigs were the majot party at that time as tut labour party and socialists were a small minorty and largely of little significance.....

That might well be because the Labour Party didn't exist in 1862. Just a thought.:)

grizzly1911

CLAPTON wrote: »

between 2008-12 /13 housing building was low and prices dropped:
mortgages were very hard to get and one needed 20-25% deposit:
demand was low as a result:
profits of building companies dropped to lose :
dividends paid were zero.


since 2012/3 mortgages rationing has eased and now mortgages are available for people with only 5%:
house building is booming:
profits of building companies are up:
dividends will be paid:

this all conclusively proves that building companies have deliberating not been building houses and have hoarding land

obviously it shows that they make more profit not building houses and inflating land price than they do by actually selling houses

government definitely need to act.

Depends on how you want to value your assets and whether you have have a cash flow to actually fund any dividends too.

DiggerUK

I logged in hoping to find MSEistas at the barricades calling for the mass execution of the last of the landed aristocracy, and the beheading of the leading lights in the church of england.

Instead most of you are gabbing on about planning regulations.

Shame as there is b()gger all on telly tonight, and we are both stuck in with coughs, colds, gin, and tonics.
..._

daveyjp

Large developers generally don't land bank for decades, just like any business having too much stock is expensive as money is borrowed to buy it and debt needs servicing. They need to buy, develop and sell because that's how they make money.

Planning permission does currently last three years, but there are many more reasons other than 'greedy developers' for development not happening.