Buying land for building.

whalster

So who stole the draft for the next Green Party political broadcast!?

6_6_6

mjoneseyjones wrote: »

What an absolute fruitloop!

I take it the deniers are part of the vested interests group

6_6_6

whalster wrote: »

So who stole the draft for the next Green Party political broadcast!?

Couldn't be me because I'm advocated for greater flexibility on planning, to hell with NIMBYs as long as the development is decent, not of the cheap and drastic Barratt, Red Row, Taylor Wimpey - shoebox, kennel, anti human crap

stator

Councils should be able to use compulsory purchase on land at it's undeveloped value so that they can develop it. Problem solved.

Davesnave

stator wrote: »

Councils should be able to use compulsory purchase on land at it's undeveloped value so that they can develop it. Problem solved.

Err....as someone whose land could probably house 40-50 families, I'd consider it quite a large problem!

Perhaps you think all land is owned by the very well-off?

stator

What does it matter how well off you are? If your land is compulsory purchased then you need to find other land fit for the same purpose, so you get compensation required for that purpose. So if you own land for grazing your ponies and the land is worth £100,000 as pony grazing land, then that's what you get.

Davesnave

stator wrote: »

What does it matter how well off you are? If your land is compulsory purchased then you need to find other land fit for the same purpose, so you get compensation required for that purpose. So if you own land for grazing your ponies and the land is worth £100,000 as pony grazing land, then that's what you get.

It matters a great deal because, like many country people, my land is connected to my house, and neither is much good without the other. The land connected with the dwelling is therefore worth much more than just its agricultural value. Take it away, and the value of the house goes through the floor.

So you need to be clear that a compulsory purchase should give people with land the opportunity to move, lock, stock and barrel, which, if you knew anything about the subject, is far from easy, even without a very constrained budget.

I'm sure you didn't mean to sound like some leader in a communist state. Of course there must be powers of compulsory purchase available, and there shouldn't be profiteering, but I can't see what's wrong with compensating people with a measure of generosity, especially if their livelihoods and family connections with a property are being disrupted in ways town and city people maybe find hard to imagine.