Petition: introduce penalties for unused land / property

guccininja

I think this is out of jealously more than anything.

My uncle owns 2000 acres, owned for 500 years. Used to go from Godalming in Surrey to the sea but over time has been sold off.

My old boss has 40,000 acres in the UK, 8th biggest land owner here.

I would be more concerned on your own government and shaping the future of our kids than rich people with land.

G_M

So in words of one... umm.... syl y bull:

those links are for chat. This is not.

I want to waste my time - I go to those links.

I want to help peeps with probs - I come here.

googler

agrinnall wrote: »

Who are you to say that the land is not being used "properly"?

This.

'Properly' is way too vague

Davesnave

googler wrote: »

This.

'Properly' is way too vague

In the real world, so far as use of agricultural land is concerned, the government already knows how large swathes of land are being used, thanks to the Rural Payments (now Basic Payments) scheme.

None of those lovely subsidies without accountability!

dirty_magic

PersianCatLady wrote: »

I think its a matter of fact, too much land is unused and something should be done
Actually I don't agree.


The problem is that we have too many people and not enough space.


The last thing we need to do is to fill in every available piece of land with houses so that there are even more people in this country.


It is all very good and well to say that we should use every piece of land but where I live quite often a developer will buy an old house, demolish it and then put a block of 12 flats in its place.


You wouldn't think that this was a problem but the number of homes is increasing but at the same time nothing is being done to improve the infrastructure at all.

Completely agree with this. Until they start improving infrastructure and services the level of building isn't sustainable in some areas.

They've just announced they're building 200 houses near here on a huge site. The roads are at breaking point already. The main roads are gridlocked even out of rush hour, and when the new estates are being built they are limiting the number of access points to stop people using them as rat runs. This is great if you don't want traffic on your road, not so great when it takes you 45 minutes to drive 5 miles. I'm lucky that I can use cut throughs on my way to work, God knows how long it would take if I couldn't!

The bus service is next to useless, the bus into the nearest town is only every half an hour, then I'd have to get another bus to work and I'd still have a mile walk at the end unless I wanted to get another bus. On top of this, a daysaver is £4.40 so it's cheaper to drive because £30 petrol lasts me 2 weeks.

They're also expecting all of these new estates to use existing GP services, so when you call to make an appointment it's constantly engaged and when you do get through they tell you there's nothing available for weeks. People then decide to go to walk in centres or A&E instead, so they're at breaking point too!

yoshiyella

nb0825 wrote: »

Wow tough crowd, its just a petition to TRIGGER a debate, I'm not trying to decide government policy. Fair enough to people that disagree entirely but I think its a matter of fact, too much land is unused and something should be done

You are wrong - we need more unused land!

Apodemus

I think the consensus so far is that the OP is, at best, well-meaning, ill-researched and naive.

Land-use debates do go on across U.K., often with more heat than light and there are groups calling for a shift in taxation towards a land-value tax to encourage purposeful use. Most agricultural land currently has to meet the needs of "Good Agricultural and Environmental Condition" as a requirement for any CAP payments (and I don't see this changing with Brexit).

Where the OP may have a stronger case is in respect of "land banking" of urban brown-field sites, where long-term dereliction can sometimes have negative effects on communities. However, the target for any action on that would need to be property developers rather than the land-owning aristocracy.

Apodemus

nb0825 wrote: »

Of all the farmland in Scotland only 24% is occupied (Barbers rural, 2012)

Sorry, I just can't let you get away with this gross mis-representation.

The blog that you are citing actually says:

Barbers_rural,_2012 wrote:

However in Scotland, where farmland area extends to around 5.8 million hectares, tenanted land makes up only 24%.

The critical point there is "TENANTED LAND" So about a quarter of the farmland in Scotland is owned by larger land owners and occupied by tenant farmers, the remaining 76% is not tenanted, i.e. it is owner-occupied in some form. Some of the land in both categories may have occupiers who are absent, but your citation is silent on this.