Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Social > Jet Blast
Reload this Page >

UK politics - Hamsterwheel

Jet Blast Topics that don't fit the other forums. Rules of Engagement apply.

UK politics - Hamsterwheel

Old 6th Jun 2015, 00:23
  #5541 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: London
Posts: 199
Why on earth would a farmer take a lower land value? Thats utter nonsense.
Mr Chips is offline  
Old 6th Jun 2015, 08:49
  #5542 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Southwold
Age: 67
Posts: 60
Chips,

Either you are on a very poor and pointless wind up,or you don't understand. I live in a small village near the Suffolk coast. House prices begin at around 200k for a semi detached ex farm labourers cottage.

What I proposed was this. The local authority would earmark say five acres of land on the edge of the village for housing. This would be allocated planning consent for an estate of say sixty houses and then purchased from the landowner at market value plus 100%. By doing this with all villages a large amount of housing could be created without building massive souless conurbations.

We really have to decide if we wish the population of this country to continue to expand. If the answer is no then we need to take steps to prevent that expansion. If yes then we need to provide adequate housing for the extra people to live in reasonable conditions. The current situation is intolerable.
Effluent Man is offline  
Old 6th Jun 2015, 09:03
  #5543 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 10,198
E, the council can do it under Compulsory Purchase - the price paid is that without planning permission.

An introduction to compulsory purchase valuation principles spanning 150 years

......CPOs have been used as a tool to allow construction of and improvements to the motorways, to regener- ate town centres, build bridges, develop social housing, implement major transport schemes, and, of course, will be used to clear the way for HS2........

Where land is compulsorily acquired, courts will try and ensure that property owners were fairly and fully compensated for the loss arising. It is important to highlight the fact that the basis of compensation is the value to the owner of the land being acquired not the value to the public authority acquiring the land (Stebbing v Metropolitan Board of Works [1870] LR 6 QB 37).......

It is necessary to value the property on the basis of its open market value without any increase or decrease that could be attributed to the CPO scheme. Compensation should not include an increase in value that is entirely due to the scheme underlying the compulsory acquisition.

The principle that provides that compensation for the compulsory acquisition of land cannot include an increase in value that is entirely due to the scheme underlying the compulsory acquisition was set out in the Court of Appeal case of Pointe Gourde Quarrying and Transport Company Limited v Sub Intendent of Crown Lands [1947] AC 565.......
ORAC is offline  
Old 6th Jun 2015, 09:06
  #5544 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 10,198
Thought I'd post this here just to annoy the left wingers amongst us - and there has been previous argument as to whether the Fascists were left or right wing. I do love Daniel Hannan, he is so erudite, multi-lingual.... and a UKIP MEP.....

ORAC is offline  
Old 6th Jun 2015, 09:14
  #5545 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Somerset, UK
Age: 71
Posts: 82
Do you mean the market value WITHOUT planning consent or with it?

If without it then why on earth should the farmer accept a price that would be much lower than than the market value of the land? (you did say planning consent is granted BEFORE the land is purchased). Double the agricultural rate would be nowhere near the value with palnning consent.

Are you seriously suggesting that a land owner should be forced to sell his land to the state at a lower value than he could easily sell on the open market? Isn't that state theft by any other name? This is not a case where a CPO would be appropriate - it would be challenged and no inspector would accept that the council had a compelling case to purchase the land when it could be sold for the same purpose on the open market.
Choxolate is offline  
Old 6th Jun 2015, 09:26
  #5546 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 10,198
Do you mean the market value WITHOUT planning consent or with it?

If without it then why on earth should the farmer accept a price that would be much lower than than the market value of the land? (you did say planning consent is granted BEFORE the land is purchased)
I said no such thing. The Council acquires the land without planning permission -the subsequent planning permission is then only given on the basis of the planned scheme. The court takes no account of the prospective planning permission when deciding the compensation.
ORAC is offline  
Old 6th Jun 2015, 11:15
  #5547 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Clarty Waters, UK
Age: 54
Posts: 907
Originally Posted by ORAC View Post
I do love Daniel Hannan, he is so erudite, multi-lingual.... and a UKIP MEP.....
He's actually a Conservative MEP, rather than UKIP, albeit on the Eurosceptic wing of the party.
Andy_S is offline  
Old 6th Jun 2015, 14:50
  #5548 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Southwold
Age: 67
Posts: 60
I'll tell you what I don't get. The most vociferous supporters of Right to Buy seem to oppose these kind of ideas that would be capable of extending exactly that kind of scheme to thousands more people.

What I proposed would give planning consent in places where there isn't a hope in hell of it being given and therefore rewards the landowner with a potential 100% bonus on his land. There is a cabbage field opposite me on the edge of the village and it would be quite capable of taking 40-50 houses.

Link it to a zero tolerance bad tenant contract and rent them at low rates to those on minimum wage. The first sign of a Cortina being broken up in the drive or Iron Maiden blaring out at midnight and out they go. After say five years sell them to the tenant at 50% market value. Where is the loser there?
Effluent Man is offline  
Old 6th Jun 2015, 15:23
  #5549 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,437
Where is the loser there?
The NIMBY who thinks he has an eternal god-given right to the wonderful view over the cabbage field.

Thing is, he's got a vote, and the people who would live in the cabbage field don't have votes, because they don't live there yet. It's a brave councillor who makes unpopular planning policy decisions counting on the votes of the new residents to give him his seat back a few years after he's lost it to a NIMBY.

(Oh, and there must be someone somewhere who actually likes cabbage. I guess you could count them amongst the losers too.)
Gertrude the Wombat is offline  
Old 6th Jun 2015, 15:34
  #5550 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Southwold
Age: 67
Posts: 60
Well that cabbage field is my front yard. It's just across a small country lane and if a small estate thoughtfully designed and populated by reasonably behaved people lived there you know what? I wouldn't register an objection to it.

And if it enabled forty of fifty families to establish themselves in decent housing at a price they could afford then I can't see who has the right to object. My village has a shop,a doctor's surgery and two pubs as well as being on a regular bus route so all the facilities that are needed and currently being under used due to second home owners.
Effluent Man is offline  
Old 7th Jun 2015, 09:04
  #5551 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Somerset, UK
Age: 71
Posts: 82
Originally Posted by ORAC View Post
I said no such thing. The Council acquires the land without planning permission -the subsequent planning permission is then only given on the basis of the planned scheme. The court takes no account of the prospective planning permission when deciding the compensation.
I didn't say you said it, I was asking a question, hence the ? at the end of the sentence.

You miss my point - why should the farmer sell the land to the council? You are in effect implying that they pay double its market value, grant themselves (presumably outline) planning permission, hence increasing the land value to well over its purchase price and then selling it as a profit. I see no case where a CPO would succeed, don't you think the farmer would smell a rat?

The meeting to decide this little scheme would be open to the public? Or would this be a "behind closed doors" stitch up of the farmer? Because however you phrase this, it is a deliberate plan to profit at the expense of the farmer, you see no moral issue with this? Let alone a legal one?
Choxolate is offline  
Old 7th Jun 2015, 09:17
  #5552 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 10,198
You miss my point - why should the farmer sell the land to the council?
it's called a Compulsory Purchase Order for a reason, he has no choice.

Compulsory Purchase and Compensation - Compulsory Purchase Procedure

remember, this topic didn't start as a discussion on how councillors could fill their own pockets, but on how cheaper homes could be built by councils.
ORAC is offline  
Old 7th Jun 2015, 13:14
  #5553 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Southwold
Age: 67
Posts: 60
Exactly,and as I outlined it there are no losers. The farmer gets enough money to buy twice the amount of land he loses. The tenants get a nice house with the prospect of being allowed to buy it at a discount after five years,the village businesses get more customers and the council/govt makes a saving on housing benefit. Where's the snag?
Effluent Man is offline  
Old 7th Jun 2015, 20:55
  #5554 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: London
Posts: 199
Effluent, answer the question. Double market value with or without planning permission.

No landowner in their right mind will sell for less than the land is worth with planning permission.

As for
Either you are on a very poor and pointless wind up,or you don't understand.
I see your comment
Link it to a zero tolerance bad tenant contract and rent them at low rates to those on minimum wage. The first sign of a Cortina being broken up in the drive or Iron Maiden blaring out at midnight and out they go. After say five years sell them to the tenant at 50% market value. Where is the loser there?
and would suggest that you have very little experience of social housing,and the difficulties of evicting for bad behaviour.
And before you get condescending I have worked for two major HAs as well as one of the South East's largest Private developer
Oh, and 5 years rent won't cover 50% of value,so your pie in the sky scheme will lose money
Mr Chips is offline  
Old 7th Jun 2015, 21:35
  #5555 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Southwold
Age: 67
Posts: 60
I'm not going further because I saw your repetitive postings on the Scots thread and you just do this wilful misunderstanding stunt in an attempt to bring intelligent debate to a halt. It's juvenile.
Effluent Man is offline  
Old 7th Jun 2015, 21:53
  #5556 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,437
Oh, and 5 years rent won't cover 50% of value,so your pie in the sky scheme will lose money
Not necessarily, if you take account of his urealistic (in terms of practical politics) proposal to rip off the farmer over planning gain.

Round here a house might cost something like 350k of which something like 100k might be building cost and 250k might be the land. So if you've paid the farmer double agricultural value, which is as near to 27p as makes no difference, you can sell for 50% of market value and still make a profit on the building cost.

That's with the UK system, of course. In some other countries it's routine for the local authorities to CPO land at agricultural prices when changing planning policy, that way all the planning gain goes to the public purse, so you can do this sort of thing. Or alternatively use it to provide decent infrastructure (which the UK system doesn't often deliver).
Gertrude the Wombat is offline  
Old 7th Jun 2015, 21:56
  #5557 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: A little south of the "Black Sheep" brewery
Posts: 374
I have absolutely no idea of the man's politics,apart from that he was a Brummie rather after the Harry Enfield "I am considerably richer than yow" model. Bentley with a naff number plate in the drive. I merely advised on the style and type of house and it's positioning on the plot that might be acceptable to the planners. Nevertheless the visit from the Widow Clicquot was much appreciated!
It's not the donor of the 'bubbly' that I was referring to but rather the consumer of the 'bubbly'!! (I suspect that the donor was anything but socialist, but he knew where the socialists' weak points were...!)
Trossie is offline  
Old 8th Jun 2015, 07:54
  #5558 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Somerset, UK
Age: 71
Posts: 82
If a CPO was applied for by the council the farmer would, almost certainly, object in which case it goes to an independent inspector. The council have to show a compelling case to purchase the land, they cannot just will nilly decide that they want to buy it and then force a CPO through.

The council would justify their CPO on what grounds? That they want to resell the land for housing? If so then the farmer would apply for planning permission himself as it is admiited by the council that planning consent would be given (otherwise why the CPO??). If they reject the farmers application but then grant it to themsleves the farmer would then have land WITH planning permission that he can sell at full market value without reference to the council.
Choxolate is offline  
Old 8th Jun 2015, 08:24
  #5559 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 10,198
New Towns Act 2015?

See clause 10, and especially clause 14, which deals with the issue of CPO compensation for new towns.
ORAC is offline  
Old 8th Jun 2015, 09:34
  #5560 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Southwold
Age: 67
Posts: 60
My point wasn't in any way related to current law or planning policy. It was just an attempt to put forward a resolution to the current impasse on housing that is depriving more and more hard working people of a decent home due to the spiralling prices.

Evidently many though reserve their sympathy for the multi millionaire farm owners and want them to continue to amass wealth while housing still only goes to the fortunate half of the country. It is interesting to see that owner occupiers are for the first time ever declining % wise.

Trossie, I understood your point exactly. Champagne isn't my tipple though, I prefer a decent first growth Claret.

Last edited by Effluent Man; 8th Jun 2015 at 15:37.
Effluent Man is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.