Smallest, Pokiest Homes In Europe

[BuyingBear]

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=...143419,0.368729

Just look, they've concreted over the countryside, there's nothing left! OMFG! This will not stand, it's an outrage, we need to protest!!

[Guest Vim Fuego]

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=...143419,0.368729

Lot's and lot's of fields... that's all I see from space...!

Try it out yourself...

Just had a look at priced out.....completely agree with its standpoint. However putting this on the front page:

"It's become increasingly difficult for young people today to buy." - David Cameron, in the Independent

well, frankly, puts me off the website....what's cameron going to do....advocate a houseprice crash that will deter his property mansion owning voters from ever voting for him...don't think so......

[trouserjazz]

So the government releases 3% of the land to build on, letting us all have a good sized home to live in, filling up some of that 'empty' land...and then what happens in the next generation? Just build on 3% more land so they can have a good sized home too, and then the next generation just 3% more etc until eventually Britain is one big suburb with future generations having to rely completely on imported food to feed themselves? Fine until theres a major war and we need a domestic food supply or we fall out with one or more of our foreign food suppliers middle east style and they hold us to ransom by jacking up prices.

Its stupidly short sited, the answer in a crowded country like Britain (England especially) is to stop population growth, its the only sustainable option. Isnt it obvious/common sense???

Edited April 12, 2006 by trouserjazz

[737]

So the government releases 3% of the land to build on, letting us all have a good sized home to live in, filling up some of that 'empty' land...and then what happens in the next generation? Just build on 3% more land so they can have a good sized home too, and then the next generation just 3% more etc until eventually Britain is one big suburb with future generations having to rely completely on imported food to feed themselves? Fine until theres a major war and we need a domestic food supply or we fall out with one or more of our foreign food suppliers middle east style and they hold us to ransom by jacking up prices.

Its stupidly short sited, the answer in a crowded country like Britain (England especially) is to stop population growth, its the only sustainable option. Isnt it obvious/common sense???

As our population is only really increasing due to immigration I'd have thought the solution was obvious!

[DoubleBubbleTrouble]

Just had a look at priced out.....completely agree with its standpoint. However putting this on the front page:

"It's become increasingly difficult for young people today to buy." - David Cameron, in the Independent

well, frankly, puts me off the website....what's cameron going to do....advocate a houseprice crash that will deter his property mansion owning voters from ever voting for him...don't think so......

Believe it or not I get people coming to the site who say how can you be priced out, blah blah.

So it's one of the quote's I've collected to highlight the fact even mainstream policiticians acknowledge the fact. It's not up there because we have any pro-tory sympathies. If you click through on the link you get to a page with some cracking quotes, from people of all political persuasions...

http://www.pricedout.org.uk/Articles/Wisdo...03/Default.aspx

So the government releases 3% of the land to build on, letting us all have a good sized home to live in, filling up some of that 'empty' land...and then what happens in the next generation? Just build on 3% more land so they can have a good sized home too, and then the next generation just 3% more etc until eventually Britain is one big suburb with future generations having to rely completely on imported food to feed themselves? Fine until theres a major war and we need a domestic food supply or we fall out with one or more of our foreign food suppliers middle east style and they hold us to ransom by jacking up prices.

Its stupidly short sited, the answer in a crowded country like Britain (England especially) is to stop population growth, its the only sustainable option. Isnt it obvious/common sense???

I think we have already stopped population growth. Problem is we're still left with a load of unsuitable aging houses.

Just look, they've concreted over the countryside, there's nothing left! OMFG! This will not stand, it's an outrage, we need to protest!!

I know it's hilarious isn't it.

Problem I think is when people look around they are either doing it from their cars or they just tune the fields out and see the other stuff because it has more detail.

I think Google Earth is going to be extremely usefull challenging peoples flawed assumptions about our conrete country!

[BuyingBear]

Its stupidly short sited, the answer in a crowded country like Britain (England especially)

Except we're not a crowded country are we, it's only when you cram 90% of the people into 6% of the land you get over-crowding.

I think you've hit the nail on the head though, in their mind the reactionaries antipathy towards foreigners and 'coloureds' alone justifies disenfranchising an entire generation of people of every background.

The selfish irony is the realisation that the nimbies themselves live in homes that could never be built under the current system, if we shifted their arguments back four decades they would protest against the building of their own homes, their shape, form and location.

[balamory]

I have to admit to being bewildered by the power of the NIMBY. The bit that gets me is why aren't the people being adversley affected by NIMBY'ism more angry and vocal about it... look at what those French kids managed to do, yet here we are waiting and hoping for HPC which could lower prices but won't;

1. Make the quality of housing in the UK any better

2. More importantly stop the next House Price Boom from happening

Does anyone have any evidence that this occurs? It would be useful to know.

Seems to me though it's a difficult argument to make stand up, surely development companies have a vested interest in developing on the land?

If there were banks of land being held for speculation why don't they pop onto the market when prices rise, surely that's what you would expect anyone hoarding land to be waiting for?

Instead what we see is that the rate of development never changes despite the market pressures...

I agree.

If you want to see where NIMBYism comes from just read some of the comments on this thread. A large number of people who post on this site believe that there is no shortage of housing (and this is a site devoted to the housing crisis). How much more ignorant is the average person. Many HPCers would rather blame VI spin and obscure conspiracy theories rather than face the fact that we are building too few houses.

Hi,

Don't froget the vast tracts of development land held for decades at a time by independent firms to restrict supply.

With all due respect, this is cr@p. Where is your evidence to support this?

House builders maintain land banks. This is because the planning process takes so long that they have to in order to have some visibility on their pipeline.

[Michael]

So the government releases 3% of the land to build on, letting us all have a good sized home to live in, filling up some of that 'empty' land...and then what happens in the next generation? Just build on 3% more land so they can have a good sized home too, and then the next generation just 3% more etc until eventually Britain is one big suburb with future generations having to rely completely on imported food to feed themselves? Fine until theres a major war and we need a domestic food supply or we fall out with one or more of our foreign food suppliers middle east style and they hold us to ransom by jacking up prices.

Its stupidly short sited, the answer in a crowded country like Britain (England especially) is to stop population growth, its the only sustainable option. Isnt it obvious/common sense???

we can't stop population growth because immigration is unrestricted....and has massively increased since May 2004 when 77 million people almost all of whom live in very poor countries (largest Poland) were given the right to live and work here...................In poland the average income of those lucky enough to be employed is a fifth of the uk level and unemployment is 22%!........far too great a contrast to the Uk to prevent us being swamped..........

The natural (net of immigration) change in population is more or less nil.............

Bulgaria and Romania joining up next year adding to the influx..

''The selfish irony is the realisation that the nimbies themselves live in homes that could never be built under the current system, if we shifted their arguments back four decades they would protest against the building of their own homes, their shape, form and location''

Combination of the immigration and nimbyism and loose credit has got us into this mess

Edited April 12, 2006 by Michael

[737]

building too few houses.

With all due respect, this is cr@p. Where is your evidence to support this?

House builders maintain land banks. This is because the planning process takes so long that they have to in order to have some visibility on their pipeline.

A tiny minority exploits British society. 160,000 families, 0.3% of the population, own 37 million acres, two thirds of Britain, 230 acres each. Just 1,252 of them own 57% of Scotland. They pay no land tax. Instead every government gives them £2.3 billion a year and the EU gives them a further £2 billion. Each family gets £26,875. (1999)

By contrast, 57.5 million of us pay £10 billion a year in council tax, a land tax, £550 per household. We live in 24 million homes on about four million acres. 65% of homes are privately owned, so 16 million families own just 2.8 million acres, an average 0.18 acres (1999)

Landowners' wealth is a parasite on Britain, the least productive part of the economy, with the most state support. Their wealth comes not from farming, nor even from renting, but from trickling land onto the urban housing market. They sell land to property developers, at an average price per acre of around £904,000. The clearing banks and building societies strip our industries of investment capital, then support their clients the landowners by running the rigged and overpriced land market

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/1...8073221-6599031

Who Owns Britain lays to rest the myths that the UK is short of land, revealing that there is actually a land surplus with 60 million of us are crammed into only 7.5% of the land mass. It reveals the propaganda machine that insists there is “concreting over the countryside” and “urban sprawl” – nothing could be further from the truth. This cramming of the population into 7.5% of the land mass created an artificial land shortage ramping up land prices to the point that 2/3 of the value of UK homes is the value of the land. As a result UK homes are in comparison to other similar countries very small and vastly overpriced. The benefactors are the enterpriseless rent taking large landowners - 1% of the population own 70% of the land, a situation not seen in any comparable nation.

The above facts are a little dated (1999). Presumably the situastion is now even worse!

Edited April 12, 2006 by 737

[bob2]

It's not only about density - also about the quality of what is built and standards of building - for instance at one time all apartments were built with double floors for sound insulation, but that was given up years ago. And most of the new-builds are timber-frames which means that will be starting to fall apart within a couple of decades, which is just stupid short-termism for the sake of this year's balance sheet.

Isn't it actually the case that we make much less use of timber than most other countries?

A lot of the spacious houses being built in other countries are timber frame - and there's nothing wrong with that. Good timber frame houses do not start to "fall apart" within a couple of decades. Some of the oldest houses standing today are timber!

[DoubleBubbleTrouble]

737 - really interesting stats, shame the book isn't more up to date. Wonder if there's any way to get more recent data in the same vein.

[North London Rent Girl]

Indeed. Generally I find that the most attractive houses I see are those built by the Victorians or their predecessors.

Personally, I'd really like to keep whats left of our countryside, but the only way to do this and still have reasonable housing is to stem the population growth........

Population growth has nothing to do with it. We need to introduce stringent licensing to the rental sector to prevent the casual anti-service currently provided by most landlords and make owners of second homes pay twice council tax for first second home, second council tax for second etc. unless they can prove that the places are occupied year-round. Wealthy property-owners need a bit of a slap, that's all, hardly unprecedented, we can do it. Plus we need to remove VAT on renovation.

About the quality of new builds: isn't there a new rule about new properties having to have a disabled-access toilet on the ground floor? Might spare us future rabbit hutches. My cousin and her husband have bought a new house and it's really wide and generously proportioned, mainly, I'm sure, because the ground floor had to be built the width of the garage plus the three feet or so of the disabled loo and wheelchair-accessible hallway. Fantastic. Come on you chairees!

[balamory]

A tiny minority exploits British society. 160,000 families, 0.3% of the population, own 37 million acres, two thirds of Britain, 230 acres each. Just 1,252 of them own 57% of Scotland. They pay no land tax. Instead every government gives them £2.3 billion a year and the EU gives them a further £2 billion. Each family gets £26,875. (1999)

By contrast, 57.5 million of us pay £10 billion a year in council tax, a land tax, £550 per household. We live in 24 million homes on about four million acres. 65% of homes are privately owned, so 16 million families own just 2.8 million acres, an average 0.18 acres (1999)

Landowners' wealth is a parasite on Britain, the least productive part of the economy, with the most state support. Their wealth comes not from farming, nor even from renting, but from trickling land onto the urban housing market. They sell land to property developers, at an average price per acre of around £904,000. The clearing banks and building societies strip our industries of investment capital, then support their clients the landowners by running the rigged and overpriced land market

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/1...8073221-6599031

Who Owns Britain lays to rest the myths that the UK is short of land, revealing that there is actually a land surplus with 60 million of us are crammed into only 7.5% of the land mass. It reveals the propaganda machine that insists there is “concreting over the countryside” and “urban sprawl” – nothing could be further from the truth. This cramming of the population into 7.5% of the land mass created an artificial land shortage ramping up land prices to the point that 2/3 of the value of UK homes is the value of the land. As a result UK homes are in comparison to other similar countries very small and vastly overpriced. The benefactors are the enterpriseless rent taking large landowners - 1% of the population own 70% of the land, a situation not seen in any comparable nation.

The above facts are a little dated (1999). Presumably the situastion is now even worse!

A crank conspiracy theory. I rest my case.

737, a question for you. What makes agricultural land worth 3k per acre and building land worth 1m? Go on, think really hard about it.

Is it

1. a conspiracy by an inbreed land owning elite (presumably all sorted out down at the lodge with funny handshakes) to ration the amount of land released to the peasants, or

2. the restrictive nature of planning laws, due to stupid politicians who refuse to stand up to NIMBYs.

Have you read that book, or are you just quoting from the book review? I have read it and I can assure you it is a political tract by an author who thinks he lives in Victorian Britain and for some reason has a very large chip on his shoulder. The data in it is full of errors, so take it with a large pinch of salt.

EU agricultural subsidies are wrong, but I can highlight far worse abuses of tax payer money (how about public sector inefficiency / pensions for a start).

[737]

737, a question for you. What makes agricultural land worth 3k per acre and building land worth 1m? Go on, think really hard about it.

Is it

1. a conspiracy by an inbreed land owning elite (presumably all sorted out down at the lodge with funny handshakes) to ration the amount of land released to the peasants, or

2. the restrictive nature of planning laws, due to stupid politicians who refuse to stand up to NIMBYs.

"It is difficult not to smell a conspiracy in a country where landowners, roughly equivalent in number to the population of Aberdeen, control and own more than 90 per cent of the UK land mass (and receive around £4bn in subsidies). So in this transparent age of databases, the Treasury, astonishingly, keeps no records of the flow of income of landowners. Even the Land Registry contains details on only about 65 per cent of UK land - that sold since 1928. "

http://www.newstatesman.com/200205270017

[tahoma]

Did anyone see Grand Designs last night? An old barn in the middle of nowhere, and they were not allowed to put new windows in it!

Planning restrictions should be based purely on aesthetic appeal and infrastructure concerns, not arbitrary yes-you-can no-you-can't regulations.

[Solvent Celt]

we can't stop population growth because immigration is unrestricted....and has massively increased since May 2004 when 77 million people almost all of whom live in very poor countries (largest Poland) were given the right to live and work here...................In poland the average income of those lucky enough to be employed is a fifth of the uk level and unemployment is 22%!........far too great a contrast to the Uk to prevent us being swamped..........

The natural (net of immigration) change in population is more or less nil.............

Bulgaria and Romania joining up next year adding to the influx..

''The selfish irony is the realisation that the nimbies themselves live in homes that could never be built under the current system, if we shifted their arguments back four decades they would protest against the building of their own homes, their shape, form and location''

Combination of the immigration and nimbyism and loose credit has got us into this mess

We need to deal with all the issues...

Immigration to be stopped and repatriation started.

A sane planning policy.

Legislation to set a minimum standard for housing size.

Redistribution of land from the feudal estates.

Restriction of lending back to 3.5 of income.

Only then will we get to have a decent quality of life.

[balamory]

"It is difficult not to smell a conspiracy in a country where landowners, roughly equivalent in number to the population of Aberdeen, control and own more than 90 per cent of the UK land mass (and receive around £4bn in subsidies). So in this transparent age of databases, the Treasury, astonishingly, keeps no records of the flow of income of landowners. Even the Land Registry contains details on only about 65 per cent of UK land - that sold since 1928. "

http://www.newstatesman.com/200205270017

So you are a conspiracy theorist! I'm sorry, but a quote from the new statesman, a left wing fringe publication stuck in the era of class war (and owned by Geoffrey Robinson?) is hardly an unbiased or reliable source. Its a bit like quoting from a BNP website about imigration.

How about looking at it another way which sounds less sinister (but is less successful at selling books or motivating class warriors).

80% of England consists of owner occupied farms. There are 250,000 full time farmers in the UK. So, its fair to conclude that 250,000 people own 80% of England. Do you seriously believe that 250,000 people have got together and formed a plot to ration the supply of building land?

Here is another question for you. Scottish land ownership is far more concentrated than in England. How come house price are lower in Scotland than in England? Surely with fewer landowners, the cartel should be more effective.

Or perhaps the whole conspiracy theory is just plain old cr@p and its all to do with planning laws, NIMBYs and incompetent politicians. Why is it that people like you would rather believe ridiculous conspiracy theories rather than accept the obvious?

[737]

So you are a conspiracy theorist! I'm sorry, but a quote from the new statesman, a left wing fringe publication stuck in the era of class war (and owned by Geoffrey Robinson?) is hardly an unbiased or reliable source. Its a bit like quoting from a BNP website about imigration.

How about looking at it another way which sounds less sinister (but is less successful at selling books or motivating class warriors).

80% of England consists of owner occupied farms. There are 250,000 full time farmers in the UK. So, its fair to conclude that 250,000 people own 80% of England. Do you seriously believe that 250,000 people have got together and formed a plot to ration the supply of building land?

Here is another question for you. Scottish land ownership is far more concentrated than in England. How come house price are lower in Scotland than in England? Surely with fewer landowners, the cartel should be more effective.

Or perhaps the whole conspiracy theory is just plain old cr@p and its all to do with planning laws, NIMBYs and incompetent politicians. Why is it that people like you would rather believe ridiculous conspiracy theories rather than accept the obvious?

Why is it 'people like you' think that there's no modicum of colusion by those owning the large land banks be they private land owners or building companies - of course they don't just flood land onto the market - indeed, when times are hard, or tax/politicians doon't favour them they actually withhold land, it's an accepted practice - And just where do I argue that planning laws etc are not also part of the problem?

By the way your posting style makes you come over as a complete **** - though I'm sure that in real life and face to face you're probably much less aggressive?

Edited April 13, 2006 by 737

[scruffian]

i think a major underlying problem here is the view that development must have a detrimental impact on the environment. which is of course nonsense. there are a lot of people out there who are interested in sustainable building methods and lifestyles, which would not have any detrimental impact on the countryside, but would in fact improve it. if people we allowed to live on greenfield land, but were restricted to local, sustainable building materials, and other strict guidlines then this would greatly improve our countryside which is suffering from neglect (uncut coppice and pine woods, derelict sites full of fly tipped sofas, etc. )

[balamory]

Why is it 'people like you' think that there's no modicum of colusion by those owning the large land banks be they private land owners or building companies - of course they don't just flood land onto the market - indeed, when times are hard, or tax/politicians doon't favour them they actually withhold land, it's an accepted practice - And just where do I argue that planning laws etc are not also part of the problem?

By the way your posting style makes you come over as a complete **** - though I'm sure that in real life and face to face you're probably much less aggressive?

Apologies if i came over as a ****.

I am certain that there is no collusion, not even "a modicum". How is it possible for 250,000 land owners to collude?

Even in the housebuilding industry there are hundreds of companies. They compete to buy land and to sell houses. I dont believe that you could coordinate any level of colusion between such numbers of diverse people and businesses.

My experience is personal. My family are farmers. We have no chance of ever getting any planning permission on our land because it falls outside the arbitrary lines drawn by planners. Even my parents couldnt get permission to build themselves a modest retirement home on land they have owned for decades. How can the current status quo possibly benefit us as land owners? If there is a conspiracy, someone forgot to cut us in.

No, you didnt ever say that planning wasnt part of the problem but you suggested that a landowning conspricay was and that was the point i replied to. The VI conspiracy theories pedalled on this site make entertaining reading but they obscure the real issue which is our fossilised planning system.

[kevla22]

i think a major underlying problem here is the view that development must have a detrimental impact on the environment. which is of course nonsense. there are a lot of people out there who are interested in sustainable building methods and lifestyles, which would not have any detrimental impact on the countryside, but would in fact improve it. if people we allowed to live on greenfield land, but were restricted to local, sustainable building materials, and other strict guidlines then this would greatly improve our countryside which is suffering from neglect (uncut coppice and pine woods, derelict sites full of fly tipped sofas, etc. )

I completely agree, its more than feasible to build environmentally friendly homes and with the rises in services it makes more and more sense.

What gets me is a lot of this land isn't used for any purpose, why not allow people to put up a timber frame house that sits on piles (not a huge slab of concrete) and uses solar/wind power and has its own sewage treatment system.

Given that current housing levels are still way below demand it seems crazy. At the rate the population is growing it will only get worse.

The planning laws will have to be relaxed eventually.

[BuyingBear]

My experience is personal. My family are farmers. We have no chance of ever getting any planning permission on our land because it falls outside the arbitrary lines drawn by planners. Even my parents couldnt get permission to build themselves a modest retirement home on land they have owned for decades. How can the current status quo possibly benefit us as land owners? If there is a conspiracy, someone forgot to cut us in.

The UK is still very feudalistic and there are huge imbalances in land ownership, don't for a minute confuse this with an attack on farmers unless you consider people like Prince Charles to really be 'farmers'. Many farmers are actually tenants themselves and must pay homage to the lord of the manor.

There are vast tracks of land in the UK that are owned by a handful of people, most of which is not even recorded at the Land Registry, the EU gives them money and countless other public agencies hand over dosh, and these people are not struggling farmers by any means.

They are the same people that back groups like the CPRE or other useful idiots in the environmental arena, whether this is labelled a 'conspiracy' is beside the point, the fact remains that the current system suits them very well and there is no incentive to change; because they don't see any problem or simply choose to ignore it. Hence the blatant distortion of the facts and a general pettiness to disguise the real issue, the huge inequity in land ownership in this country.

The sheer unsustainability of our planning system combined with the low standards, blatant mismatch in the supply of new build and a wrong mix of housing will drive it to breaking point, if this government really wants nuclear power they shall have to 'nuke' our arcane planning process in order to do so; this government cares little for consultation or judicial reviews, so our old school planning laws are a sitting duck.

Edited April 13, 2006 by BuyingBear

[balamory]

The UK is still very feudalistic and there are huge imbalances in land ownership, don't for a minute confuse this with an attack on farmers unless you consider people like Prince Charles to really be 'farmers'. Many farmers are actually tenants themselves and must pay homage to the lord of the manor.

There are vast tracks of land in the UK that are owned by a handful of people, most of which is not even recorded at the Land Registry, the EU gives them money and countless other public agencies hand over dosh, and these people are not struggling farmers by any means.

They are the same people that back groups like the CPRE or other useful idiots in the environmental arena, whether this is labelled a 'conspiracy' is beside the point, the fact remains that the current system suits them very well and there is no incentive to change; because they don't see any problem or simply choose to ignore it. Hence the blatant distortion of the facts and a general pettiness to disguise the real issue, the huge inequity in land ownership in this country.

The sheer unsustainability of our planning system combined with the low standards, blatant mismatch in the supply of new build and a wrong mix of housing will drive it to breaking point, if this government really wants nuclear power they shall have to 'nuke' our arcane planning process in order to do so; this government cares little for consultation or judicial reviews, so our old school planning laws are a sitting duck.

You say that the UK is very feudalistic, but the facts dont support this, at least for England. In 1900, 80% of land was farmed by tenants. Today, 80% of land is farmed by owner occupiers. From 1910 to 1960 there was a huge redistribution of land ownership as large estates were broken up and sold to working farmers. This was largely caused by death duties and the agricultural depression. This was land distribution by the back door.

My personal experience supports this view. I grew up in East Anglia where most land is owned by farmers. My grandfather started out as a tenant but over the years he, and my father bought up large chunks of land sold off as the traditional estates were broken up. This story is repeated across the region. I dont think anyone can claim that East Anglia is feudalistic today.

How does the current system suit landowners? Please explain. As I have already said, what is the benefit of inflated building land values if you dont can never get planning permission. In my experience, the CPRE is run by and for the city dwellers who come into the countryside to retire and bid up by the cost of housing so that locals can no longer afford it. The CPRE and farmer / landowners are on opposite sides. The farmers want to build houses (its much more profitable than any crop), the CPRE want to preserve their view.

Agricultural subsidies (as opposed to environmental subsidies) are hard to defend. We owe their existence to he usual political fudge. France wants to support its small farmers. The UK, with larger than average farms doesnt want to lose its share of the pie so blocks modulation (i.e. upper limits on payments). As a recipient I gladly pocket my subsidy, but I pay far more in tax than I receive in subsidy.

Why are you so bothered about whether land ownership is recorded at the land registry? Ask any local and they know who owns what.

[BuyingBear]

How does the current system suit landowners? Please explain. As I have already said, what is the benefit of inflated building land values if you dont can never get planning permission. In my experience, the CPRE is run by and for the city dwellers who come into the countryside to retire and bid up by the cost of housing so that locals can no longer afford it. The CPRE and farmer / landowners are on opposite sides. The farmers want to build houses (its much more profitable than any crop), the CPRE want to preserve their view.

I didn't conflate the CPRE with farmers, the former is supported by middleclass draw-bridgers and rich land owners, of which there are still many. The present system obviously suits these people just fine as they go to great lengths to defend it, even to the detriment to our towns and cities. Given that a massive chunk of land holding are kept secret it would seem the status quo suits these people perfectly.

It's very curious, we have struggling farmers sitting on an abundance of land and a desperate housing shortage with countless buyers queued up, the market economics between the two is obvious yet nothing happens, there must be something very wrong if something can counter such forces.

[balamory]

I didn't conflate the CPRE with farmers, the former is supported by middleclass draw-bridgers and rich land owners, of which there are still many. The present system obviously suits these people just fine as they go to great lengths to defend it, even to the detriment to our towns and cities. Given that a massive chunk of land holding are kept secret it would seem the status quo suits these people perfectly.

It's very curious, we have struggling farmers sitting on an abundance of land and a desperate housing shortage with countless buyers queued up, the market economics between the two is obvious yet nothing happens, there must be something very wrong if something can counter such forces.

From my experience, CPRE is purely a vehicle of the middle class draw-bridgers (I like that phrase). Rich land owners want to develop their land every bit as much as the small farmer. The CPRE supporters are the same people who complain about the smell of manure, dust from combine harvesters, noise polution from church bells, etc. They are a pain in the @rse but sadly as the original inhabitants have got priced out they now form the majority of rural inhabitants in my area.

I agree about the abundance of unprofitable farm land versus the scarcity of land for house building. That is why the stroke of a planners pen increases the value of an acre from 3k to 1 million. Its purely artificial and arbitrary.

Dont get hung up on the fact that land isnt registered. It has more to do with the cost of registering than any desire for secrecy. Much of my land is unregistered. It would cost several thousand pounds to register it (surveyors and solicitors fees), so why should I. My title deeds are proof of ownership, I know what I own and so do my neighbours.