Sunday, June 6, 2010

Changes to planning legislation proposed

At least those rubbish laws are starting to burn

(Scroll down to 3rd paragraph) Welcome, too, are the Coalition plans to reverse Labour's classification of gardens as "brown field sites". The purpose of that ruling was to make more space available for housing development, which duly happened: the policy has left a rash of unsightly concrete bunkers in urban gardens, as homeowners sold them off to developers. The new houses have done little to ease the chronic shortage of affordable housing and have simply disfigured what used to be precious green spaces. The Coalition will also announce its intention to repeal the law that makes the provision of a set number of affordable homes a condition of developers being granted planning permission for upmarket housing.

Posted by drewster @ 11:53 PM (3153 views)
Please complete the required fields.



7 thoughts on “Changes to planning legislation proposed

  • So much for freedom: you can’t sell your large and irksome garden off when you feel like it.Those damned right-wing social engineers will interfere in one’s God-given right to make unearned capital gains!.
    BTW It is often said of LVT that it prompts infilling and building on all urban green spaces to the general detriment .Critics of LVT suddenly come over all lefty and start talking about social benefit on this one abruptly dropping the usual neanderthal “I’ ll do what I like with my land”stuff.However,LVT revenues are not helped by infilling because this brings the average price of land down.Central Park in NY would pay for itself under a land value tax system because it puts up land values for a good mile all around ,enough to pay for its open space.Under LVT open space pays for itself (as does any socially provided real benefit).

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • mark wadsworth says:

    What dbc says. Where is the real difference between

    a) a Socialist command and control economy which regulates everything that can ever happen anywhere (to the overall detriment of society and the benefit of a small group of insiders) and

    b) a NIMBY command and control economy which regulates everything that can ever happen anywhere (to the overall detriment of society and the benefit of a small group of insiders)?

    As to LVT, citics thereof adopt a three-pronged attack, none of which are particularly true and completely contradicting themselves thrice over:
    1. Farmers wouldn’t be able to afford to pay so would be ‘forced’ to concrete over the countryside.
    2. The tax would be highest on urban land, therefore urban dwellers would be ‘forced’ to sell off their land for ever denser development.
    3. Developers wouldn’t be able to afford the tax so nothing new would ever be built.

    I’m happy to deal with any of these individually, but it is difficult arguing with all three simultaneously.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • There are more details on proposed planning law legislation changes in this article:

    (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/greenpolitics/taxandtheenvironment/7806238/Bin-taxes-and-planning-laws-to-be-ditched-by-Coalition.html)

    “In a further attempt to reach out to middle class families, Greg Clark, the minister for decentralisation, will on Wednesday outline plans to end cluttering of leafy residential areas by abolishing Labour’s “minimum density targets” for house building. Rules currently stipulate that at least 30 homes are built on every hectare of developed land. This makes it almost impossible for large-scale developers to win planning permission to build bigger homes and gardens. In the same space that would have been allowed for one house in the 1980s, builders are now being required to build three. Current rules also state that at least 25 per cent of the homes in each new luxury housing development must be “affordable”, and proposed developments often do not get the go ahead unless a block of budget flats is added onto the site. The abolition of the density targets will end cluttering, ill-thought-out “affordable” high rises and homes which are too small, campaigners say. But Opposition MPs, including some Liberal Democrat coalition members, are expected to criticise the changes because they say smaller and cheaper housing is needed for key workers and the less well off.”

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • mark wadsworth says:

    You can tell that the Tories have been salivating over this NIMBY clamp-down for years:

    “Rules currently stipulate that at least 30 homes are built on every hectare of developed land. This makes it almost impossible for large-scale developers to win planning permission to build bigger homes and gardens.”

    That might be true, it might not. But under the Lib-Cons, are the young aspiring “middle classes” (whatever the heck that means) going to get a welcome return to more “bigger homes and gardens”? Nope. Because the only place we could build them is on The Hallowed Green belt. So what this means is, there’ll be no net new housing at all!

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • @dbc
    I think your reasoning does not go through. Imagine that all the N people surrounding Central Park owned 1/N of the park area and could sell it off. What would happen 1) if development were not allowed and 2) if development were allowed? and then with and without Land Value Tax? (presumably a more rapid sell off without LVT). This is more like the situation in a city where developers can gradually hoover up disconnected private plots. Green space may raise values generally but it’s a public good for landowners.
    Nick

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • Sorry, garbled that a bit…
    with LVT you can argue that the authority has an incentive to allow development on the green space. The fact that it raises values for landowners is not relevant because it’s a public good to them.
    N

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • mark wadsworth says:

    Nick B, I think you’ve missed the point.

    Imagine we had LVT, and you are a town planner and if you wanted, you could sell off every public single park, bowling green, duckpond and kids playground for development (on which at present no LVT is paid because it would be silly for the council to pay LVT to itself for a public space).

    If you sold them all off, the areas from which you can collect LVT would go up 5% or 10%, obviously, but wouldn’t the rental value of the surrounding properties go down by more? Which is why LVT does not pose a threat to public parks etc.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



Add a comment

  • Your email address is required so we can verify that the comment is genuine. It will not be posted anywhere on the site, will be stored confidentially by us and never given out to any third party.
  • Please note that any viewpoints published here as comments are user´s views and not the views of HousePriceCrash.co.uk.
  • Please adhere to the Guidelines

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>