Excellent news

The biggest shake up in the planning system for 50 years will allow sprawling out of town developments on the green belt, campaigners have warned.

About bloody time too. The green belt is nothing more than a subsidy to those who own land inside it.

And yes, we ought to be digging out the structures by which such people manage to capture rents.

10 thoughts on “Excellent news”

  1. The Green and pleasant land will become a dull grime and crime ridden shit hole for benefit dependant overseas filth. Not with you on this on Tim.

  2. More of a subsidy to those who own houses or have planning permission, land is quite cheap otherwise.

  3. It will do nothing of the sort. The people who are complaining are the ones with vested interests in making the countryside a no-go place.

    So we end up with fields being totally unproductive, quaint picturesque villages which cost a bomb to live in, cramped living conditions in cities, etc.

    Look into the figures about how much of the UK land is currently developed. It’s tiny. The majority of the remaining land are forests, parks, SSSI, etc. which will never EVER be built on. The small remaining proportion (still bigger than the already developed part) should be developed on.

    Even if it was all built over, more than 50% of the UK would still be green and pleasant.

    Think of French countryside. A house every few acres. Does it spoil the French countryside? Nope. Building a few houses in the countryside well separated and set back from the road with lots of trees and greenery to hide the property will better use of unused land – and still look nice.

  4. I don’t mind the “quaint picturesque villages which cost a bomb to live in” per se. It when they start whinging about
    * their village post office/shop/pub/church/library closing and then look for subsidies from taxpayers elsewhere to keep them open.
    * how their children can’t afford to buy a house in the village they grew up in because those evil outsiders are moving in.

  5. “Building a few houses in the countryside well separated and set back from the road with lots of trees and greenery to hide the property will better use of unused land – and still look nice.”

    Maybe, but that’s not going to be popular with the likes of Bellway who want to build 25 rabbit-hutch houses on the plot where those one or two would ‘look nice’…

    And then there’s the infrastructure to consider.

  6. Dotting new homes around in the countryside won’t solve the underlying shortage of living space and won’t make sense for people who need to be near their place of work and as Julia points out, new housing needs to be near existing or new infrastructure.

    For me it all seems quite simple. Local authorities should be in charge of their own development plans and should benefit from development through capturing the increase in business and domestic “rates”.

  7. The T&C Planning Act is overlooked as the most disastrous and vicious of the Attlee era reforms. Nationalisation came and went, mostly, but the grotesque tyranny of the stalinist planning committee rumbles on.

  8. “Dotting new homes around in the countryside won’t solve the underlying shortage of living space”

    Next up: “growing more food won’t stop starvation” and “building more power stations won’t give us more electricity”.

  9. Imposing the green belt was probably a subsidy to those who then lived there: abolishing it is theft from those who now live there.

    (Declaration of interest: we do.)

  10. dearieme: Stealing your house/land would be theft. Allowing more building around you on other peoples’ land that may happen to reduce the market value of yours is not theft, any more than it is theft to allow[1] a new business to open that increases competition and reduces the income and/or share price of an existing business (particularly one that has enjoyed some kind of government granted monopoly).

    If we had a LVT then you would have the consolation of lower tax bills to offset any reduction in your land value caused by the activities of others.

    [1] ‘allow’ is a bad choice. Change that to ‘not prevent’.

Leave a Reply

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