This column has previously argued that if homes are granted planning permission, and not built and ready for sale within two years, developers should pay full council tax on unfinished properties – incentivising them not to sit on unfinished plots, waiting for prices to rise even more.
I’ve also highlighted that the state owns 6pc of all freehold acreage across the UK, almost a million hectares, rising to 15pc in urban areas, including countless sites prime for development.
Just 5pc of that land would be enough, at the UK average density of 45 homes per hectare, for more than 2 million homes – far more if urban areas were used, where densities are higher. Government land sales should be restricted to small, local builders – who build-out quickly to aid cashflow – while including strict conditions relating to affordable and social housing provision.
But reforms to land sales need to go further – which brings us to the policy floated by Labour last week, an idea not without merit, but which ultimately goes too far.
When residential permissions are granted on agricultural land, values can rocket a hundred-fold or more – with this vast “planning gain” going almost entirely to landowners, developers and intermediate “land agents”.
That gain should instead be significantly shared with local authorities – which would dampen price speculation, resulting in cheaper plots and, therefore, more affordable homes. Such “land value capture” would also generate funds to build schools, hospitals and other infrastructure, making new homes more popular, transforming the fraught local politics of planning.
Existing “Section 106” deals are meant to “claw back” some planning gain – but instead just reinforce the status quo. Powerful developers often negotiate away their obligations to build communal assets and affordable housing – threatening councils, under pressure from Whitehall to deliver housing, with further delays. Small builders lack such power, so are forced to fulfil their community obligations, often up front, making small developments unviable.
Labour’s radical land reform plans go too far
[ad_1]
This column has previously argued that if homes are granted planning permission, and not built and ready for sale within two years, developers should pay full council tax on unfinished properties – incentivising them not to sit on unfinished plots, waiting for prices to rise even more.
I’ve also highlighted that the state owns 6pc of all freehold acreage across the UK, almost a million hectares, rising to 15pc in urban areas, including countless sites prime for development.
Just 5pc of that land would be enough, at the UK average density of 45 homes per hectare, for more than 2 million homes – far more if urban areas were used, where densities are higher. Government land sales should be restricted to small, local builders – who build-out quickly to aid cashflow – while including strict conditions relating to affordable and social housing provision.
But reforms to land sales need to go further – which brings us to the policy floated by Labour last week, an idea not without merit, but which ultimately goes too far.
When residential permissions are granted on agricultural land, values can rocket a hundred-fold or more – with this vast “planning gain” going almost entirely to landowners, developers and intermediate “land agents”.
That gain should instead be significantly shared with local authorities – which would dampen price speculation, resulting in cheaper plots and, therefore, more affordable homes. Such “land value capture” would also generate funds to build schools, hospitals and other infrastructure, making new homes more popular, transforming the fraught local politics of planning.
Existing “Section 106” deals are meant to “claw back” some planning gain – but instead just reinforce the status quo. Powerful developers often negotiate away their obligations to build communal assets and affordable housing – threatening councils, under pressure from Whitehall to deliver housing, with further delays. Small builders lack such power, so are forced to fulfil their community obligations, often up front, making small developments unviable.
[ad_2]
Source link