Letter: Homes approved but never built
Thursday 15th September 2011, 6:00AM BST.
Letter: I notice strange things happening regarding planning. But it seems to me, that in its intention to make planning easier for developers, the government is solving the wrong problem.
In Ruyton XI Towns, approval was given almost five years ago for more than 100 homes to be built. An amazing number, considering we are a community of only 500 homes. But very few homes are being built.
Developers prefer to keep sites in the ‘land-bank’. So approving more plans won’t fix any housing shortage, just ‘bank’ more approvals.
The solution is for councils to be given authority to compulsorily purchase any land with planning permission that is not built on within five years at a price half way between the land value with and without the approval. Then build affordable homes on it.
Locally, we have a development under consideration for renewal, but with a substantially reduced community contribution.
The public meeting to consider this was well-reported by the Shropshire Star. Although the ‘offer’ by the developer has increased, it is still a tiny shadow of the previous agreement.
The current ‘offer’ is just over £100,000, it was well over £500,000. If approval were to be given after January 1, it would be subject to the community infrastructure levy. This would net more than £500,000 for our community. So why is Shropshire Council even considering the proposals?
All around Shropshire, and indeed the rest of the country, there are examples of ‘land-banking’ and apparently daft local decisions. Why do we tolerate it? Are we just too lazy to look at the facts and encourage obvious decisions? Who even knows how to access the on-line planning systems?
Unless we apply some effort, our communities will get the planning decisions that such apathy deserves.
Planning affects all of us – find out what is being proposed and make your views known. The alternative is uncontrolled building.
Colin Case
Ruyton XI Towns
Most Commented
- Clampdown on Shrewsbury chuggers
- Bishop's gay marriage views do nothing to support bible teachings
- Letter: Alcohol price plans annoy me
- Planners ordered to stay on Newport visit bus
- Letter: Angered by close encounter of the furred kind
- Letter: No sense in overseas job adverts
- The Bleak Old Shop of Stuff doesn't raise a smile
Shropshire Star on Twitter
Keep updated with the latest breaking news and content on our Twitter feed.
Lifestyle
Interactive Dining Out map
Hundreds of reviews by the Shropshire Star and Express & Star's teams to help you decide where to eat.
Entertainment
All the film reviews
Before you plan a trip to the pictures, get our critics' verdicts on all the latest movie releases.
OUR NEW APP
Get the new Shropshire Star app
Download the Shropshire Star’s new app to your iPad or iPhone to get one week of access to our digital newspapers absolutely FREE.
shropshirestar.com
Popular sections
Useful links
In France, the solution to the land-banking problem is the law that states that any land bought for housing has not had the maximum amount of approved houses built and finished available for sale / rent within two years from the conclusion of the purchase will be subject to a 33% tax charge on the value of the land AT THE TIME OF TAX EVALUATION and an ongoing charge of 2% per year thereafter.
Because the 33% charge is on the current value, it makes it less advantageous to buy land and hope that the value will increase – if it increases 3x, then tax due equals the original purchase price.
The corollary is that it makes it more advantageous that it gets used quickly for what it was bought for – building houses.
The charge applies to the land owner who received the original approval, even if they sell the land on, so avoiding the loophole of speculators selling to each other just before the two years is up.
Report abuse
A very interesting article, backed up with a very worthwhile and practical solution I would suggest.
I think a combination of the two – i.e. heavy taxation on the applicant/developer for tghe first X amont of years, and then compulsory passge back to the local authority after Y amount of years.
Further, the taxation levels should be considerably lower for brownfield site as opposed to greenfield, to encourage recycling and redevelopment, rather than a wasteful use of whats left of our countryside.
That would certainly place focus and prevent, as has been said, land being locked just in the hope of what might happen.
Report abuse
Excellent points, Colin.
We are getting smoke and mirrors from this government about changing the planning laws to facilitate the building of ‘affordable’ homes (meaning???? are the others unaffordable????) while developers already have permissions in place to build hundreds of thousands of homes, but prefer to wait until they can get a better price.
Report abuse
Both are excellent ideas. While we are at it, could we not change the law to enable the Govt to seize any tankers full of oil sitting off the coast waiting for the price to go up before they discharge their cargo. It’s speculators who are helping to keep fuel prices at the current ruinous prices, with a little help from oil companies and the Government.
Report abuse
I suggest that we need to ensure that the planning system does not promote growth at any cost. No-one will gain if the quality of both the built environment and our countryside is sacrificed.
The national planning policy framework will introduce a ‘presumption in favour of sustainable development’. The term ‘sustainable development’ may sound reassuring, but it becomes much
less so when set alongside government calls – including from the Chancellor of the Exchequer in
his Budget statement – for a default ‘yes’ to development. The terms ‘sustainable’ and ‘ affordable’ need to be defined in crystal clear, meaningful terms.
We are entitled to assurance that the environmental, social and economic implications of a development will mean protection of the environment and a better quality of life for all, rather than
prioritising economic growth regardless of the consequences.
The Prime Minister stated he wanted the coalition to be the Greenest Government Ever. The current planning reform will make or break this commitment. In order to ensure that our towns and cities become better places to live, and our countryside is protected and improved, national planning
policy should:
• allow local planners to say ‘no’ to damaging and inappropriate development;
• ensure the countryside as a whole is protected from damaging development – not just our best
landscapes; and
• give local planning authorities the ability to require the re use of previously developed land before building on greenfield sites.
Use of rebuilt/refurbished structures and use of brownfield sites must come first, not developers’ profits.
Growth is not for the best when quality of life suffers and society degrades. This is our land.
Report abuse