The Army moved out some troops – so we don’t need to build more than 15 dwellings a year

Richmondsnire issues and options consultation – ridiculous, not a realistic alternative.  Gaming SOAN.

Option A – Low Scenario – 15 homes per annum
7.4.4 This figure is calculated through the government’s proposed standard housing method and is based upon the 2014 Sub National Population Projections with an uplift for affordability. The Richmondshire SHMA/OAN (2017) and SHMA
Demographics (2017) paper identify that the 2014-based projections take account of the 2014-based population estimates that have been significantly affected by population change associated with the Army at Catterick Garrison which resulted in significant unit movements out particularly in 2013/14 being projected forward which
has since being reversed by unit movements in during 2016 which is after the base date for the projection. This has resulted in a more negative migration trend being projected forward and a lower population total than what is likely to occur in reality

‘Farms should no Longer be Located in Villages’ Claim Richmondshire Tory Cllrs

Richmondshire – covered in Northern Echo

Dismissing concerns about over-developing the village [of Barton], Councillor Jamie Cameron said …: “Farms should not be in villages any longer. That’s past those days. People don’t like the smell, they don’t like the tractors, they don’t like anything.

“We have to accept it and there’s nothing wrong with that. The right place for a farm is in the countryside. Villagers are for commuters and for people to have their homes and they don’t want cows mooing, smells and flies. I fully support them.”

Land Value Capture and the Public Interest – The Crucial Question @clivebettsmp @kitmalthouse @sricketts1 @danielbentley

Some interesting recent views here   Daniel Bentley from and here   Simon Ricketts Let me try and crystallise the debate with  case.

A city builds a road, before the road the sites had no access and limited value.  After the road it is worth residential land value.

If the authority wanted to CPO the land needed it could apply the ‘pointe gourde principle’ and CPO the land and land opened up by it  at existing use value.  No guff (as spouted at the MHCLG select committee) that anything less than ‘market value’ was a breach of the market principle.  The No scheme world determines that prior to the road the market was far less liquid.  The real issue is at what ‘point in time’ the market value is assessed not whether the land is valued at less than market value.

Now imagine the owners of the land for the road give it away.  Now the road is build but the public sector  have to tax their residents to pay for it, and for the infrastructure to service the development.  They cannot acquire the development land at existing use value -compensation.  Hope value is added to the equation by virtue of the Land Compensation Act.  The LPA can of course recoup some infrastructure and affordable housing through CIL and S106, but this wont recoup the cost of at risk the public sector having to pay interest on the front loaded infrastructure spending, and any land withheld from the market for speculation increases these costs.  What usually happens of course is that this infrastructure spending is considered too risky by LPAs, the full cost of the infrastructure would fall on the first landowner to come forward, so it doesn’t come forward.  So we don’t get the housing or the infrastructure, and those lucky enough to have an existing asset see it appreciate, and those at the back of the queue become generation rent.

A classic example of this is Horsham North, where nothing happened for a decade on the local plan allocated because the private sector could not build the road, so Homes England had to buy it after threatening CPO using the ‘pointe gourde principle’

This case illustrates what ‘hope value’ is it is a tax on the whole community to subsidise existing asset holders when that value is solely and only created by the decision of the res publica.  What is more bizarrely it is a tax that doesn’t apply when a landowner behaves in a non public spirited land refusing to give up land for much needed infrastructure.  This was never thought through or intended, it is a by product of unintended consequences of case law combined with a political decision to boost the income of farmers in the early 60s before our late entry to the Common Market bailed them out more.  Our continental neighbors didn’t make this mistake and as a result they don’t tax non asset holders to subsidise asset holders – who then can afford to hire lawyers to spread FUD about ‘human rights’, and consequently these countries can afford typically to build housing at twice the rate per head of population we do and still win all European Convention of Human rights challenges when they do.