Valuation of a 'ransom strip' of land

[Doctor Drivel]

Well that is going to make a huge difference isn't it? Boris the Turk is an idiot. Home elsewhere are 50 to 100% larger.

Yep, you got it!

[Doctor Drivel]

Fable: (an analogy of the planning act and vehicles. Substitute car for house)

The Car and Lorry Planning Act of 1948

The new Labour Government which came to power in 1945 set about creating a democratic socialist state in which the economy was properly planned rather than left to the vagaries of the market. Many industries were nationalised: coal, rail, gas, electricity, steel and, in 1947, a Town and Country Planning Act was passed. Since towns were now to be properly planned, and other means of transport were now publicly owned and properly controlled, it was argued that the production and distribution of motor vehicles should also be planned and controlled, and this was achieved with the Car and Lorry Planning Act of 1948.

The Act set up a system under which the production of cars was planned on the basis of past ownership patterns and no more than this number were allowed to be produced. No vehicles were allowed to be imported, and anyone wishing to order a new car had to wait until a manufacturer had obtained production permission from the local authority on their behalf. The application was considered by the local transport planners and by the local transport planning committee, which could refuse or grant permission. To make the system democratic, people could write in to say why someone should not get permission. Often the objection was based on the fact that the objector did not have a car and did not see why his neighbour should have one. Such people were called NIDDIES from the acronym NIDHI (Not If I Don t Have It).

As incomes rose and the population increased the demand for cars increased, but the number of cars permitted to be produced did not increase to the same extent. It was felt that allowing more cars would create unfair competition for bus and rail.

The price of cars rose substantially. It was argued by some that this was because of the constraint on production, but the transport planners thought that this was not so. The constraint on production did not affect the price; the increase in price was solely caused by the increase in demand caused by things like lower interest rates, so they said. And anyway car prices were not their concern. They were concerned with the real economy. It was for them to plan and for the market to follow.

People adjusted to the situation of course. They drove their old cars as long as possible. Indeed it was rare for a car in Britain to be scrapped if there was any possibility that it could be repaired. After road accidents cars were reconstructed which would have been written off as scrap elsewhere. Tourists visiting Britain were often overwhelmed with nostalgia when they discovered car models they had not seen for years in their own countries.

They also adjusted to the increase in the price of cars. People who had cars discovered that far from depreciating in value the price actually increased over time. This increased the demand further as people without a car felt that they had to get a foot on the ownership ladder. Banks were willing to lend money on the security of the vehicle. Of course, as car prices rose people who wanted to buy cars found that they could not afford anything very large and so the cars built and sold in Britain became much smaller than elsewhere.

The transport planners said that this showed that small cars were what people wanted in Britain. The British were different from foreigners who wanted large cars. Indeed, people had so much invested in their cars that they resisted any relaxation in the control of production because this would result in their cars losing value.

The justification for this came to be that the limitation of car production was in the interests of global sustainability, to reduce pollution and fuel usage. Some economists said that the stock of old cars in Britain polluted far more and were far less fuel efficient than the newer cars used elsewhere. But these critics were ignored, because after all, they were merely economists and what did they know...

[Pete Verdon]

I believe (although the book I read it in is not entirely up to date) that you can't create a permanent covenant like that. Specifically, to do anything requiring the spending of money. It will be binding on the current owner, but not on his successor if he sells. The successor can only be bound to do (or more usually, not to do) things that cost him nothing financially.

Pete

[Doki]

My understanding is that a ransom strip is valued at 40% of the value of the land to be developed. IIRC that's a precedent set in court.

[Mark]

You can create a covenant like this. There is one on my house which requires sending a cheque to the original builder if you want to change anything.

[Doctor Drivel]

A ransom strip and land next wants are two different things. Some ransom strips are only a foot wide. They are illegal in Canada and should be here.

[RobertL]

Why should they be illegal?

Robert

[The Natural Philosopher]

Well unless you have a willing buyer and a willing seller, the 'value' is immaterial.

And if it takes a wedge to make the seller willing, no court would oppose that if it was freely entered into by the buyer.

I wanted to extend my drive a bit, and asked the landowner to sell me a bit of field. HE wanted 17 grand for a 30 meter x 3 meter strip. I let the matter drop. BUT it would have involved lawyers, contracts, planning permission to go from agricultural to residential etc etc.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Drivel should be illegal. He is almost certainly illegitimate.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

Dribble doesn't own any land - so like so many others in that position think it should be free.

[Doctor Drivel]

You must eff off as you are a total plantpot.

[Doctor Drivel]

Why should they be illegal?

[Doctor Drivel]

I bet his argricultural land was no more than £4,000 per acre.

[Doctor Drivel]

This man is clearly mad. He went to a snotty uni you know.

[RobertL]

it's not extortion because the buyer of the house knows about the strip when they buy the house and they factor it in to the price. it doesn't suddenly spring to life later. The man I bought my house from has the equivalent of such a strip to prevent me developing the bottom of the gargen without bringing him in on the deal. that is great. It meant I could afford to buy the house in the first place as the price excluded the development potential.

Robert

Robert

[Doctor Drivel]

it's not extortion because the buyer of the house knows about the strip when they buy the house and they factor it in to the price.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

You'll have got the house cheaply if it has no gas - but it is available - so what are you complaining about?

[Mike Barnes]

[Roger Chapman]

Depends how long ago it was but at any time close to the present £4000 per acre would be well below average for good agricultural land.

[The Natural Philosopher]

gobbling up grazing at up to =A36000..

My pint being that once its 'garden' its worth more like =A3100k an acre.= =2E