Housing market is realy bucking up!

As The UK has few mountaion that is not a problem. It is pretty flat.

Read the two documents. BTW, the UK only has 7.5% of the land settled, with only 2.5% paved. We pay farmers not to gown on land when the densification of the country gives us poky home, the smallest in the developed world, the oldest houses and amongst the most expensive. Read and understand, otherwise you will catch Rogerness.

In message , Doctor Drivel writes

I saw a property auction programme where a young couple bought a piece of agricultural land for silly money, or so it seemed.

Turned out the had a small farm and buying the land took them to the next level of subsidy. As far as I could tell, they had a fabulous house with a big garden, and didnt actually grow anything. The "farmer" actually said something like, "It's good to be involved in the conservation of the countryside".

Nice work if you can get it!!

The message from Richard Faulkner contains these words:

No doubt a farmer will be along shortly to put us right but as I understand it Farm Subsidies until recently have been linked to production but with the replacement Single Payment Scheme they are allegedly geared to protecting the countryside with just about the only restriction being that you have to own a minimum amount of land (10 acres?) in order to participate.

There was also (and perhaps still is) a Countryside sSewardship Scheme where supposedly important pieces of land got support in return for not being ruined.

Yep. Those who horde land use the eco ticket as justification keep towns in high density pockets. High density is for insects.

The message from "Doctor Drivel" contains these words:

You will always get the occasional 'purist' who thinks that mountains must be high enough to have permanent snow cover on their upper slopes but ISTM that Dribble isn't one of that school but merely an ignorant arse who hasn't ever been further North than Watford Gap nor West of it for that matter. Both Scotland and Wales are seriously hilly and even flattish England has more high ground than Wales.

Dribble, your new pals think we can learn lessons from the near continent because they have solved the problems of living in a crowded environment but what faith can we have in those who would cite Holland as an example of high population density when London and its surroundings encompassing an area considerably larger than Holland already has a population density considerably higher.

In message , Doctor Drivel writes

If it were possible for farmers and other landowners to sell land for housing, don't you think we would be doing it?

regards

Not true. Parts of these countries are comparatively empty, but then so are parts of England.

In message , Roger writes

The rules are changing so rapidly just now that it is difficult to respond accurately. The above statements are a flavour close to the truth:-)

Tax benefits have not yet been mentioned. A recent appeal ruled that where a farm house was inappropriate to the area of land actually being farmed some proportion of the value would fall back into the capital taxes remit. Your mansion with ten acres is unlikely to get full capital transfer tax relief.

regards

"Roger" wrote Rogerness in message news: snipped-for-privacy@nospam.zetnet.co.uk...

"protecting the countryside" The only way to protect wildlife is put people in there. See this document

I know Roger, appalling. Large rich landowners get money for doing sweet FA. Ruining land is landscape raping and pouring chemicals on it.

"Roger" wrote Rogerness in message news: snipped-for-privacy@nospam.zetnet.co.uk...

Roger, England and Wales doesn't have mountains at all. The odd blip in Scotland might be classed as a mountain that is all. The UK is overwhelmingly "flat", flat enough to build a little railway up the largest hill in England and Wales, which anyone can walk up.

The small farmer may be yes. The large landowers? No. Their land has been in their families since the Normans gave it to them they collaborated with invaders). They "don't" sell up. Land Value Tax may force them too.

Balls Roger. The planning system prevents people from being there.

Wow, Richard came out with good one there.

Nice one Richard. very true. Roger hasn't the brains to figure out way these places are empty. He thinks anyone can go into the centre of the Highlands and build a house. Sure they can!!!

Fable the First

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...

The first Green belty was introduced by Elizabeth 1st

Fable, the Second

England's Green and Pleasant Land

Once upon a time there was a great Queen, called the Virgin Queen, and in the 32nd year of her reign, in 1580 by our reckoning, she laid down that there should be a 'Green Belt' about her capital, the great City of London. For it covered much land being greater than one square mile in extent. And this was a great city where playwrights and poets lived, and from which explorers went out all over the world. But she saw that there were 'great multitudes of people brought to inhabit in small roomes, whereof a great part are seene very poor . heaped up together, and in a sort smothered with many families of children and servants in one house or small tenement'. So to protect this great City it was announced that 'her Majestie . doth straightly command all manner of Persons . to desist and forbeare from any new buildings of any house or tenement within three miles of any of the gates of the said cittie of London for Habitation or Lodging where no former House hath bene known to have bene in the memorie of such as are now living'.55

And this 'Green Belt' was thought a good idea by the people. For otherwise they said, 'ye south east will be covered under ye cobble stones'. And it was thought a good idea by the lords because it stopped the common people moving out of London to live near them. So it was widened and extended by later Kings and also by the Commonwealth, first to five miles and then to seven miles and then to ten miles. It was in doubt only at the time of a Great Fire in 1666, but, fortunately for our fable, it was not so great a fire after all because the wind changed and so the City was not burned as it had been feared but only some manufactories and common people's houses in the East. And after this the City was rebuilt in brick to hinder fires, but the Green Belt was kept.

Indeed the idea of this greenness was thought so good that the area of the belt was extended further and further and other Green Belts were put round all the other towns and cities in the kingdom, and Areas of Great Romantick Beauty were declared, because the country was now thought truly romantick and it was thought that such areas should be preserved for ever.

So the cities and towns of Britain were not allowed to expand. The countryside was kept free of any building and agriculture in Britain became prosperous. Of course there were threats to the countryside but these were resisted. Many years later, some land owners wanted to dig coal from under their land in the north of England and in Scotland and Wales. But this land was in Areas of Great Romantick Beauty, and this coal mining was fiercely resisted, particularly by those landowners who did not have coal under their land. And so the countryside was preserved.

At about this time a Great Industrial Revolution occurred in Germany and in America and France, and there was a great demand for labour in these countries. And because house rents were so much higher in Britain than in these countries, because of the pressure of population, many people left to get jobs elsewhere. So the countryside remained romantick while the country emptied .

In message , Doctor Drivel writes

This is mostly rubbish.

My home farm is land that was owned by Viscount Melville until 1919 when it was auctioned, presumably to raise money. The residue of the estate is owned by a family trust and managed by Strutt and Parker. Various attempts have been made to change the status of bits of their farmland backing on to existing development but, so far, without success. For your delectation, Lord Brockett does not live in the manor house which is let out on a 99 year lease.

AFAICT land value tax is likely to reduce the availability of land for housing as it both, reduces the profit from selling and forces an immediate rush to market. I don't know if it is intended to apply the tax to land which changes in status from green belt to development or only when planning consent is obtained.

regards

In message , Tim Lamb writes

Definitely!

Read Who Owns Britain by Kevin Cahill.

Yes they do that occasionally to raise money. A silver of land fir development and make a packet. Then when the farm on the other side of the estate becomes available they buy that for buttons.

Because some Viscount fella sold some land does not mean all these people have sold off their land. 0.66% of the population own 70% of the land. A few 1000 families.

"They [the British aristocracy] have managed to hold on to their lucrative acres very well".

- Jeremy Paxman, Who Runs Britain

No one is making anyone sell. If they have unproductive land then they still pay tax on its value. If they can afford that then fine. In many cases they would sell because of LVT taxes and then market forces take over in the sale. For the landowners there is three points. Either get the land productive, pay the LVT to keep it idle or sell up. Currently idle land incurs lax.

LVT is a tax on "all" land. If you can't sell the land because you can't pay the tax, then the land becomes public property (it is anyhow as all land is state owned, you only hold title) and then sold off. The admin costs are covered and any remainder goes to the former title holder.

LVT is the only tax, no income tax which taxes a mans labour and restricts his advancement and no council tax.

Read the two documents I, and Tony, gave links to. Also do a Goggle on Henry George or Georgism.

I only skim read it yesterday but thought that one key observation was that the greatest urban density was in the North West

This is the wonderful contradiction of modern day politics. When it comes to planning those most likely to oppose the free market and demand state control are Conservatives!