The Conservative Party

[bluenova]

Not really happy days. A decent democracy needs a decent opposition. I see that the new gov are planning building not just on the grey belt but even on the best parts of the green belt. Any owner who refuses to sell will be subject to a special order taking their property for below market value. Environmentally this is a disastrous policy but there will be nobody in the commons to oppose it properly.

Given it's the LAs that are deciding where to build in their own areas, they're unlikely to choose the "best parts". Best for building, and near to existing infrastructure, but most aren't daft enough to pick the most beautiful or most used green spaces, and concrete them over.

The 'market value' thing has been an issue going back years. It's not screwing over landowners. There are companies which look at where they think building might take place in the future, and then they buy the land at a low price, because currently it can't be built on. If the land is eventually reallocated for building, then they have been able to sell it for a huge profit. Under the new rules, they will still get a profit, but nearer to the one that they would expect to get based on the land being green belt.

They're not taking a risk, because the land they buy is cheap, and if it doesn't get rezoned, they still own it, and can sell it on. They have essentially done nothing for society, except make house building, house prices, and the cost of the related schools, roads and other infrastructure, more expensive.

 

[KS55]

Given it's the LAs that are deciding where to build in their own areas, they're unlikely to choose the "best parts". Best for building, and near to existing infrastructure, but most aren't daft enough to pick the most beautiful or most used green spaces, and concrete them over.

The 'market value' thing has been an issue going back years. It's not screwing over landowners. There are companies which look at where they think building might take place in the future, and then they buy the land at a low price, because currently it can't be built on. If the land is eventually reallocated for building, then they have been able to sell it for a huge profit. Under the new rules, they will still get a profit, but nearer to the one that they would expect to get based on the land being green belt.

They're not taking a risk, because the land they buy is cheap, and if it doesn't get rezoned, they still own it, and can sell it on. They have essentially done nothing for society, except make house building, house prices, and the cost of the related schools, roads and other infrastructure, more expensive.

Interesting that you talk about property companies profits etc in response to a post about the environment. LAs will choose the places where building is cheapest as their only criterion. After all, money is the only reason for building on the green belt. All our cities have huge swathes of post industrial land suitable for housing, but it costs much more than green belt due to clean up costs etc. See East Manchester for what can be done.
The proposal to lift the ban on land based wind farms falls into the same category. Ask @Dave Ewing's Back 'eader what he thinks about Rochdale moor becoming a wind farm.

 

[bluenova]

Interesting that you talk about property companies profits etc in response to a post about the environment. LAs will choose the places where building is cheapest as their only criterion. After all, money is the only reason for building on the green belt. All our cities have huge swathes of post industrial land suitable for housing, but it costs much more than green belt due to clean up costs etc. See East Manchester for what can be done.
The proposal to lift the ban on land based wind farms falls into the same category. Ask @Dave Ewing's Back 'eader what he thinks about Rochdale moor becoming a wind farm.

Your post wasn't just about the environment, so off your high horse ;)

You said that the "best land" would be used, which is unlikely to be the case - cost is certainly going to be a major factor, but I don't see why that would gobble up the best land, particularly where local politicians are involved. I understand the point about industrial land, but is there really that much available? Looking at the maps around Manchester, where they want to rezone for housing, I can see the green land, but I can't see anything like the comparable industrial areas. Within a mile of the centre of Manchester, it looks like every square foot is already being taken. Labour have spoken about prioritising grey belt first, which would suggest that cost isn't the only factor they're asking LAs to consider.

I spoke about property companies because you made a point about people being forced to sell "below market value", so your post wasn't simply about the environment. We're not talking about people who want to keep the land green and untouched being forced to sell up. We're talking about land that would be sold anyway, but at excessively high prices. The new rules ensure these speculators aren't profiteering, and the costs to the rest of us are reduced.

ps. I quite like wind farms, and the ones in Rochdale are a beautiful addition to the landscape. I did see some interesting polling just yesterday about how the Green party vote in 2019 was conservative/left, whereas now it's full of Corbynite progressive left wingers. It's going to be interesting to see how that one plays out as those groups will have very different views on what "saving the environment" actually means.

 

[KS55]

Your post wasn't just about the environment, so off your high horse ;)

You said that the "best land" would be used, which is unlikely to be the case - cost is certainly going to be a major factor, but I don't see why that would gobble up the best land, particularly where local politicians are involved. I understand the point about industrial land, but is there really that much available? Looking at the maps around Manchester, where they want to rezone for housing, I can see the green land, but I can't see anything like the comparable industrial areas. Within a mile of the centre of Manchester, it looks like every square foot is already being taken. Labour have spoken about prioritising grey belt first, which would suggest that cost isn't the only factor they're asking LAs to consider.

I spoke about property companies because you made a point about people being forced to sell "below market value", so your post wasn't simply about the environment. We're not talking about people who want to keep the land green and untouched being forced to sell up. We're talking about land that would be sold anyway, but at excessively high prices. The new rules ensure these speculators aren't profiteering, and the costs to the rest of us are reduced.

ps. I quite like wind farms, and the ones in Rochdale are a beautiful addition to the landscape. I did see some interesting polling just yesterday about how the Green party vote in 2019 was conservative/left, whereas now it's full of Corbynite progressive left wingers. It's going to be interesting to see how that one plays out as those groups will have very different views on what "saving the environment" actually means.

26,000 planned wind turbines. Beautiful, really? It means roads on moors, exclusion of walkers. Where will the emptiness be? The sea is the rightful place.
PS I don’t know why you think the best land will remain untouched, that is not the history and protection of it was a driver of green belts.
Rochdale moor is not really started yet. See Blackstone edge and Cragg Vale. Go to the top of Cragg Vale and tell me it would be beautiful covered in turbines. You can’t protect the environment by wrecking one aspect of it.
Incidently, my post was entirely about the environment, with the note on purchase illustrating how attempts to protect it will be overcome by money saving legislation. So my high horse is quite comfortable thank you! How’s things down there amongst the philistines?

 

[bluenova]

26,000 planned wind turbines. Beautiful, really? It means roads on moors, exclusion of walkers. Where will the emptiness be? The sea is the rightful place.
PS I don’t know why you think the best land will remain untouched, that is not the history and protection of it was a driver of green belts.
Rochdale moor is not really started yet. See Blackstone edge and Cragg Vale. Go to the top of Cragg Vale and tell me it would be beautiful covered in turbines. You can’t protect the environment by wrecking one aspect of it.
Incidently, my post was entirely about the environment, with the note on purchase illustrating how attempts to protect it will be overcome by money saving legislation. So my high horse is quite comfortable thank you! How’s things down there amongst the philistines?

Whose down there? I'm in the air, surveying my new wind farm from my private jet.

ps. I'm quite partial to a nice pylon too.

 

[Vienna_70]

A fine array of duffers lining up to be slaughtered in elections for the next ten years or more. Maga-tory.

Let’s hope you’re right.

 

[Vienna_70]

Not really happy days. A decent democracy needs a decent opposition. I see that the new gov are planning building not just on the grey belt but even on the best parts of the green belt. Any owner who refuses to sell will be subject to a special order taking their property for below market value. Environmentally this is a disastrous policy but there will be nobody in the commons to oppose it properly.

It’s nothing new. Things were just as bad under the Tories.

I left the village I grew up in 25 years ago, and it’s become unrecognisable in the last ten to 15 years.

Houses have been built on green belt spaces, so that the border between it and the neighbouring town has disappeared, and between other houses within the village.

 

[Vic]

Given it's the LAs that are deciding where to build in their own areas, they're unlikely to choose the "best parts". Best for building, and near to existing infrastructure, but most aren't daft enough to pick the most beautiful or most used green spaces, and concrete them over.

The 'market value' thing has been an issue going back years. It's not screwing over landowners. There are companies which look at where they think building might take place in the future, and then they buy the land at a low price, because currently it can't be built on. If the land is eventually reallocated for building, then they have been able to sell it for a huge profit. Under the new rules, they will still get a profit, but nearer to the one that they would expect to get based on the land being green belt.

They're not taking a risk, because the land they buy is cheap, and if it doesn't get rezoned, they still own it, and can sell it on. They have essentially done nothing for society, except make house building, house prices, and the cost of the related schools, roads and other infrastructure, more expensive.

Even if it doesn't sell for housing, its value as agricultural land would increase because there will be less agricutural land. That's if we just don't decide to grow trees on the land, rather than grow crops or graze animals, and just import all our food.

 

[Vic]

Interesting that you talk about property companies profits etc in response to a post about the environment. LAs will choose the places where building is cheapest as their only criterion. After all, money is the only reason for building on the green belt. All our cities have huge swathes of post industrial land suitable for housing, but it costs much more than green belt due to clean up costs etc. See East Manchester for what can be done.
The proposal to lift the ban on land based wind farms falls into the same category. Ask @Dave Ewing's Back 'eader what he thinks about Rochdale moor becoming a wind farm.

No more obtrusive than Scout Moor. Adds a bit of interest.

 

[law74]

Presumably the losers of this hilarious leadership contest will be pitching up at reform where they can carry on infighting and backstabbing and tearing that limited company apart.
Happy days!

Possibly, but an equal chance at the minute that the "reformists" will gain further control of the self-servatives and those with a shred of decency will slide up the green seats behind Ed Davey...hopefully enough of them to makehim the leader of the opposition