• It has come to our attention that some users may have been "banned" when they tried to change their passwords after the site was hacked due to a glitch in the old vBulletin software. This would have occurred around the end of February and does not apply after the site was converted to Xenforo. If you believe you were affected by this, please contact a staff member or use the Contact us link at the bottom of any forum page.

Land values & Planning permission


GDPR

1
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
224,093
Obviously a horse has bolted, but another day will come, so.

Given our constitution, is there a legal way for land on which planning permission has been granted to immediately be bought by the state at agricultural value and sold on, as part of the same transaction, to the interested developer at pre-agreed development land prices.

Exception would have to be made for owner occupier single property planning, but for the mass of residential and commercial development in the future, could something like this be made to work?

Some advantages as I see it;
No more wind fall profits for the original land owner, so less pressure on planning process.
Any profit goes to the state and development land price set according to housing need in any given area.
Any profits could be ringfenced for social housing in the same area.
Should help to keep a lid on price of development land and therefore on property.
No spare cash sloshing around the whole process, should help to keep it all above board.

Disadvantages?
 

Astral Peaks

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 9, 2010
Messages
25,986
Yeah, but do we need this amount of land developed in the next 10 years?

Our housing stock is way over supplied, we need to deal with ghost estates/apartment blocks first.

Also, I suspect that county development plans will need serious revision sooner rather than later, as many were very skewed by the Tiger madness and those reviews might decrease the foreseeable need for yet more development.

In principle, it's not a bad idea, but I fear putting the cart before the horse, for the reasons outlined above.
 
S

Science Ninja

Can you lay out the objection to profit from the sale of land? As presented the proposal seems little more than seizure of private assets. Will you also be preventing excessive profit from the development? If not then you've just reduced the developers costs without forcing down his sale price. Properties sold for how much people could borrow, not how much they cost to build.
 

firefly123

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 8, 2009
Messages
28,156
Yeah, but do we need this amount of land developed in the next 10 years?

Our housing stock is way over supplied, we need to deal with ghost estates/apartment blocks first.

Also, I suspect that county development plans will need serious revision sooner rather than later, as many were very skewed by the Tiger madness and those reviews might decrease the foreseeable need for yet more development.

In principle, it's not a bad idea, but I fear putting the cart before the horse, for the reasons outlined above.
I would Say our housing stock is way over supplied in places noone wants to live or with shoebox apartments. Major urban centres will soon be under supplied in family homes.
 

blindjustice

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2007
Messages
763
Why does land need to be zoned anyway....think about it....everything needs planning anyway. The council ends up looking at approving or disapproving every application be it residential or commercial.

Why not remove the zoning..........eliminating alot of potential corruption too.
 

lying eyes

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 27, 2009
Messages
4,417
I would Say our housing stock is way over supplied in places noone wants to live or with shoebox apartments. Major urban centres will soon be under supplied in family homes.

Where will the demand come from, when 80,000 young people are leaving the Country every year. 400,000 unemployed. For whome will these houses be needed. For Gods sake, let us not start this madness again. Will people ever learn. If people want to build, let them build schools, hospitals, which are NEEDED........
 

good dog

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 23, 2012
Messages
2,546
Obviously a horse has bolted, but another day will come, so.

Given our constitution, is there a legal way for land on which planning permission has been granted to immediately be bought by the state at agricultural value and sold on, as part of the same transaction, to the interested developer at pre-agreed development land prices.

Exception would have to be made for owner occupier single property planning, but for the mass of residential and commercial development in the future, could something like this be made to work?

Some advantages as I see it;
No more wind fall profits for the original land owner, so less pressure on planning process.
Any profit goes to the state and development land price set according to housing need in any given area.
Any profits could be ringfenced for social housing in the same area.
Should help to keep a lid on price of development land and therefore on property.
No spare cash sloshing around the whole process, should help to keep it all above board.

Disadvantages?
Can't see any except perhaps having to buy the land. What if the state just seized the land without paying agricultural prices? Once the social housing is complete the state could seize more land around it and unemployed persons in the social housing could collectively farm the land for an equal share of the crops minus whatever is needed for the government. The Government could do the same with the couple of factories left in the country. Such a good idea would have to work, surprised its never been tried anywhere.
 

GDPR

1
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
224,093
Yeah, but do we need this amount of land developed in the next 10 years?

Our housing stock is way over supplied, we need to deal with ghost estates/apartment blocks first.

Also, I suspect that county development plans will need serious revision sooner rather than later, as many were very skewed by the Tiger madness and those reviews might decrease the foreseeable need for yet more development.

In principle, it's not a bad idea, but I fear putting the cart before the horse, for the reasons outlined above.
The market will dictate whether or not developers need to buy more land in any given area. There is already I believe a shortage of available housing stock in some areas, although I think not as yet in any green field sites.
It could also be made a condition of sale to developers that they built within a time frame or lose the land back to the state, to stop the development of land banks.
 

GDPR

1
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
224,093
Can you lay out the objection to profit from the sale of land? As presented the proposal seems little more than seizure of private assets. Will you also be preventing excessive profit from the development? If not then you've just reduced the developers costs without forcing down his sale price. Properties sold for how much people could borrow, not how much they cost to build.
Not seizure of course, payment would be made for the land. I think it's better to leave final house price to the market, but with disclosure of the price paid for the land, this would bring more transparency to pricing and would in itself act to set some boundary to the price in combination with size and quality of build. Land price could also be used for national planning purposes to somewhat control population movements.

The vast differences in land values between zoned and unzoned land has led to corruption in the planning process, this proposal would help to stamp that out and as the need & desirability of zoned land is as a result of national policies and usually expense, road building, provision of services etc, I would think it's not unreasonable that any increase in land value should come back to the state rather than being a matter of good luck for the original land owner.
 
Last edited:

GDPR

1
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
224,093
Why does land need to be zoned anyway....think about it....everything needs planning anyway. The council ends up looking at approving or disapproving every application be it residential or commercial.

Why not remove the zoning..........eliminating alot of potential corruption too.
For national spatial planning purposes. I think the proposal as set out would remove corruption from the process.
 

GDPR

1
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
224,093
Where will the demand come from, when 80,000 young people are leaving the Country every year. 400,000 unemployed. For whome will these houses be needed. For Gods sake, let us not start this madness again. Will people ever learn. If people want to build, let them build schools, hospitals, which are NEEDED........
The need is already there in some areas and will come again in the future for most. A plan like this would help make sure the "madness" didn't happen again, by taking the windfall land profits out of the equation.
 

GDPR

1
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
224,093
Can't see any except perhaps having to buy the land. What if the state just seized the land without paying agricultural prices? Once the social housing is complete the state could seize more land around it and unemployed persons in the social housing could collectively farm the land for an equal share of the crops minus whatever is needed for the government. The Government could do the same with the couple of factories left in the country. Such a good idea would have to work, surprised its never been tried anywhere.
But we don't want "what if", we want to take windfall profits and thereby the possibility of corruption out of the planning process. The original land owner has no entitlement to windfall profits, they are in no way responsible for the increase in the value of their land, national policy is responsible for that increase and is it not reasonable therefore that the nation should benefit by getting some of its investment back?

There could also be a smartarse tax, but I might get caught up in that myself betimes, so I'll leave that to others without sin to propose, despite the temptation.
 

BrightDay

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 29, 2011
Messages
737
Obviously a horse has bolted, but another day will come, so.

Given our constitution, is there a legal way for land on which planning permission has been granted to immediately be bought by the state at agricultural value and sold on, as part of the same transaction, to the interested developer at pre-agreed development land prices.

Exception would have to be made for owner occupier single property planning, but for the mass of residential and commercial development in the future, could something like this be made to work?

Some advantages as I see it;
No more wind fall profits for the original land owner, so less pressure on planning process.
Any profit goes to the state and development land price set according to housing need in any given area.
Any profits could be ringfenced for social housing in the same area.
Should help to keep a lid on price of development land and therefore on property.
No spare cash sloshing around the whole process, should help to keep it all above board.

Disadvantages?
So the State would buy land at a lower price from the landowner and then sell it on at a profit - to who? by auction? to political mates?
 

Orbit v2

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 8, 2010
Messages
11,558
Zoning is not the be all and end all in development plans, but it is central to the process in urban areas particularly. If you don't have zoning then you get haphazard ribbon development. A strict delineation between country-side and towns is a good thing. Despite what a lot of people believe, I think it has been successful enough in the Dublin area, compared to some other Irish cities. Public transport, while far from perfect works okay in Dublin while other cities suffer from fairly chronic traffic congestion relative to their size. People who live on the fringes of provincial cities here are tied to their cars, because of poor planning (lack of zoning).

What we currently call "planning" is really just building control, ie. a largely technical exercise in ensuring that developments adhere to building standards and of course development plan objectives. It makes sense to keep (development) plans and building control separate because they really are different activities. Politics and public consultation has a major role in the former, but far less (legitimately) in the latter.

Getting rid of zoning won't eliminate corruption either. Corruption has always existed in the planning system below the political level, but has never been investigated to the same degree.

On the OP, there's no point in dressing it up any other way than as seizure of private property. So, it would need constitutional change, even if the idea made sense. Why now though? Development land values have collapsed.
 

Howya

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 29, 2012
Messages
1,690
Can you lay out the objection to profit from the sale of land? As presented the proposal seems little more than seizure of private assets. Will you also be preventing excessive profit from the development? If not then you've just reduced the developers costs without forcing down his sale price. Properties sold for how much people could borrow, not how much they cost to build.
As demand for houses went up, prices went up. Because prices went up, developers offered higher prices to land owners and so and so on. The banks were lending on all sides fuelling the binge. Simplified but you get the idea.

I think the op is suggesting that the land owner shouldn't earn an extraordinary profit from zoning decisions and the effect of cheap credit.
 

Howya

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 29, 2012
Messages
1,690
I think an additional requirement for zoning/planning permissions should be an obligation to build within a limited time frame. The effect of developers sitting on land banks allows them to dictate when to build (and hence push up prices in times of demand).
 

Orbit v2

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 8, 2010
Messages
11,558
And to nail another myth, the value of land is determined by several factors, zoning being only one of them. Probably, the single most important factor is location. Land next to an existing urban area is quite obviously worth more than a bog in Leitrim.

The capital gains tax system is a very efficient way for the state to get its due out of land sales. It cuts through all this speculation about why a piece of land increased in value. If it was bought for A, and sold for B, then you pay tax on the difference. Simples.
 

GDPR

1
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
224,093
On the OP, there's no point in dressing it up any other way than as seizure of private property. So, it would need constitutional change, even if the idea made sense. Why now though? Development land values have collapsed.
It's not "seizure of private property", it's paying the going rate for the land in its pre zoned use.

Why now? It's never too late to do the right thing for the future.
 

GDPR

1
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
224,093
I think an additional requirement for zoning/planning permissions should be an obligation to build within a limited time frame. The effect of developers sitting on land banks allows them to dictate when to build (and hence push up prices in times of demand).
I agree, I addressed that above in an earlier post.
 
Top