Big J on radio 4..

[Ratman]

Scare tactics again [emoji849][emoji849]

[AHPP]

4 hours ago, Chalgravesteve said:

But its inflated BECAUSE you can build on it. Its got a different value to that which you can't. Its like having a 1,000 acre forest of trees. They have a value for timber, BUT if they have a blanket TPO on the whole thing, so you can't cut anything down, its going to have a notional value!

 

Its simple and basic supply and demand. In BigJ's case, he's in Devon, a county that is almost entirely rolling green hills, woodland and fields. Small pockets of villages dot the countryside. If you allow one person to build on a smallholding, you have to allow all. That building and outbuildings all get converted to houses and the restrictions on who can live there are removed over time. In 100 years time, Devon won't look like Devon anymore. That's why there are planning laws and that's why, when land that does exist that CAN be built on costs substantially more. 

 

You cannot just say the value is inflated and compare it to the value of land that you cannot build on. Its not the same. 

True market value is observed in the absence of constraints. The current starting point in the UK is that you can't build anything. That's a constraint. Planning permission is currently a positively granted right to do something that you otherwise can't do. It's the exception, not the rule.

In your example of a forest, the true market value would be found where TPOs don't exist on either your forest or other people's forests. That's your starting point. Adding a TPO to your forest and not other people's will drive your forest value down. Adding TPOs to other people's forests will drive your forest value up.

 

I'd normally love to evangelise about the benefits of various (and all) freedoms but to be honest I'm fairly sick of this thread. Suffice to say that if I ruled the world I wouldn't restrict building at all. Who am I to tell people what to do with their property?