Follow @PoliticsIE
 
 
 
Page 1 of 6 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 57

Thread: Land values & Planning permission

  1. #1
    GDPR Deleted
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    103,633
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default Land values & Planning permission

    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?

  2. #2
    Politics.ie Member Astral Peaks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    25,995
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    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.
    "Don't need a whore, I don't need no booze, don't need a virgin priest."

  3. #3
    Science Ninja
    Guest

    Default

    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.

  4. #4
    Politics.ie Member firefly123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    26,736
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Astral Peaks View Post
    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.
    Life is hard
    That's why no-one survives

  5. #5
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    745
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    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.
    Irish Property/Finance/Economic Discussion Website:
    www.thepropertypin.com

  6. #6
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    4,414
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by firefly123 View Post
    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........

  7. #7
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    2,529
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tonic View Post
    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.

  8. #8
    GDPR Deleted
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    103,633
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Astral Peaks View Post
    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.

  9. #9
    GDPR Deleted
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    103,633
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Science Ninja View Post
    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 by GDPR; 10th January 2013 at 08:27 AM.

  10. #10
    GDPR Deleted
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    103,633
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by blindjustice View Post
    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.

Page 1 of 6 12345 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •