A blog about planning, planning law and planning policy


The information on this blog is not intended to be advice, legal or otherwise. You should not rely on it and I do not accept liability in connection with it. If you do have a planning law question on which you would like advice, seek legal advice from a suitably qualified solicitor. Specific advice should be sought for specific problems.

Sign up for The David Brock Blog

A monthly email containing links to recent posts
* = required field

powered by MailChimp!

Miliband says “use it or lose it”. No more hoarding of development land

Ed_MilibandEd Miliband’s speech today at the Labour Party conference contained the following promise (or threat, depending on how you look at these things).  “… we’ll say to private developers, you can’t just sit on land and refuse to build. We will give them a very clear message – either use the land or lose the land.  That is what the next Labour government will do.”  Douglas Alexander, Shadow Foreign Secretary, fleshed this out on the PM programme explaining that where housebuilders are “hoarding” land local councils will be allowed to purchase it compulsorily and secure escalating fees where they are landbanking.  Hoarding he said is where a developer judges that because of a significant year on year rise in the value of that land it is worth more to them not to build and to hold on to it for the future than to build the houses the country needs.  No-one he said doubts that hoarding is taking place.

So this suggests that regardless of the profitability of the construction and sale of houses at that time, a developer holding land with planning permission will be required to build, or face compulsory purchase and some sort of penalty charge or tax.

What will the results be?

First, local authorities will need to raise the funds to purchase the land.  I would welcome comment from experts in CPO valuation, but will that not be at market value which will reflect the planning permission for housing?  They will then need to build, themselves or via other developers.  If the profitability is low at the time, it may be difficult to find developers willing to take that on, and if councils do so they will risk poor returns.

Second, between now and the election developers may run down their stocks of land.  Then when they do want land to develop as demand for houses and profitability increases, they will have to buy at the time (a spot market) which will in turn create a rise in land prices.  Keen readers of this blog know that I espouse fairly straightforward supply and demand economics. Who will bear the increased land price?  Housebuilders will seek to pass it on to the buyer, and that will work as long as buyers have funds.  So there will be house price inflation. But when the buyers run out of funds, the builder then faces the choice, take less profit or stop building and it isn’t the work of genius to predict that builders will stop building.

Isn’t there a simpler course to get more housing?  Simply grant more planning permissions and in effect flood the market.  To those who say that even more land will be hoarded, I suggest that completion notices are used more. They require completion of a commenced but incomplete development, failing which the permission lapses for the unexpired portion.

2 comments to Miliband says “use it or lose it”. No more hoarding of development land

  • Richard Wakeford

    1. Developers would be more incentivised if they needed to pay council tax on the value of the land, once enhanced beyond agricultural value by the grant of a permission.

    2. Perhaps Labour will return to their 1947 principles. Where land is scheduled for development, and the landowner refuses to make that happen, CPO comes in. Nothing new then? See Lewis Silkin’s 1947 Second Reading

  • I agree that completion notices should be used to rid us of the “available land” in studies where the land is clearly unavailable for a variety of reasons, it is a tool that is not used often enough, over 5 years ago one LPA director of planning and cultural heritage (recently retired) told me the problem was “compensation”, when discussing this with the relevant government official the question was “what compensation”. Nothing has been done since and I doubt that it ever will because we have laws which prevent state interference with property.

Leave a Reply

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>