This week will see the publication of the Government's long anticipated National Planning Policy Framework.
This has already been the subject of a 'phoney war' carried out between Developers and Conservationists in an increasingly shrill way mostly in the media.
Most of those genuinely interested in rural areas will have, I suspect, the same broad aims. These include allowing businesses that are responsible for providing jobs and looking after the landscape in rural areas to prosper. This means allowing justified expansion of premises; the use of cars (which will soon be carbon neutral) and the construction of sufficient housing for those working in such businesses to live locally. It also includes however the protection of our most valuable habitats,biodiversity and landscape- whether designated or not; preserving the setting of historic buildings and monuments; ensuring that 'brownfield' land has been looked at first before 'greenfield' and creating sensibly designed housing developments that do not 'concrete over the countryside'.
At the best of times it is difficult to reconcile these aims. When fossilisation of the countryside is advocated by rich bankers seeking to protect the view from and value of their second home or the need for critical mass and therefore large scale housing is argued on viability grounds by developers who can bemuse local planners with their financial calculations, we need an arbitrator.
Traditionally the balance has been provided by planning policy both national and local. The local, in the form of Development Plans, takes into account the national, in the form of Planning Policy Guidance.
The question therefore is will there be sufficient guidance to provide some future certainty for those on either side of the debate? However much of a fan you are of 'localism' it is essential to have consistency around the Country.
One problem, identified by many, is the lack of a definition of sustainable development.If you are going to have a presumption in favour of something you need to know what it is.The widely used 'development which meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs' doesn't really help us come up with answers in a particular case. What is a 'need? What does 'compromise' mean? The Government's 5 guiding principles from 2005 are ambitious but imprecise.
The laudable aim of reducing unnecessary beaucracy may leave scope for continuing argument which could end up with horse-trading or in the Courts. This won't speed the process up. Let's hope that the megaphone diplomacy of recent months will have resulted in a sensible document this week. If not we will need King Solomon back to adjudicate on every planning application in the country.
Sunday 25 March 2012
Sunday 18 March 2012
Property Tax-is it fair on properties and heritage?
With a budget looming, our finances still in trouble, income sorely needed and the challenge of keeping the component parts of the coalition happy, much has been made of the prospect of a Mansion Tax.
Taxation on the basis of ability to pay seems a well established principle in this country. Pragmatism however is also necessary for tax raisers. The proposals for a Mansion Tax seem to bring these two principles into conflict.
Certainly it is relatively easy to collect dues from property owners. Our history is littered with examples. The Domesday Survey of 1086 was the basis for what a feudal Lord owed to the Crown. In 1662 we had a Hearth Tax and in 1696 a Window Tax which introduced the concept of tax 'bands'. Lloyd George's Finance Act of 1909 -10 introduced increased property taxation. It was therefore a radical move by Margaret Thatcher to introduce the Community Charge (Poll Tax) in 1990 based on people not property and the people didn't like it. So back to property we went with the 1993 Council Tax.
So the first principle therefore, of an easy tax to collect, is well established even if there must be a strong case to question whether all those with wealth spend it on their property rather than gambling it or spending it on football teams, yachts, fine wine and loose women.Which of these habits makes the most sensible target?
The second principle, of the ability to pay, is less clear cut.
There seem to be various categories that are ill served by a new Mansion Tax. These include the elderly widow who may be reluctant to leave the family home and its memories but survives on meagre income. There is the family with lots of children which needs lots of space, is in a high value area and is funded by a huge mortgage where the net equity value is low. There is the farmer who has bought a farm for the quality of the land not the size of the house. Finally there is the large property where the owners also run a part-time business such as bed and breakfast or antiques sales. Important in this latter category are historic properties. Some of these are open to the public and attract tourists to this country or to a local area. Others, while not open, form an important part of our heritage and both have repair bills that would make the Chancellor's eyes water and they support employment in the conservation and building trades.
A Mansion Tax could use up owners' cash that would otherwise be used for repairs to our heritage. Drained of resources by public expenditure cuts, English Heritage would hardly be in a position to provide enhanced grants.Owners might well see it as more cost effective to effect cheap repairs that damage the historical integrity rather then go for listed building consent. So a Mansion Tax might be easy to collect but it might be aimed at the wrong people and it may well not be fair on properties themselves and the heritage in particular.
Taxation on the basis of ability to pay seems a well established principle in this country. Pragmatism however is also necessary for tax raisers. The proposals for a Mansion Tax seem to bring these two principles into conflict.
Certainly it is relatively easy to collect dues from property owners. Our history is littered with examples. The Domesday Survey of 1086 was the basis for what a feudal Lord owed to the Crown. In 1662 we had a Hearth Tax and in 1696 a Window Tax which introduced the concept of tax 'bands'. Lloyd George's Finance Act of 1909 -10 introduced increased property taxation. It was therefore a radical move by Margaret Thatcher to introduce the Community Charge (Poll Tax) in 1990 based on people not property and the people didn't like it. So back to property we went with the 1993 Council Tax.
So the first principle therefore, of an easy tax to collect, is well established even if there must be a strong case to question whether all those with wealth spend it on their property rather than gambling it or spending it on football teams, yachts, fine wine and loose women.Which of these habits makes the most sensible target?
The second principle, of the ability to pay, is less clear cut.
There seem to be various categories that are ill served by a new Mansion Tax. These include the elderly widow who may be reluctant to leave the family home and its memories but survives on meagre income. There is the family with lots of children which needs lots of space, is in a high value area and is funded by a huge mortgage where the net equity value is low. There is the farmer who has bought a farm for the quality of the land not the size of the house. Finally there is the large property where the owners also run a part-time business such as bed and breakfast or antiques sales. Important in this latter category are historic properties. Some of these are open to the public and attract tourists to this country or to a local area. Others, while not open, form an important part of our heritage and both have repair bills that would make the Chancellor's eyes water and they support employment in the conservation and building trades.
A Mansion Tax could use up owners' cash that would otherwise be used for repairs to our heritage. Drained of resources by public expenditure cuts, English Heritage would hardly be in a position to provide enhanced grants.Owners might well see it as more cost effective to effect cheap repairs that damage the historical integrity rather then go for listed building consent. So a Mansion Tax might be easy to collect but it might be aimed at the wrong people and it may well not be fair on properties themselves and the heritage in particular.
Tuesday 13 March 2012
More food, more environment
The challenge that the farming industry has been set is how to produce more food for a growing population without damaging an already fragile environment.
Owners of land have a choice as to what they do with that land. If they want a return on that asset as many do, then they will want to see it put to an economic use. Inadvertant changes in taxation policy could put even more pressure on the owner to seek an economic return.
The return could be either in the form of profit to a farmer or rent payable to the owner. Both of these have historically favoured maximising the returns from agriculture.
If the owner is to put the land to an alternative use; an environmental rather then a economic use for example, then he/she will have to either obtain some value from that environmental use or do so for some altruistic reason.
Some, like those with a very long term perspective, might see the importance of maintaining biodiversity for its own sake. Others might gain some economic benefit from environmental enhancement such as from a tourist enterprise. Normally however it involves sacrificing profit and production even alongside environmental stewardship schemes. For environmental protection and enhancement to have a chance against intensive agriculture then some value needs to be placed on other activities such as water management, carbon sequestration or increasing skylark breeding numbers for example.
Tenant farmers are particularly vulnerable to the pressure to make every acre of land pay. This is partly because they have to pay rent on almost every acre and partly because they do not share in the benefit of any uplift in value that may flow from an improvement in the biodiversity of the holding.
We might see a net increase in environmental quality on let land if the landlords were prepared to make it a condition of letting the land. To do so however they would probably have to be prepared to take a reduction in monetary return. Would they do so? Perhaps if they were wealthy enough, had a long horizon or had a sense of, or the need to demonstrate, corporate responsibility.
The Government Environment White Paper introduced the concept of Natural Capital . Perhaps we will soon see the Chancellor reporting on this in his annual budget. Until the bank manager recognises natural capital however, owner occupier farmers, tenants and landlords will struggle to justify environmental investment over investment in increasing food production.
Owners of land have a choice as to what they do with that land. If they want a return on that asset as many do, then they will want to see it put to an economic use. Inadvertant changes in taxation policy could put even more pressure on the owner to seek an economic return.
The return could be either in the form of profit to a farmer or rent payable to the owner. Both of these have historically favoured maximising the returns from agriculture.
If the owner is to put the land to an alternative use; an environmental rather then a economic use for example, then he/she will have to either obtain some value from that environmental use or do so for some altruistic reason.
Some, like those with a very long term perspective, might see the importance of maintaining biodiversity for its own sake. Others might gain some economic benefit from environmental enhancement such as from a tourist enterprise. Normally however it involves sacrificing profit and production even alongside environmental stewardship schemes. For environmental protection and enhancement to have a chance against intensive agriculture then some value needs to be placed on other activities such as water management, carbon sequestration or increasing skylark breeding numbers for example.
Tenant farmers are particularly vulnerable to the pressure to make every acre of land pay. This is partly because they have to pay rent on almost every acre and partly because they do not share in the benefit of any uplift in value that may flow from an improvement in the biodiversity of the holding.
We might see a net increase in environmental quality on let land if the landlords were prepared to make it a condition of letting the land. To do so however they would probably have to be prepared to take a reduction in monetary return. Would they do so? Perhaps if they were wealthy enough, had a long horizon or had a sense of, or the need to demonstrate, corporate responsibility.
The Government Environment White Paper introduced the concept of Natural Capital . Perhaps we will soon see the Chancellor reporting on this in his annual budget. Until the bank manager recognises natural capital however, owner occupier farmers, tenants and landlords will struggle to justify environmental investment over investment in increasing food production.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)