We aver that the only way to force corrupt councils to the trough, is to make it a legal requirement to build low cost housing as fulfilling the basic human right to affordable accommodation - that has seen so many families rack up debt like there is no tomorrow. This might also include a cap of council taxes (rates). Every human in the United Kingdom should be provided with shelter. No more sleeping rough on the streets. No more Liability Orders!

It's no secret that many landowners sit on Parish, District and County Councils. And many more are mates with farmers and other landowners, some of which landowners, farmers and developers are wealthy enough to contribute to party funds. Or even bribe local planning officers. Typically contributions going to the Conservative party.

That explains why councils in the round have not identified a rolling stock of land for low costs housing, or exercised their compulsory purchase powers. They would be causing their mates to sell their land, for the common good. Farmers don't act for the common good, nor property developers. Usually, they act to make money. Turn grass into British beef and dairy products, and grain into cash crops.

In some States in America, every person has the right to shelter. The interests of the State, need to be balanced against the interest of the landowner. Where the State has a duty to provide affordable housing and councils are not doing their job. The State may invoke statute to force the pace of delivery of land identified as being earmarked for low cost homes. That is entirely consistent with the Human Rights Act 1998, where the interests (needs) of the state overrule the interests of the landowners, as per Article 8. Who would have purchased that land at agricultural values - in any event. Hoping to high heaven that they get lucky.

We stress that compulsory purchase should only be directed to buying land for the build of genuinely affordable homes for vulnerable families, young and single parents. To replace the duty of councils to provide council housing, taken away by Margaret Thatcher, in effectively turning whole generations in renting financial slaves.

In our view Sir Keir is taking the first tentative steps to correcting Maggie Thatcher's unashamed human rights violations.

ARTICLE 8 - RIGHT TO RESPECT FOR PRIVATE AND FAMILY LIFE

1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.

2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

THE TELEGRAPH 24 JULY 2024 - STARMER'S 'HOUSEBUILDING REVOLUTION' COULD VIOLATE HUMAN RIGHTS

Sir Keir Starmer’s plans for a housebuilding revolution risk breaching human rights laws, lawyers have said.

They say the Government will face a string of legal battles over its proposal to reduce compensation to landowners forced to hand over their assets under compulsory purchase order (CPO) powers.

As outlined in the King’s Speech, the Government wants to reduce how much money is paid to owners and developers for use in housebuilding, saying it wanted to make the payouts “fair but not excessive”.

This is part of its plans to shake up housebuilding targets and build 1.5 million new homes.

It is thought the reforms will result in the removal of so-called “hope value” payouts, which take into account the potential value of land if it were to be developed on in the future.

Compensation will likely instead always be based on existing market values – significantly slashing the amount landowners can receive for being turfed out of their property.

But Tom Barton, a partner at law firm Mishcon de Reya, told The Telegraph that the Government risks falling foul of European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) law by changing compensation rules.

He said: “Such sweeping changes could face challenges on human rights grounds.

“The ECHR protects the right to peaceful enjoyment of one’s possessions and respect for your right to a home, and capping compensation at ‘existing use value’ could be considered an infringement on this right.

“Landowners would almost certainly argue that removing or reducing ‘hope value’ in compulsory purchase compensations deprives them of fair market value for their property and infringes their human rights. [Fair market value for agricultural land, if green belt, is fair compensation]

“If this is a reform the Government is serious about pursuing, the likelihood of challenge is high.”

Warnings over a ECHR breach come after leading lawyers told The Telegraph that Labour’s planned VAT raid on private schools was “likely illegal”.

The Levelling Up and Regeneration Act, passed last year, already allows authorities to buy land through CPO without paying “hope value”, as long as the purchase paves the way for affordable housing or educational and health infrastructure.

They must also gain express permission from the communities secretary to carry out the purchase.

It is, however, understood that Labour will remove the need for permission and could broaden the acceptable circumstances – allowing CPOs to become more commonplace.

Jon Stott, managing director of surveying firm Ardent, said: “If Labour goes further than the previous government, it will result in a number of unintended and unwanted consequences.

“CPOs are likely to be objected to with more vigour and more frequency, making the process still more contentious.”

CPOs, of which 39 were decided upon last year, can be issued by “acquiring authorities”, such as councils, Homes England and Network Rail.

They are classed as a last resort and can only be utilised when all other avenues have been exhausted.

In recent years, they have propped up parts of HS2, the UK’s yet-to-be-finished second high-speed rail network, and helped build thousands of new homes in Sheffield city centre.

Mr Stott fears that an increased reliance on CPOs will cause developers to shy away from putting forward land for housing. 

He said: “I cannot see why any promoter or developer would risk spending money promoting land for development in the knowledge that it could be CPO’d from them at existing use value, and they would not be compensated for the planning costs they had incurred. 

“As such, I fully expect that through seeking to solve a problem that doesn’t actually exist, the new Government would create a far bigger problem – a significant reduction in land being promoted for residential development, at the precise time we need more housing.” [Utter nonsense. We need affordable housing, not more executive housing. Providing the much needed low cost housing should not affect the luxury market. But may impinge on landlords who are overcharging]

A spokesman for the Ministry of Housing, Communities, and Local Government said: “We completely reject these claims. Any reforms to compulsory purchase compensation rules will be made in strict accordance with human rights law.”

THIS IS HOW TO BREAK THE WINDFALL CYCLE

Councils might not afford that kind of risk as the developer, and in any event they would probably lose money on the deal where in Hailsham (for example) a flat is £160,000 thousand pounds according to Zoopla (in 2018) but to be affordable (index linked to the average wage in the area) such a property would need to be between £70,000 and £90,000. Hence, a council attempting a compulsory purchase in the Hailsham area would be facing a significant loss.

But Wealden have been snapping up farmland near the Boship roundabout and the Cart Barn on the other side of Hailsham - paying well over the odds - but even so, could divide up into plots for approved designs, so saving architectural and purchase fees, with a streamlined package for first time buyers and young families.

The real way to beat absurdly high land value claims, is to offer 340m2 square meter plots to those on the Self-Build register, for about £1,650 pounds per site. Thus valuing the land, just a little under £20,000 per acre. Which is twice the price of arable pasture in June of 2023.

The real reason Wealden has not done son before 2023, is partly to do with the Conservative grip on the agenda, where many of them are property owners, renting out a portfolio of property at the current market price. Which price would fall considerably, if land for affordable (low cost starter homes) were to become available. Hence, they red-flagged any proposal, other than just keeping a Register of interested persons. No way are they going to advertise, the requirements under the NPPF 2021, or they'd be flooded out with applications. Even so, 191 applicants on Wealden's Register, seeking serviced plots. But, do they need services?

These days water and sewage may be obtained and disposed of without connecting to mains services. The same applies to off-grid solar energy storage and supply systems. Hence, all that is needed for a flat-pack installation is the plot and a dirt track access. That is if we really want to keep things affordable. Such home come in well under £50,000 a piece.

OFF THE SHELF FLATPACK HOMES PRICE EXAMPLE

https://www.quick-garden.co.uk/log-cabin-house-holland-plus-13-5mx8-5m-44x28-ft-66-mm.html

£42,499.00 Winter Super Deal. Price After 1 February 2022 £63,467.00 You save: £20,968.00

https://www.quick-garden.co.uk/insulated-log-cabin-house-langon-6m-x-8-7m-20x29-ft-twinskin.html

£42,171.00 – on offer (@ January 2022).

Firms like Ikea are now investing heavily in factory built designs, so reducing the cost of housing.

PUSHING COUNCILS TO DO THE RIGHT THING

Council's are notoriously slow at producing local plans, and when they do they fail to identify land as a rolling stock that is earmarked for affordable housing - despite the fact that this is their function. This is because of drug money coming in from overseas, without any checks as to the legitimacy of the sums, as to taxes paid in the country of origin. And how the investors earned their money. The UK is the most corrupt country in the world in this regard. With the city of London being the international laundering capital.

We have then to take this function away from councils, setting both the location and the value for them by way of an Appeal to the Secretary of State.

Anyone can put in a planning application on land that is not owned by them, simply by putting the owner on notice of the application. Identify a suitable field and away you go. But!

Social housing groups cannot afford to test the water either - with speculative planning applications - because of the high fees for those proposals. Hence, we have a stalemate position.

Thinking creatively, if councils could be persuaded (and maybe this should be a statutory requirement to really get things moving) to waive fees in relation to applications for genuinely affordable housing, then social groups or pro-bono advocates might take up the challenge and help the council out. How?

We are not saying that councils should lose out on fees entirely, we are only saying that such costs should be recoverable once the new builds are actually built. So, nobody loses and everybody wins, it just takes a bit longer.

Then there is the matter of the community infrastructure levy (CIL). Yes, there is way around that too, but only if we are all prepared to be reasonable.

At the moment, we suspect that CIL taxes are being invested in fossil fuels for officer pensions - or something such like. Whereas, these local taxes should be spent on the community.

WHAT NEXT ?

Crafting a planning application ......  BACK - NEXT

Map of the Wealden District

LINKS

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/starmer-s-housebuilding-revolution-could-violate-human-rights/ar-BB1qwgpp

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/starmer-s-housebuilding-revolution-could-violate-human-rights/ar-BB1qwgpp

FARMING - The backbone of any society is the production of food to feed the population, though these days much of what we eat is imported from other producers, such as fish farmed in Asia. We can no longer find enough fish locally having exhausted our fisheries. Agriculture is also changing where we have drained the soil for so long with artificial fertilizers that yields will fall, meaning a shift to obtaining protein from the sea - but unfortunately we are disposing of around 8 millions tons of plastic in our seas - poisoning marine life that we need to keep us nourished. Food security is therefore high on the United Nations agenda via the Food and Agriculture Organization.