planning

I feel I've been tagged in a strange sort of a meme for my thoughts on Oxford's recent local election results by Antonia [From Oxford elections round-up]:

We await with bated breath the thoughts of Stephen Tall, no longer Lib Dem councillor for Headington, his colleague David Rundle, and the third-placed Lib Dem candidate for Headington Hill and prolific blogger, Jock Coats.

Well thanks, she just had to rub it in by mentioning that third place. I am embarrassed and humiliated to have come third. There are of course official post mortems to come yet on the campaign, but whatever their verdict, one simple fact is that I am a "bad candidate". Whatever fresh ideas I may have brought to the council (and I doubt my Labour victor will be doing much of that, sad to say), I cannot escape the fact that I hate knocking on strangers to talk politics with them. So for me, the literature and word of mouth amongst people who have met me outside that context is more crucial than for most. Such glad-handing ought to have happened long before the campaign proper started with voter ID canvassing in late March. And been followed up with a leaflet introducing me properly and extolling my virtues before the cross city campaign started with its more party led focus on whole city issues.

Then there was "that leaflet." On the last weekend of the campaign I had the dubious honour of having a Labour leaflet, apparently partly delivered by Mrs Dromey (I rather hope, Antonia, that you were unaware of that leaflet's existence when we exchanged pleasantries on the Friday evening), using quotes from this blog about drugs policy obviously intended to give the impression that if I won I would probably be found standing outside the primary school handing out various narcotics to the year sevens, or perhaps to their parents! Several opponents have commented that they thought it was one of the worst personal attack leaflets they had seen. I suppose I ought to feel flattered that Labour were sufficiently alarmed by my candidacy to feel the need to drag the contest into the gutter.

You can read it for yourself here. By my reckoning, it at least breaches copyright law (my moral right not to have my copyrighted work treated in a derogatory fashion or in a way designed to be prejudicial to the honour or reputation of the author or director), if not possibly electoral law. Enquiries are ongoing. I am not a sore loser, but I was upset by it. I know it cost me both votes and reputation, even amongst my deliverers.

Anyway, enough of the campaign itself. Will I ever try again? I don't know. For many years, since in fact I was last on the council in 2002, I have wondered whether the present system of local government is fit for purpose. As an ideological descendent of the individualist-anarchists and a mutualist, I find the state, in all its guises, terribly coercive. I believe sovereignty should lie with the individual and he or she should only cede power upwards to representatives over things that they cannot arrange for themselves or in small groups or local communities. Local government is so tied down by Whitehall and Westminster that the current arrangements simply cannot be responsive enough to local peoples' needs.

The main reason I wanted to be on the council was to continue to promote, from the inside as it were, my mutualist agenda of hiving local authority functions off onto social, community led partnerships. The more things compete for the crumbs of council budgets within the tight control of Whitehall oversight the less satisfactory the outcome. Leisure services for example cannot hope to compete in quality at least with private providers while it is within the constraints of council budgeting. Similarly, whilst more difficult, I think the solutions to our housing problems are community led, rather than council, landowner and planning led.

Every time I've lost so far I've come out of the contest wanting to do other things that will make a difference one day outside the council structure. Almost as if to prove we can cope without the psychopaths who are so good at saying the right thing at the right time to get themselves elected. This time it is to continue to promote the social enterprise "alternative" for producing social and public goods and to work on promoting local community e-democracy.

• It will be interesting to watch Labour finally explain where they think there is a "£5m cash crisis" at the city council - reading the latest annual accounts I cannot see it myself. But there's another argument for local government reform - despite us being the tax payer/employers their finances are even more opaque than any company's I've ever seen.

• It will be fun to see Maureen Christian defend the Northway Playing fields from something or other she seems to think threatens them (certainly the only "threat" i heard was my own idea to see if we could fit a cricket square on there by budging up the two football pitches and see if we could get a local cricket team going).

• I think it will be a retrograde step if Labour succeed in removing planning decisions from area committees. They were not perfect there, but I have always maintained that was as a result of the bad legal advice that both sides in any disputed application had the right only to speak for five minutes each - where they have open discussion at area committees they manage to get better decisions and more fruitful interplay between applicant and objectors and a better outcome for both.

• It will also be interesting to see whether the Tories, who, despite not winning a single seat managed to come in second in many wards, and at least the ones in which they tried to put up a full campaign, will be able to keep up that level of work, for example, next year, when their declining reputation in control of the county is up for defending.

• And it will be interesting to see whether this marks the high water point for the IWCA, who lost two of their councillors.

• But I also don't really expect the city council, under any party, to set Oxford on fire with bright new ideas that will markedly change the quality of life for its citizens.

Finally, if anyone has any ideas about what little thank you gifts I can get for two teenaged Muslim boys who managed throughout to deliver most of the half of the ward for which we did not have regular deliverers - not a happy situation to be in at the start of a campaign and one of the first things I hope to put right for next time - I'd be very grateful to hear them! Their father has resisted all my requests for his advice so far!

Quite by chance, as if on order to make the local elections more exciting in my ward, two local planning issues have suddenly popped up (not entirely unexpectedly it has to be said) that are likely to cause a deal of controversy when they get to decision-making time. I don't want to talk about their planning merits or otherwise on here. But I do want to use them because they are very good examples of why I am so passionate about land reform.

The first, in the ward in which I am standing is an application for new student residences adjacent to the site on which I am a warden proposed by my employers, Oxford Brookes University. To be fair it will make more of an impact on residents in the neighbouring ward, but it is the economics of it all I want to look at not the planning, to show why land value tax would be such a benefit to the community.

The second, just over the main road in the neighbouring ward but which will make a significant impact on neighbours in both wards one way or another is the news today that Tesco have bought up a local former pub building from a local bar/restaurant entrepreneur who had seemingly been knocked back in the early stages of planning such that he no longer felt it worth fighting for his ideas for the site. Here I want to look at how the planning system seems to favour the bigger developer with the financial clout and how this affects the fairness of land law.

But first, the new proposed halls of residence. This site is approximately quarter remaining of a site the university acquired from the Department of Social Security about seven years ago now. When I was last on the council, just at the end, they had owned the site for about six months, if I remember correctly having bought the whole thing for either eight or eleven million pounds through a charitable trust set up for the purpose and were just getting outline planning consent.

The entire site had been only about a quarter used for several years since most parts of the DSS had moved out. And even when at "full capacity" it had been an egregiously inefficient use of a piece of prime inner suburban land - even for offices - since it was half car park and half single storey nissan hut type buildings.

Since it had been government owned, effectively there was no income to the public purse from this land. Once it was owned by a charity the empty land has generated no receipts to the public purse in the form of business rates. The charitable trust sold off about a quarter of the land to the adjacent Oxford International Centre for Islamic Studies, first for use as a contractors car park and now it lies more or less empty. A hectare of prime city centre building land. The university built nearly seven hundred student rooms in new halls on half of the original land and these were opened five years ago now. But it is the effect of this last quarter of of the site I want to examine and show how failing to encourage optimal use of land where it is available is a disaster for the rest of us.

The site is about a hectare. So if the original purchase price for the entire site was the higher of the two figures I remember hearing at the time - eleven million pounds, its share would be two and three-quarters million. The current application is for 335 study bedrooms and since the student halls market has changed out of all recognition in those seven years, commercial firms are willing to pay it is rumoured up to £45,000 per room for suitable land, as a site alone it would be worth more like fifteen million pounds.

Point one: whilst the local authority has received virtually nothing for this land in rates, the owners, either the university or the charitable trust, have effectively got a book profit of £12 million - a four hundred per cent return in seven years.

335 study bedrooms would, if theory, allow some 83 four bedroomed family homes to be freed up from the current student private rented market somewhere in the city assuming student numbers overall remained static. That's 83 largeish families who have been otherwise excluded from the housing market in Oxford for seven years because these halls did not exist. At its worst, that means that the tax-payer, through housing benefit, has spent upwards of ten million a decade supporting those households in private rented accommodation while they wait for "affordable housing".

Point two: the cost to the tax-payer of that piece of land laid idle and not producing any local taxation has been at least ten million in housing benefits to private landlords while the owners have made that massive book profit.

Now imagine if that land were taxed on its value at its most productive use - that's currently the £15 million or so a commercial halls of residence developer would pay for it. A ten percent land tax would now be yielding the public purse £1.5 million a year, and more importantly would have been liable for that tax all the while it has been so underused. No owner with any financial sense would have kept that land out of productive use with a tax bill like that. The land would have been brought into its best use long ago, either as housing itself or freeing up those equivalent 83 units for family use instead of student private lets, and the tax-payer would not have had to support 83 families to the tune of that £10 million pounds a decade in supported housing.

Now, don't get me wrong, I am neither criticising my employer nor demanding ten storey blocks of flats on every vacant site. But I am illustrating the cost to society of holding land out of use, and the unfairness where, in doing so, the owners have made a vast profit at the direct expense of the tax-payer. It's the system that causes this, not the participants in that system who are only following the rules everyone else plays by.

Now to the "Tesco pub". Some time ago this down at heel local pub was closed, its future uncertain. A well known local restaurant and property entrepreneur bought it up and a few months ago publicized his idea for turning it into a row of three shops and some flats above in a "landmark" new building. But with an ambivalent local reaction and, it seems, less than enthusiastic reception from the city's planners to the idea, this chap pulled his plans and decided to look around for a buyer. The land registry records show that the property had cost him £400,000 and that it was mortgaged so he had financed it empty for seven or eight months developing his ideas and the prospect of a long uphill struggle into the unforeseeable future in the planning system means he would be financing it empty for many months, if not a couple of years to come.

It is opposite a long established and not so long ago refurbished and extended local Co-op store (where I joined as a member of the Co-operative and where I shop several times a week in preference to all the other supermarkets around I could potentially choose from) and a less long established Costcutter store that houses the local Post Office and a similarly aged Chemist shop that replaced a locally owned and well patronized cycle and fishing tackle shop and an electrical retailer. It is, to put it mildly, on an awkward site, at a very odd junction just at the point the Marston Road becomes a dual carriage-way "boulevard" and buses turn right against the traffic whilst the off-road cycle lane comes to an end, the road splits into two lanes prior to a busy and slightly awkward double roundabout junction. There is just enough parking in the lay-by outside the existing shops for their customers and nowhere else for cars to park.

The site might have been viewed as ideal for shopping or catering uses complimentary to the existing neighbouring shops. Extending the range of goods and services people could get in a single visit to the local shops. All very sustainable. And contributing to the local economy and the success of local entrepreneurs - all of which tends to keep more money in circulation more locally in Oxford, making us all better off.

But now Tesco have the site. Obviously, they are in competition with two of the existing local stores. For many, they will do a better job of supplying their grocery needs and at lower prices. That too is good for peoples' pockets and therefore local wealth retention. But since, if they've borrowed to buy it at all, as opposed to taking the purchase price out of the weekend's take from the nearby Tesco out of town superstore, it's probably a tiny dent in their current income rather than a major liability as it would have been to the local entrepreneur who had borrowed to buy it as a significant chunk of his portfolio. And they can afford to sit on it until the planners give in, until attrition of any opposition to the idea gives them an easier ride in the planning process.

At the moment I wouldn't dare to have made up my mind about the idea of Tesco Express there. On the one hand, competition is good for the consumer. On the other, Tesco has such financial clout that it could send its competition to the wall and leave it eventually and open field to increase prices because of its local monopoly. And there again, whilst as a member I would be very sad to see either of the two existing competing stores fail, they would almost certainly then be occupied by some other, and probably local, entrepreneur with another great idea that would compliment rather than compete in its turn with the Tesco store. Again, this increases the range of goods and services a person can get in one trip to the local shops.

But all I am highlighting is that because the planning system causes a proportionately greater opportunity cost to fall on the smaller businessman it actually favours the big financial muscle of large corporates who can afford to take the risk for longer. It is not a level playing field. But, as in the previous story, it's the playing field on which all would be developers have to play. On the other hand again, it would be quite wrong for the planning system to become a tool of protectionism, benefitting one business or businessperson over another by preventing competition. Perhaps in an LVT based system the tax payable on a site should be suspended for the time during which the planning bureaucracy was deciding on a proposal to concentrate the minds of planners on getting the best deal for all parties in the minimum time possible and enabling people to get on with running their businesses, extending their homes, or whatever the application was for.

Anyway - all that was a bit of a marathon use of two local and serendipitously current issues illustrate quite well some of my hot button issues on land reform, free trade and anti-protectionism and localism.

Just a possible alternative headline for this story in today's Oxfrord Mail/Times - Trap Grounds Bill Tops 159k

I'm just sitting listening to the Any Questions Lib Dem leadership contest special and I just heard Chris Huhne, in response to a question about whether they were more afraid of Gordon Brown or David Cameron, say that one thing that scares people about Gordon Brown is that he cannot keep his hands out of other departments' business.

How timely an answer, because it has just been announced today that Kate Barker, she of the housing market report that was commissioned a couple of years ago (and who said herself that she didn't know much about housing economics at the time!) has now been asked to do a review of the Land Use Planning system...by...The Treasury:

The terms of reference of the review are:

To consider how, in the context of globalisation, and building on the reforms already put in place in England, planning policy and procedures can better deliver economic growth and prosperity alongside other sustainable development goals.

In particular to assess:

• ways of further improving the efficiency and speed of the system;
• ways of increasing the flexibility, transparency and predictability that enterprise requires;
• the relationship between planning and productivity, and how the outcomes of the planning system can better deliver its sustainable economic objectives; and
• the relationship between economic and other sustainable development goals in the delivery of sustainable communities.

I wonder how much Ms Barker knows about planning. She's turning into the economist's version of Louise Casey methinks.

On Monday, Chancellor Gordon Brown in his pre-budget statement announced that he was going to consult on what he calls a “planning gain levy”. On top of existing arrangements for taking 50% of land subject to planning permissions for much needed affordable housing, he is now wanting another 20% of the land value increase as a windfall tax.

I hope councillors from all over Oxfordshire, and especially Oxford City where reusing land efficiently is most important, will stand firm against this when they are consulted. Labour governments over the past 80 years have tried this tax three times already, most recently as the Development Land Tax of the seventies’ Labour regime. It has been abandoned each time because as a transaction charge it puts landowners off seeking planning permission for the sort of change of use we rely on to provide housing development land.

Nothing has changed since the ill-fated attempt thirty years ago. Far from providing pots of money for councils to spend, it will make it very much more difficult to entice owners to bring forward land suitable for housing, which we desperately need. It will encourage sprawl and inefficiency. Unused land will lie idle and be a focus for anti-social activity.

The big housebuilders have enough land and enough planning permissions to keep them busy without new supplies for a good while, until this tax is repealed yet again. The only people this will really hurt are those without adequate housing at present.

There is a far better solution, however. We should base property taxes on only the land value of a site and not the buildings and improvements on it. And to make it payable even when a site is vacant or underused. This way owners paying taxes on underused land will be encouraged to bring it up to the most efficient use.

The previous County Council voted twice to support Land Value Tax and carried out a pilot study in the Vale of White Horse. Oxfordshire is therefore in the perfect position not only to oppose this ill-considered development tax but to prove the effectiveness of Land Value Tax as an alternative. Missing this opportunity may simply switch off housing development in Oxfordshire for years.

The consultation on housing in the county was a sham, as the whole process of local, strategic and regional planning for housing has been right the way through.

Good alternative ideas have been unwelcome for two years now! The option to put thousands of homes on the edge of the city is based on seriously flawed interpretations of the City Council’s own research. The others are an unacceptable, usually undemocratic imposition on smaller towns.

What the city council’s Labour group is proposing is in fact an overall increase in Oxford’s population of a nearly a fifth. Because the only way they can see of providing affordable housing is to allow lots of private market development.

What we need is a mechanism for sustainable use and reuse of what we already have – making the market match the need. Most people in the city’s housing needs survey are already based in the city – we just have severe problems affording what they are in. The absolute shortage of housing is only around a quarter of what the city’s planners have extrapolated from their research as a result.

We can expect more villages to become havens for the wealthy and their public services like schools, local shops and buses to wither and die. And acres of soulless developer boxes spreading out into South Oxfordshire no doubt pretending to be “communities”.

Whenever there’s some new planning consultation we are indebted to the CPRE for explaining its supposed consequences.

But I’m slightly confused at what appears an hysterical reaction whatever the Deputy PM’s office says. Which bits of the following do the CPRE disagree with:

That “this…paper discusses how planning delivers housing at the local level, and the new mechanisms involved…not…issues concerned with the overall level of housing growth and how it is determined…” or perhaps the core policy aim “that everyone should have the opportunity of a decent home?”

Do groups such as CPRE and the Green Belt Alliance have policy about the level of need in Oxfordshire and how to meet it? Or doesn’t it matter so long as the land values of their own homes hold up and they have somewhere to walk the gundogs? Is squalor, extortion and overcrowding for some a price worth paying for that? He mentions building for incomers while the available data suggests that 95% of Oxfordshire’s household growth is local demand.

I share their view that Green Belt development is not yet necessary, but at least some propose possible solutions, such as Land Value Tax (NOT Development Land Tax which the government is imposing and will more likely stifle development completely) or Community Land Trusts putting control of development into the hands of local communities.

We only seem to hear the “BANANA” (build absolutely nothing anywhere near anything) option from such groups. They cannot be completely blind to some need – probably affecting some of their friends, colleagues and families – children whose only “affordable” option seems to become a constituent of Mr Prescott?

This consultation is about promoting planning authorities working together to identify need and plan for it across local housing markets, instead of passing the buck to their neighbours. It may even help places like Oxford actually understand the market so they can look for other ways of responding to need than simply extending the city.

But let’s not let the reality get in the way of a really good piece of scaremongering.

I read recently city councillors saying the planning process is not political. Indeed, it is not meant to be. But it is ever more apparent that it is highly political with a “small p”.

I strongly supported the move to planning decisions taken at area committees, and advocated even more public participation than happens now. I hoped this would enable people (and councillors) to understand why certain decisions are taken, ‘owning’ the resulting decision as a local community and, crucially, bearing the costs of appeals against adverse decisions.

But now councillors appear to make the decisions they think people in the room would like them to make, whether right or wrong, and leave the appeals process to sort it out afterwards. That way they get the voters’ credit for defending local opinion and let the Planning Inspectorate take the blame for decisions that run counter to local feeling.

As a result, more than two thirds of appeals against decisions by the city council are successful; and all appeals against decisions made by councillors at area committees.

Councillors – you are not helping people to understand and own planning issues, merely raising false hopes that you must know are likely to be dashed by Inspectors. You are costing taxpayers money and delaying much needed development (particularly housing) by over a year. With deep regret, it may be time for planning decisions to be handled centrally again.