The Budget

Ronib can you please post another link to this article, please. I'd like to read about this £118 million profit as I think you may be referring to a local, much needed, infrastructure development and it's associated development plan which will bring employment to the locality and has hugely improved traffic flow which had been a huge issue. The development of the associated land is only possible because of the millions that have been invested in the infrastructure that is adjacent to it. The land would never have got planning because of access and in the 25 years I've lived locally I'm never seen it produce anything other than a poor grass crop. I know exactly where the Panters farm is and often buy milk from their self service facility.

MaizieD paragraph 5 gives an example. Simon Panter’s article applies. I thought it was an excellent read but you seem to have some trouble with it? Although I am struggling with the idea that a council walked off with £118 million in profit.

ronib

Try reading paragraph 4?

Be more explicit please. I still see nothing about the council reselling the land it has purchased.

It is under the same rationale that all compulsory purchases are made presumably?

Why exactly are farmers not being paid the development rate? As opposed to the agricultural rate?

A communist approach would be to confiscate all his land from the farmer into state ownership, without any recompense. Paying the farmer the agricultural going rate is not a communist approach. Compulsory purchase of land is not a new approach either, it already happens for schemes of public benefit such as roads, airports, railway lines etc.

Yes Casdon

You’re doing it still ronib. You know that compulsory purchase was initiated under the last government, as per my post and attachment above. Are you seriously accusing a Tory government of pursuing a communist policy?

The point is that under new compulsory purchase rules farmers may be financially disadvantaged and this isn’t really very fair policy? Farmers can be forced to sell land for development. It does feel a bit communist?

Well if all the farmers are hoping to sell for huge profits it won't be any different to them getting a fair price for agricultural land and the local community benefitting. Same effect on shelves.

Allira

To read some posts on here, you'd think that farmers were the enemy of the people.

Then, when the shelves are empty, you'll wonder why.

Bumped.

Oreo

Farms are so much more than businesses.

But so many are happy to give them up if they get enough money.

ronib

But councils take the profits under latest government legislation going forward now MaizieD. There’s still profit but it’s not going to landowners. There’s no guarantee that 1,500,000 homes will be built under this plan.
I take it you would agree to selling a field you owned for an agricultural price to your local council and you would happily see it sold on for considerably more? Come to think of it, it’s a compulsory purchase so how anyone feels is irrelevant.

Presumably agricultural land has increased in value and the farmers will get that which is fair. We all, as council area residents will benefit from money made by councils.

As someone who has suffered for two years from the disruption caused by building a new estate on what was farming land I have only lost. So the farmer benefitted, the developer is benefitting but local residents put up with the disruption and pressure on doctors, dentists, schools etc but no benefits.

My heart bleeds for the "poor" farmer who is probably busy counting his money nowhere near the chaos.

Try reading paragraph 4?

ronib

It’s in the article we both read…..

There's nothing in that article about councils buying the land in order to resell it.

ronib Could be. My area has green spaces and land that has been earmarked as possible land for building. Some land that has been suggested by the council had not even had permission from the owners! There has been some assertive words between the landowner and the council. It has caused some very bad feelings in the area towards landowners who were completely in the dark about their land being suggested.

Compulsory Purchase Order may apply? love0c.

A lot of land around my area all bought with hope. It is called 'land banking'. If you have money it can be a very good long term investment.

Hope value

It’s in the article we both read…..

ronib

No not rentals. It’s the increase in value of land bought at an agricultural price per acre and the price after planning permission per acre. MaizieD

Well, either you or I have got hold of the wrong end of the stick, ronib. I an assuming that the purpose of this is to allow councils to buy land more cheaply om which to build council housing.

Perhaps you could point me to where the new regulation says they can buy land to sell it on for a profit?

No not rentals. It’s the increase in value of land bought at an agricultural price per acre and the price after planning permission per acre. MaizieD

ronib

But councils take the profits under latest government legislation going forward now MaizieD. There’s still profit but it’s not going to landowners. There’s no guarantee that 1,500,000 homes will be built under this plan.
I take it you would agree to selling a field you owned for an agricultural price to your local council and you would happily see it sold on for considerably more? Come to think of it, it’s a compulsory purchase so how anyone feels is irrelevant.

WHERE IS THIS PROFIT OF WHICH YOU SPEAK COMONG FROM?

Rentals?

Oreo

David49

Casdon

David49

“I know many farmers used to believe they were born Tory but I wonder if the younger generations will feel the same? There is plenty of time for them to change”

After the IHT changes they are solidly Reform. It’s not just farmers any small business owner is in the same situation.

That’s just not true David49, you are generalising. I live in a farming community, I know they don’t all vote Reform.

The younger generations do they are the ones that are going to loose their livelihood, don’t you see all the protests that are still going on.
It’s a tax that is idealogical like private school tax it’s not going to raise much revenue, and will likely get repealed if Labour loose the next GE.

Exactly so David49 and if farmers didn’t vote Reform before… they will now! Or Conservative at the very least.
Labour have lost the countryside vote through a very stupid idealogical decision.

Labour didn’t have the farmers’ vote Oreo, at risk of repeating myself again, it’s historically been Tory or Lib Dem.

I can’t think of any predominantly rural areas that have Labour MPs, there are probably a handful, but not many.

Farms are so much more than businesses.