Vacant urban land

News

12 March 1988

There has been no proper evaluation of urban development corporations, for example. The main reason for their “apparent success”, the report says, seems to be the relatively greater public resources that are available to a development corporation or agency and the relative certainty of their income compared with local authorities dependent on annual RSG allocation.

Another policy for economic regeneration, which has attracted much attention, is the enterprise zone. The literature shows that their success depends upon major public intervention. The most important incentive is the freedom from rates, but this has led to higher rents. Very little has been said of the effects of zones on the take-up of vacant land, the report says.

Land registers and privatisation schemes are a major plank of government policy to solve the problem of vacant land. However, it is pointed out that they omit substantial sources of vacant land — in the private sector, for example. Some studies suggest that public authorities may undertake “speculative disposal” in order to reap high land values. Others argue that there is a lack of demand for development, so that land registers and privatisation merely shift the ownership of vacancy but do not lead to its development.

Research projects are suggested which focus on the land management practices of private sector landowners; on the mechanics and the effects of valuation methods and procedures; on the role of planning; and, in the field of policy evaluation, a study is required which will show what causes “lack of demand” in cases where grant aid has been taken up and yet development has not resulted.

(*) Vacant Urban Land — a literature review 1976-86. University of Cambridge, 19 Silver Street, Cambridge CB3 9EP. £7.50.

A comprehensive review of recent published research on vacant urban land has been prepared by Cambridge University for the Department of the Environment.(*) It reveals significant gaps in knowledge on certain aspects of the subject and shows the need for coordinated research programmes. There has been no proper evaluation of urban development corporations, for example. The main reason for their “apparent success”, the report says, seems to be the relatively greater public resources that are available to a development corporation or agency and the relative certainty of their income compared with local authorities dependent on annual RSG allocation. Another policy for economic regeneration, which has attracted much attention, is the enterprise zone. The literature shows that their success depends upon major public intervention. The most important incentive is the freedom from rates, but this has led to higher rents. Very little has been said of the effects of zones on the take-up of vacant land, the report says. Land registers and privatisation schemes are a major plank of government policy to solve the problem of vacant land. However, it is pointed out that they omit substantial sources of vacant land — in the private sector, for example. Some studies suggest that public authorities may undertake “speculative disposal” in order to reap high land values. Others argue that there is a lack of demand for development, so that land registers and privatisation merely shift the ownership of vacancy but do not lead to its development. Research projects are suggested which focus on the land management practices of private sector landowners; on the mechanics and the effects of valuation methods and procedures; on the role of planning; and, in the field of policy evaluation, a study is required which will show what causes “lack of demand” in cases where grant aid has been taken up and yet development has not resulted. (*) Vacant Urban Land — a literature review 1976-86. University of Cambridge, 19 Silver Street, Cambridge CB3 9EP. £7.50.