by Stephen Marks
New legislation to compel sales of unused and derelict public sector land is on the way, Environment Secretary Nicholas Ridley told a conference in London last week. The land register system gives much greater publicity to public sector holdings of disused and underused land, he said. “But publicity is not enough.”
Forced disposals had been imposed, using powers under the 1980 Local Government Planning and Land Act, and so far statutory procedures had been started in over 140 cases.
“But more remains to be done. We have found that the statutory procedures are elaborate, cumbersome and time-consuming. We therefore propose new legislation at the earliest opportunity to improve the record of idle land and streamline statutory procedures. This should enable us to speed up the programme of forced disposals,” he told the ‘Cities 2000’ conference, sponsored by Municipal Journal and the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy.
The legislation would be designed to make owners give information on idle land, instead of withholding it till asked. It would also enable the DOE to modify directions to sell if necessary.
“In an ideal world this legislation would not be necessary. Public bodies, and especially local authorities, who own almost 60% of registered land, should take steps themselves either to make early and good use of land holdings or voluntarily speed up their programme of disposal. But we will use the weapon of legislation where we have to,” declared Mr Ridley.
A Labour Government would mean rates based on capital values, higher rates in shire counties, the continuation of Urban Development Corporations in a modified form, and no early or automatic restoration of the GLC, according to Dr Jack Cunningham, Labour’s Shadow Environment Spokesman.
Labour would alter the rating system to one based on capital values instead of notional rentals. The party was reviewing “in considerable detail” the working of the GRE formulas, which determine the allocation of Rate Support Grant between local authorities. They were “inadequate to measuring the increasing needs of the cities,” he claimed.
He repeated the commitment in a recent party document to “act immediately to ensure a democratic input” to the boards of UDCs. This would be followed by a review of practices and functions. “But there is no question of a Labour Government simply abandoning the work of urban development corporations,” he stressed.
Restoration of an elected strategic authority for London would have to wait for an inquiry into regional government as a whole, and would not take the form of restoring the status quo abolition. “We are not proposing a blueprint for the whole country — nor are we rushing to re-establish abolished authorities in any one part of the country,” he insisted. And in response to a subsequent questioner, he repeated: “We are committed to re-establish an elected authority for London. But we don’t intend to restore the GLC.”
Dr Cunningham’s implied support for an accelerated shift of Rate Support Grant from the shires to the inner city got an unexpected reinforcement from developer Tom Baron, former chairman of Christian Salvesen (Properties). Those in the more affluent South East and in the shires around northern conurbations who demand planning constraint and environmental protection will have to pay for it, he told the conference.
“They currently pay less rates for better services in better environments and they enjoy the benefits of rapidly rising house prices which are not available to most of those who live in the inner cities, especially those north of Watford,” he said.
“They are already complaining bitterly at the modest redistribution or RSG currently being proposed, while at the same time they are pressurising Government to extend and defend their green belts and to push both housing and industrial development back into the urban areas. They want both the cake and the halfpenny and are reluctant to accept the consequences of the demand-led free economy which they so frequently advocate.”
Anthony Grant, consultant partner of Grant & Partners, put forward a “12-point private sector charter”. It included scrapping UDG and RDG; the abandonment of detailed planning control, but with stricter architectural standards enforced on aesthetic criteria only, by panels drawn from the private sector; capital allowances of 100% in all areas designated for renewal, to be extended to residential property and combined with a 5% depreciation allowance; and rate holidays in the inner city of five years for domestic property and 10 years for business property.
He rejected the argument, put forward by some councillors, that high rates were no deterrent to business as rents fall as rates rise. “I can say from experience that this simply is not so. High rates are unpredictable and are imposed whether or not business viability has improved the value of premises, unlike private sector rent reviews. The rent reviews are fixed five-yearly whereas rates can increase annually. Leases become harder to assign, and business mobility suffers.”
Other points in the Grant programme included the suggestion that for non-viable projects there should be local authority or Government leaseback arrangements at 90% of market rents. He also called for the reinvigoration of private rented housing by the abolition, through all-party agreement, of rent control and security of tenure, reinforced with the depreciation and nil-rate measures.
