Lib Dems vote against abolishing all housing targets
Proposals to abandon top-down planning targets and grant more power to local councils would not address the problems in the housing market and could even risk creating new ones, Liberal Democrats said today.
Delegates at the Lib Dem conference in Brighton voted against a motion allowing local councils to buy land from landowners and sell it on to developers at a profit.
Paul Holmes MP argued this would have give councils massive incentives to allow development, meaning the government could abolish top-down targets and still ensure an adequate supply of housing.
However, delegates fiercely contested the motion, arguing it gave insufficient protection for the green belt and did nothing to address the shortage of affordable and social housing.
Councillor John Smithson argued it was vulnerable to local manipulation by land owners and developers and was the policy of a “right wing mad house” regime.
The policy’s backers argued it would ensure housing is built were local people want it, as well as providing councils with financial benefits to pass on to the community.
The motion called for individual landowners to nominate land for development and set a guide price. This could then be purchased by councils if there was local support for development.
As the value of land typically rises by £3 million per hectare once planning permission is granted, councils could then sell on land to developers bundled with outline planning permission, allowing them to benefit from the rise in value.
Opposing, Rachel Smith questioned how councils would raise the money to land bank in the first place or what would happen if land could not be sold on.
The motion claimed councils opting to sell land amounting to one per cent of current housing stock would be able to reduce council tax by £800 or improve services accordingly.
However, opponents argued it gave insufficient protection to green built land and failed to take up the Liberal Democrat’s environmental message.
It was also argued the policy did nothing to address the needs of tenants and social housing. Penny Ewers said it was a “bland, middle-class theoretical motion”.
