[diggers350] Michael Edwards on new Roof Tax - same problem as PGS

[james armstrong]

er, um isn't the purpose of houses to house people?
and isn't the effect of planning gain to increase the  av. price of a house by £60,000? so who cares whether we tax the gain or tax the roof . So the chancellor plunges a further dagger into the house needy after withdrawing  the bloody stamp-duty rapier?_
what we need to do is stop the  exploitative planning gain 
itself. This can be done by posting the planning permit to the would be new house occupier not to the land owner.
'planning'is now a way of zoning land.In 1947 it was meant as a tool to reward returning heroes with houses.  
As long as the building decision is left to the housebuilders 
and the rewards go to the landowners, the house needy are left out of the loop.
PGS and roof tax are red herrings from 'Ainster- which happens to be a fishing port in  Gordon Brown's constituency.  James 







_______________________________> To: diggers350 at yahoogroups.com> From: mark at tlio.org.uk> Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 22:35:11 +0000> Subject: [diggers350] Michael Edwards on new Roof Tax - same problem as PGS>> Michael Edwards on the Government's newly proposed roof tax to replace the> Planning Gain Supplement (Source: Michael Edward's blog):> My own view is that BOTH PGS and the Tariff/ roof tax are deeply bad because> (i) of those arguments that a single rate set nationally would not> work...and so on> (ii) like Section 106 agreements, they tax development only at the moment> of Planning Permission when developers are feeling poorest and miss all> the inflation-related and other sources of value increment over the life> of the development. That's the thing we should be taxing. I have expanded> this argument in a paper on the Thames Gateway which is coming out in a> book (edited by Phil Cohen and Mike Rustin of UEL) in January. I can send> the chapter to anyone who wants it on request....> Michael> Ref: http://www.michaeledwards.org.uk/2007/10/pgs_roof_tax_s106.html#more> ---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------> Subject: Why the Planning Gain Supplement was dropped by the Govt> From: "Mark">> Date: Tue, October 16, 2007 12:54 pm> To: diggers350 at yahoogroups.com> ----------------------------------------------------------> Re: the last email I sent out about the removal of the Planning Gain> Supplement legislation, I now send out this retraction as to my slightly> incorrect interpretation that developer's self-interests stopped these> proposals in their tracks. Infact, opposition/reservations was more> widespread. The legisation has been replaced with something else - a roof> tax - which I also did not mention.> Instead of the Planning Gain Supplement, the Government are proposing to> implement alternative legislation whereby local councils can apply new> planning charges to new development alongside negotiated contributions for> site-specific matters (the existing practice of laying down Section 106> agreements). As the government says, the charges will be used to finance> the infrastructure proposed by the development plan for the area,> including regional and sub-regional infrastructure.> Reasons why Planning Gain Supplement was dropped by the govt:> Planning and development interests were either opposed or wary of the> proposed Planning Gain Supplement (PGS), suggested by Kate Barker in 2006.> Local authorities were concerned that opting for PGS would reduce their> ability to negotiate local community benefits. Councils have yet to be> convinced that the most of the proceeds from the tax will be distributed> by the Treasury to help the immediate area affected by the development.> The Planning Officers Society (POS) were opposed to the PGS on the grounds> it would be part of the national taxation system and not targeted enough> at local requirements. The POS believes a tariff system is a better way of> ensuring local infrastructure and community needs.> The Royal Town Planning Institute has warned of a danger that those> communities most in need of infrastructure investment, particularly those> with failing markets, will lose out to those with development pressure> with a consequent overheating of the local economy for the latter areas.> They pointed out that revenue should not be at the expense of affordable> housing, and should be retained and used for the benefit of the local> area.> According the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, the proposed land> tax risked stifling housing and business development. Like much of the> property and development sector it favours a tariff system and argues that> if PGS is brought in it should only be for large-scale scheme with the> section 106 system retained for smaller developments.> Info taken from: New development tax proposals face an uphill struggle> Source: Planning Portal> Ref: www.planningportal.gov.uk/england/professionals/en/1115313894505.html> 

_________________________________________________________________
Celeb spotting – Play CelebMashup and win cool prizes
https://www.celebmashup.com