Labour savaged over Angela Rayner’s ‘perverse’ plan that could hit farmers

The Government’s “perverse” is “a step too far”, an expert has warned, as risk having their land bought from them on the cheap in another blow. Ministers want to supercharge by giving local councils powers to purchase land for less than its potential value and exclude “hope value”, the amount the asset’s value could increase by were planning permission granted. “We are supportive of many elements of the Government’s proposed changes to planning policy, and we recognise the urgent need for more affordable housing, upgrades of infrastructure including electric vehicle networks, and streamlining the planning system,” David Bean, Parliament and Government Relations Manager at the Countryside Alliance told the Express.

“However, some of the Government’s proposals are a step too far, and we cannot support them. The state should pay the market price for land it wants to acquire. Excluding ‘hope value’ from the price paid for assets compulsorily purchased is grossly unfair. Where land has permission for development, it has a higher market value. This should be recognised in a fair compulsory purchase price. It is perverse that land could be compulsorily purchased for the express purpose of building houses without this key aspect of market value included.”

The legislation spearheaded by would reduce payments made to recognise the inconvenience caused by compulsory purchases from 7.5% of the market value of a person’s interest in the land to 2.5%.

This would be a maximum of £25,000, down from £75,000.

Mr Bean said the proposed reductions to loss payments exacerbate the “unfairness” of the measures.

He added: “We are particularly worried that there seems little reason, given these measures, why councils would purchase land by agreement when the proposed changes would seem to allow them to purchase it compulsorily for much less.

“There is also concern that these measures could disproportionately affect rural communities.”

“Watering down or bypassing the role of councillors on planning committees would see councillors able to debate only proposals defined as large developments by the Government, whereas, in rural areas, developments of a few dozen homes could be significant regardless of a Government definition.

“Local people in rural areas could thus find themselves lacking a voice to oppose developments that could see their village or area hugely affected.”

In addition, there is alarm at a proposal to extend compulsory purchase rights to Natural England concerning its delivery of Environmental Development Plans.

Officials could buy land from farmers and other landowners for nature restoration projects.

“This could have serious implications for rural communities and businesses, and perhaps could even see agricultural land being forcibly rewilded,” Mr Bean said.

He added: “The Bill needs to be fair and proportionate, and as it currently stands, there is much to concern those in rural areas. It will do little to repair the broken relationship between the Government and the countryside.

“Coming off the back of the hated Family Farm Tax and the sudden closure of the SFI scheme, confidence in the government’s ability to deliver for rural communities is at an all-time low.

“We urge the government to listen to rural communities and address their concerns as the Bill goes through Parliament.”

The government has said that its proposed changes do not target farmers or any particular landowners.

Officials said last week: “There is nothing in the Bill that changes the core principles of compulsory purchase. It must be used only where negotiations have not succeeded and where there is a compelling case in the public interest.

“What the Bill will do is ensure that where these tests are met, the process will be more efficient and effective so local authorities can help deliver the homes and infrastructure, including schools and GP surgeries, that local communities desperately need.”