Landowners to be given right to allocate homes
Rural landowners could be put in charge of allocating affordable housing built on their land, under government proposals.
A consultation on encouraging landowners to bring forward land for affordable housing, suggests they could be given referral rights for homes in exchange for the land.
The document suggests a range of incentives that housing associations might offer to landowners, depending on the level of support they receive.
If landowners put forward land for development and build the homes they could be given full referral rights, as long as the housing remained available in perpetuity.
If the development was funded through grant or by a housing association then the landowner could be given the right to refer family members or employees for a percentage of the homes.
In all cases the referrals system would be managed by the housing association, and people referred would have to meet the correct eligibility criteria.
Landowners would also retain the freehold, with the housing association either paying a one-off charge for the lease, or an annual ground rent.
The plans are contained in a consultation on bringing forward land for rural exception sites, which are small plots attached to existing rural communities for use as affordable housing. This runs until 18 February.
Housing minister John Healey said: ‘A lack of affordable housing in the countryside can be a real problem for rural communities. That’s why we are determined to help young families find homes they can afford where they want to live, and help rural businesses recruit and retain local staff who will not be priced out of the countryside.’
Robert Latham, barrister at Doughty Street Chambers, said the plans could discriminate against ‘those who do not have a [local] connection and might come from a minority group’.
Abigail Davies, head of policy at the Chartered Institute of Housing, said: ‘The crux to making this fair and transparent is that the referrals system is run by an independent body.’
The government also announced £1 million to fund advice for rural towns and villages on developing high quality housing schemes. Councils with the best proposals will be given access to the fund to further improve their plans.
The initiatives are part of the implementation of a report, Living Working Countryside, which was produced earlier this year by Liberal Democrat MP Matthew Taylor.
Have your say
You must sign in to make a comment
Readers' comments (7)
Joe Halewood | 30/11/2009 1:30 pm
Silly me, I thought Feudalism died out centuries ago!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Harry Lime | 30/11/2009 2:34 pm
It's a difficult one though really isn't it? You can't put a gun to the head of a landowner when it comes to rural schemes although there was times I'd have liked to CPO their land!! Providing the caveats or requests are reasonable it's better than nothing (assuming the landowners wouldn't get full market value if they get to specify these) Also if the property(s) are made available to employees they shouldn't be totally tied, e.g after 5 years service the resident can remain if they change jobs/retire. Schemes like this with residents running local shops/pub etc could be the making of some villages.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
John | 30/11/2009 2:58 pm
JOKE!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Peter | 30/11/2009 3:22 pm
This is a disaster waiting to happen and all for the wrong reason. There are huge problems in rural communities such as access to the normal facilities you get in urban areas not mention that you are taking away precious land for food production.
There are many farmers whose lively have blighted by the supermarkets greed and many will sell their lands to make ends meet. This is not what we should be encouraging. There is a fine balance for the need of rural areas to sustain their functioning purpose within the need to preserve our ecosystem. They must not be turned into urban sprawls. We need to be very, very cautious for the need to build more houses on land that is needed to feed us!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Julian Thompson | 01/12/2009 11:30 am
There are many charitable institutions which this might trigger to bring land forward; independent schools, churches, colleges, family trusts; as well as farmers. 7% of population controls 93% of land so anything that brings land forward is welcome. This is not feudalism but common sense
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Jack Wilson | 05/12/2009 9:21 am
When I started work for a Housing Association that specialised in Rural Housing about 25 years ago all its rural sites were subject to a % of tenants being allocated by (or actually put forward by - we decided) the original landowner. This had encouraged the landowner to come forward in the first place. However the person nominated had to comply with a number of other requirements (such as local connections). Everyone involved locally considered this fair and reasonable (yes ,even those who might have lost out on a property)
If the landowner couldn't nominate a qualified person, then we went to the waiting list - which was anyway restricted to those with local connections.vIn my experience it worked perfectly well and caused no problems at all.
In most cases where the properties hd been up for a few years the landowner did not make any nominations anyway - either because they had no-one to nominate, or often because they had just lost interest over the years - especially if the property had changed hands.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
| 06/12/2009 9:28 pm
This seems a far better system for allocations than the socially poisonous and divisive "needs" based system forced on councils by this government. Although, from the article, one can already see the "uman rights" legal brigade licking their fingers. Not enough third world immigrants with nine kids supported by the UK taxpayer will be housed in rural communities under this system. Clearly a catastrophe for urban NuLab middle class hand-wringers. This initiative will doubtless be challenged in court at the expense of, yes, you guessed it...
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment