Politics | Land Matters

A vision for the Future of Allotments

15. April 2013 · 14 comments · Categories: Environment, Farming, Huts, gardens & urban greesnspace, Land Reform, Legal affairs, Politics

Today the Scottish government has published a very welcome consultation paper (media release & consultation paper) on the future of allotments. The reform and modernisation of allotment legislation will form part of the forthcoming Community Empowerment and Renewal Bill and this consultation is the opportunity to get the allotment bit of that bill right.

It is significant that the media release is illustrated with a tiny little garden shed and a wheelbarrow – the essence of the spartan and utilitarian idea that was embodied in the Allotments (Scotland) Act 1892 (original version here) which provided the statutory basis for burghs to respond to any “demand for allotments for the labouring population in such burgh….” Section 2(1) This notion of a small plot of land for the labouring classes to grow food has hardly changed in over a century (and of course the ruling class had no need for such legislation being mostly in possession of ample land themselves).

Meanwhile, in the rest of Europe, things developed rather differently. Sure, there are allotments like we have, but there are also other arrangements which provide fuller opportunities for urban dwellers to enjoy life in the garden. Which is why I have included what I think is a fantastic aerial view of my own vision of what allotments could and should be like – a far cry from the pokey patches of ground that allotments consist of today. Please do click on the image to see a larger version.

This is an example of the German Schrebergarten – suburban gardens which can be lived in over the summer and which provide a wonderful refuge for German families. See a previous blog for further discussion on the benefits this creates for children and families including a wonderful video.

My vision of the future is of land around our towns and cities devoted to food-growing, suburban gardens and forests – something like Frankfurt - and further out on the continuum, huts….

Of which more soon.

Meanwhile do respond to the consultation which is open until 24 May 2013.

UPDATE 21 APRIL 2013

The Scottish Government is holding 3 “engagement” events to allow members of the public to discuss the allotments consultation and how it fits into the wider work being taken forward by the Community Empowerment and Renewal Bill.

Friday 3rd May Great Glen House, Leachkin Road, INVERNESS at 1100hrs – 1300hrs
Tuesday 7 May Atlantic Quay, 150 Broomielaw, GLASGOW 1400hrs – 1600hrs
Thursday 16 May Saughton House, Broomhouse Drive EDINBURGH 1400hrs – 1600hrs

Those wishing to attend are requested to email AllotmentConsultation2013@scotland.gsi.gov.uk at least 72 hours before the event to allow the necessary security arrangements to be made.

Tweet This Post

73 Chester Square, London, British Virgin Islands

13. April 2013 · 22 comments · Categories: Finance & Money, Land Registration, Legal affairs, Politics

The Mirror carries a report today (13 April 2013) that the house that Margaret Thatcher lived in for the past 20 years is “owned” by a company called Bakeland Property Company Ltd. registered in the British Virgin Islands. The story is a little confusing and conflates ownership with leasehold. The fact that the house is owned offshore was first reported by Rob Evans and David Hencke in the Guardian in 2002.

In England and Wales, land is owned on a system of Freehold and Leasehold whereby Party A may be the Freeholder but may grant a lease to Party B (the leaseholder) of, for example 100 years. The property is thus “owned” by both parties simultaneously. In the case of 73 Chester Square (pictured above on Google Streetview) there are actually three parties with an interest in the property. (1)

1. The Freehold is owned by the Trustees of the Will of the Most Noble The 2nd Duke of Westminster.

2. There is a lease (Title NGL534189) for 200 years from 25 March 1984 of No.73 Chester Square and other land in favour of Grosvenor Estate Belgravia, 70 Grosvenor Street, London, Company No. 01138134.

3. There is a sub-lease (Title NGL688804) from Grosvenor Estate Belgravia to Bakeland Property Company Ltd. from 18 October to 25 December 2030 and a further sub-lease (Title NGL740241) from Grosvenor Estate Belgravia to Bakeland Property Company Limited for 59 years and 167 days from 12 July 1996 to 26 November 2055. (2)

Bakeland Property Company Limited is a company incorporated in the British Virgin Islands with its Registered Office at Essanestrasse 91, Po Box 341, L1-9492, Eschen, Liechtenstein and c/o Collyer-Bristow, 4 Bedford Row, London WC1R 4DF.

Assuming that the leasehold interest was held by Bakeland Property Company Limited on behalf of the late Mrs Thatcher (who thus had a proprietorial interest in the house as opposed to simply being a tenant and having no connection with Bakeland), that the beneficial interest is inherited by her children Mark and Carol, and that, as the Mirror claims, the house is currently worth £6 million, then both inheritance tax at 40% (£2.4 million) as well as Stamp Duty Land Tax at 7% on any subsequent sale (£420,000) will be avoided.

The new Stamp Duty Land Tax rate for residential properties owned by corporate bodies of 15% only applies to properties acquired since 21 March 2012 and will not apply where the legal title remains in the same name and only the beneficial ownership of an offshore trust or company changes.(3) It may well be the case that Bakeland is owned by trusts whose beneficiaries are people other that the late Mrs Thatcher but because offshore companies are usually run by nominee Directors and owned by at least one offshore trust, the identification of the precise beneficial interest is extremely difficult.

And that is one of the legacies of Mrs Thatcher’s property-owning democracy. (4)

(1) There are 4 parties if you include the fact that Freeholders are not absolute owners but hold their land from the Monarch who is the only person capable of owning land “absolutely” in England and Wales as this entertaining exchange of emails with the Land Registry demonstrates.

(2) Thanks to @MrsTrevithick for alerting me to fact that Bakeland was, until 1996 registered in Jersey. This explains why there are two leasehold titles in the name of the same company – actually two different companies with the same name.

(3) See Treasury Consultation “Ensuring the fair taxation of residential property transactions” for details of proposed changes in the taxation of residential property owned by non-natural persons (e.g. offshore companies).

(4) In searching for the titles to 72 Chester Square I mistakenly typed 73 and obtained the title of No. 73 next door (Title NGL889003). It is owned by 72 Chester Square Limited incorporated in Liberia.

Tweet This Post

Nigel Lawson’s 1988 Budget

15. March 2013 · 3 comments · Categories: Environment, Finance & Money, Forestry, Land Use, Politics

When I was at University in 1980s studying forestry, Forestry Commission land was being sold off and the private sector was booming with generous tax breaks on offer to investors to plant trees. Particular controversy erupted over the rapid expansion of afforestation in the so-called “flow country” of Caithness and Sutherland where one company in particular, Fountain Forestry, was recruiting wealthy investors such as Shirley Porter and Terry Wogan to buy land and plant trees. The tax incentives were significant and on one occasion when the Director of Fountain Forestry came to Aberdeen to give a lecture I asked a question at the end hits talk. “Why“, I asked, “is the government giving millions of pounds in tax relief to very wealthy pop stars and celebrities in London to buy and afforest land 500 miles away in Caithness and Sutherland. Why does the government not simply give this money as grants to the landowners and farmers in the north of Scotland?”

I don’t remember his answer but I do remember being asked afterwards by my Professor why I had asked such a “provocative” question. I had not realised that it was anything other than a straightforward question about forestry policy but I quickly realised that any question about power, land and money made a lot of people rather uncomfortable. For me this was all the encouragement I needed to find out more. My activism on this and other issues at the time probably cost me a career in forestry which was at that time dominated by the aristocracy and big landowners.

So when, 25 years ago today, Nigel Lawson stood up in the House of Commons and abolished this tax dodge I was delighted. The announcement was a shock to the forestry world and a reminder that gravy trains don’t last forever. The budget was memorable also as the occasion when Alex Salmond got thrown out of the Chamber for interrupting Lawson’s speech. Anyway, here is the relevant passage (the whole speech is available on the Margaret Thatcher Foundation website).

I now turn to income tax.

The way to a strong economy is to boost incentives and enterprise. And that means, among other things, keeping income tax as low as possible.

Income tax has now been reduced in each of the last six Budgets—the first time this has ever occurred. And the strength of the economy over that period speaks for itself.

However, reforming income tax is not simply a matter of cutting the rates. I also have to look at all the various allowances and reliefs to ensure that they are still justified. With this in mind, I have a number of proposals to announce.

First, forestry. I accept that the tax system should recognise the special characteristics of forestry, where there can be anything up to 100 years between the costs of planting and the income from selling the felled timber.

But the present system cannot be justified. It enables top rate taxpayers in particular to shelter other income from tax, by setting it against expenditure on forestry, while the proceeds from any eventual sale are almost tax free.

The time has come to bring it to an end. I propose to do so by the simple expedient of taking commercial woodlands out of the income tax system altogether. That is to say, as from today, and subject to transitional provisions, expenditure on commercial woodlands will no longer be allowed as a deduction for income tax and corporation tax. But, equally, receipts from the sale of trees or felled timber will no longer be liable to tax.

It is, perhaps, a measure of the absurdity of the present system that the total exemption of commercial woodlands from tax will, in time, actually increase tax revenues by over £10 million a year.

At the same time, in order to further the Government’s objectives for the rural areas, I have agreed with my right hon. Friends who have responsibilities for forestry and for the environment that, in parallel, there should be increases in planting grants. Full details of the new grant scheme will be announced next week.

The net effect of these changes will be to end an unacceptable form of tax shelter; to simplify the tax system, abolishing the archaic schedule B in its entirety; and to enable the Government to secure its forestry objectives with proper regard for the environment, including a better balance between broad-leaved trees and conifers.

Tweet This Post