Big J on radio 4..

[Chalgravesteve]

1 minute ago, Big J said:

I don't begrudge any individual for selling their house for as much as they can get for it. It's only human nature and I'd do the same thing. 

 

My point is that the land it sits on is second rate pasture, and 3 acres would post £20k. I could commission a house build, using a kit from a Polish company for about £1400 a square metre, including all service connections. So a 200 square metre house would be around £280k. The construction quality of such a house far exceeds almost anything on the market, with triple glazing, MVHR, EPC standard B.

 

Agricultural sheds and on site circulation (roads/drives/tracks) might set me back another £40k.

 

So for £340k, I'd have the same amount of space as the £650k house, but with a much better quality house. This is my point about the state of planning in this country at this point. Where is that gap of £310k? There is no tangible value in the extra £310k that you're paying, it's just deemed to be the price of paying market rate. There is no shortage of land here in Devon, but there is no desire to broaden planning laws to allow smallholders to build affordably.

The land might be second rate pasture, but the moment your get a planning consent on it to build a house with outbuildings, its not second rate pasture any more and its significantly more valuable.

 

Again, I'm not trying to be clever and the planning laws at times are mad. However, without a planning restriction that prevents houses just being built on second rate pasture, that lovely view across the valley wouldn't be a lovely view anymore!  So whilst I understand your sentiments, there has to be an acceptance that land you can build on is substantially more valuable. 

 

If you can get a planning consent for a detached house, permitted development right immediately allow you to put a 4m single storey extension onto it, or 8m if there are no neighbour objections! So when they grant a planning consent for a house size A it can almost instantaneously become substantially bigger through permitted development.  

[difflock]

"J" So you would be happy with a relaxation in the planning Regs, and equally happy for the current set of landowners to profit from selling off more easily approved sites thereby?

[Chalgravesteve]

7 minutes ago, Big J said:

There would have to be a transfer of assets, so yes, perhaps they would benefit, but it would result in an overall drop in the value of land. Perhaps a price cap per hectare (at say double the market rate of typical arable land) could be enforced to control prices, and the purchaser would need to demonstrate that they were going to build their own home and live in it for a set period in order to discourage speculative portfolio building from people buying up all available land.

The problem here though, is that small parcels of land for relatively low value is no good for the seller. If they sold 3 acres for say £50k/acre (but that land has negligible original price value - say £1k acre from decades ago) then the capital gain is almost all of the value. So they sell for £150,000 then they might pay as much as 28% CGT on the sale. So they are only potentially getting £108K for the land. Unless they absolutely need to sell it they don't. 

 

So its never just a straightforward set of values. There's more to it than that. I think it was Oscar Wilde who said you should buy land, because they don't make it any more...... 

 

[difflock]

24 minutes ago, Big J said:

There would have to be a transfer of assets, so yes, perhaps they would benefit, but it would result in an overall drop in the value of land. Perhaps a price cap per hectare (at say double the market rate of typical arable land) could be enforced to control prices, and the purchaser would need to demonstrate that they were going to build their own home and live in it for a set period in order to discourage speculative portfolio building from people buying up all available land.

Ah!

So you would not be happy with "just" the relaxation of the planning Regs,

you rather wish to "seize"(i.e. obtain at less than the market rate) the possessions of others so as to benefit yourself then "J".

Got it!

Edit

Since no sane individual landowner would sell on your pipe-dream pricing terms.

And , even better luck with enforcing "set periods" of ownership to prevent speculative development.

Edited August 29, 2019 by difflock

[LeeGray]

36 minutes ago, Big J said:

Understood and agreed. And I wouldn't have an objection to paying £75k for such a piece of land if planning was approved for an AOC development. I do know of such a plot about 20 miles from here at that price and also 3 acres. They are extremely rare though.

 

It would be useful though if councils could understand that agricultural and forestry contractors need a fair bit of space to accommodate machines. I have two forwarders, two tractors, a bed processor, two vans, a trailer and other bits and bobs. I need space to store and work on the machines and I'd argue that my objective need for land is greater than that of a weekend farmer with a dozen cows or a horsey type that wants some grazing for their ponies. 

 

There are loads of people I know down here in similar positions. Subcontractors, sawmills, other forestry types. Some simply build without permission on the basis that it's easier to ask forgiveness....

I’ve got a dozen cows and I’d argue there need for pasture is greater than yours. Storage for your machines could be met at an industrial site. Cows couldn’t eat the concrete.

 

Some of the arguments here are bizarre.

[eggsarascal]

4 minutes ago, Big J said:

 

Hypothetical scenario: 

 

I buy 10 acres of relatively unproductive farmland at twice the market rate. That'd cost me £120-150k around here. Even after CGT, the landowner has still received almost 50% more than the market rate, and the chances are that the farmland wasn't earning them a penny. And probably grant funded.

 

I take the farmland, build a house, build a few agricultural sheds to support my business and plant the remaining 10 acres with a fast growing biomass species like poplar. The 2 acres of house/sheds supports my forestry business (which is presently paying out £4-5k a week in wages to cutters/harvester operator, thus supporting the local and broader economy) which is exclusively based on work within an hour radius of the house, and the 8 acres of hybrid poplar (when meticulously managed and thinned can attain 50t/hectare/year) gives a roadside value of annually of £7500 (before harvesting costs) as well as all the associated carbon capture benefits.

 

So, the original landowner makes more than they would have if it had been sold simply as farmland, the land becomes productive again, and 4/5 of it is forested and under management, with the whole site providing a multifaceted economic output that is beneficial not just to myself, but to others in the locality.

 

I'm just one small fish, it should be added. There will be thousands of people in Devon in similar situations to me, and I don't think it's a bad thing if there are more non-agricultural small holdings like the idea I'm proposing.

And if/when you come to sell it you want market value who's lost out?

[LeeGray]

25 minutes ago, Big J said:

Yes, but there is no economic argument for having a dozen cows. They're pets, a luxury, something that you choose to do for your own personal reasons. Given that farming on a commercial scale is barely profitable, hobby farming certainly isn't, and given that preferential planning conditions are a form of economic support, I don't believe that preferential planning should be given for people in your situation. You're not running a business of the back of these dozen cows. 

 

Given that rural communities only prosper when they are economically self sustaining and successful, I would like to see planning law change to make it easier for businesses like mine to permanently establish themselves on land in the same way that a traditional farm does.

How do you know what I do? My cows pay my mortgage. 

[eggsarascal]

I'm going to move to the Staffordshire moorlands, insist that the lanes should be bashed through to create better access for the vehicles I've chosen to buy, that land should be sold off for less than its market value and I should be able to build what I want on said land to accommodate my family and the machinery I have. Get in the real world, you'll be telling us next that you should get the services laid for free because you employ a handful of blokes.

Edited August 29, 2019 by eggsarascal

[Chalgravesteve]

The "unproductive pasture" is your view of it. The landowner is not obliged to sell it. Money isn't everything. Just because you want to pay double the market rate for agricultural land, doesn't make it an attractive deal for the landowner. They may prefer to keep it for their 12 cows and the open view, rather than have some cash which earns them nothing in the bank. 

 

The only way that this would work, would be if there was a philathropic donator of the land, who would forgo the potential earnings for themselves, and allow you to buy at a reduced rate. In turn, the uplift in value should be returned to the next user of the property, so when you move out or die, the property reverts to the philantrophic trust and they put it back out as a low cost property for the next user. If they allowed a notional uplift in value whilst in your "ownership" equivalent to the amount of return that you would have had, had you had the cash in the bank instead, then you won't have lost out on the uplift in your savings money value but you won't be gaining the property uplift value (at the next owners expense) either!

 

I'm sure there won't be many takers though under that scenario!   

[Stubby]

3 hours ago, Big J said:

I think that's a bit of a negative view to take on it. 

 

I use the example of a woodland we're working in in October. 22 acres owned by one family from a small village. He lets anyone from the village walk around and use it, and it's completely unblighted by litter or dog poo.

That's a good thing Jonathan . My negative take on it stems from the Drongos that think its ok to walk around the woodland ( South Downs National Park ) , put their dog shite in a bag and leave it there , preserving it for all time  . I honestly think its better not to pick it up and let the slugs and insects deal with it rather than have all these little parcels of dog doo deposited along the track .   Sorry for the de rail .

Edited August 29, 2019 by Stubby