Big J on radio 4..

[Big J]

5 minutes ago, ESS said:

Since when has 10 acres of poplar been a smallholding? 

Why do you feel everything has to be dictated by profit ? a lot of the smaller farms are bought by people buying a lifestyle, is that wrong?

My parents were farmers, worked very hard all their lives, my Grandfather on my Fathers side died before they any of his children left school, consequently they had to let the family farm go, they had nothing.

I saw the hours Dad worked as a single handed manager on a hill farm , it wasn't easy.

Eventually through hard work they bought their own land , and semi retired to a small farm they bought outright from graft.

He wasn't looking for profit, just spending time on land he had bought with a small amount of stock. There are others that do the same, do we begrudge people that? I don't.

 

 

I don't begrudge it either. What I begrudge is the special privileges afforded to them. 

 

In the UK it seems that the only form of land management valued is farming. That's probably why we have such low forest cover. Forestry is of equal importance, and should be equally valued. With the widespread take up of RHI accredited schemes, undertaking a planting scheme with the stated intent of providing quickly grown biomass seems very sustainable to me. Especially given that installations such as KRE are sucking up timber from all over the south of the UK, with plenty of higher grade timber ending up being chipped for lack of alternative.

 

I would personally define a small holding as a small holding of rural land. It's sustainably managed to provide an income, or at the very least doesn't cost the tax payer anything. I don't see the justification for wanting to take on a small plot of land and then exploiting grant funding to subsidise some distortion of the Good Life.

[ESS]

1 minute ago, Big J said:

I don't begrudge it either. What I begrudge is the special privileges afforded to them. 

 

In the UK it seems that the only form of land management valued is farming. That's probably why we have such low forest cover. Forestry is of equal importance, and should be equally valued. With the widespread take up of RHI accredited schemes, undertaking a planting scheme with the stated intent of providing quickly grown biomass seems very sustainable to me. Especially given that installations such as KRE are sucking up timber from all over the south of the UK, with plenty of higher grade timber ending up being chipped for lack of alternative.

 

I would personally define a small holding as a small holding of rural land. It's sustainably managed to provide an income, or at the very least doesn't cost the tax payer anything. I don't see the justification for wanting to take on a small plot of land and then exploiting grant funding to subsidise some distortion of the Good Life.

What special priveleges do you think my parents had then?

If you look at the history of mass planting in the UK over the past 40 years I think it would be different to what you are trying to portray. There has been planting, fencing, drainage, roadbuilding , establishment grants, there has also been tax breaks. Tens upon millions were invested in grant aid/tax relief to plant thousands of acres of peat ground to grow Sitka, tens of millions have been spent since deforesting and restoring them,the produce sold tax free,are they not priveleges?

[Chalgravesteve]

2 hours ago, Big J said:

 

Anything we built would not be an eyesore. For starters, you would be unlikely to see it as it would surrounded by woodland (that we planted). Secondly, whether it's the German in me or what, but I cannot stand mess. When I ran the sawmill, it was meticulously organised. I would completely understand anyone objecting to an eyesore, but that would not be me.

 

Self build is the administration of the build of your house, according to your specifications. Whether that is you building it yourself, with your own hands, or contracting in someone else to do it. You are still in charge of the build.

 

As regards the kit houses, check out the Danwood website. They have over a hundred different designs, which are highly customisable. You have a choice there that no mass developer here would offer, and very few if any would match the U values.

No bigj you misunderstand me. I don’t mean your house will be the eyesore. I’m sure yours will be spot on. It’s the shite mess that someone else wants to put up on an adjoining plot that everyone else has to see, even if you don’t as you have walled yourself in with trees, because if you can buy a plot of land cheaply and build what you like then so can everyone else. Who controls what can be built, where, and what it looks like. Oh. That’s planning laws. 

[ESS]

2 minutes ago, Chalgravesteve said:

No bigj you misunderstand me. I don’t mean your house will be the eyesore. I’m sure yours will be spot on. It’s the shite mess that someone else wants to put up on an adjoining plot that everyone else has to see, even if you don’t as you have walled yourself in with trees, because if you can buy a plot of land cheaply and build what you like then so can everyone else. Who controls what can be built, where, and what it looks like. Oh. That’s planning laws. 

Or a chicken farm.

[LeeGray]

19 minutes ago, Big J said:

I don't begrudge it either. What I begrudge is the special privileges afforded to them. 

 

In the UK it seems that the only form of land management valued is farming. That's probably why we have such low forest cover. Forestry is of equal importance, and should be equally valued. With the widespread take up of RHI accredited schemes, undertaking a planting scheme with the stated intent of providing quickly grown biomass seems very sustainable to me. Especially given that installations such as KRE are sucking up timber from all over the south of the UK, with plenty of higher grade timber ending up being chipped for lack of alternative.

 

I would personally define a small holding as a small holding of rural land. It's sustainably managed to provide an income, or at the very least doesn't cost the tax payer anything. I don't see the justification for wanting to take on a small plot of land and then exploiting grant funding to subsidise some distortion of the Good Life.

I can’t be arsed to back through all the posts but I’m sure you’ve said in this exact thread that you’ll go for grant funding. You want to take on a small plot of land. This will subsidise your distortion of the good life. 

 

I don't know you from adam and a lot of the stuff you put up on here is very useful and I admire what you’re doing work wise but on this subject you are being a total hypocrite.

[openspaceman]

12 hours ago, Richard 1234 said:

I could get what I want now I suppose but I’m too frightened of the size of mortgage it would need so I’m saving still. If the boys go to university I guess it will be another 10 years?

At the risk of thread drift; why should sending boys to university affect your choice of mortgage?

 

Ignoring the business of whether the economy values hordes of graduates; isn't it self funded by loans nowadays and only those who do land well paid jobs  finance the system, or picked up by tax payers for those that don't repay (the best ploy IMO)

 

I only had one daughter go to university nearly 30 years ago and it probably only cost me £10k as she received a grant but now I would let a child rack up a student loan and gift them a deposit for a house.

 

In fact we have provided or paid a substantial part of houses for both daughters.

 

As to the housing demand; it looks to me that there is a continued migration to urban areas for workers and a demand for retirement homes in desired areas like Devon, trouble is for our sort of work you really need to be within 20 miles of the bulk of your customers. The demand on property is fuelled by people having money for investment and housing is a better investment since the vast amount of council housing was sold off ( I imagine most of those houses are now owned by the buy to let people and rented out at a lot more than the original council tenants paid in real terms).. Also, as was pointed out by one of the Scottish contingent, UK is a safe haven for money and the crash of the pound since being exposed to the uncertainty of leaving the EU over the last three years makes purchase of property for renting out a steal. Try that in Thailand.

[Richard 1234]

2 hours ago, openspaceman said:

At the risk of thread drift; why should sending boys to university affect your choice of mortgage?

 

Ignoring the business of whether the economy values hordes of graduates; isn't it self funded by loans nowadays and only those who do land well paid jobs  finance the system, or picked up by tax payers for those that don't repay (the best ploy IMO)

 

I only had one daughter go to university nearly 30 years ago and it probably only cost me £10k as she received a grant but now I would let a child rack up a student loan and gift them a deposit for a house.

 

In fact we have provided or paid a substantial part of houses for both daughters.

 

As to the housing demand; it looks to me that there is a continued migration to urban areas for workers and a demand for retirement homes in desired areas like Devon, trouble is for our sort of work you really need to be within 20 miles of the bulk of your customers. The demand on property is fuelled by people having money for investment and housing is a better investment since the vast amount of council housing was sold off ( I imagine most of those houses are now owned by the buy to let people and rented out at a lot more than the original council tenants paid in real terms).. Also, as was pointed out by one of the Scottish contingent, UK is a safe haven for money and the crash of the pound since being exposed to the uncertainty of leaving the EU over the last three years makes purchase of property for renting out a steal. Try that in Thailand.

It’s a fair point re university. My boys won’t get a grant of any sort (by that I mean means tested) yes the tuition fees can go on a loan but living expenses books etc and pissing it up the wall no doubt will be down to us as our choice. I don’t want my kids starting life in massive debt. That’s putting aside the fact that I think far too many get “Mickey Mouse” degrees and end up in Tesco or McDonald’s anyway.....

business is doing well and hopefully getting better so may do both.

i don’t mind waiting if it means they have a better start 

[AHPP]

18 hours ago, Chalgravesteve said:

But it’s not is it? The land cost £x build the new house and it gets sold. So it’s market value? 

 

If its artificially inflated no one would buy the end product because it would be above market value. 

Land cost is very much artificially inflated by planning laws. I live in a very normal house on a fortieth of an acre. The land value is, pro rata, £1.8 million per acre. Then subtract the reinstatement value of my house, £100,000. Planning permission has artificially increased the pro rata value of my land by £1.7 million per acre. Undeveloped land around here is £4,000-£10,000 per acre. The value is roughly two hundred times greater because of planning laws.

NB I'm in a very cheap area. In other areas, my land value could be multiples larger, probably up to £15 million per acre pro rata. Then you're looking at planning laws increasing the value of land by about two thousand times.

 

 

18 hours ago, tree-fancier123 said:

only in the same way that all assets are currently artificially inflated  - by the effects of quantitative easing and historically record low interest rates. The easiest way to crash house and land prices would be to put the base rate back to a more normal 5%

Monetary policy plays a huge part. People invest in land (and other assets) because money isn't worth anything.

 

 

18 hours ago, Chalgravesteve said:

And the problem with a decent %age of “affordable” housing is that it’s “afforded” through housing benefits! 

 

I dont have an answer to the problem but it can’t be s solution to give people free money to live in sn affordable house! 

The great thing about individualist politics is that no one person needs to know how to solve these kind of problems. They (people who might otherwise seek power) just back off and natural order is found. If problems arise, they're either brought on you by yourself, so your problem, or by an aggressor, who you can sue etc. At the moment, people are caused problems directly and indirectly (unintended consequences etc) by people they can't sue, principally the state.

 

Edited September 1, 2019 by AHPP

[Big J]

6 hours ago, ESS said:

What special priveleges do you think my parents had then?

If you look at the history of mass planting in the UK over the past 40 years I think it would be different to what you are trying to portray. There has been planting, fencing, drainage, roadbuilding , establishment grants, there has also been tax breaks. Tens upon millions were invested in grant aid/tax relief to plant thousands of acres of peat ground to grow Sitka, tens of millions have been spent since deforesting and restoring them,the produce sold tax free,are they not priveleges?

Pretty much the only grant available to woodland owners now is the WIG, at £100/hectare per year. And also I suppose the £1000 one of payment for writing a woodland management plan. Yes there have been more lucrative grants in the past supporting forestry, but they are now almost non-existent. 

I appreciate that the tax incentives regarding roundwood timber sales and inheritance tax also exist, but they sill pale into insignificance by comparison to those that benefit those that farm. 

[Big J]

6 hours ago, Chalgravesteve said:

No bigj you misunderstand me. I don’t mean your house will be the eyesore. I’m sure yours will be spot on. It’s the shite mess that someone else wants to put up on an adjoining plot that everyone else has to see, even if you don’t as you have walled yourself in with trees, because if you can buy a plot of land cheaply and build what you like then so can everyone else. Who controls what can be built, where, and what it looks like. Oh. That’s planning laws. 

Fair point I suppose. I don't think that planning law as regards to construciton should be conflated with what would be a public order offence (is that how you'd classify it?) if someone lived like a pig. 

 

I was saying to my wife today that I'd honestly be open to other proposals for planning reform (I've already stated my own preference). In Germany, you categorically cannot build outside of designated new development zones (at least in terms of permanent or primary housing - holiday homes/cabins are more widely permitted). However, every village has one, and there is a wide choice of affordable plots. They are also very keen on Gewerbegebiets (industry/business areas) too. Years ago, when we were still thinking of moving over there, we identified a nice alpine village not far from my Uncles called Allenbach, which had both a Neubaugebiet and a Gewerbegebiet. You could have bought a nice quarter acre plot for (what was then, in the heady days where a pound got you 1.35 Euros) about £30k and the industrial land was a bit cheaper, per square metre. 

 

I wouldn't mind necessarily being in a village here, or having my business premises away from my home in a little industrial yard. That seems like an even more unlikely option than my first choice though, especially as I'd like to own both rather than rent.