Big J

Just because I suspect that Brexit might increase the roadside value of timber doesn't mean that I think it's a good idea. It's still terrible, even if it might benefit me. Planning reform is taking place, and an increasing acceptance of self build is emerging. It's just taking time.

It's a false economy though. We just want a home, and the British obsession with buy to invest, sit on it for a few years, sell on at a profit and upsize doesn't sit well with us at all. We're in a position where we could afford to build all elements of what we need, except that planning law means that 10 acres of woodland/pasture is £50-70k, but the very same 10 acres with the permission to build a single house could be 10 times that. Is there anything along the lines of a Croft provided for in rural planning down here? I realise that in the narrow terms specified, I wouldn't meet the criteria of being an agricultural business, but we are a rural business and I don't regard the distinction between land management by farming or by forestry as being materially significant. Edit: As I mentioned before, we've spent £170k on rent in the past ten years. It's money down the drain and all you're doing is lining someone else pockets. It's not sustainable.

Just Googled it and it doesn't seem to relate to tree work: Consensus amongst the lorry drivers I work with seems to be that you can block the road for up to 20 minutes at a time legally. This is the only way we can get the timber off our present site as there is no loading bay and no space to put one. This is usually the case with forestry sites down here. It's impossible not to fell trees near a road in your line of work John. I can't see any legitimate reason for the council to profit from that.

As I said to you the other day, it is total nonsense. Almost every sodding woodland down here is directly next to a road. Sounds like council jobsworths trying to justify their existence.

Easy for you to say with you bought and paid for farm. Resorting to such personal insults only serves to undermine your position. You're not addressing the issue, which is that there is no correlation between the material cost of a build and the 'value' of a finished property. The only thing that links it is this mysterious enigma called "market rate" which is facilitated by the banks' ever increasing willingness to lend money that doesn't really exist. A similar scenario would be if you wanted to buy a new BMW. It has been £40k, but it's now £60k, but it's OK but the bank has looked at your income and you can afford the payments. It doesn't mean that the product is worth £60k, it only means that can get finance for it. There is a distinct difference. When my parents bought their first house in 1982, the average UK houseprice was £21k. It is now £225k. Almost 11 times more, when inflation has been 3.5 times. Appreciating that interest rates were higher then, in real terms, houses cost three times as much now as then. How is anyone actually meant to get on the property ladder? Especially in the south of the UK, where average property prices are much higher.

I don't accept that argument. We build the smallest houses in Western Europe, we have the most unequal land ownership in Europe and the housing market is fundamentally broken. The cost of housing and land for housing bears little relation to the actual cost of construction and the market is destined to bust as it's propped only by unsustainably low interest rates.4 Developers are able, through cost cutting and economies of scale, to get the average construction cost down to below £1000/square metre. My brother's house in Exeter is a new build and a very modest 90 odd square metres. 3 bed, 3 bath (totally unnecessary, but it seems to be the trend to have loads of loos). Construction cost will definitely have been under £100k, it sits on a plot of about 200 square metres (so including roads, about 15 houses per acre). It cost them £330k. It's not worth £330k, materially. Not even close. The only reason why the developer (Persimmon) can charge as much as that is that banks are willing to lend it. But given that the money doesn't actually exist, you have to call into question the whole stack of cards. With affordable land, I could build what we need for about half of what we'd have to spend if we were to buy the finished article. I've just spend 10-15 minutes perusing Rightmove, and the number of shitty old barns with Class Q planning for hundreds of thousands of pounds is staggering. Ramshackle old sheds that would have been worth £20-30k before Class Q are suddenly worth 10 times as much. It's just preposterous.

Why not? Given the cost of moving house (stamp duty, principally), it's made more sense for us to invest in the business for the past ten years in order to get ourselves into the position to buy somewhere half decent. If you were to speak to many people in rural locations around Europe, our desire for a 4 bed house with a few sheds and a few acres would not be regarded as ostentatious. A terraced house or semi detached (unless it came with a lot of land) would be not use to us at all. I'm nearly 40ft long with the big van and trailer, where do I park that? What if I bring the tractor and trailer home? Similar issue. Where do I store a forwarder weighing 16t, let alone work on it?

I'm in need of an excavator based mulcher just outside Tiverton to do some tidying at the end of our current job. 14t machine would do it. It's mainly just for mashing down some fairly large brash mats at the side of the main track. At least a couple of days work.

Semantics. The right to build that farmers have should anything exceptional. It does after all make sense to build suitable accommodation and premises for your business. However, due to the arcane planning restrictions we have in the UK, it's only really farmers that are afforded this (what some would consider a basic human) right. If I had a decent business plan, an established business, an environmental impact survey and an ecologically sound design, I'd flip it so that the council would have to provide me with a solid reason not to give me permission.

Agreed. I believe that it's due to our very low forest cover (by European standards) that it's not included significantly within rural planning law. I'd be keen to learn more about agro-forestry too, as livestock within woodlands can be wonderfully symbiotic.

I am aware of the present planning law. It is the requirement to live on the land that I regard as (to but it bluntly) bollocks. I've asked this question before, but why should someone who runs a rural business, working in the locality be excluded from the same planning exemptions that permit farmers to build houses on their land? The net effect is the same. Farmers need land, I need (a lot less) land, most farms are not profitable, I am more profitable. You have to look at what a business like mine offers to the area in terms of economic benefit. However, I won't use myself as an example. My primary groundworks subcontractor runs three excavators (3.5t, 9t and 14t) as well as dumpers and a few other machines. He has a firewood business, does fencing and has a little sawmill. He employs people, is damned productive and through the various facets of his business, supports the wider rural community with variety of services that he offers. I guarantee that he is more profitable than many farms and I'd be very surprised if he was in receipt of subsidy. I do not know what the status of his premises is, but suffice to say, I regard him as a very valuable part of the local community and would fully support any planning application he made for a rural dwelling/business premises build. It's all well and good saying that he could just find an industrial yard to rent in, or a farmyard, but with Class Q planning, many of the barns are gone now, and industrial yards are few and far between. Finding industrial units to buy is virtually impossible too. The most likely course of action that we will take is to find a stopgap house/land to get us out of renting. We'll stay there for a few years whilst looking for land and arguing with the planners and then build something that I'll only move out of in a coffin! ?

They do. They get unique treatment in the eyes of planning. I am advocating that this is extended to other rural workers/businesses.

I'm glad you're paying attention! ? The wage bill is unusually high on this site as it's horrendously steep. Just checked the elevation finder and measured the distance and the slope is 125m from bottom to top and there is a height gain of 60m. Either way, the strongest argument that I have is that I want to make a productive contribution to the local rural economy but in order to continue developing the business, we need premises. I'm not asking for special treatment, rather to be considered on the same footing as a farm.

Fair enough, but my original point remains, which is that broadly speaking, farming isn't profitable and whilst it's obviously crucially important that we produce our own food, it's just one part of the rural land economy and I strongly disagree with the privileged position that it occupies within planning law.

Fair enough, and the figures stated by the Financial Times suggest that poultry farms receive the lowest rate of subsidy. However, who wants to live anywhere near a chicken farm? It won't be so bad with organic hens on account of their extensive rearing, but that isn't a niche that occupies an especially significant market segment. I'm not saying that to disparage the chap, rather to say that yes, it's a viable land use, fantastic that he can make a living from 12 acres, but also that there are many other ways to support yourself from the land and the planning laws really only recognise keeping livestock.

I know the type! They expect the magic poo fairy to come collect them for you!

What you describe regarding a philanthropic land owner isn't a million miles away from what we'd like to do in the medium term building low cost housing in rural communities around us. High quality, well designed, eco friendly houses, built for key workers (teachers, emergency services, rural workers etc) built simply but smartly and brought to market below market rate. This would be partly on account of hopefully finding a land vendor with a philanthropic bent and partly by economising on the build by using modular systems. Such houses could be resold at any stage, but any increase in the asking price could only match overall national house price increases and should they choose to sell at full market rate, the excess profit would go directly to the community. It would be a covenant that would cover that. It's just an idea at this stage.

That as it may be, it's part of a wider agricultural economy, but as far as planning goes, it is the only rural economy and the only land use that qualifies for the existing planning exemptions. The fact that farms are totally dependent on subsidy to survive exemplifies the need for a broader approach towards supporting rural businesses. According to the figures in the Financial Times *, lowland and upland grazing farms receive more than 90% of their income from farm subsidy, with cereal crops not far behind. Given the pesticide and fertiliser usage of such enterprises, I would argue that they aren't the most environmentally friendly means of making a living, or indeed the most profitable. * The link doesn't appear to open, though I was able to read it by googling for it. Subscribe to read | Financial Times WWW.FT.COM

With AOCs, there is a lengthy period of time between construction of the property and the point at which it can be sold on the open market. 10 or 15 years I believe. Before that, it can only be sold to other people who would qualify to occupy an AOC.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

From October to March, pretty much 24 hours a day. As and when outside of those months. There have been stretches of over a month and a half in winter (when we were in Scotland) where I didn't take a match to the stove as it was constantly alight.