Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Chalgravesteve

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. But its inflated BECAUSE you can build on it. Its got a different value to that which you can't. Its like having a 1,000 acre forest of trees. They have a value for timber, BUT if they have a blanket TPO on the whole thing, so you can't cut anything down, its going to have a notional value! Its simple and basic supply and demand. In BigJ's case, he's in Devon, a county that is almost entirely rolling green hills, woodland and fields. Small pockets of villages dot the countryside. If you allow one person to build on a smallholding, you have to allow all. That building and outbuildings all get converted to houses and the restrictions on who can live there are removed over time. In 100 years time, Devon won't look like Devon anymore. That's why there are planning laws and that's why, when land that does exist that CAN be built on costs substantially more. You cannot just say the value is inflated and compare it to the value of land that you cannot build on. Its not the same.
  2. 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.
  3. But ultimately, if you got hold of the land as cheaply as you want and build your perfect home, but on the plot next door that you will look at for the rest of your life, the guy builds an absolute shite eyesore, you would want something that stopped him doing that. You cannot surely just be advocating that anyone can build anything anywhere? So you want planning laws that suit you, not the ones that don’t. And a kit home from Poland, doesn’t sound to me like a self build. That’s a self assembly of a building developers building!
  4. Base rates won’t return to 5% in the next decade in my view. Rates have been so low for so long that the short term benefit gained when interest rates dropped for those that were borrowing, and that is a vast number of small businesses, has long since been absorbed by increases in other areas such as fuel etc. So the return to 5% interest base rates would crash the economy quicker than Brexit ever could..... note: under no circumstances should thus become a Brexit thread, I’m considering deleting the above post because of that
  5. 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!
  6. So, bigj, you reasonably expect people to pay your prices for your products/services and you cover your costs and make a profit. How does that differ from the house builder then ?
  7. 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.
  8. Now I’m baffled. It’s you that is missing the point. So you can afford what you want at market rates, and you said there was a place within 20 miles of you. You have a successful business and yet, what you covet most highly, a property that is best for you, your family, and your future, you don’t go and get? What has been the point in being in business for so long then? You want to be the richest person in the graveyard? All because you don’t want to pay market rate to someone you think has too much money already. Madness.
  9. Yes it is an interesting thread and the viewpoints of various contributors will be differing by age and/or financial restraints, depending on whether they have benefited from the "boom" or not. The current stagnation in the housing market, in my view, is nothing to do with brexit. It is more a revaluation of property due to one thing, the major change in the way that buy to let and rental income taxation has changed. For the past decade or so, the boom in buy to let was fueled by the ability to deduct pretty much all of your maintenance costs including interest on a buy to let mortgage, before the balance became tax deductable as income. The result was that people could start with one house for rent, and then add others to increase their portfolio as they could afford to do so, funded by the ones they already own. So the first time buyer and the mid range houses were all being snapped up by the ever increasing number of people getting buy to lets. The massive competition and demand for houses boosted house prices upwards. With the changes that have come in, in the past few years, it is significantly less attractive to get a buy to let mortgage as in many cases it will not fund all of the outgoings, or the profit left after tax and expenses makes the acquisition of more houses less attractive. The market though, has not corrected itself downwards yet though, so the first time buyer is still being offered properties that are priced because of boosted prices and whilst they have significantly less competition from those wanting to buy to let, they still can't afford the price as it is now. Equally, the owner of the property who wants to sell, won't sell at a lower price than they paid unless they absolutely have to. So you have a stagnant market at the moment which doesn't show any signs of picking up soon. A crash in house price values may be good for those wanting to get on the housing ladder, but comes at the cost of those that have managed to get on the ladder in the past 5 years or so, as they will go into negative equity and we have been there before on that one! In the medium term, wages will pick up and will close the gap on the house prices if the market remains stagnant. I saw a report which said the bank of Mum and Dad was now the 7th biggest lender in the UK, as those with high value property try to assist their kids getting going.
  10. But as soon as you link any future resale value to an open market rate, when the property is not available to sell on the open market, then you have a distorted gain, particularly for the first owner (which must impact upon the price paid by the second surely?). So the only way to do this, that maintains the original principle of the philanthropic land donation (and as someone else pointed out, this could be achieved through state owned land (or land owned by the church as they are one of the biggest landowners of all)) is to remove the house price increase profit element from the equation. The recipient/custodian of the property gains a property at an affordable rate and the property remains permanently tied to that principle. Someone who moves in and as their life/career progresses becomes more able to afford a "normal" house, can move out and do so.
  11. 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!
  12. 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......
  13. 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.
  14. I'm not being sarcastic or trying to be clever or anything. An honest and straightforward question really: So if you owned it at the moment, would you sell it to someone else for £300,00 or whatever you think is not loopy money, instead of taking whatever the market determines as its value? If someone pays £650k for it then it must be worth it? If no one does, it will reduce in price until someone does go for it?
  15. Gallup/Roundup etc all smell like that so you don't drink it by mistake or even contemplate eating or drinking whilst using it. You can only dispose of it safely by using it for its intended purpose in my opinion. If you chuck it down a drain, or into a watercourse you will kill aquatic life or wildlife. An animal grazing on grass that has been sprayed with the correct dilution will likely get ill, so realistically, put the lid back on, and get a small sprayer and spray your patio or driveway until its been used up.


Arbtalk.co.uk is a hub for the arboriculture industry in the UK.  
If you're just starting out and you need business, equipment, tech or training support you're in the right place.  If you've done it, made it, got a van load of oily t-shirts and have decided to give something back by sharing your knowledge or wisdom,  then you're welcome too.
If you would like to contribute to making this industry more effective and safe then welcome.
Just like a living tree, it'll always be a work in progress.
Please have a look around, sign up, share and contribute the best you have.

See you inside.

The Arbtalk Team

Follow us

  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.