Jump to content

Chalgravesteve

Member
  • Content Count

    253
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Chalgravesteve

  1. Can you message me with the spec and costs for all the kit? Cheers
  2. One thing I can't work out, is why people might think that leasing a vehicle absolves them of any problems as opposed to buying it. Ultimately, the dealer/supplier gets paid the value of the vehicle up front. They arrange a third party finance lease and you pay the third party lease company the monthly/quarterly payment for the duration of the lease. At the end of the lease, unless you have specifically ensured that title to the asset passes to you, usually for a nominal sum, then you have no value/asset at the end of it and it is returned to the finance company. So, in order to calculate what you pay each month, the original cost of the asset is what its based on. The huge majority of vehicle lease options have an added parameter: the residual value of the asset at the end of the lease. So if a vehicle is £30,000 new and they consider that it will be worth £10,000 at 3 years old, with normal wear and tear and normal mileage then they finance £30,000 over three years, charge you for the £20,000 "depreciated value" and have the £10,000 balance repaid on sale at auction - but if you do more miles or damage the vehicle, then you will have penalties to pay. If you think that if the car goes wrong in the lease period that you can hand it back and they will stop the payments you are entirely wrong. Its still your responsibility to insure/maintain/repair the vehicle unless you have a "contract hire" version, which includes servicing. Even with that option, all they are doing is including the cost of the service in the finance cost. So whilst there may be good reasons from a business expense/cashflow/tax point of view as to why you might want to use a lease, when you sign a three year lease deal (or whatever period it is) you are signing to say that you will pay all of the payments for the whole period.
  3. Yes. Its interesting that one. I looked at that myself a few years ago. As I recall, unless the regulations have changed, the minimum criteria for transporting a body and its burial was on a plank of wood covered by a shroud! But its not just the fees you need to consider, its permanent, ongoing access. You can't bury a load of people and then drive tractors across it and harvest the woodland in a decade!
  4. Anything that can already be done by the end user for free, is not going to generate you any real revenues. For example, mountain biking. You can come up with a great track through the woods, up and down ravines etc, but they already can and do ride in woodlands for nothing. So you have to make it exceptional AND then have staff there to charge for its use, in order to take any money. The same principle applies to nice things for kids. Lets say you charge £5 per kid. (are you VAT registered, because that £5 just became £4.17 if you are!) Family of 3 or 4 kids will want a discount. Or they won't come because its too expensive and they can walk in plenty of woods for free. Glamping etc can be good revenue spinners, but you have to maintain them, prepare them and clean them for each and every user. You would have to have a changeover day, which means that you or your staff have to commit to being there at that time, week in/week out to do that. I'm not trying to be negative, I'm trying to ensure that you take an objective look at something and try to consider the downsides to things as much as the upsides. As a decent general rule of thumb, ask yourself if YOU would spend the money to do what you want to offer. If you wouldn't spend it, its unreasonable to expect a load of other people to do so really! Rent it out to a paintball company, or something like that, where you don't have to deal with the end user, you have minimal involvement and just pick up your rent. You can't always guarantee they will treat the area as you do though! If it was easy, everyone would be doing it!!
  5. Balls of steel, Guy Martin. Even with the modifications to save weight, that thing still weighed 3-4 tonnes. If that had deviated off the straight line at that speed, it would have gone over. I didn't notice any rollover cages etc in that cab, and I'm not convinced you could build a rollover cage to withstand that anyway, so if that went pear shaped he was getting crushed. Great bit of publicity for JCB, and a credit to everyone who took part to be able to be able to get that machine to do that speed.
  6. Yes if you can get it to work as a drying floor, getting the air under the bottom pallets so it can rise through the stacks you might have a chance with that. I’m not sure you can easily push enough hot air in enough volume underneath though without s network of pipes in the pallets?
  7. The principle of drying wood in a kiln is not necessarily all about heat. The description of "kiln" does tend to make people envisage oven like temperatures, when in fact the way that they work with log drying is the movement of hot/warm air over/past something that holds moisture. Warm air can carry greater amounts of moisture than cold air, so by making warm air flow past moisture laden logs, the moisture can be released from the log and absorbed by the air as it passes by. I have a 40'ft shipping container kiln. For the first two years we just let the heat exchangers blow into the container and it worked ok. But we would struggle to get the temperature inside the kiln much above 28/30 degrees C. So we insulated the walls and ceiling of the kiln with KIngspan insulated boards, and the temperature now sits much higher at the 36 degree+ levels. As a result, we dry the logs faster and better, whilst still using the same amount of energy. So my critique of what you are trying to do, is that when you introduce artificial heat, it will easily escape through the poly tunnel roof, as the heat will rise in the first place. You will also need bloody big fans to move air through that space! So, what works in your favour in the summer, the "greenhouse effect" of the poly tunnel in increasing the temperature of the air inside the poly tunnel works against you in the cooler times as it can't hold onto it. I think you would be better creating a smaller area or areas within the tunnel, so a tunnel (made of ply?) within the tunnel which you can insulate and contain the heat , so that you can dry some stuff in say 2 weeks. You have the heat/fans down one end and removable far end, so you can slow the passage of air and dry what in there. When its dry, open the far end and move the dry stuff out and put new stuff in. As with all this stuff, its all heavy! I'm, not sure how easily you can move a machine and stock around in the polytunnel? You only have to get it wrong once and you have wrecked your polytunnel! So personally, I think you would be better creating a smaller drying area where you can control the heat and airflow better. I think you will do a lot of work for minimal impact in the polytunnel alone. Creating a drying floor in there would be better, as you would be pushing warm air under the logs to be dried and then it will release upwards through the logs which might work. That warm moist air will hit the underside of the polytunnel and turn into condensation so you need a means of getting the moist air out of the tunnel
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. 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!
  11. 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
  12. 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!
  13. 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 ?
  14. 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.
  15. 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.
  16. 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.
  17. 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.
  18. 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!
  19. 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......
  20. 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.
  21. 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?
  22. 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.
  23. Gravity plays a huge part. The reason the reservoir overtopped was that the volume of the inflow exceeded the capacity of the outflow. If you leave the plug in your bath and the taps running, then the bath will continue to fill. When it reaches the overflow, if the volume coming into the bath exceeds the speed at which gravity takes it down the overflow, it will continue to fill, and once the water gets above the overflow then the volume of water going through the overflow will increase due to increased water pressure. Eventually, if the inflow continues, the water will reach the edge of the bath and the thing will overtop. to stop it, you turn off the tap and the overflow will quickly recover the position. In the case of Toddbrook, it stopped raining at the volume that caused it to overflow. It can only continue to overflow at that rate if the volume of rainfall coming off the hills keeps pushing it into the reservoir faster than the gravity safety valves can handle it. Once the inflow slows down, it will stop overflowing reasonably quickly. The pumps and the rest of the gear all came after in my view, when they had decided quite correctly that the dam was possibly unstable and could collapse and so the bulk of the volume needed to be reduced as well.
  24. I don't have any axe to grind with either side of the argument, I'm trying to view it logically and see if one argument (for more/better maintenance and drain it earlier) stacks up against it being an entire unpredictable event. I can understand why they would hold the water level at close to maximum if they can in August (which must be predicted to be the time of most use and least rainfall), but maximum level on a reservoir is NOT just below where the spillway would start to flow, it would be at least 1m below that? One would assume that the lack of potential replenishment for the reservoir in the event of a drought period would be in the mid June to Mid Sept period. Therefore, by 1st August, the reality is that they need to be able to guarantee no more than 8 weeks of use from the volume retained, as the natural rainfall and replenishment should be active by late September again. My own small reservoir has an overflow pipe that starts to flow when water is within 50cm of the top of the bund, and we can open that overflow to max which takes it back down to 80cm within an hour. Given that the only way that it fills up is from rainfall actually landing on the surface, or our own pumps, that is easily manageable. The volume is also manageable. It holds 9,900 m3, but has a useable volume of around 8,500m3 max. Potentially I can need 60m3 per night to irrigate the golf course or more in drought conditions. So if i need to irrigate every night between 1st May and 30 September I need 9180M3 or more. But I can abstract 20m3 per day for 365 days a year, so in the same period I can add 3,000m3 to the reservoir (provided that its not filled to the overflow). So it is all about managing the inflow against the demand. When you look at the maps, and see that Todd Brook is what flows in to fill the reservoir, and that there is a weir part way along the northern edge which is a man made channel which then flows around and below the spillway (the spillway discharges into the same channel) and that channel was flowing very fast and deep before the spillway overtopped. I can only conclude that the volume of water that was dumped from the sky, in a very small, very specific area, which then all flooded down into the Toddbrook reservoir, was an absolutely off the scale one off event. If the volume of water was more widespread, I didn't hear of any of the other reservoirs in the immediate location (and the very useful map shows 5 in total) coming under any threat at all. Eggs, you even say yourself in this post, that the Goyt had only just gone into flood. So, for one single reservoir to get hit by such a volume of water in such a short space of time is absolutely impossible to predict. Ultimately, the spillway had been inspected, and passed. Clearly when subjected to extreme forces, it failed and the consequences of that failure must now surely have ramifications across the whole network. I just cannot see how anyone can just take a simplistic view that it was a lack of maintenance and they should have drained it earlier. On the same basis they should have drained the other 4 reservoirs in the are as well, but they didn't fail or even overtop? It was a combination of way more factors than that, and a "perfect storm" that almost ended in a catastrophe. The upside of this of course is that it has been a massive wake up call to CaRT as well as anyone else involved with reservoir storage, that the overflows and mechanisms for draining need reviewing and bringing up to standard. Incidentally, on one of the overheads of the spillway, there appears to be an outlet/overflow pipe exit to the right of the spillway. There is certainly a man made channel there, but I don't recall seeing any water flowing from this either before the spillway failure or as a mechanism for draining the reservoir.
  25. Absolutely right, and you have forgotten the underground streams and aquifers that also contributed to the local area being overwhelmed with water. The fact is, that 100mm of rain in August would not have come close to breaching it. 100mm in a week might have started to get harder. 100mm in a few hours, across the whole catchment, all being funnelled into one single location, a giant bath with no plug and only an overflow to protect it

About

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.