Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Tired of Waiting

The Real Value Of Land ...

Recommended Posts

A good indicator of the real value of land when building is strictly forbidden and will remain so forever (hence removing any speculative gambling on possible future planning permits.)

Farmland within the South Downs National Park, on Rightmove: http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-33405536.html?utm_content=ealertspropertyimage&utm_medium=email&utm_source=emailupdates&utm_campaign=userdefinedarea-4m&utm_term=buying&sc_id=5290202

304.6 acres, for £1,450,000 = £4,760/acre

Land in Britain is extremely cheap. But planning permits are extremely expensive (here in the south), as they are extremely rationed by an alliance of NIMBYs + Local Authorities, both groups with vested interest against developments.

NIMBYs want to protect the prices of their properties. And Local Authorities prefer to spend their budgets on their own salaries as opposed to on infra-structure. That is what makes building plots so expensive. It is not the land. It is the building permit.

Edit: Better to bring this clarification up here in the OP, to save us all a lot of time:

And to avoid any misunderstandings here, I am NOT suggesting building in national parks. I am just saying that it indicates what is the value of land when speculation is completely removed.

(...) It is the planning permit (or the scarcity of it) that makes "residential" land more expensive.

The interesting info from the Rightmove's entry linked in the OP is that, as it is about land in a national park, where any building will be forbidden forever, it eliminates any speculative value on any possible future development. So, it allows us to see how much, or how little, land is worth, when there is no prospect of getting any planning permit, ever.

Edited by Tired of Waiting

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A good indicator of the real value of land, when building is strictly forbidden, and it will remain so.

Farmland within the South Downs National Park

304.6 acres, for £1,450,000 = £4,760/acre

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-33405536.html?utm_content=ealertspropertyimage&utm_medium=email&utm_source=emailupdates&utm_campaign=userdefinedarea-4m&utm_term=buying&sc_id=5290202

Land in Britain is extremely cheap. But planning permits are extremely expensive (here in the south), as they are extremely rationed by an alliance of NIMBYs + Local Authorities, both groups with vested interest against developments.

NIMBYs want to protect the prices of their properties. And Local Authorities prefer to spend their budgets on their own salaries as opposed to on infra-structure. That is what makes building plots so expensive. It is not the land. It is the building permit.

That's not the real value of land. That's the value of agricultural land that may or may not reflect market price. Residential land is almost always MORE expensive than agricultural land.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is the law alone that stops agricultural land being used for housing. If the law was changed it would have a negligible effect on farming but a large effect on the costs of new homes. A quarter of new homes in recent years were squeezed into gardens increasing the density of conurbations, if land was cheaper our villages and towns would be nicer places to live in.

The law deliberately raises the cost of new homes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A good indicator of the real value of land, when building is strictly forbidden, and it will remain so.

Farmland within the South Downs National Park

304.6 acres, for £1,450,000 = £4,760/acre

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-33405536.html?utm_content=ealertspropertyimage&utm_medium=email&utm_source=emailupdates&utm_campaign=userdefinedarea-4m&utm_term=buying&sc_id=5290202

Land in Britain is extremely cheap. But planning permits are extremely expensive (here in the south), as they are extremely rationed by an alliance of NIMBYs + Local Authorities, both groups with vested interest against developments.

NIMBYs want to protect the prices of their properties. And Local Authorities prefer to spend their budgets on their own salaries as opposed to on infra-structure. That is what makes building plots so expensive. It is not the land. It is the building permit.

.

Apparently they have dropped the price so further drops not excluded. Technically the price will change but I get your point.

Further the price is probably influenced by the infrastructure and services available in the vicinity or mostly by the desirability of the location.

I think a farm there and a farm up in scotland will have different measures.

Just for example in the link one can see the stupida amounts asked for land in Bugaria (building permit not guaranteed)....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Farmland within the South Downs National Park

304.6 acres, for £1,450,000 = £4,760/acre

I wonder how much you can make off that land growing crops etc..

what yield would you get back?

Stu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's not the real value of land. That's the value of agricultural land that may or may not reflect market price. Residential land is almost always MORE expensive than agricultural land.

Yes, of course, we all know that. It is the planning permit (or the scarcity of it) that makes "residential" land more expensive.

The interesting info from the Rightmove's entry linked in the OP is that, as it is about land in a national park, where any building will be forbidden forever, it eliminates any speculative value on any possible future development. So, it allows us to see how much, or how little, land is worth, when there is no prospect of getting any planning permit, ever.

Edited by Tired of Waiting

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Without armed guards and armies, land was given to us all.

For Free.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is the law alone that stops agricultural land being used for housing. If the law was changed it would have a negligible effect on farming but a large effect on the costs of new homes. A quarter of new homes in recent years were squeezed into gardens increasing the density of conurbations, if land was cheaper our villages and towns would be nicer places to live in.

The law deliberately raises the cost of new homes.

Exactly.

And to avoid any misunderstandings here, I am NOT suggesting building in national parks. I am just saying that it indicates what is the value of land when speculation is completely removed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the olden days, people built houses where they liked. Usually, it was where they were most efficient. there was no point in having a bakers house in the middle of nowhere, no point in having a coal depot miles from the railway.

Similarly, farmhouses were strategically placed to be most efficient for the servicing of the land that they controlled.

We look at these landscapes, and they are beautiful. little farmhouses dotted around a landscape, with hedgerows, dry stone walls if you're lucky.

Planning laws were introduced to control this - there was a fear that this Idyll would be blanket built over, we would have no sanctuary where we could "get away from it all". We would have monstrosities everywhere, and this green and pleasant land would have been destroyed.

How ironic then that the planning laws have actually created the monster that it was trying to prevent. If people were left to their own devices, then they would have a vested interest in building their house where it had most utility, those properties that were unservicable, or expensive to maintain and get to , would have never have been built, or would have fallen by the wayside.

Planning laws - read meddling with something that had worked perfectly well for generations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True to an extent, Lepista, but the motor car changed the game. Trains changed it a little, but the car meant that people could live far away from their town centre/workplace and commute.

Before the car, most people lived within walking distance of work and ameneties. No need for planning on the scale we see today in that case as people were limited to how far they could walk within , say, an hour.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the olden days, people built houses where they liked. Usually, it was where they were most efficient. there was no point in having a bakers house in the middle of nowhere, no point in having a coal depot miles from the railway.

Similarly, farmhouses were strategically placed to be most efficient for the servicing of the land that they controlled.

We look at these landscapes, and they are beautiful. little farmhouses dotted around a landscape, with hedgerows, dry stone walls if you're lucky.

Planning laws were introduced to control this - there was a fear that this Idyll would be blanket built over, we would have no sanctuary where we could "get away from it all". We would have monstrosities everywhere, and this green and pleasant land would have been destroyed.

How ironic then that the planning laws have actually created the monster that it was trying to prevent. If people were left to their own devices, then they would have a vested interest in building their house where it had most utility, those properties that were unservicable, or expensive to maintain and get to , would have never have been built, or would have fallen by the wayside.

Planning laws - read meddling with something that had worked perfectly well for generations.

I am not really familiar with the history of the Town and Country Planning Act (1947), political causes, etc. I know it was done by a Labour government, and I think their intention was to remove development rights from landowners, transferring it to the government. Not sure the intention back then was already to protect the "green pleasant land", was it? Think what happens since: housing estates, tower blocks, etc. Much uglier than the natural / market driven developments before that. Those 1920s and 1930s semis in London are worth a fortune now. Older developments in the countryside are also worth more than the post 1950s developments.

Edited by Tired of Waiting

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True to an extent, Lepista, but the motor car changed the game. Trains changed it a little, but the car meant that people could live far away from their town centre/workplace and commute.

Before the car, most people lived within walking distance of work and ameneties. No need for planning on the scale we see today in that case as people were limited to how far they could walk within , say, an hour.

Yes, but so what? things change - let the natural order of things arrange the landscape.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True to an extent, Lepista, but the motor car changed the game. Trains changed it a little, but the car meant that people could live far away from their town centre/workplace and commute.

Before the car, most people lived within walking distance of work and ameneties. No need for planning on the scale we see today in that case as people were limited to how far they could walk within , say, an hour.

I am quite sure that, back in the 1940s, the intention behind the new planning system was good. They surely believed that planning should be done by professionals, technicians, rationally, for the common good. I doubt they foresaw "NIMBYism".

To be fair, even today it is hard to believe that people organise themselves to block houses being built.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but so what? things change - let the natural order of things arrange the landscape.

Once oil runs out or becomes too expensive for Joe Bloggs to run a car as his mode of transport to work, then the natural order will return. I'm looking forward to horse parking in front of the local pub. Much easier to park 10 horses than 10 cars. And Plod won't arrest me after closing time, as the horse will know the way home all by itself. The ultimate in auto-pilot. A bit like Tam O'Shanter ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most planners and architects I have met live in unplanned areas, often their houses have not been designed by architects and could even have been self built by a non builder.

Nuff said.

:lol:

True.

IIRC Norman Foster live in an old Georgian house! :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once oil runs out or becomes too expensive for Joe Bloggs to run a car as his mode of transport to work, then the natural order will return. I'm looking forward to horse parking in front of the local pub. Much easier to park 10 horses than 10 cars. And Plod won't arrest me after closing time, as the horse will know the way home all by itself. The ultimate in auto-pilot. A bit like Tam O'Shanter ;)

Unlucky. http://www.metro.co.uk/weird/19250-drunk-in-charge-of-a-horse

Anyway, that doesn't really have a bearing on what we're talking about - that if you have a plot of land, you shouldn't have a false restriction prventing you putting a house on it, if that's what you feel will give you most utility out of that peice of land.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:lol:

True.

IIRC Norman Foster live in an old Georgian house! :lol:

They were not "unplanned". The Georgian squares and terraces you are talking about were carefully designed and planned by the likes of the Grosvenor Estate, the Cadogan Estate, etc. and other great landowners, using architects and master builders such as Thomas Cubitt.

Even Victorian terraces were planned - there were by laws stipulating where and when buildings could be constructed from mid-Victorian times on.

It is also a myth that planning began in 1946. Planning permissions became essential from the 1920s onwards, it's just that councils could not say 'no' as they had to recompense landowners for lost value. However, from the late Victorian period, cities like Birmingham and Liverpool had a lot of planning controls over their area.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They were not "unplanned". The Georgian squares and terraces you are talking about were carefully designed and planned by the likes of the Grosvenor Estate, the Cadogan Estate, etc. and other great landowners, using architects and master builders such as Thomas Cubitt.

Sure, by the private sector, markets, etc. I meant planning by government.

Even Victorian terraces were planned - there were by laws stipulating where and when buildings could be constructed from mid-Victorian times on.

It is also a myth that planning began in 1946. Planning permissions became essential from the 1920s onwards, it's just that councils could not say 'no' as they had to recompense landowners for lost value. However, from the late Victorian period, cities like Birmingham and Liverpool had a lot of planning controls over their area.

That is interesting RM. I didn't know that.

And I agree that some degree of planning can be useful, of course. If done competently, and with the public good in mind, as overall goal.

The problem with the current system is that it fell hostage to anti-development groups: NIMBYs and Local Authorities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is what makes building plots so expensive. It is not the land. It is the building permit.

That is an incoherent statement. You cannot talk about building permits separately from the land for which they are granted.

Building restrictions depress land values to the extent that that site is desirable to build upon. The permit (which is actually the removal of the restriction - a subtle but key difference), restores the land's real value which was suppressed by the lack of planning permission. In fact, I would hazard a guess that giving the south downs site a permit probably wouldn't add nearly as much to the land value as it would to a site near a town.

The way to determine the real value of land is not to look at a site that has restricitions, but to look at sites that have none, and even that may be insufficient, because nearby sites that do have restrictions can inflate the value of sites that do not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but so what? things change - let the natural order of things arrange the landscape.

Why? The "natural order of things" is usually that a few people make a complete mess of things for their own gain.

Planning controls are pretty badly done, but there can be no possible argument that they haven't prevented all sorts of places being ruined by monstrosities that would've otherwise occured, even though they're far from perfect (some godawful disasters go ahead, some useful decent stuff gets blocked).

It's a lot easier to have fewer restrictions when there aren't anywhere near as many people, and they don't have the means to build as large. You simply can't say "It worked in the past so it would work now" when it clearly wouldn't, mostly because there weren't anywhere near as many people with as many demands 200 years ago.

The system is far from perfect, but not having it would be far worse. If it's blocking enough adequate housing from being built then that needs to change (but far better still would be to eliminate the demand for new housing other than on a replacement basis by not having population growth), but a free-for-all is not the answer. Just as well for my neighbours that I can't build the 100-foot tall tower in my back garden that I'd like to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unlucky. http://www.metro.co.uk/weird/19250-drunk-in-charge-of-a-horse

Anyway, that doesn't really have a bearing on what we're talking about - that if you have a plot of land, you shouldn't have a false restriction prventing you putting a house on it, if that's what you feel will give you most utility out of that peice of land.

That's what the pikeys think as well. Like you, they can't understand why this isn't law. Life would be so much easier for everyone....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is an incoherent statement. You cannot talk about building permits separately from the land for which they are granted.

Building restrictions depress land values to the extent that that site is desirable to build upon. The permit (which is actually the removal of the restriction - a subtle but key difference), restores the land's real value which was suppressed by the lack of planning permission. In fact, I would hazard a guess that giving the south downs site a permit probably wouldn't add nearly as much to the land value as it would to a site near a town.

The way to determine the real value of land is not to look at a site that has restricitions, but to look at sites that have none, and even that may be insufficient, because nearby sites that do have restrictions can inflate the value of sites that do not.

nice try. But restrictions create a shortage and make the law of supply and demand UP the value of deristricted land.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is an incoherent statement.

Sure, if cut from the rest of my post. My whole argument was:

A good indicator of the real value of land, when building is strictly forbidden, and will remain so forever. (Hence removing any speculative gambling on possible future planning permits.)

(...)

Land in Britain is extremely cheap. But planning permits are extremely expensive (here in the south), as they are extremely rationed by an alliance of NIMBYs + Local Authorities, both groups with vested interest against developments.

NIMBYs want to protect the prices of their properties. And Local Authorities prefer to spend their budgets on their own salaries as opposed to on infra-structure. That is what makes building plots so expensive. It is not the land. It is the building permit.

You cannot talk about building permits separately from the land for which they are granted.

No kidding! Really?! Wow, thank you! I'll remember that. :rolleyes:

Jeeez, what is your problem?!

Building restrictions depress land values to the extent that that site is desirable to build upon. The permit (which is actually the removal of the restriction - a subtle but key difference), restores the land's real value which was suppressed by the lack of planning permission. In fact, I would hazard a guess that giving the south downs site a permit probably wouldn't add nearly as much to the land value as it would to a site near a town.

Yeah, fine. So?

I really don't get what is your point.

The way to determine the real value of land is not to look at a site that has restricitions, but to look at sites that have none, and even that may be insufficient, because nearby sites that do have restrictions can inflate the value of sites that do not.

Ahh... you misread me... THAT was your problem.

Read above again. I wrote: A good indicator of the real value of land, when building is strictly forbidden, and will remain so forever.

There-there. No worries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 312 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • 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.