"Bob Mannix" wrote in message
...

I never argued with any of your figures, just said that the "value" of a
house was "whatever anyone was willing to pay for it".

Fable:
(an analogy of the planning act and vehicles. Substitute car for house)

The Car and Lorry Planning Act of 1948

The new Labour Government which came to power in 1945 set about creating a
democratic socialist state in which the economy was properly planned rather
than left to the vagaries of the market. Many industries were nationalised:
coal, rail, gas, electricity, steel and, in 1947, a Town and Country
Planning Act was passed. Since towns were now to be properly planned, and
other means of transport were now publicly owned and properly controlled, it
was argued that the production and distribution of motor vehicles should
also be planned and controlled, and this was achieved with the Car and Lorry
Planning Act of 1948.

The Act set up a system under which the production of cars was planned on
the basis of past ownership patterns and no more than this number were
allowed to be produced. No vehicles were allowed to be imported, and anyone
wishing to order a new car had to wait until a manufacturer had obtained
production permission from the local authority on their behalf. The
application was considered by the local transport planners and by the local
transport planning committee, which could refuse or grant permission. To
make the system democratic, people could write in to say why someone should
not get permission. Often the objection was based on the fact that the
objector did not have a car and did not see why his neighbour should have
one. Such people were called NIDDIES from the acronym NIDHI (Not If I Don t
Have It).

As incomes rose and the population increased the demand for cars increased,
but the number of cars permitted to be produced did not increase to the same
extent. It was felt that allowing more cars would create unfair competition
for bus and rail.

The price of cars rose substantially. It was argued by some that this was
because of the constraint on production, but the transport planners thought
that this was not so. The constraint on production did not affect the price;
the increase in price was solely caused by the increase in demand caused by
things like lower interest rates, so they said. And anyway car prices were
not their concern. They were concerned with the real economy. It was for
them to plan and for the market to follow.

People adjusted to the situation of course. They drove their old cars as
long as possible. Indeed it was rare for a car in Britain to be scrapped if
there was any possibility that it could be repaired. After road accidents
cars were reconstructed which would have been written off as scrap
elsewhere. Tourists visiting Britain were often overwhelmed with nostalgia
when they discovered car models they had not seen for years in their own
countries.

They also adjusted to the increase in the price of cars. People who had cars
discovered that far from depreciating in value the price actually increased
over time. This increased the demand further as people without a car felt
that they had to get a foot on the ownership ladder. Banks were willing to
lend money on the security of the vehicle. Of course, as car prices rose
people who wanted to buy cars found that they could not afford anything very
large and so the cars built and sold in Britain became much smaller than
elsewhere.

The transport planners said that this showed that small cars were what
people wanted in Britain. The British were different from foreigners who
wanted large cars. Indeed, people had so much invested in their cars that
they resisted any relaxation in the control of production because this would
result in their cars losing value.

The justification for this came to be that the limitation of car production
was in the interests of global sustainability, to reduce pollution and fuel
usage. Some economists said that the stock of old cars in Britain polluted
far more and were far less fuel efficient than the newer cars used
elsewhere. But these critics were ignored, because after all, they were
merely economists and what did they know...

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember AA saying
something like:

Reading Festival was for many years organised by a couple who rebuffed
the advances of Mr Vince Power`s Mean Fiddler organisation, Mean
Fiddler run many festivals now, including a large stake in
Glastonbury.
One year the couple announced they would again be running Reading
Festival, Mr Power also announced that he would be running that years
Reading Festival.
The couple argued that they had organised infrastructure, advertising
and booked the bands.
Mr Vince Power announced that he had taken on an exclusive lease to
the farmland that allowed access to the site.
Mean Fiddler still runs the Reading Festival.

Interesting.
This Vince Power sounds like a right ****.

Al wrote:

If it were me, I'd ask for the value of the proposed buyers house, and get
a covenant put on it such that it must be fenced/maintained, and only used
for foot traffic by the owners of the now buyers property.

I believe (although the book I read it in is not entirely up to date)
that you can't create a permanent covenant like that. Specifically, to
do anything requiring the spending of money. It will be binding on the
current owner, but not on his successor if he sells. The successor can
only be bound to do (or more usually, not to do) things that cost him
nothing financially.

Pete

Lobster wrote:
Bit OT but I'm sure within this group's expertise...

My parents have recently been approached by their next-door neighbour
who wishes to buy a strip off the end of my parent's garden,
presumably with a view to gaining rear access to their property.

My parents just *might* be interested in doing this. One of several
questions raised, though, is how would you put a valuation on this bit
of land? From memory, my guess is that the land would be of no
particular use to anybody else; ie not large enough to build a
separate property on. So I really it's a case of how badly does this
guy want the land, and how much my parents would miss it versus how
much they'd like the cash realised... but where on earth do you start
in terms of coming up with a figure for something like this? My
parents (and I) literally don't know whether 100, 1000, or 100,000
GBP would be the sort of expected value. Is it something an
impartial professional can advise on? Or is it simply a case of my
parents coming up with a figure they could live with, and the
neighbour liking it or lumping it?

My understanding is that a ransom strip is valued at 40% of the value of the
land to be developed. IIRC that's a precedent set in court.

On Thu, 16 Jul 2009 21:14:44 +0100, Pete Verdon
d wrote:

Al wrote:

If it were me, I'd ask for the value of the proposed buyers house, and get
a covenant put on it such that it must be fenced/maintained, and only used
for foot traffic by the owners of the now buyers property.

I believe (although the book I read it in is not entirely up to date)
that you can't create a permanent covenant like that. Specifically, to
do anything requiring the spending of money. It will be binding on the
current owner, but not on his successor if he sells. The successor can
only be bound to do (or more usually, not to do) things that cost him
nothing financially.

You can create a covenant like this. There is one on my house which
requires sending a cheque to the original builder if you want to
change anything.

--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Due to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking most articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.
[Reply-to address valid until it is spammed.]

"Doki" wrote in message
...
Lobster wrote:
Bit OT but I'm sure within this group's expertise...

My parents have recently been approached by their next-door neighbour
who wishes to buy a strip off the end of my parent's garden,
presumably with a view to gaining rear access to their property.

My parents just *might* be interested in doing this. One of several
questions raised, though, is how would you put a valuation on this bit
of land? From memory, my guess is that the land would be of no
particular use to anybody else; ie not large enough to build a
separate property on. So I really it's a case of how badly does this
guy want the land, and how much my parents would miss it versus how
much they'd like the cash realised... but where on earth do you start
in terms of coming up with a figure for something like this? My
parents (and I) literally don't know whether 100, 1000, or 100,000
GBP would be the sort of expected value. Is it something an
impartial professional can advise on? Or is it simply a case of my
parents coming up with a figure they could live with, and the
neighbour liking it or lumping it?

My understanding is that a ransom strip is valued at 40% of the value of
the land to be developed. IIRC that's a precedent set in court.

A ransom strip and land next wants are two different things. Some ransom
strips are only a foot wide. They are illegal in Canada and should be here.

On Jul 17, 10:18*am, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:


A ransom strip and land next wants are two different things. *Some ransom
strips are only a foot wide. *They are illegal in Canada and should be here.-

Why should they be illegal?

Robert

Doki wrote:
Lobster wrote:
Bit OT but I'm sure within this group's expertise...

My parents have recently been approached by their next-door neighbour
who wishes to buy a strip off the end of my parent's garden,
presumably with a view to gaining rear access to their property.

My parents just *might* be interested in doing this. One of several
questions raised, though, is how would you put a valuation on this bit
of land? From memory, my guess is that the land would be of no
particular use to anybody else; ie not large enough to build a
separate property on. So I really it's a case of how badly does this
guy want the land, and how much my parents would miss it versus how
much they'd like the cash realised... but where on earth do you start
in terms of coming up with a figure for something like this? My
parents (and I) literally don't know whether 100, 1000, or 100,000
GBP would be the sort of expected value. Is it something an
impartial professional can advise on? Or is it simply a case of my
parents coming up with a figure they could live with, and the
neighbour liking it or lumping it?

My understanding is that a ransom strip is valued at 40% of the value of
the land to be developed. IIRC that's a precedent set in court.

Well unless you have a willing buyer and a willing seller, the 'value'
is immaterial.

And if it takes a wedge to make the seller willing, no court would
oppose that if it was freely entered into by the buyer.


I wanted to extend my drive a bit, and asked the landowner to sell me a
bit of field. HE wanted 17 grand for a 30 meter x 3 meter strip. I let
the matter drop. BUT it would have involved lawyers, contracts, planning
permission to go from agricultural to residential etc etc.

RobertL wrote:
On Jul 17, 10:18 am, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:


A ransom strip and land next wants are two different things. Some ransom
strips are only a foot wide. They are illegal in Canada and should be here.-

Why should they be illegal?

Drivel should be illegal. He is almost certainly illegitimate.

Robert

In article
,
RobertL wrote:
A ransom strip and land next wants are two different things. Some
ransom strips are only a foot wide. They are illegal in Canada and
should be here.-

Why should they be illegal?

Dribble doesn't own any land - so like so many others in that position
think it should be free.

--
*Therapy is expensive, poppin' bubble wrap is cheap! You choose.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article
,
RobertL wrote:
A ransom strip and land next wants are two different things. Some
ransom strips are only a foot wide. They are illegal in Canada and
should be here.-

Why should they be illegal?

Dribble

You must eff off as you are a total plantpot.

"RobertL" wrote in message
...
On Jul 17, 10:18 am, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:

A ransom strip and land next wants are two different things. Some ransom
strips are only a foot wide. They are illegal in Canada and should be
here.-

Why should they be illegal?


As the word implies "ransom". They are a way to extort money. Have a 6"
strip in front of someone house and if they want to pass your 6" strip of
"land" to the road for services you can ask a high price and a yearly rent.
It should be banned.

Some people who sold off parts of their land would make a ransom strip to
maintain say a view. But it is all too easily abused by sharks - and those
who deal in land is full of those.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Doki wrote:
Lobster wrote:
Bit OT but I'm sure within this group's expertise...

My parents have recently been approached by their next-door neighbour
who wishes to buy a strip off the end of my parent's garden,
presumably with a view to gaining rear access to their property.

My parents just *might* be interested in doing this. One of several
questions raised, though, is how would you put a valuation on this bit
of land? From memory, my guess is that the land would be of no
particular use to anybody else; ie not large enough to build a
separate property on. So I really it's a case of how badly does this
guy want the land, and how much my parents would miss it versus how
much they'd like the cash realised... but where on earth do you start
in terms of coming up with a figure for something like this? My
parents (and I) literally don't know whether 100, 1000, or 100,000
GBP would be the sort of expected value. Is it something an
impartial professional can advise on? Or is it simply a case of my
parents coming up with a figure they could live with, and the
neighbour liking it or lumping it?

My understanding is that a ransom strip is valued at 40% of the value of
the land to be developed. IIRC that's a precedent set in court.

Well unless you have a willing buyer and a willing seller, the 'value' is
immaterial.

And if it takes a wedge to make the seller willing, no court would oppose
that if it was freely entered into by the buyer.


I wanted to extend my drive a bit, and asked the landowner to sell me a
bit of field. HE wanted 17 grand for a 30 meter x 3 meter strip. I let the
matter drop. BUT it would have involved lawyers, contracts, planning
permission to go from agricultural to residential etc etc.

I bet his argricultural land was no more than £4,000 per acre.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
RobertL wrote:
On Jul 17, 10:18 am, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:

A ransom strip and land next wants are two different things. Some
ransom
strips are only a foot wide. They are illegal in Canada and should be
here.-

Why should they be illegal?

Drivel should be illegal. He is almost certainly illegitimate.

This man is clearly mad. He went to a snotty uni you know.

On Jul 17, 2:11*pm, "Doctor Drivel" wrote:
"RobertL" wrote in message

...
On Jul 17, 10:18 am, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:

A ransom strip and land next wants are two different things. Some ransom
strips are only a foot wide. They are illegal in Canada and should be
here.-

Why should they be illegal?


As the word implies "ransom". *They are a way to extort money. *Have a 6"
strip in front of someone house and if they want to pass your 6" strip of
"land" ....

it's not extortion because the buyer of the house knows about the
strip when they buy the house and they factor it in to the price. it
doesn't suddenly spring to life later. The man I bought my house
from has the equivalent of such a strip to prevent me developing the
bottom of the gargen without bringing him in on the deal. that is
great. It meant I could afford to buy the house in the first place as
the price excluded the development potential.

Robert


Robert

"RobertL" wrote in message
...
On Jul 17, 2:11 pm, "Doctor Drivel" wrote:
"RobertL" wrote in message

...
On Jul 17, 10:18 am, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:

A ransom strip and land next wants are two different things. Some ransom
strips are only a foot wide. They are illegal in Canada and should be
here.-

Why should they be illegal?


As the word implies "ransom". They are a way to extort money. Have a 6"
strip in front of someone house and if they want to pass your 6" strip of
"land" ....

it's not extortion because the buyer of the house knows about the
strip when they buy the house and they factor it in to the price.


The point was put across clearly. A developer can build say 20 houses and
they are all electric. He has a 6" ransom strip in front of them all. When
they want gas they have to pay him. It is totally open to abuse by land
extortionists. The Canadians did not ban it for nothing.

In article ,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
The point was put across clearly. A developer can build say 20 houses
and they are all electric. He has a 6" ransom strip in front of them
all. When they want gas they have to pay him.

You'll have got the house cheaply if it has no gas - but it is available -
so what are you complaining about?

--
*How many roads must a man travel down before he admits he is lost? *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In uk.d-i-y, Doctor Drivel wrote:

"RobertL" wrote in message news:3a762ffc-4d8b-
...
On Jul 17, 10:18 am, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:

A ransom strip and land next wants are two different things. Some ransom
strips are only a foot wide. They are illegal in Canada and should be
here.-

Why should they be illegal?


As the word implies "ransom".

"Ransom" in this context simply means priced exorbitantly. There's
nothing illegal about that.

--
Mike Barnes

Doctor Drivel wrote:

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
snip

I wanted to extend my drive a bit, and asked the landowner to sell me
a bit of field. HE wanted 17 grand for a 30 meter x 3 meter strip. I
let the matter drop. BUT it would have involved lawyers, contracts,
planning permission to go from agricultural to residential etc etc.

I bet his argricultural land was no more than £4,000 per acre.

Depends how long ago it was but at any time close to the present £4000
per acre would be well below average for good agricultural land.

http://www.voa.gov.uk/publications/p...quipped_vacant

Roger Chapman wrote:
Doctor Drivel wrote:

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
snip

I wanted to extend my drive a bit, and asked the landowner to sell me
a bit of field. HE wanted 17 grand for a 30 meter x 3 meter strip. I
let the matter drop. BUT it would have involved lawyers, contracts,
planning permission to go from agricultural to residential etc etc.

I bet his argricultural land was no more than £4,000 per acre.

Depends how long ago it was but at any time close to the present £4000
per acre would be well below average for good agricultural land.

http://www.voa.gov.uk/publications/p...quipped_vacant

It was about £4000 at the time, but round here the Arab stables are
gobbling up grazing at up to £6000..

My pint being that once its 'garden' its worth more like £100k an acre..

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
The point was put across clearly. A developer can build say 20 houses
and they are all electric. He has a 6" ransom strip in front of them
all. When they want gas they have to pay him.

You'll

Eff off you are a plantpot.