A recent local case of a "farmer" keeing some horses in a shipping
container for 22 hours a day - and other abuse.

Made me think about some farms I have seen.

Some resemble scrapyards. Any animals are likely to be guard dogs.

You see the land and the state of the outbuildings and there is no way that
are productive.

Do these people get any sort of financial benefir from being a "farmer",
even though the only thing they seem to produce is piles of scrap.

In article 6,
DerbyBorn wrote:
A recent local case of a "farmer" keeing some horses in a shipping
container for 22 hours a day - and other abuse.

Made me think about some farms I have seen.

Some resemble scrapyards. Any animals are likely to be guard dogs.

You see the land and the state of the outbuildings and there is no way
that are productive.

Do these people get any sort of financial benefir from being a "farmer",
even though the only thing they seem to produce is piles of scrap.

Farm land tends to be cheaper than any alternative? A farmhouse with
outbuildings with no chance of planning permission to develop is going to
be a lot cheaper than similar size in a town.

--
*Never test the depth of the water with both feet.*

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

Tim Streater wrote:

I thought farmers dint need PP to erect farming building.

AFAIK they don't, nor do they need PP to convert unused (6 years?) farm
buildings to residential.

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article 6,
DerbyBorn wrote:
A recent local case of a "farmer" keeing some horses in a shipping
container for 22 hours a day - and other abuse.

Made me think about some farms I have seen.

Some resemble scrapyards. Any animals are likely to be guard dogs.

You see the land and the state of the outbuildings and there is no way
that are productive.

Do these people get any sort of financial benefir from being a
"farmer", even though the only thing they seem to produce is piles
of scrap.

Farm land tends to be cheaper than any alternative? A farmhouse with
outbuildings with no chance of planning permission to develop is going
to be a lot cheaper than similar size in a town.

Develop how though? I thought farmers dint need PP to erect farming
building.

Generally, you're not allowed to develop farm land. You can replace an
existing house and add farm buildings though. A similar sized plot within
a town would have some chance of getting planning permission - hence a
much higher price per square metre or whatever.

So it's not surprising 'pikeys' go for a run down farm.

My brother used to go to a small caravan site on a farm close to where his
daughter lived, in the green belt. Nice enough small farm with a decent
although plain house, and outbuildings in pretty good condition. The land
was all let out as the owner was old. It was sold quite recently, and was
surprised how little it made. I'd guess based on the maximum income you
could expect from it.

--
*I just got lost in thought. It was unfamiliar territory*

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

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article 6,
DerbyBorn wrote:
A recent local case of a "farmer" keeing some horses in a shipping
container for 22 hours a day - and other abuse.

Made me think about some farms I have seen.

Some resemble scrapyards. Any animals are likely to be guard dogs.

You see the land and the state of the outbuildings and there is no way
that are productive.

Do these people get any sort of financial benefir from being a
"farmer", even though the only thing they seem to produce is piles
of scrap.

Farm land tends to be cheaper than any alternative? A farmhouse with
outbuildings with no chance of planning permission to develop is going
to be a lot cheaper than similar size in a town.

Develop how though? I thought farmers dint need PP to erect farming
building.

Generally, you're not allowed to develop farm land. You can replace an
existing house and add farm buildings though. A similar sized plot within
a town would have some chance of getting planning permission - hence a
much higher price per square metre or whatever.

So it's not surprising 'pikeys' go for a run down farm.

My brother used to go to a small caravan site on a farm close to where his
daughter lived, in the green belt. Nice enough small farm with a decent
although plain house, and outbuildings in pretty good condition. The land
was all let out as the owner was old. It was sold quite recently, and was
surprised how little it made. I'd guess based on the maximum income you
could expect from it.


Can you quote specifics Dave? Total acres and price achieved and where ?

(£10-12K per acre round here)

Andrew

In message , Andy Burns
writes
Tim Streater wrote:

I thought farmers dint need PP to erect farming building.

AFAIK they don't, nor do they need PP to convert unused (6 years?) farm
buildings to residential.

Not quite but close... under GPDO part Q (I think) providing the
building was in agricultural use in 2013 permitted development is
allowed for up to 450m2 to be converted to domestic housing.

Naturally the planners don't care for this and use all sorts of reasons
to reject the application. Sustainability (too far from a bus stop).
Lack of Bat/Newt/nesting birds surveys. Design exceeds the exact
dimensions of the original structure. Structure deemed inadequate/lack
of engineers evidence. Flood risk. And probably lots more.

A down side is the farm is prevented from erecting any further buildings
under PD for a period of 10 years.

Nevertheless change of use planning for agricultural buildings (light
industrial/office/shop) has been hugely relaxed in recent years.

Tenanted farms are being taken in hand by landowners and then contract
farmed. This often releases the farmhouse for letting and the buildings
for alternative uses.

Dwellings built on farms since 1948 are likely to have their use
restricted to active or retired farmer/widow, farm or forestry worker.
The use restraint usually drops their sale value by 1/3rd.


--
Tim Lamb

Tim Lamb wrote:

Andy Burns writes:

[farmers don't] need PP to convert unused (6 years?) farm
buildings to residential.

Not quite but close... under GPDO part Q (I think) providing the
building was in agricultural use in 2013 permitted development is
allowed for up to 450m2 to be converted to domestic housing.

I have an alert setup on rightmove that includes building plots and farm
land which spits out mucho parcels of land "suitable for equestrian
purposes" or barns/dairies that have gone through the full planning process.

Naturally the planners don't care for this and use all sorts of reasons
to reject the application. Sustainability (too far from a bus stop).
Lack of Bat/Newt/nesting birds surveys. Design exceeds the exact
dimensions of the original structure. Structure deemed inadequate/lack
of engineers evidence. Flood risk. And probably lots more.

In fact I can only think of two "class Q" farm buildings that I've
noticed, one seemed much less of an application process and more like a
notification to the local authority, the other did look like the council
had tried lots of things from bat surveys to highway sight-lines but
been unable to prevent it.

A down side is the farm is prevented from erecting any further buildings
under PD for a period of 10 years.

Yes, I realised that it put a block on new farm buildings, otherwise
every reasonable looking stone barn would get flogged off for
conversion, with a sheet metal replacement in the other corner of the
field replacing it.

On 16/08/2016 20:42, Andy Burns wrote:

Yes, I realised that it put a block on new farm buildings, otherwise
every reasonable looking stone barn would get flogged off for
conversion, with a sheet metal replacement in the other corner of the
field replacing it.

A certain amount of that has already happened round here (Dales).

In article ,
Andrew Mawson wrote:
My brother used to go to a small caravan site on a farm close to where his
daughter lived, in the green belt. Nice enough small farm with a decent
although plain house, and outbuildings in pretty good condition. The land
was all let out as the owner was old. It was sold quite recently, and was
surprised how little it made. I'd guess based on the maximum income you
could expect from it.


Can you quote specifics Dave? Total acres and price achieved and where ?

Milton Keynes area. Fetched something just over a million. Sort of price a
pretty average house on a small plot would fetch in central London. Not
sure of the exact size acre wise. Had four fields of what I'd call average
size as well as the yard area which was quite large, and a wild area. I've
a feeling some land had already been sold off years before, as the barns
etc looked far too extensive for such a small farm.

(£10-12K per acre round here)

--
*Sticks and stones may break my bones but whips and chains excite me*

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

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...

In article ,
Andrew Mawson wrote:
My brother used to go to a small caravan site on a farm close to where
his
daughter lived, in the green belt. Nice enough small farm with a decent
although plain house, and outbuildings in pretty good condition. The
land
was all let out as the owner was old. It was sold quite recently, and
was
surprised how little it made. I'd guess based on the maximum income you
could expect from it.


Can you quote specifics Dave? Total acres and price achieved and where ?

Milton Keynes area. Fetched something just over a million. Sort of price a
pretty average house on a small plot would fetch in central London. Not
sure of the exact size acre wise. Had four fields of what I'd call average
size as well as the yard area which was quite large, and a wild area. I've
a feeling some land had already been sold off years before, as the barns
etc looked far too extensive for such a small farm.

(£10-12K per acre round here)


So say 4 fields at 25 acres each (relatively small) gives you 100 acres or
£10k per acre gives you your £1M

Andrew

On 17/08/2016 08:25, Andrew Mawson wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...

In article ,
Andrew Mawson wrote:
My brother used to go to a small caravan site on a farm close to
where his
daughter lived, in the green belt. Nice enough small farm with a decent
although plain house, and outbuildings in pretty good condition. The
land
was all let out as the owner was old. It was sold quite recently,
and was
surprised how little it made. I'd guess based on the maximum income you
could expect from it.


Can you quote specifics Dave? Total acres and price achieved and where ?

Milton Keynes area. Fetched something just over a million. Sort of
price a
pretty average house on a small plot would fetch in central London. Not
sure of the exact size acre wise. Had four fields of what I'd call
average
size as well as the yard area which was quite large, and a wild area.
I've
a feeling some land had already been sold off years before, as the barns
etc looked far too extensive for such a small farm.

(£10-12K per acre round here)


So say 4 fields at 25 acres each (relatively small) gives you 100 acres
or £10k per acre gives you your £1M


Yep, that's the effect of making farms the ultimate in tax shelters -
and with the cherry of a subsidy on top


--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Andrew Mawson wrote:
My brother used to go to a small caravan site on a farm close to where
his
daughter lived, in the green belt. Nice enough small farm with a decent
although plain house, and outbuildings in pretty good condition. The
land
was all let out as the owner was old. It was sold quite recently, and
was
surprised how little it made. I'd guess based on the maximum income you
could expect from it.


Can you quote specifics Dave? Total acres and price achieved and where ?

Milton Keynes area. Fetched something just over a million. Sort of price a
pretty average house on a small plot would fetch in central London.

Last time I looked MK was not London and prices are not comparable

1M in MK buys you a bloody nice house

tim

In article ,
tim... wrote:
Milton Keynes area. Fetched something just over a million. Sort of
price a pretty average house on a small plot would fetch in central
London.

Last time I looked MK was not London and prices are not comparable

I did say MK area. Closest station is Tring. About a 10 minute drive.

1M in MK buys you a bloody nice house

But not with that amount of land. If you like very large gardens. ;-)

Dunno planning regs. Would you have problems turning one of the fields
into a large garden? For not a vast amount of expense, you could have
turned it into a pretty nice country estate with excellent access to
London. Assuming you didn't want the vast mansion to go with it.

--
*A cubicle is just a padded cell without a door.

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

On 17/08/2016 10:58, tim... wrote:
1M in MK buys you a bloody nice house

Maybe, but it's still in MK.

Location, location and location are the three most important things
about a house...

Andy

On Wednesday, August 17, 2016 at 5:20:48 PM UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
tim... wrote:
Milton Keynes area. Fetched something just over a million. Sort of
price a pretty average house on a small plot would fetch in central
London.

Last time I looked MK was not London and prices are not comparable

I did say MK area. Closest station is Tring. About a 10 minute drive.

1M in MK buys you a bloody nice house

But not with that amount of land. If you like very large gardens. ;-)

Dunno planning regs. Would you have problems turning one of the fields
into a large garden? For not a vast amount of expense, you could have
turned it into a pretty nice country estate with excellent access to
London. Assuming you didn't want the vast mansion to go with it.

Planners don`t like domestic looking acoutrements on agricultural land, picket fence may look nice but it ain`t post and wire as approved for use on agricultural holdings, specifically to stop people buying the field at the bottom of their garden to extend it.

Having spent, er, sometime looking at this end of the market, for commercial rather than residential use, few factors come into play.

Lot of farm steadings seem to have gone out of use, as farms amalgamate and everything gets based at a central site.

Big estates don`t want to sell off small parts and sometimes tenants are more trouble than their worth.

Old farm buildings may be simply too small or wrong shape for existing mcahinery, but with the fun and expense of disposing of possibly acres of asbestos cement sheet cladding even just straight demolition isn`t cheap.

Removing existing buidlings in whatever shape , may make redevelopment at later date a harder sell to the planners.

Farmer may be able to lease out buldings for non agriculture, forestry or fishery use, not all of them are having best of times.

Residential development in coutryside can also be tied to support for the land ,though if you know the right people that can be reversed after the fact.

"Adam Aglionby" wrote in message
...
On Wednesday, August 17, 2016 at 5:20:48 PM UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:
In article ,
tim... wrote:
Milton Keynes area. Fetched something just over a million. Sort of
price a pretty average house on a small plot would fetch in central
London.

Last time I looked MK was not London and prices are not comparable

I did say MK area. Closest station is Tring. About a 10 minute drive.

1M in MK buys you a bloody nice house

But not with that amount of land. If you like very large gardens. ;-)

Dunno planning regs. Would you have problems turning one of the fields
into a large garden? For not a vast amount of expense, you could have
turned it into a pretty nice country estate with excellent access to
London. Assuming you didn't want the vast mansion to go with it.

Planners don`t like domestic looking acoutrements on agricultural land,
picket fence may look nice but it ain`t post and wire as approved for use
on agricultural holdings, specifically to stop people buying the field at
the bottom of their garden to extend it.

Do you need PP for a fence (less than 3 feet high)?

tim

Think it might indicate change of use which will fall under planning.

In message , Adam
Aglionby writes
Think it might indicate change of use which will fall under planning.

Couple of instances locally.. one where an agricultural field was
*plotted* sold in small chunks to gullible foreigners. I think the
planners put an article 4? directive on it preventing any structures.

The other where a bunch of households backing on to agricultural land
have got away with extending their gardens.

Both some years ago now.


--
Tim Lamb

In article ,
Tim Lamb wrote:
In message , Adam
Aglionby writes
Think it might indicate change of use which will fall under planning.

Couple of instances locally.. one where an agricultural field was
*plotted* sold in small chunks to gullible foreigners. I think the
planners put an article 4? directive on it preventing any structures.

The other where a bunch of households backing on to agricultural land
have got away with extending their gardens.

Both some years ago now.

On greenbelt land, most would think building a house etc on it - or
several in your example - in what was a field goes against the principle.
But would they also object in the same way to part of a field being given
over to extend a domestic garden? After all, part of a large garden might
well grow similar things that a farmer would in a field. But maybe look
rather better.

--
*If you can read this, thank a teecher

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

"Tim Lamb" wrote in message
...

In message , Adam
Aglionby writes
Think it might indicate change of use which will fall under planning.

Couple of instances locally.. one where an agricultural field was *plotted*
sold in small chunks to gullible foreigners. I think the planners put an
article 4? directive on it preventing any structures.

The other where a bunch of households backing on to agricultural land have
got away with extending their gardens.

Both some years ago now.



A field adjacent to ours has had an Article 4 directive applied when the
owners tried to split it up into many lots as a housing estate. Looking at
the plans at the Land registry it all looks very nice - roads laid out
around a central open green space with a central long thin lake.

In practice the field floods regularly every year and the 'long thin lake'
was dug by a previous owner to try and get the flood water to clear faster.

The Article 4 directive prevents them erecting anything now including
fences.

Andrew

On 19/08/2016 16:43, Andrew Mawson wrote:
"Tim Lamb" wrote in message
...

In message ,
Adam Aglionby writes
Think it might indicate change of use which will fall under planning.

Couple of instances locally.. one where an agricultural field was
*plotted* sold in small chunks to gullible foreigners. I think the
planners put an article 4? directive on it preventing any structures.

The other where a bunch of households backing on to agricultural land
have got away with extending their gardens.

Both some years ago now.



A field adjacent to ours has had an Article 4 directive applied when the
owners tried to split it up into many lots as a housing estate. Looking
at the plans at the Land registry it all looks very nice - roads laid
out around a central open green space with a central long thin lake.

In practice the field floods regularly every year and the 'long thin
lake' was dug by a previous owner to try and get the flood water to
clear faster.

The Article 4 directive prevents them erecting anything now including
fences.


Pity they can't make the chancer pay at least the costs of making the
Article 4 direction. (AIUI they can be bloody expensive because of all
the time spent on them. And further costs follow 'cos they can't then
charge fees for planning applications for stuff which would otherwise
have been permitted developments.)


--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid