This may be a bit of a pipe dream but not far from where I live there is a
run down old house in the middle of the field. The roof sags a bit and
there are no windows, but the location is wonderful with even better views
than my present house if that's possible. Leaving aside the fact that I
have no idea who owns it, - what things would I need to take into
consideration when trying to make it habitable? And what sort of
costs/timescales would I be thinking of - principles rather than actual
costs. At the moment it's a one up one down with attached barn - standard
peak district stuff. How would access be agreed with any neighbours whose
land would need to be crossed?

Has anyone else done such a thing? I'm sure lots of you have.

Ideas for reference materials, websites, magazines, - anything please.

Many thanks

Liz


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.504 / Virus Database: 302 - Release Date: 24/07/2003

On Fri, 1 Aug 2003 23:12:45 +0100, "Liz" wrote:

This may be a bit of a pipe dream but not far from where I live there is a
run down old house in the middle of the field.

Lovely !

Basically it's a new build, but with simpler planning permission.
BTDT, worked out very well.

There are a couple of pretty good self-build mags around these days
(any big newsagent) and the whole process (especially mortgages) is
much easier now than it was 10 years ago.

Toby wrote:
Liz wrote:
This may be a bit of a pipe dream but not far from where I live there
is a run down old house in the middle of the field.

Go to the Land Registry website, http://www.landregisteronline.gov.uk
and if you can locate the property with an address, pay £2 for a copy
of the ownership details. If it doesn't have an address, they have to
take a manual approach and you'll need a 'search of the index map'
instead. You'll have to fill out the application form for this.

Toby.

Oh brilliant, 2 excellent bits of advice already, thank you. I don't think
there is an address, but I can give map coordinates so that shouldn't be a
problem. In fact, I don't want to knock the thing down, and start afresh,
I'd want it to look much as it does now, but with windows and a decent roof
and to convert the barn into extra space. Very similar to the one I live in
now.

Am straight off to the newsagents, the mags I've seen go into doing up i.e
prettifying, rather than working out costings for access road, basic
services. And getting a mortgage for paying for it. Am obviously looking in
the wrong place. Thanks to you both.

Liz


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.504 / Virus Database: 302 - Release Date: 24/07/2003

"Liz" wrote in message
...
Toby wrote:
Liz wrote:
This may be a bit of a pipe dream but not far from where I live there
is a run down old house in the middle of the field.

Go to the Land Registry website, http://www.landregisteronline.gov.uk
and if you can locate the property with an address, pay £2 for a copy
of the ownership details. If it doesn't have an address, they have to
take a manual approach and you'll need a 'search of the index map'
instead. You'll have to fill out the application form for this.

Toby.

Oh brilliant, 2 excellent bits of advice already, thank you. I don't
think
there is an address, but I can give map coordinates so that shouldn't be a
problem. In fact, I don't want to knock the thing down, and start afresh,
I'd want it to look much as it does now, but with windows and a decent
roof
and to convert the barn into extra space. Very similar to the one I live
in
now.

Am straight off to the newsagents, the mags I've seen go into doing up i.e
prettifying, rather than working out costings for access road, basic
services. And getting a mortgage for paying for it. Am obviously looking
in
the wrong place. Thanks to you both.

Liz



It may be possible to build a timber frame within the existing skin of the
property. But make sure you have permission to take service, i.e. Electric,
Gas and Sewage, to and from the site. The service supply seems to be the
most expensive part of this type of building project.


---
www.basecuritysystems.no-ip.com
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.505 / Virus Database: 302 - Release Date: 30/07/03

"Liz" wrote in message
...

costs. At the moment it's a one up one down with attached barn - standard
peak district stuff.

In the National Park? The authorities don't want people
to actually living there and ruining the views, you realize.

what things would I need to take into
consideration when trying to make it habitable?

Planning permission that you have almost no chance whatsoever of getting
particularly if it is in the National Park.

Planning permission that you have almost no chance whatsoever of getting
particularly if it is in the National Park.

OTOH, if it's "refurbishment" (as ours was) then you can do it, even
in a particularly well-defended piece of green belt. Our starting
point was a pair of cottages that had been empty and derelict for 20
years, with little more than the walls standing.

How long ago was that? Current guidance to planners is different.

On Sat, 2 Aug 2003 11:33:31 +0100, "Peter Crosland"
wrote:

Planning permission that you have almost no chance whatsoever of getting
particularly if it is in the National Park.

OTOH, if it's "refurbishment" (as ours was) then you can do it, even
in a particularly well-defended piece of green belt. Our starting
point was a pair of cottages that had been empty and derelict for 20
years, with little more than the walls standing.

In article ,
BigWallop wrote:
It may be possible to build a timber frame within the existing skin of
the property.

Sounds like the ideal way to ruin its character. ;-)

--
*Proofread carefully to see if you any words out or mispeld something *

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

David W.E. Roberts wrote:
"Liz" wrote in message
...
snip
How would access be agreed with any neighbours whose
land would need to be crossed?
snip

Very cautiously.
People are very aware of the value of access to a property, and there
is a tendency to want a cut of any profit you might make on a
renovation. I remeber neighbours in Derbyshire years ago moving to a
place out in the wilds, with just a generator.
The owner of the adjacent field wanted something like £1,000 (back
when that was serious money) to grant access for (IIRC) electricity
over the land. Could have been and/or water - it was over 20 years
ago. No problems with a telephone - BT has the right to just go there.
View was 'rich b*ggers moving in - they can afford to pay'.

Just tell the farmer that access won't be a problem as you've enough room to
land your helicopter so won't be needing to drive across his land, he might
become a little more cooperative then.

--
James...
http://www.jameshart.co.uk/

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
. ..
nightjar wrote:

Be warned though, it will not be a cheap job. Getting a road and
services to
the property is likely to run into thousands of pounds by itself.

The road part very much depends on how it is done.

If you are re-building a ruin, it needs to be capable of carrying heavily
laden lorries, possibly in bad weather.

Gas will be a
non-starter in remote parts of the Peak District.

I was only thinking of electricity and possibly water. I presume that
drainage would be a septic tank and gas, if at all, would be bottled or in
its own storage tank.

Colin Bignell

"Andy Dingley" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 1 Aug 2003 23:12:45 +0100, "Liz" wrote:

This may be a bit of a pipe dream but not far from where I live there is
a
run down old house in the middle of the field.

Lovely !

Basically it's a new build, but with simpler planning permission.
BTDT, worked out very well.

It is not a new build. A new build means demolishing the existing and
building fresh. In a new build you get "all" the VAT back, but not in a
renovation.


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.488 / Virus Database: 287 - Release Date: 05/06/2003

"Toby" wrote in message
...
Liz wrote:
This may be a bit of a pipe dream but not far from where I live there
is a run down old house in the middle of the field. The roof sags a
bit and there are no windows, but the location is wonderful with even
better views than my present house if that's possible. Leaving aside
the fact that I have no idea who owns it,

Go to the Land Registry website, http://www.landregisteronline.gov.uk and
if
you can locate the property with an address,

Only half the land in the UK is on this registry after nearly 80 years.



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.488 / Virus Database: 287 - Release Date: 05/06/2003

"Liz" wrote in message
...
Toby wrote:
Liz wrote:
This may be a bit of a pipe dream but not far from where I live there
is a run down old house in the middle of the field.

Go to the Land Registry website, http://www.landregisteronline.gov.uk
and if you can locate the property with an address, pay £2 for a copy
of the ownership details. If it doesn't have an address, they have to
take a manual approach and you'll need a 'search of the index map'
instead. You'll have to fill out the application form for this.

Toby.

Oh brilliant, 2 excellent bits of advice already, thank you. I don't
think
there is an address, but I can give map coordinates so that shouldn't be a
problem. In fact, I don't want to knock the thing down, and start afresh,
I'd want it to look much as it does now, but with windows and a decent
roof
and to convert the barn into extra space. Very similar to the one I live
in
now.

Best demolish and start again, as you end up with a house without damp,
proper insulation levels and get your VAT back, which may be £30-40,000. A
house can be say a timber frame clad in local stone. You may be able to use
the stone of the existing house. If it is stone of course.


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.488 / Virus Database: 287 - Release Date: 05/06/2003

"Peter Crosland" wrote in message
...
what things would I need to take into
consideration when trying to make it habitable?

Planning permission that you have almost no chance whatsoever of getting
particularly if it is in the National Park.

Demolishing an existing house and rebuilding to a similar local vernacular
design is common.



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.488 / Virus Database: 287 - Release Date: 05/06/2003

nightjar wrote in message
. ..

"Liz" wrote in message
...
... In fact, I don't want to knock the thing down, and start afresh,
I'd want it to look much as it does now, but with windows and a decent
roof
and to convert the barn into extra space. Very similar to the one I
live
in
now.

Am straight off to the newsagents, the mags I've seen go into doing up
i.e
prettifying, rather than working out costings for access road, basic
services. And getting a mortgage for paying for it. Am obviously
looking
in
the wrong place.

It sound more like the sort of project that gets covered by the magazines
for Francophiles. Rebuilding ruins that none of the French want to live in
seems to be a favourite way for people to get a property in France.
Obviously, the legal bits will be different and, unlike France, we have
surveyors who can check out the structure of the building for you.
However,
you might find some of the practical advice helpful.

Be warned though, it will not be a cheap job. Getting a road and services
to
the property is likely to run into thousands of pounds by itself.

It must already have access. It is a house.


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.488 / Virus Database: 287 - Release Date: 05/06/2003

On Sat, 2 Aug 2003 15:48:45 +0100, "James Hart"
wrote:

Just tell the farmer that access won't be a problem as you've enough room to
land your helicopter so won't be needing to drive across his land, he might
become a little more cooperative then.

Surely you meant Lear Jet?

Andrew

Do you need a handyman service? Check out our
web site at http://www.handymac.co.uk

On Sat, 2 Aug 2003 17:52:34 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Dingley" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 1 Aug 2003 23:12:45 +0100, "Liz" wrote:

This may be a bit of a pipe dream but not far from where I live there is
a
run down old house in the middle of the field.

Lovely !

Basically it's a new build, but with simpler planning permission.
BTDT, worked out very well.

It is not a new build. A new build means demolishing the existing and
building fresh. In a new build you get "all" the VAT back, but not in a
renovation.

So it would probably be cost effective to have it as a new build and
not a renovation... a couple of days demolishing and skip hire
against all that VAT...

Jim.

On Sat, 02 Aug 2003 20:16:07 +0100, Grunff wrote:

Peter Crosland wrote:

Well the rules have changed completely since then and in any case the law in
England is quite different. Currently there really is no chance at all in
the location the OP was enquiring about.

Why is that? Why is it that we have laws like that? Do the
majority of people really believe that this is the right way to
control what is built and where?

No I don't think many people think the UK's planning laws make much
sense, but I don't think the pro-reform is enough of an issue
considering the opposition to anything that makes it easier to build
new on greenfield sites from certain groups. So we're stuck with
nothing happening.

Jim.

Why is that? Why is it that we have laws like that? Do the
majority of people really believe that this is the right way to
control what is built and where?

Much more likely that the vast majority of the populace have little idea of
what the detailed rules are nor the fact they are complex and filled with
anomalies. The so called United Kingdom is anything but when it comes to the
law. Get out there and campaign if you want the government to change!

"Grunff" wrote in message
...
Peter Crosland wrote:

Well the rules have changed completely since then and in any case the
law in
England is quite different. Currently there really is no chance at all
in
the location the OP was enquiring about.

Why is that? Why is it that we have laws like that? Do the
majority of people really believe that this is the right way to
control what is built and where?

We are over controlled to the benefit of large landowners of which 1% of the
population own 70% of the land.


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.488 / Virus Database: 287 - Release Date: 05/06/2003

"Jim Ley" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 02 Aug 2003 20:16:07 +0100, Grunff wrote:

Peter Crosland wrote:

Well the rules have changed completely since then and in any case the
law in
England is quite different. Currently there really is no chance at all
in
the location the OP was enquiring about.

Why is that? Why is it that we have laws like that? Do the
majority of people really believe that this is the right way to
control what is built and where?

No I don't think many people think the UK's planning laws make much
sense, but I don't think the pro-reform is enough of an issue
considering the opposition to anything that makes it easier to build
new on greenfield sites from certain groups. So we're stuck with
nothing happening.

That's exactly what large landowners want. The status quo as they are doing
very nicely thank you.


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.488 / Virus Database: 287 - Release Date: 05/06/2003

On Sun, 3 Aug 2003 04:31:23 +0100, "IMM" wrote:

"Jim Ley" wrote in message
No I don't think many people think the UK's planning laws make much
sense, but I don't think the pro-reform is enough of an issue
considering the opposition to anything that makes it easier to build
new on greenfield sites from certain groups. So we're stuck with
nothing happening.

That's exactly what large landowners want. The status quo as they are doing
very nicely thank you.

I can't believe that the number of "planning gain" backhanders you
have to do to get any project off the ground is surely grounds for the
landowners to want easier planning, after all it eats into a lot of
profit...

Jim.

IMM wrote:

We are over controlled to the benefit of large landowners of which 1% of the
population own 70% of the land.

I don't follow.

First, we need a definition of large lanowners. How much land do
you have to own to be one of those.

Second, how is it to their benefit? Please explain slowly and
clearly.

--
Grunff

In article ,
Grunff wrote:
Please explain slowly and clearly.

You forget who you're asking. ;-)

--
*Why is "abbreviated" such a long word?

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

Dave Plowman wrote:

Please explain slowly and clearly.


You forget who you're asking. ;-)

The thing is, despite his many rambling threads on the subject,
I still don't actually get the crux of his argument.

So I'd like him to slowly and clearly explain it to this totally
non-politically inclined engineer type.

Let's see what comes up.

--
Grunff

"Grunff" wrote in message ...
Dave Plowman wrote:

Please explain slowly and clearly.


You forget who you're asking. ;-)

The thing is, despite his many rambling threads on the subject,
I still don't actually get the crux of his argument.

No I don't either. Much of this 70% is farmland/forest which
wouldn't be overly useful for development even if the NIMBYs
would allow it. He may be right that the planning process works
to the benefit of people (developers) who own the land that is in
the right place, but I suspect that these people are not those that
make up this "1% own 70%" set.

tim


So I'd like him to slowly and clearly explain it to this totally
non-politically inclined engineer type.

Let's see what comes up.

--
Grunff

On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 10:10:23 +0100, Grunff wrote:

IMM wrote:

We are over controlled to the benefit of large landowners of which 1% of the
population own 70% of the land.

I don't follow.

First, we need a definition of large lanowners. How much land do
you have to own to be one of those.

Second, how is it to their benefit? Please explain slowly and
clearly.

Grunff, before you start on this, do a Google Groups search using
keywords like "cahill", "paxman" and "george". Then look at
www.henrygeorge.org

You will be able to assimilate where all this comes from without all
the added noise and confusion. Not that the source material isn't
confused enough already......

Essentially this is about dismantling the economic system as we know
it to a greater or lesser extent and creating something completely
different.

If you believe that that's desirable or achievable then this may be of
interest. Otherwise it's all rather pointless.



..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 10:10:23 +0100, Grunff wrote:

IMM wrote:

We are over controlled to the benefit of large landowners of which 1%
of the
population own 70% of the land.

I don't follow.

First, we need a definition of large lanowners. How much land do
you have to own to be one of those.

Second, how is it to their benefit? Please explain slowly and
clearly.

Grunff, before you start on this, do a Google Groups search using
keywords like "cahill", "paxman" and "george". Then look at
www.henrygeorge.org

You will be able to assimilate where all this comes from without all
the added noise and confusion. Not that the source material isn't
confused enough already......

Essentially this is about dismantling the economic system as we know
it to a greater or lesser extent and creating something completely
different.

It is what? Please read what you recommend.




---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.488 / Virus Database: 287 - Release Date: 05/06/2003

"Grunff" wrote in message
...
Andy Hall wrote:

Grunff, before you start on this, do a Google Groups search using
keywords like "cahill", "paxman" and "george". Then look at
www.henrygeorge.org

Thanks for the refs Andy. The henrygeorge site is
particularly..erm..interesting. It reads like the political
equivalent of a site on free-energy machines.

Winston Churchill near implemented Land Value Tax in the UK. WW1 got in the
way. the offices were all set up.



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.488 / Virus Database: 287 - Release Date: 05/06/2003

On Sun, 3 Aug 2003 23:08:03 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


"Grunff" wrote in message
...
IMM wrote:

We are over controlled to the benefit of large landowners of which 1% of
the
population own 70% of the land.

I don't follow.

First, we need a definition of large lanowners. How much land do
you have to own to be one of those.

Second, how is it to their benefit? Please explain slowly and
clearly.

Read "Who Owns Britain" By Kevin Cahill. Go to amazon for a breakdown.



Nervous, or some other kind?


..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Grunff" wrote in message
...
IMM wrote:

snip review of K Cahill book

Ok, I get that bit - I have to say, I don't have any deep
feelings on the subject - but I get it anyway.

You should do as we are all, including you, are being shafted.

What I don't get is how the restrictive planning laws we were
discussing earlier fit into the picture.

They (1947 T&C planning act) were put together by the Council for the
Protection of Rural England. A group of people who are large landowners,
founded by large landowners. Their recommendations were foolishly accepted
by a "Labour" government. And a "Labour" government has just passed a law
to built to an even higher density making matters even worse.

The planning laws keep towns people out of the countryside, where the large
landowners for centuries have generated vast amounts wealth to the detriment
of the masses.




---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.488 / Virus Database: 287 - Release Date: 06/06/2003

On Sun, 3 Aug 2003 23:25:33 UTC, "Liz" wrote:

Anyway, thanks to all for your help, beginning to feel a bit excited about
this.

Do keep us informed...!

--
Bob Eager
rde at tavi.co.uk
PC Server 325*4; PS/2s 9585, 8595, 9595*2, 8580*3,
P70, PC/AT..

nightjar wrote:

"IMM" wrote in message
...
...
It must already have access. It is a house.

Not necessarily useable or with a right of way over it. There was a church
near here that had to have a half-mile access road built when it was
renovated. It had originally been built on the edge of a canal, long since
filled in, and the only access was by way of the footpath that had once been
the towpath.

Colin Bignell

Or a farm house on farm land accessible only by and for someone
working on the farm?
e.g. "You just goes through the main gate, down past the cow
byre, turns a little left by the dungheap and the house is on
t'other side of the sheep pen! Farmer hisself used to live dere
one time"!

IMM wrote:

"Peter Crosland" wrote in message
...
Why is that? Why is it that we have laws like that? Do the
majority of people really believe that this is the right way to
control what is built and where?

Much more likely that the vast majority of the populace have little idea
of
what the detailed rules are nor the fact they are complex and filled with
anomalies. The so called United Kingdom is anything but when it comes to
the
law. Get out there and campaign if you want the government to change!

Good idea. Only 7.5% of the land mass is built on inc gardens creating an
artificial land shortage. The country is filled with open fields, of which
many are subsided out of our money to do nothing while we are all crammed
into urban areas in small tiny plots and houses. Sensitive areas need some
sort of regulation, but the rest is just open fields.

Interesting; When I visited the UK in 2000 after a continuous
absence of 40 years and experience of life style on this side of
the Atlantic (during which we built two houses ourseleves on
purchased land) I couldn't understand why there were housing
shortages and such UK high housing costs. UK is now prosperous so
that would account for some of the higher costs, also the more
substantial style of 'brick' building, but for a typical house on
a small piece of ground to cost four times that in say Canada or
the US?
Also looking around the UK there was lots of land. Much of it
seemingly doing nothing? Some of it cultivated and no doubt there
is a need for some historical acreages. Maybe 'unused' land
should be the property of 'the crown' i.e. the government, as
much of it is elsewhere. For example if I apply for and get a one
acre summer cabin 'lot' I pay certain small fees to the province
for survey and description, must pay an annual rental fee, meet
all conditions of use, i.e. MUST build within certain period of
time and maintain that property etc. Then, with conditions met I
will own property freehold without further fees after set period.
Some of those properties, depending on distance and location
can/do turn into permanent homes.

"Jim Ley" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 3 Aug 2003 23:06:30 +0100, "IMM" wrote:

I can't believe that the number of "planning gain" backhanders you
have to do to get any project off the ground is surely grounds for the
landowners to want easier planning, after all it eats into a lot of
profit...

Large landowners do not sell land. They want to keep it and charge rent,
hence we are all rammed into only 7.5% of the land mass.

You can charge more rent on Canary Wharf, than you can on a empty
field, or forest.

That is true, but when you own the eqiv to half a county all the rents adds
up. They must know what they are doing as few of them have sold off their
land. The odd estate occassionally sells off a sliver of land on the edges,
usually for the odd 5-10 millions or so to keep the main mansion serviced
for the next 10 years and usually at the other edge buys up a small farm for
buttons to keep up the acreage. Princess Diana's brother did that. They
have so much land they can wait until the economic climates suits them to
sell very small parts.

Do you understand any economics?

Do you understand the meaning of the word?



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.488 / Virus Database: 287 - Release Date: 05/06/2003

"Terry" wrote in message
...

Interesting; When I visited the UK in
2000 after a continuous absence of
40 years
I couldn't understand
why there were housing shortages and
such UK high housing costs.

The situation need not exist if they allow people access to land to build
their own homes with their own money. Instead we spend huge amounts of
taxpayers money, directly and indirectly, building very small homes to
attempt to fill the homes shortage gap. We always have a homes shortage, the
UK is always has a housing crisis and has had one for the past 200 years.
None of it makes sense at all, well not to the average intelligent person.
It makes sense to large land owners who are amongst the riches people in the
UK...by doing nothing inventive or creative or showing much business
acumen.....just taking rent The situation need not exist.

Land landowners have been engaged in a propaganda campaign for decades in
order to convince the people of the UK that we don't have land, the
countryside is precious and it should be left alone. They have largely
succeeded. People do actually believe it. Wrell they would if they have
been spoon fed lies for decades. Firstly we have a land surplus, secondly,
the countryside is mainly filled with boring open fields of great vsual
merit with much of it subsidised in many ways.



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.488 / Virus Database: 287 - Release Date: 05/06/2003

IMM wrote:

Firstly we have a land surplus, secondly,
the countryside is mainly filled with boring open fields of great vsual
merit with much of it subsidised in many ways.

I don't find any of our open fields boring, and I can assure you
they aren't subsidised in any way. I am sure many others are in
the exact same situation (like most of my neighbours).

--
Grunff

"IMM" wrote in message
...

There is no estate over 5,000 acres in Ireland.

It is a startling expose of Britain's most valuable asset - its land. Kevin
Cahill's investigations reveal how the 6,000 or so landowners - mostly
aristocrats, but also large institutions and the Crown - own about 40
million acres [the UK has 60 million in total], two thirds of the country,

So that's about 6,666 acres each on average for 0.01% of the population.

- Compares landownership in Britain and Ireland then and now, highlighting
how Britain 70% of land is still owned by less than 1% of the population.

And still would be if the estates were limited to 70 acres.

* Agriculture only accounts for 3% of the economy.

How big do you think an average farm should be?

On Mon, 4 Aug 2003 08:45:36 UTC, "IMM" wrote:

been spoon fed lies for decades. Firstly we have a land surplus, secondly,
the countryside is mainly filled with boring open fields of great vsual
merit with much of it subsidised in many ways.

Boring open fields of great visual merit?

A man of Mystery indeed...what is he on about?

--
Bob Eager
rde at tavi.co.uk
PC Server 325*4; PS/2s 9585, 8595, 9595*2, 8580*3,
P70, PC/AT..