Why is this land priced as it is?

[Alcoblog]

Could it be that not everyone is interested in buying something without being interested in making a profit and would be interested in this sort of deal? Someone who has the cash and is quite happy to buy the land to prevent anything untoward going on in the future? Maybe likes things the way they are and wants to keep things that way ... a sort of protection policy?

 

Happy to rent to the farmer without raising it, ensuring the farmer at least gets a chance to earn a living.

I'd do it if I had spare cash. I have a friend who's done the same (although in this case, threatened woodland).

 

There was a story recently (can't be asked to google) whereby a landowner was offered somewhere along the lines of half a billion by builders, greedy to buy and erect tacky houses on the countryside he owned ... he turned it down because he didn't want to spoil the countryside for others.

 

Life isn't just about making money, there are other things.

[Cyclone]

Depends on the type on tenancy. Even a protected tenancy (e.g. 1986 Act) ends sometime. You would probably have to have good local knowledge to know if this was the case for this land. Perhaps the price reflects the probability of the tenancy ending in the near future?

 

I guess the details of the tenancy will be available to anyone who wants to get involved in the auction.

 

---------- Post added 04-06-2015 at 13:24 ----------

 

Could it be that not everyone is interested in buying something without being interested in making a profit and would be interested in this sort of deal? Someone who has the cash and is quite happy to buy the land to prevent anything untoward going on in the future? Maybe likes things the way they are and wants to keep things that way ... a sort of protection policy?

 

Happy to rent to the farmer without raising it, ensuring the farmer at least gets a chance to earn a living.

I'd do it if I had spare cash. I have a friend who's done the same (although in this case, threatened woodland).

 

There was a story recently (can't be asked to google) whereby a landowner was offered somewhere along the lines of half a billion by builders, greedy to buy and erect tacky houses on the countryside he owned ... he turned it down because he didn't want to spoil the countryside for others.

 

Life isn't just about making money, there are other things.

 

You can certainly buy things with no intention of making a profit.

 

But you can't value something like land without considering the profit that could be made, because the market for people who'd pay over the odds simply to ensure it remains a field must be very very small. At the end of the day, even they'd think that they should be able to buy it cheaper.

And if the tenancy can't be ended and has a long time to run, then there's no chance of anything happening to the land anyway.

 

I'm going to speculate and suggest that Hillsborough Golf Club will probably have offered the sale to the tenant first anyway, as that would mean no auction fee's to pay... If that's true, they've either declined it, or think they can get it cheaper at the auction.

[Chez2]

It's not really, but you see land pop up for sale all the time.

 

They can ask whatever guide price they like, but realistically the number of people out there willing to buy it is sod all.

 

If it was ripe for development it would sell quick, so it could depend on that tenancy and any building restrictions placed on the land.

But if it's 'green belt, agriculture only' land then no-one will be paying 60k for it.

 

I wouldn't be too sure! The end of the village where I live used to be a farm. It has been split up into various plots with some being developed over the last forty years. A previous owner bought the paddock next to the house for either £20k or £40k, can't remember without looking it up. This was around 1990, give or take a year or so. Its a third of an acre. We are in a green belt conservation area and its agricultural, not part of the residential curtilidge when it was bought. The previous owners said they bought it because they didn't want a business to be run so close to their boundary.

[geared]

but at the same time, Joe Bloggs isn't going to whip out 60k for a field on the off-chance planning permission may be granted at some point in the future.

 

and someone 'might' want to buy it to prevent future development that is true, but again with a buyer pool of just one or two NIMBY's you won't see 60k for the land either.

 

---------- Post added 04-06-2015 at 14:16 ----------

 

I could be wrong tho, there could be other interest or there could be more to the land than is obvious.

 

If planning is possible then it'll easily reach 60k, because you're going to have interest from lots of partys.

 

As it is even the auction is right out in the middle of sodding no-where, so not a great start to bring the punters in.

Edited June 4, 2015 by geared

[Alcoblog]

I wouldn't be too sure! The end of the village where I live used to be a farm. It has been split up into various plots with some being developed over the last forty years. A previous owner bought the paddock next to the house for either £20k or £40k, can't remember without looking it up. This was around 1990, give or take a year or so. Its a third of an acre. We are in a green belt conservation area and its agricultural, not part of the residential curtilidge when it was bought. The previous owners said they bought it because they didn't want a business to be run so close to their boundary.

 

Precisely ... sixty grad isn't really a lot in the scheme of things. Given the choice, I'd much prefer to be looking at 16.82 acres of grazing land over a load of hastily constructed newbuild shoeboxes. Peace of mind.

 

Also, I guess several people could club together to buy the land to leave it as it is ... not only for aesthetic purposes, but also perhaps to protect the value/seclusion of their own existing properties? Look at it that way and I guess the land may represent a sound financial investment.

[geared]

Precisely ... sixty grad isn't really a lot in the scheme of things. Given the choice, I'd much prefer to be looking at 16.82 acres of grazing land over a load of hastily constructed newbuild shoeboxes. Peace of mind.

 

Also, I guess several people could club together to buy the land to leave it as it is ... not only for aesthetic purposes, but also perhaps to protect the value/seclusion of their own existing properties? Look at it that way and I guess the land may represent a sound financial investment.

 

Very true, but when you look at google maps there are only one or two farmhouses in the vicinity.

 

I'm guessing one would be the current tenants???

 

but still, they might not want some houses or whatever down the road so might buy it anyway.

[foxy lady]

Don't confuse a protected tenancy on a home with a protected tenancy on agricultural land.

[Cyclone]

Precisely ... sixty grad isn't really a lot in the scheme of things. Given the choice, I'd much prefer to be looking at 16.82 acres of grazing land over a load of hastily constructed newbuild shoeboxes. Peace of mind.

Nobody is looking at it. It's not overlooked by housing. (Unless you count all the way across the valley).

But my point was, that without planning permission, why would even a NIMBY pay so much for it, since it won't sell to an investor at that price due to the very poor ROI.

 

Also, I guess several people could club together to buy the land to leave it as it is ... not only for aesthetic purposes, but also perhaps to protect the value/seclusion of their own existing properties? Look at it that way and I guess the land may represent a sound financial investment.

I looked up the responsibility re:public rights of way, and it's not a cost free venture either. You can't buy the land and forget about it.

You become responsible for the maintenance of the rights of way and contributions towards the styles and gates.

 

---------- Post added 04-06-2015 at 15:22 ----------

 

Don't confuse a protected tenancy on a home with a protected tenancy on agricultural land.

 

What are the key points of the latter?

[Alcoblog]

Nobody is looking at it. It's not overlooked by housing. (Unless you count all the way across the valley).

But my point was, that without planning permission, why would even a NIMBY pay so much for it, since it won't sell to an investor at that price due to the very poor ROI.

I looked up the responsibility re:public rights of way, and it's not a cost free venture either. You can't buy the land and forget about it.

You become responsible for the maintenance of the rights of way and contributions towards the styles and gates.

 

---------- Post added 04-06-2015 at 15:22 ----------

 

 

What are the key points of the latter?

 

Of course you wouldn't forget about it, it's rented to the farmer as grazing land isn't it?

The rights of way and maintenance are part and parcel obviously.

[Cyclone]

No, there are 2 plots. 1 rented to the farmer (no public rights of way), but a poor investment and you can't use it because of the tenancy.

1 that would be available to use personally, but with multiple public rights of way across it.