Does land have to be adjacent to improve property value?

LBUK_2

Hello,

I live in a village of about 100 houses in a conservation area that is surrounded by grazing land owned by farmers and woodland.

When I moved here I tried buying land adjacent to my property and the only reply I got was "you don't sell land here".

Five years later and someone did and it went for £20,000 per acre and I managed to get an acre - just!

It's not adjacent to my house, it's a short 5 minute walk away, so I'm wondering if it would still add the £20k value to my property or if I'd be better off selling the land seperately.

Just thinking long term xx

stator

It's very unlikely to add £20k to your house. I would sell it separately since there might be considerable interest from locals. A new buyer from your house will likely have no use for it.

DaftyDuck

It really won't add value to your house, unless your house is of the "equestrian" description in estate agent terms. If so, stick a couple of stables on it, and sell it to a couple, so their kids (Druisillidia and Herminthoni) can have room for a pony.

Whether you'll get the same money back as you paid for it.... depends if it borders anyone else's property, or if you can get planning permission for a couple of houses....

I suppose the question I'd love to know.... why, exactly, did you buy it?

Davesnave

Sorry, but I disagree with the above answers.

A 5 minute walk is common where Jemima's pony is concerned, so I'd link land and house when selling, at least until I'd satisfied myself there was no demand for the package.

People who want property with land prefer the two to be contiguous, but there are always those for whom the cost of that will be above what they can afford and still have an acceptable house in the area of choice. That's your market, though an acre is a minimum.

The area matters, though. There are plenty of places where being at a short distance from livestock is no great worry, and there are the other places where security is a real concern. 'Conservation area' probably means you'll be OK there.

tea-bag

Land adjacent to the house WILL always be more valuable just so people could get services for a start. I looked at a house recently that has a acre opposite the house with a road between I ruled it out because of the cost getting services on.

Also if it is attached it is easier to get away with permitted development for outbuildings and the like.

eddddy

I think local EAs with local knowledge will be far more able to answer your question than anyone here.

But I guess you can hedge your bets when you decide to sell by saying something like "House for sale at £x, with the option of buying a parcel of land with it for £y".

Then see what offers you get for either or both.

lincroft1710

Agree with Davesnave

Hoploz

I think it would be an idea to investigate what sort of planning restrictions and covenants apply to the land.

An acre is ideal for a horse, but only if you can get permission for a stable, for example.

If you can't erect anything at all then it's usefulness is limited.

If you could build (unlikely) then the sky's the limit, obviously.

Davesnave

Hoploz wrote: »

I think it would be an idea to investigate what sort of planning restrictions and covenants apply to the land.

An acre is ideal for a horse, but only if you can get permission for a stable, for example.

If you can't erect anything at all then it's usefulness is limited.

If you could build (unlikely) then the sky's the limit, obviously.

The availability of water is the most important factor, though few plots will be sold without it, or without easy access in the road outside.

While far from ideal, the use of a mobile field shelter might sidestep planning for stables.

Any plot can be turned into an orchard, and an allotment does not require change of use, though a garden would. (Sometimes the differences are subtle!)