Should we buy the land.......????

AdrianC

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

Which I've just interpreted as meaning the Fair Price to pay is 60% of any "added value" the house gets from having the land.

In the opinion of one particular surveyor.
The opinion of others may differ. The opinion of the added value may differ.

Some people would be prepared to overpay. Some not. I'm in the "not" camp personally - as it would "nag at me" every time I used the land and I'd feel irritated by it and would be remembering what else I could have done with the money I'd overpaid.

The choice probably isn't, though, between "overpaying" and "paying a fair value". The choice is probably between "overpaying" and "no sale".

moneyistooshorttomention

Hence why I said that some people (including myself) would not be buying the land after all - rather than overpaying. So it would be "no sale" if I was quoted too high a price.

That's my choice - I could live with wanting to use the land more easily than with being irritated at having overpaid for it and thinking what else I could have done with that money.

Others would grit teeth and pay up.

Personally - if I were told to pay £4,000 over the odds for that bit of land or not be able to get it - then I would be all too conscious what else I could do with my £4,000 overcharge money. Maybe if one is completely financially straight and has spare money "knocking around" that you're honestly wondering what to do with - then some people would make a different decision. I'd be there thinking "That £4,000 overcharge would go a fair bit of the way towards my new kitchen/making my savings back up again to a reasonable level/etc/etc."

Each to their own.

Davesnave

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

Which I've just interpreted as meaning the Fair Price to pay is 60% of any "added value" the house gets from having the land.

Why? You are forgetting the added utility of increasing a garden's size can make a fundamental difference to the enjoyment of the property.

One doesn't just improve property to increase value, but to make it much more pleasant to live in.

In the specific case I mentioned above, I was offering a chance to double the size of the gardens. Ultimately, the purchasers realised it was one that was too good to miss.

My purchasers also thought I'd accept a valuation as 'garden land,'divorced from context, but as in so many things, context is everything. Those £300k houses with 15' back gardens had little scope for extension.The situation's entirely different now there's 35' there to play with.

StumpyPumpy

It is not "overpaying" it is paying what you think it is worth. If you don't think it is worth it, you don't pay.

The sale of this land is a unique proposal. It isn't as if you can buy this land from someone else, so the only valuation that is relevant to you is how much you're prepared to spend; and to the vendor, how much he is prepared to let it go for. You use experts to colour your view, but in the end it is your money not theirs.

SP

Davesnave

OP, you say that the vendor won't sell to the owners of the other two properties.

Would there be any mileage in your buying the plot and then selling what you don't need to one or other of your neighbours?

patman99

Depending on the shape of the piece of land, Davesnave's idea could actually give each house parking at the rear, which you could offer for rent of say, £20 per week. That would give you a potential of £2k before Tax.

This could be even more if there is enough space to divide the land into more parking for rent. Could be a nice little earner.

350 square metres could be a piece of land 10m wide by 35m long. This could give you 16 parking plots @ 2m wide x 6m deep (allows for a 4m 'road' for vehicles to manouvre very easily).

Now, that £20 per week per plot would generate a potential £320 per week before Tax.

Makes that piece of land look a very attractive purchase to me even at £15k.

Money_saving_maniac

Davesnave wrote: »

Why? You are forgetting the added utility of increasing a garden's size can make a fundamental difference to the enjoyment of the property.

One doesn't just improve property to increase value, but to make it much more pleasant to live in.

In the specific case I mentioned above, I was offering a chance to double the size of the gardens. Ultimately, the purchasers realised it was one that was too good to miss.

My purchasers also thought I'd accept a valuation as 'garden land,'divorced from context, but as in so many things, context is everything. Those £300k houses with 15' back gardens had little scope for extension.The situation's entirely different now there's 35' there to play with.

I have a 90 foot garden. If the back neighbours offered me theirs for 5k I'd buy it. I'd probably even buy it for 7k. It would be worth nothing and add nothing to the value of the house but it would add enormously to my enjoyment.

Davesnave

Money_saving_maniac wrote: »

I have a 90 foot garden. If the back neighbours offered me theirs for 5k I'd buy it. I'd probably even buy it for 7k. It would be worth nothing and add nothing to the value of the house but it would add enormously to my enjoyment.

Sometimes, people even buy land without any intention of enjoying or developing it.

I remember a house we viewed which had around an acre of easy garden in front of it. The owners had bought a fairly steep strip of woodland behind, but they'd hardly set foot in it.

They explained that the woodland secured the privacy of their plot for years to come, as that was the only direction from which it could be easily overlooked.

moneyistooshorttomention

So what value would be attributable then to a piece of land that could only be used as extra garden space - be it by the current owner or by anyone else.

It's literally impossible to develop it (for a variety of reasons) - eg the person wanting it could and would prevent it. Also the person wanting it couldnt use it for an extension if they wanted to.

All round - whoever has it = it literally can't be anything other than garden. The current owner isn't using it for anything.

Davesnave

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

So what value would be attributable then to a piece of land that could only be used as extra garden space - be it by the current owner or by anyone else.

It's literally impossible to develop it (for a variety of reasons) - eg the person wanting it could and would prevent it. Also the person wanting it couldnt use it for an extension if they wanted to.

All round - whoever has it = it literally can't be anything other than garden. The current owner isn't using it for anything.

Pure garden land will vary in price due to factors like location, views, parking, soil etc, but ultimately it's still down to what the owner will accept in exchange for its loss.

In many instances, I suspect that the down-sides for the current owner could include a loss of privacy and/or control, such that a sale at 'normal' prices would be unattractive.

Even a small plot could, theoretically, be used for camping 28 days a year.