Farmland behind house being sold... devaluation question etc

Section62

Eldi_Dos said:

The assumption that living next door to a field is desirable and adds value to a property does not sit well with me, drift from spraying is common and is something I would consider.
Anyone starting out and bringing up a young family would do well take that into account when buying a property.

"The Plant Protection Products (Sustainable Use) Regulations 2012 require that the application of plant protection products (PPP) must be confined to the land, crop, structure, material or other area to be treated. The spray must not drift outside the area of application."

https://www.hse.gov.uk/pesticides/using-pesticides/spray-drift/index.htm

Farmers aren't stupid - as well as controls on the use of PPP's, they now cost stupid amounts of money.  If they are allowing their expensive chemicals to drift onto neighbouring land they are not only breaking the law, they are also wasting money - and the margins in agriculture are such that no farmer who wants to stay in business will be drifting their spray all over the neighbourhood.

On the other hand, controls on the use of pesticides by residential users are considerably weaker and rarely enforced.  If someone bringing up a young family wants to worry about something their effort might be better employed worrying about what chemicals the owner of the house next door has got hold of and is liberally applying to their garden and drive.

theartfullodger

The horrors of living next to other people!   I'm sure everyone sympathises with you.

Emmia

OP if you want to always enjoy a view, then you need to own the land providing that view.

My ex's parents built a house and bought all the land providing the view they liked, then leased it back to the farmer. Yes, they had a lot of money.

Eldi_Dos

As I say not in my experience, my work often entailed working on verges of rural roads and railway lines and at certain times of the year drift was a problem.Whether farmers thought no members of the public are about they could pump up the volume I could only speculate.
On some railway contracts I was on it was spoken about at certain times of the year in mess rooms so not just one persons limited experience.

As for the assertion that farmers arent stupid, operatives are under pressure to get things done.Make hay while the sun shines.

Bookworm105

MobileSaver said:

Eldi_Dos said:

The assumption that living next door to a field is desirable and adds value to a property does not sit well with me, drift from spraying is common and is something I would consider.
Anyone starting out and bringing up a young family would do well take that into account when buying a property.

The chance of living so close to a field that spray is an issue is tiny; the risk that the spray is toxic is miniscule.

There are some things in life that people should worry about but this isn't one of them. You don't need to be Einstein to work out that the benefits of living next to open countryside far outweigh any paranoid concerns!

totally agree !

Eldi_Dos

Bookworm105 said:

MobileSaver said:

Eldi_Dos said:

The assumption that living next door to a field is desirable and adds value to a property does not sit well with me, drift from spraying is common and is something I would consider.
Anyone starting out and bringing up a young family would do well take that into account when buying a property.

The chance of living so close to a field that spray is an issue is tiny; the risk that the spray is toxic is miniscule.

There are some things in life that people should worry about but this isn't one of them. You don't need to be Einstein to work out that the benefits of living next to open countryside far outweigh any paranoid concerns!

totally agree !

Believe Einstein did most of his best work while living in a urban environment.

BarelySentientAI

Section62 said:

Sapindus said:

mark25810 said:

As it would not be fair

Interesting interpretation of the word "fair"...

In terms of 'fair'ness, the current system also contains the inequity that compensation is usually not due to neighbours when a private developer does something, but if a public body caries out work on land the neighbours often have a statutory right to compensation reflecting the depreciated value of their interest in land (Land Compensation Act 1973).

Which I, personally, think is wrong.  Neither method of development should provide compensation to people solely affected by a depreciated value.

Eldi_Dos

BarelySentientAI said:

Section62 said:

Sapindus said:

mark25810 said:

As it would not be fair

Interesting interpretation of the word "fair"...

In terms of 'fair'ness, the current system also contains the inequity that compensation is usually not due to neighbours when a private developer does something, but if a public body caries out work on land the neighbours often have a statutory right to compensation reflecting the depreciated value of their interest in land (Land Compensation Act 1973).

Which I, personally, think is wrong.  Neither method of development should provide compensation to people solely affected by a depreciated value.

The people living along the route of HS2 might disagree with that but it would be interesting to know if there would have been enough left in the kitty to get the route to Manchester if such compensation had not been paid out.

Section62

Eldi_Dos said:

As I say not in my experience, my work often entailed working on verges of rural roads and railway lines and at certain times of the year drift was a problem.Whether farmers thought no members of the public are about they could pump up the volume I could only speculate.

Volume isn't really the issue - drifting usually happens when the wind is too strong or the sprayer boom is set excessively high for the crop. And again, the chemicals are expensive - farmers won't 'pump up the volume' and apply more chemical than is necessary to achive the required result. Spraying is like spreading £20 notes across the field - done because there is a need and except for relatively isolated cases, done to the minimum possible extent.

Eldi_Dos said:

As for the assertion that farmers arent stupid, operatives are under pressure to get things done.Make hay while the sun shines.

Farm operatives need a 'PA' certificate to show they are competent to spray and that requires a training course they (or their employer) had to pay for.  Without a 'PA' you are less employable.  Farm workers aren't stupid either and most know that breaking the pesticide regulations and loss of their PA would seriously impact on their employability and wage.

Haymaking is a time-critical operation. The grass has to be cut, dried, baled and cleared in a period of dry weather when the grass/hay itself provides optimum nutritional value. Hence the phrase in bold.

Spraying isn't so time sensitive - it would be very unlikely that the spraying cannot be delayed until the weather conditions are right.  Also, applying an excess quantity of spray is more time-consuming that applying the correct amount - more spray = more time filling the tank and mixing the chemical, and depending on the sprayer's capacity, possibly more time in additional trips between the farmstead and field to refill the sprayer.  If someone wanted to cut corners and get the job done quicker then underapplying is more likely to save time than overapplying.

That doesn't mean that nobody ever allows some drift onto neighbouring land, just that it isn't as common as it once was and really isn't a sensible reason for avoiding buying a property in a rural area.  If someone was particularly concerned or sensitive to chemicals then a polite request to the farmer for them to let you know when spraying was going to be done is very likely to be agreed to.

If there was a reason to be wary about living in the countryside then maybe it is the seasonal need for work to be done on the land very late at night - farmers round here are often still combining or baling at 1am which can be disturbing.  But then if a bit of engine noise is troublesome then living in a town or city is probably not going to be much better either.

lincroft1710

Section62 said:

Sapindus said:

mark25810 said:

As it would not be fair

Interesting interpretation of the word "fair"...

Not sure what interpretation you have of the word then, but I think the OP has a valid point.  Under the current system the landowner and developer make all the profit (after the local authority and government take their cut) but the local community have all the hassle of living with years of uncertainty and disruption and at the end of it find themselves living in a different place to that where they purchased.

In terms of 'fair'ness, the current system also contains the inequity that compensation is usually not due to neighbours when a private developer does something, but if a public body caries out work on land the neighbours often have a statutory right to compensation reflecting the depreciated value of their interest in land (Land Compensation Act 1973).

Some of the responses the OP has had seem rather harsh and unkind to what was a fairly reasonable post.  I have to wonder how the authors of those posts might react if the government proposed building a new road/railway/pylons/incinerator/nuclear power station near their homes, and whether they would welcome it with open arms or stamp their feet and complain bitterly that it wasn't right?  For some reason new housing seems to be treated differently to all the other infrastructure society needs to function - often required to support housing growth - so I can see how some people would see that as unfair.

I think the principle is that living in a house you expect to have houses next to you, but not motorways, new rail lines etc.


It is a very long time since I had a dealing with LCA 1973 cases, but most related to land being taken, either part or the whole plot due to compulsory acquisition