29th May 2004, 08:52 PM
The economics of selling off your garden do vary from place to place but is a nice little earner in most places. I am talking about the profit to the land owner - the capital gain. This can be achieved at no risk to the house holder - a development company will pay for the permissions in turn for a lower price for the land.
To give a real world example of the economics. Take a Garden of 1/5 of an acre (developers always work in imperial). Developing the plot would cost:
150k for building a 2000 square foot house - a large four/five bedroom executive house.
Professional fees 10,000
Landscaping 10,000
Garage 10,000
Finance 10,000
Archaeology 500 - the Local unit for a day doing a watching brief
Excavation 20k - if the entire plot needed excavation. Net cost 210k. The value of the house would be 750 k. Thus if permission could be obtained - it can not be - developing backland plots was stopped along time ago then the net total profit on the land and the development would be 540k more than the total amount I have earned in my career in archaeology.
Would I be bothered about 20k on an excavation in my back garden and thus losing 5% of my profit or six months salary?
Raising the finance is easy once you have planning permission provided professionals are involved and provided there is no archaeology. Archaeology is something that makes banks very nervous.
Recent studies by the IFA have shown that in particular the built environment and standing monuments are good for people's health. I am not convinced the 2/3 of watching briefs and evaluations that do not find anything are that necessary however.
I am amazed how most people think that archaeologists and conservation professionals are not involved at an early stage in development. I do 50% of my work at the purchase or sale stage depending on which side of the fence I am sitting on often I value the land taking the archaeological costs into account - hence why I can do development appraisals in my head. I have absolutely no sympathy for developers who donot involve archaeological consultants at the outset.
In fact the reason why they donot do so is that they take the view that as soon as you involve an archaeologist they will spend your money. Thus it is better to wait until the black spot is placed on the development and you know everything is neccessary.
Current conservation and political thinking for one of the parties - the one that has a policy on archaeology (David is it OK to be political at election time?) - is that purpose and social good are important. Historic assets may be traded for social good - this is current thinking. As I put in a letter to my local newspaper: which is more important affordable housing for the young or the views of two old buildings (both 2* by the way). Part of a historic asset may be traded in order to preserve the rest and planning permission granted when it otherwise would not.
If government subsidy for the historic environment is available would it not be better spending it on the 17.5% of grade 1 and grade II listed buildings which are at risk of falling down or being demolished compared to subsidising house holders like me making a profit. Would it not be better spending the money on more museums?
I would also suggest a tad cynically that objectors to development particularly local residents suddenly discover there historic environment and are suddenly in favour of preserving it. If it will stop a school then the view will be "the education of one child is more important than that the view of a Saxon earthwork".
Peter Wardle
PS somebody I know in our village is just about to apply for permisison to build a few houses on the land around his house. About 20 acres worth.
To give a real world example of the economics. Take a Garden of 1/5 of an acre (developers always work in imperial). Developing the plot would cost:
150k for building a 2000 square foot house - a large four/five bedroom executive house.
Professional fees 10,000
Landscaping 10,000
Garage 10,000
Finance 10,000
Archaeology 500 - the Local unit for a day doing a watching brief
Excavation 20k - if the entire plot needed excavation. Net cost 210k. The value of the house would be 750 k. Thus if permission could be obtained - it can not be - developing backland plots was stopped along time ago then the net total profit on the land and the development would be 540k more than the total amount I have earned in my career in archaeology.
Would I be bothered about 20k on an excavation in my back garden and thus losing 5% of my profit or six months salary?
Raising the finance is easy once you have planning permission provided professionals are involved and provided there is no archaeology. Archaeology is something that makes banks very nervous.
Recent studies by the IFA have shown that in particular the built environment and standing monuments are good for people's health. I am not convinced the 2/3 of watching briefs and evaluations that do not find anything are that necessary however.
I am amazed how most people think that archaeologists and conservation professionals are not involved at an early stage in development. I do 50% of my work at the purchase or sale stage depending on which side of the fence I am sitting on often I value the land taking the archaeological costs into account - hence why I can do development appraisals in my head. I have absolutely no sympathy for developers who donot involve archaeological consultants at the outset.
In fact the reason why they donot do so is that they take the view that as soon as you involve an archaeologist they will spend your money. Thus it is better to wait until the black spot is placed on the development and you know everything is neccessary.
Current conservation and political thinking for one of the parties - the one that has a policy on archaeology (David is it OK to be political at election time?) - is that purpose and social good are important. Historic assets may be traded for social good - this is current thinking. As I put in a letter to my local newspaper: which is more important affordable housing for the young or the views of two old buildings (both 2* by the way). Part of a historic asset may be traded in order to preserve the rest and planning permission granted when it otherwise would not.
If government subsidy for the historic environment is available would it not be better spending it on the 17.5% of grade 1 and grade II listed buildings which are at risk of falling down or being demolished compared to subsidising house holders like me making a profit. Would it not be better spending the money on more museums?
I would also suggest a tad cynically that objectors to development particularly local residents suddenly discover there historic environment and are suddenly in favour of preserving it. If it will stop a school then the view will be "the education of one child is more important than that the view of a Saxon earthwork".
Peter Wardle
PS somebody I know in our village is just about to apply for permisison to build a few houses on the land around his house. About 20 acres worth.