site potential - percolation test

mickdw

It would be a foolish landowner who would entertain comments from a buyer as to it's suitability for percolation or not.
Personally if I was in the sellers shoes, if the land generally has site potential in terms of size, location etc, I would be selling it as site, subject to planning.

dellas1979

abnormalnorman wrote: »

shur what's wrong with that?

I think what you are failing to understand OP is that the one thing they are not making out there is LAND.

Land is valuable commodity. Just because you want to buy this piece of land cheaper, doesnt give you the right to. The seller is selling it. Demand controls the price. Seller holds the cards. Not you. Youve no control over that. Which is what youre trying to do - control the situation.

How have you managed to get onto the land and dig holes? What is the understanding between you and the seller?

dellas1979

abnormalnorman wrote: »

seller may have no other choice if they wants to sell it at all.

You seem to know a lot about the seller's circumstances.

Does he/she know what you are trying to do? He/she must have an idea-if youre on this property digging holes...

I think youre the one going to get goosed here, if you keep trying to out smart seller (and apparently noone here understands you?)

Demand (or lack of) might lower the price. Being sneaky (I cant see how youre allowed on someone's land to dig holes-the seller to me looks like is under the illusion you are digging holes for planning).

fepper

Metric Tensor wrote: »

Leave the vendor with his roadside holding regardless of whether it is a site or not and offer him agriculture value with a small premium to buy a piece of his land away from the road that will never be a site.

Obviously pay for a right of way into it too.

Most farmers have bits and pieces of out fields and scrubland that are feck all use for farming but ideal for bee hives.

I'd say most farmers would rather be looking at scrubland than dealing with this potential buyer of it

Lumen

dellas1979 wrote: »

Land is valuable commodity.

That's not really true in any meaningful way. The financial yield on an acre of farmland is absolutely tiny, and you can extrapolate that up to a price based on prevailing real rates on return on various investments. There's a reason most farms in the world are hundreds or thousands of acres.

Put it this way, if you retired with a lump of cash, how much land would you have to buy to generate an income to live off from renting it out? Answer: a lot.

What's valuable is land with planning permission suitable for building on.

abnormalnorman

fepper wrote: »

I'd say most farmers would rather be looking at scrubland than dealing with this potential buyer of it

youd know a lot about it alright id say fepper!!

abnormalnorman

dellas1979 wrote: »

You seem to know a lot about the seller's circumstances.

Does he/she know what you are trying to do? He/she must have an idea-if youre on this property digging holes...

I think youre the one going to get goosed here, if you keep trying to out smart seller (and apparently noone here understands you?)

if u must know dellas , i own the land all around this "site" , and so know exactly what the soil is like from digging holes on my land over the past 20 years. There's no one being "sneaky"!

Dont worry Dellas, i wont be getting "goosed" at all.!

Can you be a bit more polite in your comments in future, else dont bother.

rayjdav

This is post 58 or so... It was answered in the first page, correctly and with direct reference... Eventually someone will come along and give the answer they are looking (waiting) for :rolleyes::rolleyes::D:D:P

abnormalnorman

rayjdav wrote: »

This is post 58 or so... It was answered in the first page, correctly and with direct reference... Eventually someone will come along and give the answer they are looking (waiting) for :rolleyes::rolleyes::D:D:P

good man rayjdav. another useful comment from you. are you sure its 58 posts? that's great to know! maybe go off and count them there just to make sure

db

abnormalnorman wrote: »

if u must know dellas , i own the land all around this "site" , and so know exactly what the soil is like from digging holes on my land over the past 20 years. There's no one being "sneaky"!

Dont worry Dellas, i wont be getting "goosed" at all.!

Can you be a bit more polite in your comments in future, else dont bother.

Based on this post above I very much doubt you want this land for beehives. The owner of the land is selling it and you want it but don't want to pay site value for it. You are being underhand trying to convince the seller the land is not suitable for a site. If he has any sense he will only let you dig holes after you have a contract to buy subject to planning.

sydthebeat

if abman owns all the land around it.. and wants this land so badly....

then all the cards are in the sellers hands

Metric Tensor

abnormalnorman wrote: »

i own the land all around this "site"

Then he has you by the short and curlies!


No way around it - you will be paying over the odds for the portion of land. Your best bet would be to pretend you have no interest in it - but that ship has sailed!

abnormalnorman

i find it unbelievable the speculative / non relative comments some people put up on this site.

Read my initial query , and then if you dont have a helpfull comment then just move on please!!

Ye must have very little else to do!


Thankfully i have had some usefull comments that has helped.

Thread closed

BryanF

abnormalnorman wrote: »

Is there any way I can show indicatively that a site would not pass the percolation tests, or does not have site potential, without digging the large percolation holes, or appointing an engineer?

Can i do a indicative perc test without extensive digging?

To answer your specific questions based on the information you’ve suppiled:

No

&

No


Shall we close the thread now ?

abnormalnorman

BryanF wrote: »

To answer your specific questions based on the information you’ve suppiled:

No

&

No

Thats incorrect BryanF,

As Sydthebeat has kindly highlighted within this informative thread, "A high water table can mean a refusal of permission regardless of the treatment proposed"


So, in answer to my query, if i can dig a hole with my shovel , and see the water table not far below the surface (which i know i can do) , then as per the EPA guidelines, chances are planning will be refused. And so no need for extensive digging , or an engineer, for this indicative test. Thats my question answered, happy days.

No need for half the non relevant, speculative comments received in this thread.

So , happy to close thread now please, thanks

sydthebeat

abnormalnorman wrote: »

Thats incorrect BryanF,

As Sydthebeat has kindly highlighted within this informative thread, "A high water table can mean a refusal of permission regardless of the treatment proposed"


So, in answer to my query, if i can dig a hole with my shovel , and see the water table not far below the surface (which i know i can do) , then as per the EPA guidelines, chances are planning will be refused. And so no need for extensive digging , or an engineer, for this indicative test. Thats my question answered, happy days.

No need for half the non relevant, speculative comments received in this thread.

So , happy to close thread now please, thanks

1. how can you do that on someones elses land? that could be considered both trespassing and property damage

2. why would ANYBODY accept some randomers argument that i dug a hole therefore planing permission would be refused.... thats so naive its practically a joke.

Bryans answers we both correct, and my responses have said nothing to counter that... youve obviously interpreted them to mean something else.

the water table hole in the EPA document is required to be a minimum of 2.0 m deep..... its not a case of stopping cos you meet water... there are many many reason youd meet water when digging.... not just because thats where the water table is.

abnormalnorman

sydthebeat wrote: »

1. how can you do that on someones elses land? that could be considered both trespassing and property damage

2. why would ANYBODY accept some randomers argument that i dug a hole therefore planing permission would be refused.... thats so naive its practically a joke.

Bryans answers we both correct, and my responses have said nothing to counter that... youve obviously interpreted them to mean something else.

the water table hole in the EPA document is required to be a minimum of 2.0 m deep..... its not a case of stopping cos you meet water... there are many many reason youd meet water when digging.... not just because thats where the water table is.

dont worry about it Sydthebeat!!

shur i know there's many reasons youd meet water .. . . .im talking about the water table !!!

Shur how do you know that the owner wont be digging them with me!! I havent provided any details on how the holes would be dug, as its not relevant to my query- why is everyone focussing on this point!!

we'll leave it at that lads, thanks ☺

close thread if you wish, im happy with the info i received.

Moving onto my next project now!