What the bloody hell.have they been up to for months? I thought the big advantage of AZN / OXford vaccine was well established how to make it at scale and they would be making millions of doses well in advance of any potential approval.
Told you not to place your faith in the University of Oxford.
I always get the impression that him being on fire would be the only thing that may give you pause in this activity.
Social distancing would make this a feat worth seeing.
Isabella, Duchess of York, gave birth to a son when her husband had not been within ten miles of her for over four years.
He must have had truly awesome powers of ejaculation and aim.
Perhaps he used a turkey baster?
I miss Sunset Beach.
One of my all time fav programmes. Absolutely ridiculous
Annie mmmm
Was a staple of my student days.
I used to watch it in the mornings before starting work in the bookies for Evening Racing. 1997 I guess. The couple that talked over the closing credits were funny, and the Vicar was the best looking bloke in it! Turned out to be all Meg's dream didnt it?
I never made it to the end, I think I watched bits between 1997 and 1998, I think I ended up stop watching around the time of the tsunami and supernatural jewellery plot lines.
What the bloody hell.have they been up to for months? I thought the big advantage of AZN / OXford vaccine was well established how to make it at scale and they would be making millions of doses well in advance of any potential approval.
Told you not to place your faith in the University of Oxford.
Where is the Cambridge vaccine?
It got given to the Russians. How do you think they were so quick off the mark with Sputnik?
I may have a chance to buy 1/3rd acre of land behind by garden. I currently rent it from the landowner. How can a fair price be established? Would it be a multiple of the rent or is there a per acre guide for "garden land". There is no development potential and the land is on a slope and is no use to a farmer or as a horse paddock.
Alternatively, would the adjusted garden size - which would be increasing sixfold I guess - put value on my house? And if so would the current landowner argue for the extra value?
Finally, would there be a separate land ownership for the land in isolation with the land registry, or would the boundaries of my current plot be expanded to envelope the new land? Are there any stamp duty implications either way?
Any help much appreciated.
I disagree with most of the others on this except perhaps @TimT and @MarqueeMark.
It is a marketplace of one buyer and one seller, so considerations such as "fair market price" are peripheral at best. It is worth what you will buy it for and the Great Estate will sell it for, nothing else.
You need to put yourself in their head and do a cost benefit from their point of view.
I would punt that they have let it for a relative peppercorn because it saves them having to spend some time and £200-£500 a year + admin managing it.
I would say it may add value to your house, but perhaps only 1-3%, for the correct buyer. If your street is all samey then it is an advantage.
Planning: the content of the rental agreement is private, and therefore not a Relevant Planning Matter; they could claim it was an elephant for all it matters. Though long term proven usage as a garden may give you a right to do so by prescription if no one has attempted to enforce. You would need I think 10 years proven use. Perhaps buy it with "can't be sure it is garden" as your argument, then serve your proof on the Council later. Though the GE surely know their planning stuff.
Stuff that matters is whether it is a small awkward parcel that makes one of their fields square, whether they think *they* can develop it in the next hundred years, whether the transaction is big enough to be worth the bother etc. They could use it eg as part of the compulsory 10% open space in a medium sized estate to allow more houses on the flat bit, or as a quid pro quo to make another development acceptable (which was what Sarah Beeny did).
Don't forget that in a couple of years they may be able to gain an income from "public funds for public goods" by turning it into a wildlife meadow or a copse.
I would say that anything under 20k will not be worth the hassle for them, so perhaps start with 20k + an overage clause, and willing to go to double or treble that, and paying costs. Expect maybe 2k to 5k costs if you have a custom agreement. You could even offer a preemptive right ro repurchase at double plus land inflation.
Can you get some neighbours to make parallel offers, to make it a bigger deal?
On the parcel, you either have the buggeration of combining now, or of combining them when you sell. I would do it now, as time is of the essence when selling.
There is a sweet spot for you in that Stamp Duty does not apply (I think) on transactions under 40k.
I started typing the same sort of reply and then stopped as I got myself tied in knots.
I potentially have the same scenario at both my houses. In our case (which I am guessing might be your case also) the land is of no use to anyone but me and the person I might buy it off. On that basis there is no market price as there is no competition. We will both have a price we are willing to pay/accept. If close enough we will strike a deal. If not we won't. 2 other people in the same circumstances may have a completely different figure in mind.
So basically if they are the circumstances you are in it is worth what you (and only you) are willing to pay.
So South Yorkshire is remaining in Tier 3, I laugh at all of you in Tier 4.
This new mutant virus knows better than to attack people from Yorkshire because we're hard as nails.
Or perhaps because we greet long lost relatives with an anti-socially distanced 'ey up' from a minimum of 5 yards.
None of this touchy feely nonsense.
Seriously though, there's no lockdown in this part of Yorkshire judging by the number of people out and about - and yet the last I saw was that the prevalence is still dropping and we are way below the levels in mid-October. Odd.
What the bloody hell.have they been up to for months? I thought the big advantage of AZN / OXford vaccine was well established how to make it at scale and they would be making millions of doses well in advance of any potential approval.
Told you not to place your faith in the University of Oxford.
Where is the Cambridge vaccine?
We're doing the proper work on sequencing/analysing the plague.
That confused me when it happened given its proximity to South Wales which was clearly struggling.
I think it's probably because it had no cases in Tier 1 (after all, it is very remote and thinly populated - there is only one town above 11,000 people) but it only has one very small hospital and no others nearby. So any rise in cases would put immediate, massive pressure on the health service.
What the bloody hell.have they been up to for months? I thought the big advantage of AZN / OXford vaccine was well established how to make it at scale and they would be making millions of doses well in advance of any potential approval.
Told you not to place your faith in the University of Oxford.
Where is the Cambridge vaccine?
The Cambridge one has its pros and cons - it's 100% effective, and 100% nonexistent...
What the bloody hell.have they been up to for months? I thought the big advantage of AZN / OXford vaccine was well established how to make it at scale and they would be making millions of doses well in advance of any potential approval.
Told you not to place your faith in the University of Oxford.
Um. I don't know how to break it to you but the University is probably not the mass producer of the vaccine, and was never intended to be. They were the ones who designed and developed it.
Only 550k doses of AZN vaccine available until Feb. That's not ideal.
Are you sure about that?
Hancock just quoted that number as available for first week of January.
It might have been poor wording, he said 550k avaiable from next week, with million(s) more available from February.
Seems unlikely there'd be zero extra available between next week and February. Odd if so.
I hope not, but clearly they have had manufacturing issues as they promised 30 million for the UK by September, the revised it down to 4 million by January, now they have just 550k coming.
Would it be easier to name the places not in Tier 4?
When Tier 4 was first announced there was a map showing the worst places for it, and I live bang in the middle! Border of Essex, Kent and London. Hooray!
So, now we know how the culprit is!
😇
I know quite a lot of people who have had it now, with quite a difference between how bad. Mainly tradesmen catching it on site where social distancing and masks aren't enforced
That exodus of Londoners. Should have blocked the ferries.
Having an influx of SeanT types fleeing the capital doubtless didn't help.
But looking at the map of where the cases are on the island, a better guess is that closing the pubs and restaurants in Portsmouth and Southampton made Ryde and Cowes attractive day tripping destinations.
Plus of course the stupidity of the Conservative Club in Shanklin holding their dinner do and becoming a hotspot.
Do we have any idea whether x% effectiveness means
(1) "x% of the population become immune with this vaccine, and can meet infected people all the time and never catch it" or (2) "everyone has a reduction of x% in the probability of catching the infection on any one occasion exposed to it"?
If (1) were the case, then if x is high (e.g. Pfizer's 95%), we might start behaving normally. In particular, NHS staff who meet infected people all the time might be well-prrotected. If (2) is the case then we still need to socially distance etc. until the spread drops so far that you rarely meet an infected person (because you'll still catch it if you keep meeting them, just "100-x%" of time you would have caught it before).
Unfortunately, I'm not sure we can answer this?
Very interesting question. Hope others more viro'd up answer but here is my take -
A vax effectiveness of 90% means that if I take it my risk of becoming infected is 10% of what it would be if I did not take it.
So, for example, if my condition and lifestyle means I have a 50% chance of getting Covid in the next 3 months, if I take the vaccine, all else being equal, my chance of getting it drops to 5%.
And then hopefully the vax does 2 other things for me. It reduces the chance of me getting VERY sick if I do get it. And it stops me somehow spreading it despite not having it.
From the national as opposed to the personal interest it is really the first of these "other things" that is the key. If you are unlucky enough to catch the virus anyway despite your improved chances you are unlikely to need hospital treatment.
Yes, that looms large in my thinking. I'd accept a higher chance of catching it in exchange for a lower chance of getting seriously ill. I'd accept being 21 again, as it were.
I think that is a good way to look at it and a good reason for our current ranking of priorities. This disease is not equal opportunity. The vast majority of 21 year olds who get it will not be ill at all. Many may not even know that they've had it. We all want to get to that stage as fast as possible but especially those who are likely to suffer serious complications as a result.
The point I do not fully get is this one about "does the vaccine stop you spreading it?" This is apparently not proven by the trials but I don't understand why not. We know it reduces the chance of being infected. So the inference here is it might be possible to pass on the virus without being infected yourself? Is that it?
Most of the trials didn't test whether people were infected, only if they were showing symptoms.
So it's possible that the vaccines prevented the symptoms, but not the infection - so a vaccinated person could still spread the virus asymptomatically to a person who hasn't received the vaccine.
Which is another reason the best thing for the NHS is to protect the 1.6 million first before doctors and nurses.
Preventing the symptoms and thus hospitalisations will go a long way to reducing the strain on the NHS. But if a doctor or nurse gets the vaccine, becomes an asymptomatic carrier and then tests positive they'll still have to be removed from the front line even though they're vaccinated.
Maybe. When things were (maybe still are?) very bad in Liege, in Belgium, in the autumn they were asking asymptomatic staff to work in the Covid wards.
If the system is on the verge of collapse it's the sort of decision that becomes necessary.
I don't think the detail of the vaccine rollout will end up making the crucial difference. The critical factor is: Can restrictions in lockdown three reduce the infection rate?
If they can't then the vaccination programme isn't going to have an effect fast enough to prevent collapse of the hospital system.
We'll find out whether the infection rate is coming under control during next week - when they'll only just be starting to use the AZN vaccine.
Something else to think of.
We are well north of 800,000 first doses.
the policy so far has been to aim for
75% over 80s 20% care home staff 5% NHS staff
The earliest numbers suggest that about 70% over 80s is being achieved, with the balance being taken up by NHS staff.
if 5% - 40,000 NHS staff if 10% - 80,000 NHS staff
Assuming these are all frontline staff (not actually the case) - somewhere between 10 and 20% of the NHS medical workforce have received their first jab.
I've just had my jab at my local surgery. I'm in the 75-79 age cohort. My surgery intends to do 3,000 vaccinations of this cohort today. Their organisation is impressive. It includes sitting with a cup of tea for 15 minutes after the jab to make sure you don't keel over. I didn't keel over.
So South Yorkshire is remaining in Tier 3, I laugh at all of you in Tier 4.
This new mutant virus knows better than to attack people from Yorkshire because we're hard as nails.
Or perhaps because we greet long lost relatives with an anti-socially distanced 'ey up' from a minimum of 5 yards.
None of this touchy feely nonsense.
Seriously though, there's no lockdown in this part of Yorkshire judging by the number of people out and about - and yet the last I saw was that the prevalence is still dropping and we are way below the levels in mid-October. Odd.
I've seen footage of Sheffield city centre and Meadowhall either side of Christmas, and it looked like a normal Christmas, other than the fact pretty much everybody was wearing masks.
Would have not been just easier to have another national lockdown, as essentially everybody is Tier 3/4.
I think so Boris Johnson can say that he's not declared another national lockdown.
With Cockey Covid, that ship has sailed. I think / hope people would cut him some slack if he went with that, given the new variant appears to infect you if you just look at somebody for more than a second.
I may have a chance to buy 1/3rd acre of land behind by garden. I currently rent it from the landowner. How can a fair price be established? Would it be a multiple of the rent or is there a per acre guide for "garden land". There is no development potential and the land is on a slope and is no use to a farmer or as a horse paddock.
Alternatively, would the adjusted garden size - which would be increasing sixfold I guess - put value on my house? And if so would the current landowner argue for the extra value?
Finally, would there be a separate land ownership for the land in isolation with the land registry, or would the boundaries of my current plot be expanded to envelope the new land? Are there any stamp duty implications either way?
Any help much appreciated.
I disagree with most of the others on this except perhaps @TimT and @MarqueeMark.
It is a marketplace of one buyer and one seller, so considerations such as "fair market price" are peripheral at best. It is worth what you will buy it for and the Great Estate will sell it for, nothing else.
You need to put yourself in their head and do a cost benefit from their point of view.
I would punt that they have let it for a relative peppercorn because it saves them having to spend some time and £200-£500 a year + admin managing it.
I would say it may add value to your house, but perhaps only 1-3%, for the correct buyer. If your street is all samey then it is an advantage.
Planning: the content of the rental agreement is private, and therefore not a Relevant Planning Matter; they could claim it was an elephant for all it matters. Though long term proven usage as a garden may give you a right to do so by prescription if no one has attempted to enforce. You would need I think 10 years proven use. Perhaps buy it with "can't be sure it is garden" as your argument, then serve your proof on the Council later. Though the GE surely know their planning stuff.
Stuff that matters is whether it is a small awkward parcel that makes one of their fields square, whether they think *they* can develop it in the next hundred years, whether the transaction is big enough to be worth the bother etc. They could use it eg as part of the compulsory 10% open space in a medium sized estate to allow more houses on the flat bit, or as a quid pro quo to make another development acceptable (which was what Sarah Beeny did).
Don't forget that in a couple of years they may be able to gain an income from "public funds for public goods" by turning it into a wildlife meadow or a copse.
I would say that anything under 20k will not be worth the hassle for them, so perhaps start with 20k + an overage clause, and willing to go to double or treble that, and paying costs. Expect maybe 2k to 5k costs if you have a custom agreement. You could even offer a preemptive right ro repurchase at double plus land inflation.
Can you get some neighbours to make parallel offers, to make it a bigger deal?
On the parcel, you either have the buggeration of combining now, or of combining them when you sell. I would do it now, as time is of the essence when selling.
There is a sweet spot for you in that Stamp Duty does not apply (I think) on transactions under 40k.
I started typing the same sort of reply and then stopped as I got myself tied in knots.
I potentially have the same scenario at both my houses. In our case (which I am guessing might be your case also) the land is of no use to anyone but me and the person I might buy it off. On that basis there is no market price as there is no competition. We will both have a price we are willing to pay/accept. If close enough we will strike a deal. If not we won't. 2 other people in the same circumstances may have a completely different figure in mind.
So basically if they are the circumstances you are in it is worth what you (and only you) are willing to pay.
Only 550k doses of AZN vaccine available until Feb. That's not ideal.
Are you sure about that?
Hancock just quoted that number as available for first week of January.
It might have been poor wording, he said 550k avaiable from next week, with million(s) more available from February.
Seems unlikely there'd be zero extra available between next week and February. Odd if so.
I hope not, but clearly they have had manufacturing issues as they promised 30 million for the UK by September, the revised it down to 4 million by January, now they have just 550k coming.
I took his statement to mean we had 530k on hand, presumably the Pfizer, with AZN "coming" and to reach millions by February. It does look as if we are starting off without a ready stock of AZN, which would explain the guy's caginess on the point this morning on R4
What the bloody hell.have they been up to for months? I thought the big advantage of AZN / OXford vaccine was well established how to make it at scale and they would be making millions of doses well in advance of any potential approval.
Told you not to place your faith in the University of Oxford.
The Hull vaccine will be riding to the rescue shortly.
So I'm heading into Tier 4 (in Yorkshire @TSE - not everywhere in the county is immune). Can't see much of a difference - almost everything is already shut and a significant proportion of the population no longer gives a toss.
Has the disgraced national security risk said what's happening to schools yet?
If you are talking of Williamson he is due on any minute now and I hope it is his last ever statement as a cabinet minister
I wrote a draft thread header some time ago - around half term - saying that the Government's position on schools was unsustainable and when it failed, Johnson would seek a scapegoat.
So if he announces what he's expected to announce, I expect your hopes to be met.
Has the disgraced national security risk said what's happening to schools yet?
This is what the government has leakedpre-briefed:
Millions of university, college and school students in England will face delays in returning to in-person classes in the new year, with some undergraduates not returning until February, the government is to announce.
Gavin Williamson, the education secretary, is due to give a statement to parliament on Wednesday afternoon confirming plans including a sharp reduction in the numbers of university students eligible to return to campus in the first weeks of January, and more rigorous testing requirements.
Secondary school pupils will not return to their classrooms in the week beginning 4 January, with most expected to have an extended holiday.
Those taking exams such as A-levels, BTecs and GCSEs will initially have online or remote lessons while schools and colleges carry out mass testing of their students, and return to school from 18 January.
Has the disgraced national security risk said what's happening to schools yet?
This is what the government has leakedpre-briefed:
Millions of university, college and school students in England will face delays in returning to in-person classes in the new year, with some undergraduates not returning until February, the government is to announce.
Gavin Williamson, the education secretary, is due to give a statement to parliament on Wednesday afternoon confirming plans including a sharp reduction in the numbers of university students eligible to return to campus in the first weeks of January, and more rigorous testing requirements.
Secondary school pupils will not return to their classrooms in the week beginning 4 January, with most expected to have an extended holiday.
Those taking exams such as A-levels, BTecs and GCSEs will initially have online or remote lessons while schools and colleges carry out mass testing of their students, and return to school from 18 January.
I wonder if he actually realises that 'those taking exams' include BTECs scheduled for *checks notes* next week?
So I'm heading into Tier 4 (in Yorkshire @TSE - not everywhere in the county is immune). Can't see much of a difference - almost everything is already shut and a significant proportion of the population no longer gives a toss.
530,000 for first week in January and scaling up after so over 2 million by the beginning of February
Was it not basically like two days ago all the newspapers were talking about the end of February being the start of easing? Bollocks now with those numbers, surely even the Easter timetable is already slipping.
Has the disgraced national security risk said what's happening to schools yet?
This is what the government has leakedpre-briefed:
Millions of university, college and school students in England will face delays in returning to in-person classes in the new year, with some undergraduates not returning until February, the government is to announce.
Gavin Williamson, the education secretary, is due to give a statement to parliament on Wednesday afternoon confirming plans including a sharp reduction in the numbers of university students eligible to return to campus in the first weeks of January, and more rigorous testing requirements.
Secondary school pupils will not return to their classrooms in the week beginning 4 January, with most expected to have an extended holiday.
Those taking exams such as A-levels, BTecs and GCSEs will initially have online or remote lessons while schools and colleges carry out mass testing of their students, and return to school from 18 January.
So I'm heading into Tier 4 (in Yorkshire @TSE - not everywhere in the county is immune). Can't see much of a difference - almost everything is already shut and a significant proportion of the population no longer gives a toss.
"no longer gives a toss."? About the shops being shut or caring which Tier they are in?
Has the disgraced national security risk said what's happening to schools yet?
If you are talking of Williamson he is due on any minute now and I hope it is his last ever statement as a cabinet minister
I wrote a draft thread header some time ago - around half term - saying that the Government's position on schools was unsustainable and when it failed, Johnson would seek a scapegoat.
So if he announces what he's expected to announce, I expect your hopes to be met.
Surely the scapegoat is Cockney Covid?
Though I too would be happy to see Williamson go, albeit for pre-existing reasons.
Has the disgraced national security risk said what's happening to schools yet?
This is what the government has leakedpre-briefed:
Millions of university, college and school students in England will face delays in returning to in-person classes in the new year, with some undergraduates not returning until February, the government is to announce.
Gavin Williamson, the education secretary, is due to give a statement to parliament on Wednesday afternoon confirming plans including a sharp reduction in the numbers of university students eligible to return to campus in the first weeks of January, and more rigorous testing requirements.
Secondary school pupils will not return to their classrooms in the week beginning 4 January, with most expected to have an extended holiday.
Those taking exams such as A-levels, BTecs and GCSEs will initially have online or remote lessons while schools and colleges carry out mass testing of their students, and return to school from 18 January.
No change for primary schools?
The DfE have said they want to keep primaries open:
Has the disgraced national security risk said what's happening to schools yet?
If you are talking of Williamson he is due on any minute now and I hope it is his last ever statement as a cabinet minister
I wrote a draft thread header some time ago - around half term - saying that the Government's position on schools was unsustainable and when it failed, Johnson would seek a scapegoat.
So if he announces what he's expected to announce, I expect your hopes to be met.
It will be a wonderful day when he is out of office
Has the disgraced national security risk said what's happening to schools yet?
If you are talking of Williamson he is due on any minute now and I hope it is his last ever statement as a cabinet minister
I wrote a draft thread header some time ago - around half term - saying that the Government's position on schools was unsustainable and when it failed, Johnson would seek a scapegoat.
So if he announces what he's expected to announce, I expect your hopes to be met.
Surely the scapegoat is Cockney Covid?
Though I too would be happy to see Williamson go, albeit for pre-existing reasons.
It might be for a delayed start - the problem will come when they can't reopen.
Has the disgraced national security risk said what's happening to schools yet?
This is what the government has leakedpre-briefed:
Millions of university, college and school students in England will face delays in returning to in-person classes in the new year, with some undergraduates not returning until February, the government is to announce.
Gavin Williamson, the education secretary, is due to give a statement to parliament on Wednesday afternoon confirming plans including a sharp reduction in the numbers of university students eligible to return to campus in the first weeks of January, and more rigorous testing requirements.
Secondary school pupils will not return to their classrooms in the week beginning 4 January, with most expected to have an extended holiday.
Those taking exams such as A-levels, BTecs and GCSEs will initially have online or remote lessons while schools and colleges carry out mass testing of their students, and return to school from 18 January.
No change for primary schools?
The DfE have said they want to keep primaries open:
How can you promise 4 million doses only 8 weeks ago (for now) and only make 500k....i have had builders with more accurate estimates of deliverables than that!
I may have a chance to buy 1/3rd acre of land behind by garden. I currently rent it from the landowner. How can a fair price be established? Would it be a multiple of the rent or is there a per acre guide for "garden land". There is no development potential and the land is on a slope and is no use to a farmer or as a horse paddock.
Alternatively, would the adjusted garden size - which would be increasing sixfold I guess - put value on my house? And if so would the current landowner argue for the extra value?
Finally, would there be a separate land ownership for the land in isolation with the land registry, or would the boundaries of my current plot be expanded to envelope the new land? Are there any stamp duty implications either way?
Any help much appreciated.
I disagree with most of the others on this except perhaps @TimT and @MarqueeMark.
It is a marketplace of one buyer and one seller, so considerations such as "fair market price" are peripheral at best. It is worth what you will buy it for and the Great Estate will sell it for, nothing else.
You need to put yourself in their head and do a cost benefit from their point of view.
I would punt that they have let it for a relative peppercorn because it saves them having to spend some time and £200-£500 a year + admin managing it.
I would say it may add value to your house, but perhaps only 1-3%, for the correct buyer. If your street is all samey then it is an advantage.
Planning: the content of the rental agreement is private, and therefore not a Relevant Planning Matter; they could claim it was an elephant for all it matters. Though long term proven usage as a garden may give you a right to do so by prescription if no one has attempted to enforce. You would need I think 10 years proven use. Perhaps buy it with "can't be sure it is garden" as your argument, then serve your proof on the Council later. Though the GE surely know their planning stuff.
Stuff that matters is whether it is a small awkward parcel that makes one of their fields square, whether they think *they* can develop it in the next hundred years, whether the transaction is big enough to be worth the bother etc. They could use it eg as part of the compulsory 10% open space in a medium sized estate to allow more houses on the flat bit, or as a quid pro quo to make another development acceptable (which was what Sarah Beeny did).
Don't forget that in a couple of years they may be able to gain an income from "public funds for public goods" by turning it into a wildlife meadow or a copse.
I would say that anything under 20k will not be worth the hassle for them, so perhaps start with 20k + an overage clause, and willing to go to double or treble that, and paying costs. Expect maybe 2k to 5k costs if you have a custom agreement. You could even offer a preemptive right ro repurchase at double plus land inflation.
Can you get some neighbours to make parallel offers, to make it a bigger deal?
On the parcel, you either have the buggeration of combining now, or of combining them when you sell. I would do it now, as time is of the essence when selling.
There is a sweet spot for you in that Stamp Duty does not apply (I think) on transactions under 40k.
Gosh @MattW that`s a great post - I don`t know where to start. (And @Gallowgate for your continued interest.)
A few things:
You ask "Can you get an area TPO on the whole thing before you conversation, such that it will make it a little less attractive as potential development?" My garden is in a conservation area. The land in question is just the other side of the conservation area boundary. There are fruit trees and a few conifers on the land. I don`t think a TPO is relevant.
The current rent that I pay to the Estate is £600 pa and this tends to rise with inflation. So not a peppercorn. Basically, I`ve been paying for the privilege of cutting the grass and the boundary hedges!
DavidL suggested 5 x this and I said that, knowing the Estate, they would not accept less than 25x. Your comments of £20k plus (plus costs) makes sense to me (getting into their head, as you say). The way I look at it is that I am committed to £600 plus inflation each year. I know I`m not really committed - but I am in reality because the land connects to my garden and I feel that it is essential to protect my outlook. (The land does not connect to anyone else`s garden.) Put simply, I wouldn`t want anyone else to rent it or own it. We have no plans to move ever so regarding this as a £600 pa plus inflation commitment leads me to think that paying, say, £30k one-off to extinguish this annual commitment is a good deal for me regardless of the value it may put on my house.
What would make it much less attractive to me is if they do like they usually do and impose restrictive covenants. I would want to have the scope of erecting a treehouse and possibly a greenhouse which the covenants usually prohibit. Mainly I would use it as a wildflower meadow and plant additional trees. it would be an environmental project for me. "Public funds for public goods" would, I think, imply public access, which would not be relevant in this case.
You say "Stuff that matters is whether it is a small awkward parcel that makes one of their fields square, whether they think *they* can develop it in the next hundred years". Yes, it is an awkward parcel and is on a gradient so severe that I have to take it diagonally with my ride-on mower. It is of no use to a farmer or horse owner and could never be developed.
Regarding combining parcels of land, wouldn`t ot be better to keep them separate to give any prospective future buyer of our house the option of having a smaller garden or a really big one?
530,000 for first week in January and scaling up after so over 2 million by the beginning of February
Was it not basically like two days ago all the newspapers were talking about the end of February being the start of easing? Bollocks now with those numbers, surely even the Easter timetable is already slipping.
Would have not been just easier to have another national lockdown, as essentially everybody is Tier 3/4.
I think so Boris Johnson can say that he's not declared another national lockdown.
Labour Party policy so a total no no. Far better to go for a new "Tier 5" applied consistently across all the various parts of the country with initially no exceptions but the theoretical possibility of localized review at some point in the future. This is what I expect to see quite soon.
Hancock clarifies - all previously vaccinated "second dose" appointments before January 4 shall go ahead, after Jan 4th will be rescheduled to later as system moves to "up to 12 weeks" for second dose.
530,000 for first week in January and scaling up after so over 2 million by the beginning of February
Was it not basically like two days ago all the newspapers were talking about the end of February being the start of easing? Bollocks now with those numbers, surely even the Easter timetable is already slipping.
Its going to be summer at best...given limitations on supply, massive undertaking on rollout and how widespread / infectious cockney covid is.
530,000 for first week in January and scaling up after so over 2 million by the beginning of February
Was it not basically like two days ago all the newspapers were talking about the end of February being the start of easing? Bollocks now with those numbers, surely even the Easter timetable is already slipping.
Its going to be summer at best...given limitations on supply, massive undertaking on rollout and how widespread / infectious cockney covid is.
If R stays about 1 despite the lockdown then it will go through the population faster than we can vaccinate.
530,000 for first week in January and scaling up after so over 2 million by the beginning of February
Was it not basically like two days ago all the newspapers were talking about the end of February being the start of easing? Bollocks now with those numbers, surely even the Easter timetable is already slipping.
Its going to be summer at best...given limitations on supply, massive undertaking on rollout and how widespread / infectious cockney covid is.
By which time Autumn will be coming. New diseases, new variants, new lockdowns!
530,000 for first week in January and scaling up after so over 2 million by the beginning of February
Was it not basically like two days ago all the newspapers were talking about the end of February being the start of easing? Bollocks now with those numbers, surely even the Easter timetable is already slipping.
Its going to be summer at best...given limitations on supply, massive undertaking on rollout and how widespread / infectious cockney covid is.
If R stays about 1 despite the lockdown then it will go through the population faster than we can vaccinate.
I may have a chance to buy 1/3rd acre of land behind by garden. I currently rent it from the landowner. How can a fair price be established? Would it be a multiple of the rent or is there a per acre guide for "garden land". There is no development potential and the land is on a slope and is no use to a farmer or as a horse paddock.
Alternatively, would the adjusted garden size - which would be increasing sixfold I guess - put value on my house? And if so would the current landowner argue for the extra value?
Finally, would there be a separate land ownership for the land in isolation with the land registry, or would the boundaries of my current plot be expanded to envelope the new land? Are there any stamp duty implications either way?
Any help much appreciated.
I disagree with most of the others on this except perhaps @TimT and @MarqueeMark.
It is a marketplace of one buyer and one seller, so considerations such as "fair market price" are peripheral at best. It is worth what you will buy it for and the Great Estate will sell it for, nothing else.
You need to put yourself in their head and do a cost benefit from their point of view.
I would punt that they have let it for a relative peppercorn because it saves them having to spend some time and £200-£500 a year + admin managing it.
I would say it may add value to your house, but perhaps only 1-3%, for the correct buyer. If your street is all samey then it is an advantage.
Planning: the content of the rental agreement is private, and therefore not a Relevant Planning Matter; they could claim it was an elephant for all it matters. Though long term proven usage as a garden may give you a right to do so by prescription if no one has attempted to enforce. You would need I think 10 years proven use. Perhaps buy it with "can't be sure it is garden" as your argument, then serve your proof on the Council later. Though the GE surely know their planning stuff.
Stuff that matters is whether it is a small awkward parcel that makes one of their fields square, whether they think *they* can develop it in the next hundred years, whether the transaction is big enough to be worth the bother etc. They could use it eg as part of the compulsory 10% open space in a medium sized estate to allow more houses on the flat bit, or as a quid pro quo to make another development acceptable (which was what Sarah Beeny did).
Don't forget that in a couple of years they may be able to gain an income from "public funds for public goods" by turning it into a wildlife meadow or a copse.
I would say that anything under 20k will not be worth the hassle for them, so perhaps start with 20k + an overage clause, and willing to go to double or treble that, and paying costs. Expect maybe 2k to 5k costs if you have a custom agreement. You could even offer a preemptive right ro repurchase at double plus land inflation.
Can you get some neighbours to make parallel offers, to make it a bigger deal?
On the parcel, you either have the buggeration of combining now, or of combining them when you sell. I would do it now, as time is of the essence when selling.
There is a sweet spot for you in that Stamp Duty does not apply (I think) on transactions under 40k.
Gosh @MattW that`s a great post - I don`t know where to start. (And @Gallowgate for your continued interest.)
A few things:
You ask "Can you get an area TPO on the whole thing before you conversation, such that it will make it a little less attractive as potential development?" My garden is in a conservation area. The land in question is just the other side of the conservation area boundary. There are fruit trees and a few conifers on the land. I don`t think a TPO is relevant.
The current rent that I pay to the Estate is £600 pa and this tends to rise with inflation. So not a peppercorn. Basically, I`ve been paying for the privilege of cutting the grass and the boundary hedges!
DavidL suggested 5 x this and I said that, knowing the Estate, they would not accept less than 25x. Your comments of £20k plus (plus costs) makes sense to me (getting into their head, as you say). The way I look at it is that I am committed to £600 plus inflation each year. I know I`m not really committed - but I am in reality because the land connects to my garden and I feel that it is essential to protect my outlook. (The land does not connect to anyone else`s garden.) Put simply, I wouldn`t want anyone else to rent it or own it. We have no plans to move ever so regarding this as a £600 pa plus inflation commitment leads me to think that paying, say, £30k one-off to extinguish this annual commitment is a good deal for me regardless of the value it may put on my house.
What would make it much less attractive to me is if they do like they usually do and impose restrictive covenants. I would want to have the scope of erecting a treehouse and possibly a greenhouse which the covenants usually prohibit. Mainly I would use it as a wildflower meadow and plant additional trees. it would be an environmental project for me. "Public funds for public goods" would, I think, imply public access, which would not be relevant in this case.
You say "Stuff that matters is whether it is a small awkward parcel that makes one of their fields square, whether they think *they* can develop it in the next hundred years". Yes, it is an awkward parcel and is on a gradient so severe that I have to take it diagonally with my ride-on mower. It is of no use to a farmer or horse owner and could never be developed.
Regarding combining parcels of land, wouldn`t ot be better to keep them separate to give any prospective future buyer of our house the option of having a smaller garden or a really big one?
Yes, with rent at that level it becomes a financial proposition, and 20-25 times the annual rent sounds about right. The point that the land only has value if there is demand for it would apply only if you were willing to walk away from renting it and no-one else was interested.
Is there an alternative of continuing to rent but under a long lease? That wouldn't change the finances, and avoid a lot of the admin, whilst giving you security to do your environmental and larking about in the trees stuff?
Do we have any idea whether x% effectiveness means
(1) "x% of the population become immune with this vaccine, and can meet infected people all the time and never catch it" or (2) "everyone has a reduction of x% in the probability of catching the infection on any one occasion exposed to it"?
If (1) were the case, then if x is high (e.g. Pfizer's 95%), we might start behaving normally. In particular, NHS staff who meet infected people all the time might be well-prrotected. If (2) is the case then we still need to socially distance etc. until the spread drops so far that you rarely meet an infected person (because you'll still catch it if you keep meeting them, just "100-x%" of time you would have caught it before).
Unfortunately, I'm not sure we can answer this?
Very interesting question. Hope others more viro'd up answer but here is my take -
A vax effectiveness of 90% means that if I take it my risk of becoming infected is 10% of what it would be if I did not take it.
So, for example, if my condition and lifestyle means I have a 50% chance of getting Covid in the next 3 months, if I take the vaccine, all else being equal, my chance of getting it drops to 5%.
And then hopefully the vax does 2 other things for me. It reduces the chance of me getting VERY sick if I do get it. And it stops me somehow spreading it despite not having it.
From the national as opposed to the personal interest it is really the first of these "other things" that is the key. If you are unlucky enough to catch the virus anyway despite your improved chances you are unlikely to need hospital treatment.
Yes, that looms large in my thinking. I'd accept a higher chance of catching it in exchange for a lower chance of getting seriously ill. I'd accept being 21 again, as it were.
I think that is a good way to look at it and a good reason for our current ranking of priorities. This disease is not equal opportunity. The vast majority of 21 year olds who get it will not be ill at all. Many may not even know that they've had it. We all want to get to that stage as fast as possible but especially those who are likely to suffer serious complications as a result.
The point I do not fully get is this one about "does the vaccine stop you spreading it?" This is apparently not proven by the trials but I don't understand why not. We know it reduces the chance of being infected. So the inference here is it might be possible to pass on the virus without being infected yourself? Is that it?
Most of the trials didn't test whether people were infected, only if they were showing symptoms.
So it's possible that the vaccines prevented the symptoms, but not the infection - so a vaccinated person could still spread the virus asymptomatically to a person who hasn't received the vaccine.
Which is another reason the best thing for the NHS is to protect the 1.6 million first before doctors and nurses.
Preventing the symptoms and thus hospitalisations will go a long way to reducing the strain on the NHS. But if a doctor or nurse gets the vaccine, becomes an asymptomatic carrier and then tests positive they'll still have to be removed from the front line even though they're vaccinated.
Maybe. When things were (maybe still are?) very bad in Liege, in Belgium, in the autumn they were asking asymptomatic staff to work in the Covid wards.
If the system is on the verge of collapse it's the sort of decision that becomes necessary.
I don't think the detail of the vaccine rollout will end up making the crucial difference. The critical factor is: Can restrictions in lockdown three reduce the infection rate?
If they can't then the vaccination programme isn't going to have an effect fast enough to prevent collapse of the hospital system.
We'll find out whether the infection rate is coming under control during next week - when they'll only just be starting to use the AZN vaccine.
Something else to think of.
We are well north of 800,000 first doses.
the policy so far has been to aim for
75% over 80s 20% care home staff 5% NHS staff
The earliest numbers suggest that about 70% over 80s is being achieved, with the balance being taken up by NHS staff.
if 5% - 40,000 NHS staff if 10% - 80,000 NHS staff
Assuming these are all frontline staff (not actually the case) - somewhere between 10 and 20% of the NHS medical workforce have received their first jab.
I've just had my jab at my local surgery. I'm in the 75-79 age cohort. My surgery intends to do 3,000 vaccinations of this cohort today. Their organisation is impressive. It includes sitting with a cup of tea for 15 minutes after the jab to make sure you don't keel over. I didn't keel over.
you didn't keel over because you haven't been on the piste..yet!
So I'm heading into Tier 4 (in Yorkshire @TSE - not everywhere in the county is immune). Can't see much of a difference - almost everything is already shut and a significant proportion of the population no longer gives a toss.
"no longer gives a toss."? About the shops being shut or caring which Tier they are in?
About whatever the rules are. Tell them to do anything you like, round here far too many have just given up.
530,000 for first week in January and scaling up after so over 2 million by the beginning of February
Was it not basically like two days ago all the newspapers were talking about the end of February being the start of easing? Bollocks now with those numbers, surely even the Easter timetable is already slipping.
Its going to be summer at best...given limitations on supply, massive undertaking on rollout and how widespread / infectious cockney covid is.
By which time Autumn will be coming. New diseases, new variants, new lockdowns!
530,000 for first week in January and scaling up after so over 2 million by the beginning of February
Was it not basically like two days ago all the newspapers were talking about the end of February being the start of easing? Bollocks now with those numbers, surely even the Easter timetable is already slipping.
Its going to be summer at best...given limitations on supply, massive undertaking on rollout and how widespread / infectious cockney covid is.
If R stays about 1 despite the lockdown then it will go through the population faster than we can vaccinate.
Probably the upcoming statistical struggle is going to be separating out the effects of vaccination, the effects of upping the tier system, and the effects of the weather getting better by spring and the virus slowing down of its own accord.
530,000 for first week in January and scaling up after so over 2 million by the beginning of February
Was it not basically like two days ago all the newspapers were talking about the end of February being the start of easing? Bollocks now with those numbers, surely even the Easter timetable is already slipping.
Its going to be summer at best...given limitations on supply, massive undertaking on rollout and how widespread / infectious cockney covid is.
If R stays about 1 despite the lockdown then it will go through the population faster than we can vaccinate.
In 99.7% of cases, so what?
How many people require hospitalisation? How many more cases would be fatal if they were unable to get treatment?
Do we have any idea whether x% effectiveness means
(1) "x% of the population become immune with this vaccine, and can meet infected people all the time and never catch it" or (2) "everyone has a reduction of x% in the probability of catching the infection on any one occasion exposed to it"?
If (1) were the case, then if x is high (e.g. Pfizer's 95%), we might start behaving normally. In particular, NHS staff who meet infected people all the time might be well-prrotected. If (2) is the case then we still need to socially distance etc. until the spread drops so far that you rarely meet an infected person (because you'll still catch it if you keep meeting them, just "100-x%" of time you would have caught it before).
Unfortunately, I'm not sure we can answer this?
Very interesting question. Hope others more viro'd up answer but here is my take -
A vax effectiveness of 90% means that if I take it my risk of becoming infected is 10% of what it would be if I did not take it.
So, for example, if my condition and lifestyle means I have a 50% chance of getting Covid in the next 3 months, if I take the vaccine, all else being equal, my chance of getting it drops to 5%.
And then hopefully the vax does 2 other things for me. It reduces the chance of me getting VERY sick if I do get it. And it stops me somehow spreading it despite not having it.
From the national as opposed to the personal interest it is really the first of these "other things" that is the key. If you are unlucky enough to catch the virus anyway despite your improved chances you are unlikely to need hospital treatment.
Yes, that looms large in my thinking. I'd accept a higher chance of catching it in exchange for a lower chance of getting seriously ill. I'd accept being 21 again, as it were.
I think that is a good way to look at it and a good reason for our current ranking of priorities. This disease is not equal opportunity. The vast majority of 21 year olds who get it will not be ill at all. Many may not even know that they've had it. We all want to get to that stage as fast as possible but especially those who are likely to suffer serious complications as a result.
The point I do not fully get is this one about "does the vaccine stop you spreading it?" This is apparently not proven by the trials but I don't understand why not. We know it reduces the chance of being infected. So the inference here is it might be possible to pass on the virus without being infected yourself? Is that it?
Most of the trials didn't test whether people were infected, only if they were showing symptoms.
So it's possible that the vaccines prevented the symptoms, but not the infection - so a vaccinated person could still spread the virus asymptomatically to a person who hasn't received the vaccine.
Which is another reason the best thing for the NHS is to protect the 1.6 million first before doctors and nurses.
Preventing the symptoms and thus hospitalisations will go a long way to reducing the strain on the NHS. But if a doctor or nurse gets the vaccine, becomes an asymptomatic carrier and then tests positive they'll still have to be removed from the front line even though they're vaccinated.
Maybe. When things were (maybe still are?) very bad in Liege, in Belgium, in the autumn they were asking asymptomatic staff to work in the Covid wards.
If the system is on the verge of collapse it's the sort of decision that becomes necessary.
I don't think the detail of the vaccine rollout will end up making the crucial difference. The critical factor is: Can restrictions in lockdown three reduce the infection rate?
If they can't then the vaccination programme isn't going to have an effect fast enough to prevent collapse of the hospital system.
We'll find out whether the infection rate is coming under control during next week - when they'll only just be starting to use the AZN vaccine.
Something else to think of.
We are well north of 800,000 first doses.
the policy so far has been to aim for
75% over 80s 20% care home staff 5% NHS staff
The earliest numbers suggest that about 70% over 80s is being achieved, with the balance being taken up by NHS staff.
if 5% - 40,000 NHS staff if 10% - 80,000 NHS staff
Assuming these are all frontline staff (not actually the case) - somewhere between 10 and 20% of the NHS medical workforce have received their first jab.
I've just had my jab at my local surgery. I'm in the 75-79 age cohort. My surgery intends to do 3,000 vaccinations of this cohort today. Their organisation is impressive. It includes sitting with a cup of tea for 15 minutes after the jab to make sure you don't keel over. I didn't keel over.
As a category 3 person, your experience suggests they aren't sticking too strictly to the priorities, given that there are tons of over 80s still waiting.
Comments
I potentially have the same scenario at both my houses. In our case (which I am guessing might be your case also) the land is of no use to anyone but me and the person I might buy it off. On that basis there is no market price as there is no competition. We will both have a price we are willing to pay/accept. If close enough we will strike a deal. If not we won't. 2 other people in the same circumstances may have a completely different figure in mind.
So basically if they are the circumstances you are in it is worth what you (and only you) are willing to pay.
None of this touchy feely nonsense.
Seriously though, there's no lockdown in this part of Yorkshire judging by the number of people out and about - and yet the last I saw was that the prevalence is still dropping and we are way below the levels in mid-October. Odd.
I don't know how to break it to you but the University is probably not the mass producer of the vaccine, and was never intended to be. They were the ones who designed and developed it.
I'm sure you're grateful for the elucidation.
But looking at the map of where the cases are on the island, a better guess is that closing the pubs and restaurants in Portsmouth and Southampton made Ryde and Cowes attractive day tripping destinations.
Plus of course the stupidity of the Conservative Club in Shanklin holding their dinner do and becoming a hotspot.
Shortly to be renamed the land where Seant ruts...
The rest of the objectors must have abstained
Does this mean you can't catch Covid from sheep?
This is going to be a very grim January for businesses.
Sounds like the 530k is just initial on hand. I don't understand why they didn't have more initially on hand though.
https://twitter.com/sturdyAlex/status/1344304498777460743?s=20
So if he announces what he's expected to announce, I expect your hopes to be met.
Millions of university, college and school students in England will face delays in returning to in-person classes in the new year, with some undergraduates not returning until February, the government is to announce.
Gavin Williamson, the education secretary, is due to give a statement to parliament on Wednesday afternoon confirming plans including a sharp reduction in the numbers of university students eligible to return to campus in the first weeks of January, and more rigorous testing requirements.
Secondary school pupils will not return to their classrooms in the week beginning 4 January, with most expected to have an extended holiday.
Those taking exams such as A-levels, BTecs and GCSEs will initially have online or remote lessons while schools and colleges carry out mass testing of their students, and return to school from 18 January.
Though I too would be happy to see Williamson go, albeit for pre-existing reasons.
https://www.tes.com/news/exclusive-new-school-opening-delay-agreed-ministers
Disappointment ahead I am afraid.
It does seem the secondaries are worse for spread.
A few things:
You ask "Can you get an area TPO on the whole thing before you conversation, such that it will make it a little less attractive as potential development?" My garden is in a conservation area. The land in question is just the other side of the conservation area boundary. There are fruit trees and a few conifers on the land. I don`t think a TPO is relevant.
The current rent that I pay to the Estate is £600 pa and this tends to rise with inflation. So not a peppercorn. Basically, I`ve been paying for the privilege of cutting the grass and the boundary hedges!
DavidL suggested 5 x this and I said that, knowing the Estate, they would not accept less than 25x. Your comments of £20k plus (plus costs) makes sense to me (getting into their head, as you say). The way I look at it is that I am committed to £600 plus inflation each year. I know I`m not really committed - but I am in reality because the land connects to my garden and I feel that it is essential to protect my outlook. (The land does not connect to anyone else`s garden.) Put simply, I wouldn`t want anyone else to rent it or own it. We have no plans to move ever so regarding this as a £600 pa plus inflation commitment leads me to think that paying, say, £30k one-off to extinguish this annual commitment is a good deal for me regardless of the value it may put on my house.
What would make it much less attractive to me is if they do like they usually do and impose restrictive covenants. I would want to have the scope of erecting a treehouse and possibly a greenhouse which the covenants usually prohibit. Mainly I would use it as a wildflower meadow and plant additional trees. it would be an environmental project for me. "Public funds for public goods" would, I think, imply public access, which would not be relevant in this case.
You say "Stuff that matters is whether it is a small awkward parcel that makes one of their fields square, whether they think *they* can develop it in the next hundred years". Yes, it is an awkward parcel and is on a gradient so severe that I have to take it diagonally with my ride-on mower. It is of no use to a farmer or horse owner and could never be developed.
Regarding combining parcels of land, wouldn`t ot be better to keep them separate to give any prospective future buyer of our house the option of having a smaller garden or a really big one?
It was never possible not even logistically
We're not getting out. Ever.
Is there an alternative of continuing to rent but under a long lease? That wouldn't change the finances, and avoid a lot of the admin, whilst giving you security to do your environmental and larking about in the trees stuff?
Look Sharp!
MOOOOVE IT!
Which is why we're going into Tier 4.
But then they always were on the outer rim....
https://twitter.com/JournoStephen/status/1344309579727974402?s=20