Don’t panic! There’s more to investment than Stamp Duty penalties

The property press and wider media have been full of the 3% Stamp Duty levy that comes into effect on buy-to-let and second home purchases from April 1.

The Government has finished a consultation exercise on these legislative changes but one thing that hasn’t ended is the rush from buyers who want to beat that deadline.

Investment decisions should be based on much stronger grounds than whether or not you can get ahead of a deadline to beat a hike in Stamp Duty. Frankly, it only takes investors roughly back to where they were before Chancellor George Osborne altered the way Stamp Duty was levied at a stroke during his 2014 Autumn Statement. Everyone was happy to ride with the tax before that, now they all appear to be jumping off the buy-to-let bus because the temporary respite is evaporating.

It’s doubtful now whether many conveyancers will be able to complete their task by March 31, even with superhuman effort. The week running up to the deadline also contains the Easter weekend with two Bank Holidays on top of the regular two day break.

It’s better to take a long-term view and survey how the property market has performed where you want to make your investment. There are other things to consider, too, such as affordability and the way write-down will affect offsetting some charges for things like furnishings.

In London, I have a couple of good examples of properties in Fulham, both in the same apartment block, that illustrate buy-to-let should still be worthwhile.

The sale of one flat has just completed for £855,000 - it sold for £550,000 in November 2010 so illustrates a compound growth of 9.3% year on year. Working from that base, at the same growth rate it would be worth £1.33m in another five years and even at a modest forecast of 3% compound it would achieve £991,000 over the same period.

As well as that healthy capital growth, it would let for £550-£600 per week, a valuable return of 3.34% on top of the value growth. With such uncertainty in equities, residential property makes a better home for savings than any ISA, some of which are barely making 1.5% and all of which have low investment limits, even allowing for tax on the interest. Ignoring the income, the capital growth projection at 3% equals more than five times the extra Stamp Duty, which may well be offset against future capital gains. 

A second flat, on the market now at £750,000, lets for £465pw and would have been worth circa £500,000-£525,000 five years ago. With compound 5% growth it would be worth £957,000 in five years (£869,000 at 3% compound). Again the sums of yield and capital growth more than add up.

If you believe the London market distorts the view, or just because you live elsewhere, there are other examples that illustrate the point.

For example, let’s move to the old Terrys chocolate factory in York which is being converted into apartments; the developers limited the number of buy-to-let sales so there will always be a good mix of owner occupiers and tenants. They believe it will improve the look and feel of the site as well as limiting competition for tenants and, at the same time, avoid pushing down incomes for investors.

Prices range from £180,000 to £1 million so the smaller-priced opportunities open big doors for investors.

From a buy-to-let perspective, the smaller apartments represent a very good investment – a purchase price of £180,000 will return a monthly rental of around £750 and a yield of 5% but added to that the capital growth is likely to be 3-5% per year until the development is completed. At that point, there is often a sudden jump in values as the supply of properties dries up and the site finally looks its best. In previous cases this jump has been anywhere from 5-10% as the site comes to look its best and all facilities are installed.

It’s clear that a 3% one-off panic by some investors is masking a much larger percentage opportunity. The MPC at the Bank of England has just given us a Manchester United away score line of 9-0 against raising Base Rate and some pundits are predicting it may actually fall below its historic low of 0.5% during the last seven years and won’t see a rise before 2018.

The warning here has to be that buy-to-let is a long term investment, so build into the equation the effects of an eventual rate rise when you decide on affordability. It is a business decision, even though it may be your pension driving your thoughts, and should be approached with a definite appreciation of profit and loss possibilities.

But my advice is to talk to your nearest Carter Jonas office.

Use our Stamp Duty Calculator to determine the amount of tax you would pay on a second home by clicking here.

Lisa Simon, 

Partner Head of Residential Lettings

T: 020 7518 3234 

E: lisa.simon@carterjonas.co.uk

The hokey cokey referendum

We’ve now entered what commentators are calling ‘a phoney war’ in what could be a two year long run-up to the referendum on European Union (EU) membership which is to take place before the end of 2017.

Unlike the 2014 Scottish Independence referendum, the question on the ballot paper won’t be ‘Yes’ or ‘No’. It will be ‘Stay’ or ‘Leave’.

The campaign groups don’t fall in to the convenient polarities of pro-business versus anti-business or the political groupings of left and right and so, we,  the electorate are not going to be allowed to be lazy in our thinking about this referendum and the consequences of its outcome. 

It is a referendum which will see voices of business line up on both sides and some, in all likelihood, stuck in the middle seeing convincing commercial and policy arguments on both sides.  

It’s not just any old referendum either. It’s a referendum in which the ex-boss of Marks and Spencer, Lord (Stuart) Rose is heading up the ‘Stay’ campaign.  The complexity of the issues is reflected in the make up of the ‘Go’ camp which has two main campaign groups in profile: ‘Vote Leave’ and ‘Leave.EU’. All three groups got under starters orders in October.

‘Vote Leave’ sees formal Conservative and Labour ‘Brexit’ groupings come together in an umbrella membership which hosts individuals with UKIP credentials too. ‘Leave.EU’ positions itself as a more grass-roots movement and the financial sector experience and entrepreneurial business-chops of its ‘ambassadors’ are showcased on its website’s home page.

Confusingly - and refreshingly - both ‘Stay’ and ‘Leave’ are happy to admit to being the patriotic choice. It is to be hoped that the absence of jingoism in the course of the pre-vote debate and the actual ballot itself remains because the presence of national stereotypes does nothing for the clarity of thought we require in making our decision.

At this early stage of the publicity campaigns, there appears to be an absence of ideology too with more of an emphasis on pragmatism. Upon launch, Lord Rose was keen to highlight that the ‘Stay’ campaign was critical of the European Union and voting to remain in the EU was the best way to reform it for the good of the UK.

Leave’s arguments point to the benefits and flexibility of financial and policy independence in the modern world pitted against the inflexibility that being in a single currency imposed on countries like Greece in dealing with the fall out from the financial crisis of 2008. In making the case for Brexit, some free marketeers point to the fact that Euro currency countries could not make their own sovereign case to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to re-finance debt which might have set them in better stead to weather their stormy financial situation.

While shaking it all about when it comes to Britain’s future, this referendum campaign is also stirring up times past.

The 1975 referendum to stay or leave the European Economic Community (EEC) brought together some strange bedfellows in Prime Minister Harold Wilson and the Leader of the Oppostion, the Rt Hon Margaret Thatcher MP backing the ‘Yes’ campaign.  While supporters of internationalism – which, at the time, included high profile members of the Cabinet in Tony Benn and Michael Foot – were opposed to remaining in the EEC.

Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose as the saying goes.

Will Mooney MRICS
Partner
Commercial, Cambridge

£3 million to help landlords meet fire safety rules

Private rented sector landlords will be required to have working smoke alarms on every floor of their property and carbon monoxide alarms in rooms where a solid fuel heating system is installed with effect from October 1, 2015.

Alarms must be tested at the start of every new tenancy - the regulations do not stipulate the type of alarm to be installed; rather, landlords should make an informed decision and choose the best alarm for their circumstances and property. Landlords who fail to comply with the duties outlined in the regulations may be subject to a civil penalty.

The good news is that the Government launched a £3million fund on March 19 which means thousands more tenants living in private rented homes will have working smoke and carbon monoxide alarms distributed through England’s 46 fire and rescue authorities.

The funding will benefit private rented houses across the country, providing around 445,000 smoke and 40,000 carbon monoxide alarms which will be available free from local fire and rescue authorities to private sector landlords whose properties currently do not have fitted alarms.

The new legislation coming into force in October that requires anyone renting out their home to ensure there is a smoke alarm on every floor of the home at the start of the tenancy is very positive and Carter Jonas property managers will ensure that our landlords adhere to this rule to ensure tenant safety.


However, whilst landlords will be under a duty to install and initially test alarms, Housing Minister Brandon Lewis, when announcing the proposals which he hoped would prevent 26 deaths and 670 injuries a year, said tenants were urged to “regularly test their alarms to ensure they work when it counts”.

Lisa Simon, 

Partner Head of Residential Lettings

T: 020 7518 3234 

E: lisa.simon@carterjonas.co.uk

The Common Agricultural Policy has been reformed yet again

The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) has been reformed yet again and at midnight on 31st December 2014 it was out with the old, as the Single Payment Scheme (SPS) ceased and in with the new, as the Basic Payment Scheme (BPS) was introduced. This is the mechanism through which farmers will receive support payments via the EU.

The new scheme is also meant to be at the forefront of the Government’s drive for “digital by default”; the idea being that in the first instance every farmer was meant to be able to verify their identity online. But in reality it appears the BPS has come too soon for this online verification process which is causing frustration to the farmers who have been invited to register so far.

This must be a big headache to the Rural Payments Agency (RPA) which is tasked with implementing the BPS. Therefore the RPA has decided to open up its helpline to allow farmers to verify their identity over the telephone which will then enable the RPA to allow farmers to access their online BPS system.

Having now done this with a few clients myself I am pleased to report that the telephone verification system appears to be working well and is reasonably easy although whether the RPA will be able to cope with the volume of calls that are now likely to flood in over the coming weeks remains to be seen.

Once farmers have then accessed the RPA’s online BPS system they need to check their business details are correct, that the appropriate people are registered against the business and that the plans of their land are up to date. At present there is not much else that can be done online but with only 4 months to go until the application deadline, there is clearly still a lot of work to be done to ensure the system becomes functional in time for farmers to be able to make their claim.

Memories of the disastrous implementation of the SPS back in 2005 are etched into the memory of many a farmer and thus there is nervousness that the faltering start to the online identity verification process may be a prelude of much worse to come. However, I do hope that this time the RPA will have learnt from the mistakes of the past.

The fact that they have organised a telephone identity verification system at relatively short notice is to be commended and I just hope the RPA’s new BPS software will be similarly user friendly.  

James Stephen MRICS FAAV
Partner
Rural Practice Chartered Surveyor, Wells
T: 01749 683381
E: james.stephen@carterjonas.co.uk

Splurge, purge and debt

Setting aside the peculiarity of making an Autumn Statement in early December, the dust has settled, for the time being, on the brouhaha which accompanied the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s latest diagnosis and prescription to remedy the financial ills of the nation.

The country is riddled with debt and it needs to be cured by short and mid-term pain for long term gain it seems.

It is politically acceptable to talk about the national debt again in a way it probably hasn’t been since the 1970s. Then, we were all about the Public Sector Borrowing Requirement and inflation, the 3-day week and the winter of discontent.

All the mainstream Westminster parties - and those aspiring to become so after the next election - are no longer embarrassed to mention the ‘D’ word again. And not only to talk about how indebted we are as a nation, but also to set out their stall as to how we can decrease this public debt.

It is okay to talk about repaying our debt, even if in repaying it what we actually mean is reducing the cost of servicing it.

In the fiscal year 2018-2019, implementation of the Government’s current programme will see us save £18 billion in interest payments. Borrowing is falling. Next year it will be £75.9 billion, falling from £91.3 billion this which, itself, has dropped from last year’s £97.5 billion.

We are aiming to be in the black to the tune of a £23 billion suplus in 2019-2020 but we are cautioned it could get messy in order for this to be achieved. Being in the black is a laudable business aim.

While it’s fine to talk about our national debt and how we can repay it, it’s still not fashionable to talk about our private debt in polite company as that’s even messier, but we have to start somewhere.

Tucked away in the detail and the in-depth coverage of the Chancellor’s statement was notice of our intention to pay back or, at least try to clear, the nation’s historical debts – some of which date back to the early 18th Century.

The refinancing of World War One debts in 1932 took the form of a bond replacing a gilt which was first issued in 1917. Now - well ,on 09 March 2015 to be precise - the British Government is set to redeem this bond which, in total with other war bonds since the penultimate year of the Great War, has cost £5.5 billion pounds in interest alone.

HM Treasury has made it known that it is the intention to repay, at the appropriate point, ‘legacy bonds’ which shored up borrowings against other expenses incurred during our nation’s history.

Some of these bonds and gilts financed the Napoleonic Wars, the setting up of the Bank of England and the clean-up when the South Sea Bubble burst and rocked the finances of the country in 1720.

Which, if any of these specific, perpetual debts are to be revisited have yet to be confirmed in detail but the fact that we, as a nation, are beginning to address our nationalised indebtedness tells the story of our times more than of those past.

Let’s hope we’ve eaten, drank and been merry in the past few weeks; for next May, we vote.

Will Mooney MRICS
Partner
Commercial, Cambridge

Revenge evictions bid fails - but may return

You may remember in an earlier Clearer View we raised the issue of gas safety and in that article mentioned a Private Member’s Bill put before Parliament by Liberal Democrat MP Sarah Teather.

The Government agreed to back her Bill and allow it time to progress through the essential Parliamentary stages – but its second reading on November 28 was talked out by two Tory MPs who spoke for more than two hours until the Bill ran out of time.

However, it’s reported that Housing Minister Brandon Lewis is seeking a way to insert a clause to prevent so-called “revenge” evictions into the Deregulation Bill in January.

The Bill sought to ban such evictions by landlords of tenants who had requested repairs – once a repair had been requested, the Bill would have made it impossible to serve a Section 21 notice for repossession.

This restriction would also have applied where no valid gas safety certificate exists or where the tenant has not been given an EPC for the property but its failure in Parliament is no reason to avoid ensuring all necessary paperwork is valid and up to date.

EPCs are arranged at the point of marketing by all our branches. Our property managers arrange gas safety certificates for our managed properties and it remains a legal requirement for Houses of Multiple Occupation (HMO) to have a carbon monoxide alarm fitted. However, we advise all landlords to consider the installation of alarms to protect the occupier and help prevent any legal action being taken against a landlord.

Lisa Simon, 

Partner Head of Residential Lettings

T: 020 7518 3234 

E: lisa.simon@carterjonas.co.uk

City-state of the nation

With Scotland’s electorate deciding if it feels better together or not in September, Will Mooney, Carter Jonas partner and head of its commercial agency and professional services in the eastern region, wants to know if smaller can be better.

Early in July, the Government announced the release of the first tranche of a big pot of £6 billion of cash for the English regions. With an eye on being better together and although the phase 1 £12 billion is very much for England, the Prime Minister heralded Growth Deals as ‘...a crucial part of our long-term plant to secure Britain’s future.’

In this first phase, £71.1 million is allocated to what’s termed the ‘Cambridge Corridor’ for projects which include transport and science and technical innovation centres. The day after the Government’s announcement, the Cambridge Ahead organisation said that the £13 billion economic powerhouse that is Cambridge needs to be on its guard as its top business talent can be enticed away to London because of, among other things, Cambridge’s poor transport infrastructure and paucity of night time entertainment.

Cambridge Ahead is looking to pitch Cambridge as the ‘pre-eminent small city in the world.’ It’s a flight of fancy on my part but perhaps Cambridge could make the case for city-state status like that of Singapore, Andorra or Macau? Or those classic city-states of Rome or Athens?

Too landlocked, perhaps, for parity with the city-state of medieval Venice, there would be there would be no shortage of candidates for The Doge of Cambridge as there are plenty of shrewd citizens and the modern equivalent of rich merchants. The great buildings of Venice see themselves reflected in the palaces of learning which are the University Colleges. So influential is the business success of Cambridge, that it could make a claim for sovereignty and overlordship over adjacent counties which is a pre-requisite characateristic of historical city-states.

Of course, this idea must be treated with the levity it deserves but Cambridge continues to reinforce its position as the most commercially influential location in the eastern region. Rather than city-state, perhaps there’s a case to be made for ‘city-region’?

It is regional causes and cases for investment and development which are the cause celebre this summer and beyond, in all probablility – and not only with the policy-makers but with policy influencers too.

The RSA City Growth Commission (thersa.org.uk) published a report in July called “Connected Cities: The Link to Growth”. The report references city-regions but prefers to use the term ‘Metros’ in arguing that individual cities , such as Leeds, Manchester and Sheffield, should have the freedom to operate as collective metros to make their own decisions when it comes to infrastructure investment.

In not relying on centralised decisions from Whitehall about what’s best and how much is best for its metro, the report makes the case that this devolved approach in England would see a counterbalance to the dominance of London and the South East. In turn, this would be in the best interests of the whole of the UK’s economic growth and chances of prosperity being spread geographically to all our benefit.

In the early autumn, the UK nation state faces the prospect of losing its most northerly part but such is the jigsaw of our country that there are rumblings in Orkney and Shetland that perhaps they have more in common with their Scandanavian counterparts than with Scotland’s central belt and its kingmakers at Holyrood.

Will Mooney MRICS
Partner
Commercial, Cambridge

Subsidy for large scale solar projects are changing

Last week the government announced a consultation on changes to the subsidy system for large scale solar projects of over 5MW capacity which would equate to a site of about 30 acres. Originally it was planned that the current subsidy system which is involves so called Renewable Obligation Certificates (ROCs) was going to be phased out by 2017 but the latest proposal is to phase out ROCs for the large scale developments by 31st March 2015.

I suspect the primary reason for this is that there has been a huge expansion in solar development and as the general public have started to see these projects popping up in the countryside, support for such projects has started to dwindle.

The initial phase of the fund was worth up to £5000, but towards the end of April the government announced that the level of grant would be increased to £35,000 and the deadline for making an application was also extended 27 June 2014.

The government has committed £10m to this fund and it is understood money is still available and so farmers are urged to consider making a claim. The initial claim process was quite onerous but it is understood the requirements have been relaxed to some extent to make it more practical to make a claim.

It should also be understood that if a farmer has already made a successful claim under the first phase of the grant process, he or she is still eligible to make a claim under the second phase up to a cumulative total of £35,000.

The grant is aimed at the cost of restoring flood affected land back to agricultural production and concentrates on four key areas. These include the restoration of productive grassland, the restoration of productive arable and horticultural land, restoring farm vehicle access to fields and improvements to agricultural drainage.

Therefore the cost of employing a contractor to sort out damaged soil structure and re-seed the land with a perennial grass seed mix would be eligible for grant aid.

It seems likely that many farmers have decided to just get on with restoring their land to production without making an application for grant aid but Rural Surveyor, Arthur Chambers from Carter Jonas’ Wells office, “Urges farmers to consider taking advantage of any funding which may be available to help those affected by the wettest winter on record”

Arthur goes on to say, “This is an opportunity which should not be missed and with only a month before the grant scheme closes, anyone interested in making a claim is encouraged to contact their preferred agent.” Arthur can be contacted on 01749 677667.

James Stephen MRICS FAAV
Partner
Rural Practice Chartered Surveyor, Wells
T: 01749 683381
E: james.stephen@carterjonas.co.uk

Changes in the subsidy system for solar projects

Last week the government announced a consultation on changes to the subsidy system for large scale solar projects of over 5MW capacity which would equate to a site of about 30 acres. Originally it was planned that the current subsidy system which is involves so called Renewable Obligation Certificates (ROCs) was going to be phased out by 2017 but the latest proposal is to phase out ROCs for the large scale developments by 31st March 2015.

I suspect the primary reason for this is that there has been a huge expansion in solar development and as the general public have started to see these projects popping up in the countryside, support for such projects has started to dwindle.

It has been significantly easier to obtain planning consent for Solar parks than for wind turbines for example and as a result the scale of solar developments across southern Britain in particular has probably taken everyone by surprise, hence the government’s latest consultation.

After 31st March 2015, large solar projects will have to bid competitively for funding against all other forms of renewable energy production through a scheme called “Contracts for Difference” (CfD). As solar production is generally regarded as one of the less efficient forms of renewable energy production, it remains to be seen how well solar energy will compete for funding through this new scheme.

However, what this demonstrates is that the renewable energy sector, which is heavily reliant on subsidy, is a risky sector to be involved in because the government has a track record of chopping and changing its policy. These changes may be as a result of public pressure or the realisation the level of subsidy being offered is inappropriate, but for whatever reason this makes planning a renewable energy project very difficult.

It seems likely that if the ROCs are removed in March next year that we will see a headlong rush to develop out all the sites which are capable of being developed over the next year and so don’t be surprised to see a significant increase in the number of solar parks being developed in the coming months.

I am sure there will be many readers who will be pleased to hear that it is likely the development of large scale solar parks may now be curtailed but equally one cannot help wondering where our electricity will be coming from in 5 years time as many coal fired power stations are being decomissioned. Fracking is likely to be the next big source of energy and so perhaps all the antis need to be careful what they wish for. Maybe a few more wind turbines would not be a bad idea after all.

James Stephen MRICS FAAV
Partner
Rural Practice Chartered Surveyor, Wells
T: 01749 683381
E: james.stephen@carterjonas.co.uk

Out of the blue... a rural planning policy

Last year, quite out of the blue, the government published a consultation document that has largely been ignored by the popular press but which may turn out to be one of the most fundamental reforms we have seen in rural planning policy in recent years.

Amongst other things, the government proposed that the conversion of up to 450 square metres of redundant farm buildings in to up to three houses of no more than 150 square metres each would be allowed under permitted development rules. Indeed it was further proposed that existing buildings could be demolished and a brand new house built on the same footprint.

Anyone who has been involved in trying to obtain planning consent to convert a redundant barn to a house or to build a new dwelling altogether in the countryside, will find the concept of such development being allowed through the permitted development regime, quite flabbergasting. Accordingly many observers had expected the proposals to be significantly modified.

Since the consultation ended last October, there had been deafening silence from government until last week when in response to parliamentary questions, Planning Minister Nick Boles reassured MPs that, “The Government is well aware of the arguments being put forward to exempt National Parks and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty from proposals to introduce permitted development rights for redundant agricultural buildings.” This raised speculation that in other areas outside these protected zones, that the Government may be minded to go ahead with the proposed changes.

And so when Nick Boles delivered a written statement to Parliament on 6th March it was not entirely a surprise when he wrote, “These reforms will make better use of redundant or under-used agricultural buildings, increasing rural housing without building on the countryside. Up to 450 square metres of agricultural buildings on a farm will be able to change to provide a maximum of 3 houses.”

He also went on to write, “We recognise the importance to the public of safeguarding environmentally protected areas, so this change of use will not apply in Article 1(5) land, for example national parks or areas of outstanding natural beauty. However, we expect national parks and other local planning authorities to take a positive and proactive approach to sustainable development, balancing the protection of the landscape with the social and economic wellbeing of the area”.

Nick Boles also explained that a “prior approval” process will be required where issues such as highways matters and flood risk will be taken in to account. There may also be other requirements or consequences of taking advantage of these new rules and so we await the detailed rules with interest which should be published by early April when the new regime is due to come in to force.

Possible requirements which were muted in the consultation document were that other permitted development rights would be withdrawn for a period of years thereby making it more difficult to erect a farm building elsewhere on a holding that has taken advantage of the new rules.

Not withstanding this, these new rule changes will present a significant opportunity for many farm businesses and if anyone would like further advice on the matter please do not hesitate to contact James Stephen on 01749 683381.

James Stephen MRICS FAAV
Partner
Rural Practice Chartered Surveyor, Wells
T: 01749 683381
E: james.stephen@carterjonas.co.uk

Floods, Floods and More Floods

Earlier this week I was speaking to a colleague who had just returned from a holiday in Sri Lanka and she remarked that the only news she had seen about the UK while she was away was a CNN report concerning the flooding on the Somerset Levels. I think this highlights the severity of the situation which is facing farmers and householders on the Somerset Levels.

Certainly the Media have embraced the situation which has attracted the attention of government ministers, the Prime Minister and last week even the Prince of Wales, all of whom have acknowledged the plight of those whose livelihoods and homes are being threatened by rising flood waters.

Back in early January I wrote about the flooding, explaining that winter flooding is not in general as damaging to agriculture as the summer floods we saw in 2012, but I have to say I was not expecting the situation to continue getting worse over the ensuing four weeks.

At the time of writing this article, householders and livestock are being evacuated from villages such as Moorland as the water levels continue to rise. There are properties being flooded which have not flooded in living memory, while James Winslade, a farmer from Moorland has had to transport more than 500 of his cattle to Sedgemoor Market which has opened its doors to act as a collection centre for evacuated stock from where other farmers can pick them up to re-home them.

Sedgmoor Market auctioneer, Robert Venner said the support from local farmers and businesses has been “absolutely staggering”. But Ian Johnson, NFU spokesman in the South West, said the flooding and misery caused to farmers and homeowners was “completely avoidable.”

Country Land and Business Association (CLA) South West Director, John Mortimer, said that everyone involved, including the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister, now agreed that dredging was essential as a rapid solution.

“Work should start as soon as practically possible but it may well need to continue for some years until the whole system – including those sections managed by the Internal Drainage Boards - has yielded up its stored silts and deposits,” he said.

He went on to comment, “The initial work should be paid for by Central Government but we will then have to deliver a full and detailed appraisal of what it will cost to maintain and manage the system once it has been restored to design capacity.”

However, with more storms forecast, it seems inevitable that things are going to get worse before they get better but perhaps the one good thing that has come out of all this misery is the acceptance, at the very highest level, that extra money will need to be provided by government to dredge the main water courses even if the ongoing responsibility will then revert to farmers and landowners in the locality.

James Stephen MRICS FAAV
Partner
Rural Practice Chartered Surveyor, Wells
T: 01749 683381
E: james.stephen@carterjonas.co.uk