Inveresk Share Discussion Threads

[mjcrockett] 10/2/2006 07:55

WSLS, Do you have more details? Like how many and why?

MJ

[uwinsomeulosesome] 10/2/2006 07:52

More being made redundant at St Cuthberts.

WSLS

[ptolemy] 08/2/2006 16:12

Last year there were no announcements between Dec 04 and April 05. It looks like the Directors are taking a four month holiday again this year........

[arthur_lame_stocks] 25/1/2006 15:34

Let's hope they make sure they maximise the value from the land then.

[mjcrockett] 25/1/2006 15:28

Depends if IVS try to develop the land themselves or sell the whole lot to a developer. They have not taken on any property experts on to the board, so my guess is that they will sell out. All IMO, of course.

MJ

[arthur_lame_stocks] 25/1/2006 15:18

I agree about the mill mjcrockett, I was thinking more in terms of getting the value out of the land. It's not a quick process as you know.

[mjcrockett] 25/1/2006 15:14

Arthur, I would be surprised if we do not see significant news in 2006. For years now IVS have been making it clear in their results that there is a need for consolidation in the industry. They have now sold 2 of their 3 mill business and we know that they cannot think that the remainder is viable for a small group long-term. So they must now be trying to extract the best value for the remainder and they will not want this process to drag on.

MJ

[cockneyrebel] 25/1/2006 11:56

yes, longer than I can handle too! I think it will be sooner than that tho

CR

[arthur_lame_stocks] 25/1/2006 11:55

I think it'll be a 2 or 3 year wait to see the value out in these shares, which is a bit longer than your average private investor can handle.

[mjcrockett] 24/1/2006 21:51

The following paragraph caught my eye. It was in a property 'Special Report' email sent out by UK Analyst:-

'In Scotland, Edinburgh (and, to a slightly lesser degree, Glasgow) was the first to benefit from the house price boom at the start of this decade. As usually happens when a city surges ahead, a ripple effect follows with property buyers moving out to those areas with lower house prices but good links back into the city for work and leisure. As the market levels off and stabilises, the city then pushes ahead again. Edinburgh house prices have just resumed modest growth with a recent quarterly rise of 6.2%. this is above the national average.'

This is good news for IVS with their 58 acres of prime brownfield sites being within commuting distance of Edinburgh. However, while the company's assets are appreciating in value the share price has been falling - down another 0.5p today.

MJ

[dfkinloch] 15/1/2006 16:57

please Copy to ROS Ta

[cockneyrebel] 15/1/2006 15:14

Cheers CBGB - I'll copy that to a couple of other threads that are relavant too.

CR

[cbgb] 15/1/2006 13:02

'Fund activist stalks Scottish firms'

[cockneyrebel] 19/12/2005 10:53

I reckon so MJ - must be news soon imo

CR

[mjcrockett] 19/12/2005 10:40

Up 1p this morning following some more buying. Must be some news soon?

MJ

[cockneyrebel] 13/12/2005 19:19

yes, interesting MJ.

In the recent past there's been good buying ahead of news.

CR

[mjcrockett] 13/12/2005 18:55

Quite a few trades today. Something brewing?

MJ

[cockneyrebel] 13/12/2005 12:55

looks like someone grabbed 325K this morning and set the ball rolling.

CR

[cockneyrebel] 06/12/2005 15:53

interesting trades today

CR

[arthur_lame_stocks] 03/12/2005 18:42

Thanks mjcrockett

I saw the Times today too but hadn't seen anything of the Barker report. I hope also that they will alow companies to offset previous capital losses against this tax but I wouldn't bet on it.

It seems like a daft idea, given that there is such a huge need for new housing in the South East, it's only going to encourage landowners to hang on to their land in the hope of a different government.

[cockneyrebel] 02/12/2005 22:43

great idea ay! push up building costs and prices further. They already milk a house buyer with extortionate stamp duty.

Still you can only tax up to 100% then it runs out. Labour are still Dennis Healey, 'taxing till the pips squeak' but eventualy you kill motivation for enterprise.

CR

[mjcrockett] 02/12/2005 21:38

Arthur, re the point you raised about a 'development tax'. According to the Times today, we should hear something about this from the Chancellor next week.

This tax was recommended by the Barker report and there is an expectation that this recommendation will be implemented. I have pasted below some relevant text from the Barker report. The hope for the likes of Inveresk is that the goverment take heed of the recommendation for Brownfield sites that they tax these at 'a substantially lower rate'.

MJ


Government should use tax measures to extract some of the windfall gain that accrues to landowners from the sale of their land for residential development.
Government should impose a Planning-gain Supplement on the granting of planning
permission so that landowner development gains form a larger part of the benefits of development.
The following principles might be considered:
• Information would need to be gathered as to the value of land proposed for
development in each local authority. Sources of data could include actual transactions and/or Valuation Office Agency estimates as to the land prices in various local authority areas.
• Government would then set a tax rate on these values. This tax rate should not be set so high as to discourage development, but at a rate that at least covers the estimated local authority gain from Section 106 developer contributions and provides additional resources to boost housing supply.
• The granting of residential planning permission would be contingent on the
payment of the supplementary planning contribution of the proposed development.
• Government may want to consider the operation of a (substantially) lower rate for housing development on brownfield land, and the possibility of varying rates in other circumstances, e.g. for areas where there are particular housing growth strategies, or where other social or environmental costs may arise.
• A proportion of the revenue generated from the granting of planning permissions in local authorities should be given directly to local authorities. Government should also amend the operation of Section 106 planning obligations, as set out in Chapter 3, to take account of this new charge.
• The Government may want to consider allowing developers to pay their
contributions in instalments over reasonable time periods so as to ensure that
housebuilder cash flow pressures are sufficiently accounted for.
The introduction of a tax would need to be accompanied by transitional measures to ameliorate the impact on developers already engaged in land sales contracts that were drawn up before this charge was introduced, or for those who hold large amounts of land already purchased, but where planning permission has yet to be secured.

[mjcrockett] 01/12/2005 10:21

Ptolemy, I am not a Fife local and have never seen the Inverkeithing Mill site. However, I have read several reports regarding the redevelopment of Inverkeithing bay and what I have read to date has suggested that the mill site is to be part of the Phase One of the development and that it would be for mixed use. The site is around 25 acres and mostly buildings.

Just to repeat my own view that Inveresk will not develop these sites themselves, but will sell them on.

MJ

[ptolemy] 01/12/2005 09:39

Should have added a google search on "Protect Rural East Fife " provides many more articels about the recent meeting with the Scottish MPs and the local objections.

Not sure how to interpret this. Anyone with a better local knowledge? From a simplistic perspective I could see this as either being positive (East Fife rejects so West fife moves ahead quickly) or negative (the redevelopment plans are rejected because of local opposition) Views?

[ptolemy] 01/12/2005 09:30

A-L-S thanks.

Also managed to find this article. I think Inverkeiting is in West Fife not east, but this artcles refers to it. looks like it might be an uphill struggle....One plus is that Fife Strycture Plan states that brownfield sites will have rpiority for development.

Courtesy of Courier 28 November 05
QUOTE
MSPs hear residents' concerns over plans for 6000 new houses
CAMPAIGNERS fighting plans to build more than 6000 new houses across east Fife lobbied MSPs in Cupar last night.

More than 100 people turned out at a public meeting to express their dismay to four members of the Scottish Parliament.

Proposals in Fife's draft local and structure plans could increase the population of some communities by 50% and have caused uproar in some places, including Tayport, Wormit, Newburgh and Dairsie.

It is feared that extensive new housing will create commuter dormitories, putting pressure on roads, schools and health services and destroying rural character.

The development is part of a strategy to boost Fife's population of 350,000 by 20,000 by 2026, involving large-scale house building across the region.

The meeting in the Corn Exchange followed the handing over of a petition at Holyrood on Wednesday against housing development in Tayport without proper infrastructure.

It was organised by Protect Rural East Fife (PREF), a new umbrella group of local action groups, and addressed by Fife MSPs, Iain Smith, Andrew Arbuckle, Ted Brocklebank and Mark Ruskell.

Ron Caird, of PREF, said: "First we should grow the economy not the population. The sheer volume of housing is causing us concern. Is this being pushed by developers?"

Mr Ruskell, Green MSP for Mid Scotland and Fife, said he was disgusted by the council's vision and urged east Fife to join forces with central and west Fife.

He told the audience: "This is a developer-led plan. Your needs are being pretty much ignored in this whole process.

"There are campaigners in Dunfermline who are facing exactly the same situation. You need to link up with these communities and not allow Fife Council to play east Fife off against west Fife."

He also criticised the level of consultation the council had conducted on the plans and said there were so many houses that there would not be the money to fund water and sewage infrastructure.

Mid Scotland and Fife Tory MSP Ted Brocklebank, said, "This is not organic. It's not springing up from local need in Fife but rather is being imposed upon us.

"It is the wrong way round. Instead of us seeing jobs coming into north-east Fife, it is being led by an arbitrary decision by Fife Council to increase the population by 5% when the population of Scotland is in decline."

He also said there was little local councillors-almost all Liberal Democrats-would be able to do against Fife's Labour administration, and predicted the matter would eventually be pulled in by the Scottish Executive for a public inquiry.

However, Mid Scotland and Fife Liberal Democrat MSP Andrew Arbuckle said his Lib-Dem councillor colleagues were working hard to ensure the council heeded local opinion.

He said, "The proposals are wrong. We want gradual development. We have been meeting the planning officers and trying to impress on them our views."

North-East Fife MSP Iain Smith said, "The need for a 5% growth has not been proven."

But he added, "We are in the middle of a consultation process. We do not know yet how Fife Council is going to respond to the comments submitted."

One member of the audience, Chris Wood, who had settled in Fife, appealed: "Please don't sell your beautiful country for a few pieces of silver."

UNQUOTE