Why out of town location is perfect for Elgin business cashing in on town's housing boom

The owner of popular Elgin cafe The Deli, Claire Willox, has seen first hand the housing boom in the town.
She believes having out of town premises on Southfield Drive has had major benefits for her firm with free parking, an ever-growing population on the doorstep and nearby businesses for customers.
In 2017, she bought the lunch stop with a business partner after more than 30 years in the flooring industry.
Later down the line, she took over full ownership. The premises can hold up to 50 people.
Claire said: 'Prior to the cafe, I worked in the flooring industry.
'When the opportunity came about to buy The Deli it was to try something completely different and I have really enjoyed it.
'I think it is really good being out of town with the businesses and doctors nearby.
'We get a lot of trade from other businesses and homes at lunchtime.
'The free parking helps too and we are really lucky to have many people walking in by for coffees, cookies and sandwiches.'
In recent years, hundreds of homes have been built in the south of Elgin with thousands more still in the pipeline.
Claire added: 'It is great for our businesses, with more people moving to Elgin.
'However I do feel it puts pressure on the NHS as well obviously.
'Some people say that nobody wants to live in Elgin, however there are so many new houses getting built.
She added: 'I get people coming in who have just moved here and say they love it here.
'Meanwhile, people often come back after visiting too.
'I think we do take the place for granted because we have always been here and it is lovely to stay here.'
Claire also holds private events inside The Deli which brings extra income for the business.
She said: 'This year my outside catering has been really busy.
'We are closed on Sundays and private events are often held in it then like baby showers, birthday parties and other things.
'We have an alcohol licence as well which opens up different opportunities.
'It is just so great to have a different income stream too.'
Meanwhile, she is thinking about getting a catering van to attend events like Highland Games and to provide more space than her car.
She said: 'We could get a van because we are doing so much outside catering and there is an opportunity with it.
'It would great to go to the different markets and also promote The Deli shop too which would be good too.
'We will wait and see but it certainly been something popular that many businesses are doing.'
She also praised her staff and manager Kirsten Hendry for making the Deli a friendly and inviting place for people.
The Deli is open 9am to 4pm from Monday to Saturday every week. All meals are made to order from fresh and locally sourced produce.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Daily Mirror

15 hours ago

• Daily Mirror

Millionaires may be eligible for Winter Fuel Payments in new rules

The Winter Fuel Payment U-turn could open up an unexpected loophole for wealthy retirees After facing severe backlash for cutting back Winter Fuel Payments shortly after winning the election last year, the Labour party has made a U-turn. Announcing new rules to means-test the seasonal benefit to assure vulnerable retirees are helped through the harshest months. To be eligible for the Winter Fuel Payment, which offers either £200 or £300 every winter to help cover heating costs, people over state pension age will need to have a taxable income of under £35,000 per year. ‌ Experts at Forbes Dawson warned: 'Although this may seem like a sensible approach, as many pensioners are asset-rich but have relatively low levels of income this could have unintended consequences and exclude many 'poor' people. ‌ 'Wealthy pensioners are generally in a unique position to control their level of taxable income on a year-to-year basis. Most pensioners will generally have some control over the amount of taxable income they extract from their pensions on an annual basis and many pensioners will have no 'income' and live off their built-up capital.' However, the experts added: 'We are not seriously suggesting that wealthy individuals will manipulate their income just to enjoy a £200 benefit, there will be cases where the very wealthy still qualify, while more deserving cases go without.' To break it down, the finance experts shared a fictional example of a retired NHS consultant called Dr Sam who has an estate worth £5million and makes specific moves with his money already in order to cut down a future Inheritance Tax bill. Including making loans to his Family Investment Company that sits outside his estate. As none of the shares are held by him directly, he doesn't pay tax on it and instead gets £200,000 annually as a repayment on his loan to the company. So while his general income is sitting at six-figures, his taxable income is zero so he will qualify under the new Winter Fuel Payment rules. In another fictional example, the money experts pointed out how people with less assets in retirement don't have as much control over their finances and might be excluded from the benefit. Retired teacher Doris uses a defined benefit public sector pension which is taxable income. ‌ She gets £40,000 a year from it, roughly £2,600 after tax, and with little money elsewhere she is reliant on nearly every penny so she can't cut it down. Because of her taxable income, she will not qualify for the benefit despite getting £160,000 less each year than Dr Sam. The new rules will make nine million more pensioners eligible for Winter Fuel Payments. And people can still opt out of receiving it but will need to do so before 15 September, 2025. Eligible people over state pension age will be receiving £200 between November and December 2025. Meanwhile those over the age of 80 who are eligible will receive £300.

STV News

a day ago

• STV News

Minister announces £1bn in savings to be redirected to frontline services

The Scottish Government has launched a brand new public service reform strategy to make £1bn of savings in the next five years. Ivan McKee set out a range of reforms to Scotland's public sector on Thursday as he aims to make it efficient and fit for the future. He said spending from 'back office costs' will be cut by 20%, with the cash being redirected to frontline services. By 2029-30, the Government estimates this will amount to £1bn a year in savings, freeing up cash in areas such as the NHS. 'This will require every part of the public sector to reduce the cost of doing business to prioritise the frontline,' McKee said. 'The aim is to do things better, not do less.' McKee said the Scottish Government will achieve the savings through a combination of automation, digitisation, estate rationalisation, and workforce reform. Among the 80 actions set out in Mr McKee's reforms include changes to the culture of the public sector and those in charge of it. The number of public bodies will be reduced to drive a more efficient system alongside a new review of public sector buildings. The minister said the Government will embrace automation and new technology to digitise government. The Scottish Trades Union Congress (STUC) criticised the strategy of 'missing the mark'. 'Whenever government ministers speak of public sector 'efficiencies', workers anxiously hold their breath,' said STUC general secretary Roz Foyer. 'These cuts, prepacked as reforms, miss the mark entirely. Simply put: you can't fix public services by cutting the very people who keep them running. Talk of reducing headcount while NHS waiting times spiral, A&E departments are overwhelmed and social care is in crisis is as reckless as it is illogical.' She said Scotland deserves public services that are properly funded, and 'not an overreliance on technology to plug staffing shortages'. 'The reality is that Scotland's fiscal future demands honesty and ambition. Instead of chasing cuts disguised as reform, ministers should be adopting progressive tax policies that can raise the revenue we need,' Ms Foyer said. 'Before racing ahead with changes, the Scottish Government must engage in serious dialogue with the trade union movement. We've been clear: we will not support any programme that threatens jobs, conditions or the quality of the services our communities rely on. That position remains the same.' The Tory shadow secretary for finance slammed the reforms as a 'wish-list of word soup that fails to mention waste once'. 'Despite the SNP saying we were reckless for proposing fully costed tax cuts worth £500m, they now claim they can save £1bn by merely slashing corporate functions,' MSP Craig Hoy said. 'There is still an astonishing lack of detail as to where these savings will be made, or what quangos will be axed. The public simply will not trust the SNP to suddenly tackle the enormous waste they have presided over.' Daniel Johnson, Scottish Labour's finance spokesman, said he welcomed the 'overall sentiment' but feared it amounted to 'a plan for a plan'. He said Thursday's statement was 'an acknowledgement that we have a billion pounds worth of waste'. He added: 'Reform, to my mind, is not about shrinking the state, but maximising its effectiveness and you cannot ignore the fact that over the past decade, the civil service has grown at three times the rate of the NHS, while police, fire and colleges' headcounts have all fallen.' Get all the latest news from around the country Follow STV News Scan the QR code on your mobile device for all the latest news from around the country

Telegraph

2 days ago

• Telegraph

Four reasons why Labour will betray leaseholders

In a bid to win last year's election, the Labour party made a series of ambitious promises: build 1.5 million homes, slash NHS waiting times and crack down on antisocial behaviour. But arguably, the pledge that the Government will find hardest to deliver on is the vow to overturn Britain's centuries-old (and tremendously complex) leasehold system. Homeowners on these contracts have found themselves locked in crippling contracts that include uncapped service charges. By the time Britain went to the polls last July, Labour had already dropped an initial pledge to ban the practice within the first 100 days of taking office. The party's manifesto instead said it would 'bring the feudal leasehold system to an end'. Almost a year in, it is becoming increasingly clear that it won't happen any time soon – if indeed during this Parliament. In addition to banning new leasehold flats, the Government has promised to strengthen leaseholders' rights to buy their freehold, make commonhold the default tenure for homeownership, reduce ground rents to peppercorn and remove the threat of forfeiture – which can see leaseholders removed from a property if they do not pay ground rent. Some reforms were made as part of the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act (2024) by the Conservatives – but a ban on leasehold only applies to new houses, meaning it brings no value to the almost five million people who already own leasehold homes. The move has been criticised as little more than lip service by critics. With property rights deeply entrenched in age-old legislation, has Labour bitten off far more than it can chew? Developers don't like commonhold – and the Government needs them to build flats Labour's plan to deliver 1.5 million new homes is already being derailed by a shortage of construction workers. If it axes new leasehold properties, it may remove an incentive for developers to build, explains Angelina Arora, a property solicitor for legal firm Osbornes. 'For developers, leasehold properties have been a reliable income stream – they know they can charge ground rent and have some kind of control. Commonhold will remove all those incentives, so what will motivate them to keep building?' Commonhold, with which the Government intends to replace leasehold on new and eventually existing properties, gives homeowners the freehold title to their units, and joint ownership of shared rights. The Government's white paper on leasehold reform suggests that for commonholds to become the standard, there must be market confidence in it first. However, this creates a vicious cycle, explains Harry Scoffin, founder of campaign group, Free Leaseholders. 'If you take that approach, commonholds will never have market confidence, as developers will always choose leasehold. You just need to bite the bullet and implement it.' As well as developers, lenders are very sceptical of commonhold, says Reema Chugh, a partner at law firm Hodge Jones and Allen. 'Lenders are conservative by nature – they like precedent and risk modelling. There are fewer than 20 commonhold developments in the UK – there is no established market, there are very few commonhold sales, so there is no reliable resale value meaning a higher lending risk.' Ms Churgh adds: 'With leasehold, lenders can step in if leases are forfeited due to a breach. Commonhold has no equivalent backstop. Lenders have less control in recovery scenarios. 'Until commonhold becomes mainstream, lenders will see it as risky, but it won't become mainstream until lenders support it – so it's a chicken and egg situation.' Scoffin points out that if only new properties are required to be commonhold, this could create a two-tier system, with the gap between the prices of flats and houses at its highest level in 30 years. 'Everybody will rush towards new flats, and nobody will want to touch existing leasehold ones. So existing leaseholders will be even more disadvantaged by the reforms,' he says. Removing marriage value and ground rents is incredibly controversial Marriage value is the increase in a property's worth when a leaseholder buys the freehold, or extends its lease once there are fewer than 80 years left on it. This makes extending a lease or purchasing the freehold much more expensive when there are fewer than 80 years left, with leaseholders paying 50pc of the increase in the value of their property to the freeholder – this can be tens of thousands of pounds, in some instances. The Government has pledged to abolish marriage value, which would make it significantly cheaper to extend short leases – but to do so is incredibly complicated. Some freeholders have argued that it is incompatible with their private property rights as laid out in the Human Rights Act 1998, with a judicial review set to take place later in the summer. 'The 80-year rule creates a ticking time bomb – it causes stress, erodes property value, encourages predatory behaviour and hinders market function. It makes it harder to sell and remortgage flats with short leases, which creates market stagnation. '[Abolishing marriage value] would represent a major power shift, which is why it's hotly contested. Reforming it is essential to making the system fairer,' says Chugh. Almost a million leases have escalating ground rents, according to the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) regulator. This means the annual charge increases over time and experts have warned that these clauses are turning flat owners into 'mortgage prisoners'. The Government has also made the ambitious pledge to cap ground rents – but in doing so may have offered millions of leaseholders false hope. As with marriage value, freeholders are fighting ground rent changes on human rights grounds – and modifying rights enshrined in law is likely to be no easy or speedy feat, adds Chugh. 'Retrospectively removing contractual rights is likely to be very challenging… the mechanisms to do it are really unclear. 'Ground rents are also often tied up in investment products [such as pensions]. If they retrospectively remove it, compensation schemes could be required, at a huge cost to taxpayers.' Samuel Hughes, of think tank Centre for Policy Studies, is critical of the plan to retroactively change contracts. '[This is an attempt to] let leaseholders buy freeholds for less than they are worth. Some freeholders are charities, so you're giving people the right to buy charity assets at below market values,' adds Samuel Hughes of think tank Centre for Policy Studies. 'There is such a lack of clarity from the Government – it hasn't been well thought out' Legal professionals bemoan a lack of guidance and clarity around what would constitute a seismic change to the foundations of property law in this country. 'So many people are affected – leaseholders, developers, lenders, freeholders, legal practitioners,' says Arora of law firm Osbornes. 'When people come to us, we just don't know the answers. Rather than advising our clients, in order to protect ourselves we can only give them the information we have and tell them they need to take a view. Ultimately, we just don't know. 'Regardless of the Government [in power], this is not something that can change overnight. There are so many practical things to think about before anything can come into effect. All UK Finance lending regulations will have to change. We deal with lease extensions on a daily basis – what's going to happen when leases effectively don't exist? There's such a lack of clarity. 'Normally there are seminars held with legal practitioners to assist with reforms, discussing what is potentially going to happen. We've had nothing. How long can people wait?' Another of the Government's many leasehold reform promises is to ban forfeiture, which gives freeholders the right to evict a leaseholder if they break a condition of the lease, such as not paying ground rent. 'Forfeiture is deeply embedded in leasehold,' adds Chugh. 'There is no clear legal remedy which allows freeholders to take a flat back over minor arrears – so it will require a longstanding rewrite of landlord rights.' 'Is there the political will from Number 10 to make these changes?' Scoffin, a leasehold reform campaigner, is sceptical of the political drive to make this happen. He points out that Labour promised leasehold reform in 1995 in a document called 'The End to Feudalism'. Yet there has been little progress since. Scoffin says: 'The history of leasehold reform is that if there isn't a strong steer from Number 10, it's not going to happen. The Conservatives made some promises to leaseholders in 2019, but then it was dragged through the whole of the course of the Parliament. 'We're really concerned that we're going to have a repeat of where we were with the Conservatives, where there are a lot of great announcements, and then there isn't the progress that we need – and then suddenly we're at the end of the parliament, and they haven't got it through. 'The [Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government] says there is a bill coming later this year, but that's not strictly correct – it's a draft piece of legislation. The Government could sit here for a year or two analysing responses, and then we're back here at the general election. 'Is Number 10 really giving [housing secretary] Matthew Pennycook full backing? Are they bringing in more brilliant brains and getting a crack team assembled to bring this through? 'Successive Governments haven't prioritised this – they leave it too long to bring in major reforms, and it falls on the next Government. Leaseholders cannot wait until the next election to stop being looted in their homes – if they do, voters will not thank [Labour].' Arora concurs that leaseholders may be waiting some time before any meaningful changes occur. 'We're looking at late 2025 for the draft Bill, but that doesn't mean it will come into force – it will still need to become a fully fledged bill. I don't think the commonhold will come into effect for another few years. 'It just hasn't been well thought out. I think these issues are coming up, and they're realising they're way over their heads.'