[Assessed 83%] Land in Kashiwa City, Chiba — 18 min from Kashiwa Sta.

Midorigaoka in Kashiwa spans two valuation sheets, 14119 (the main sheet) and 14120 (its eastern edge). Matching the map coordinates in the listing HTML (latitude 35.85133, longitude 139.96961) against five block coordinates for Midorigaoka from the Geospatial Information Authority address API (blocks 8, 16, 14, 22 and 10) put the site about 36 m from block 8, in the middle of the district. We read sheet 14119.

Enlarging the relevant part of sheet 14119 (blocks 6-17 and 21-23) to 300 dpi, almost every local street carries 175D (fourteen observations of 175D, four of 170D, two of 180D). Every street bounding blocks 8, 9, 10, 14, 15 and 16 is 175D, and the listing's 6 m south-west frontage with a 10.3 m boundary matches the south-west street of block 8. The 170D values appear only at the fringes towards Tomisato 1-chome to the north-west and Toyoshiki to the south-west, while the 130D to the south is in Hibarigaoka, not Midorigaoka. The representative value is therefore the modal 175,000 yen per sqm.

The margin here is thinner than on most properties. Taking the fringe value of 170,000 yen per sqm gives a land valuation of 11,293,100 yen, or 80.67 per cent - still above 80, but by only 0.7 points. At 165,000 yen per sqm it would be 78.3 per cent. That said, no 165D street exists within Midorigaoka on the 2026 sheet; 165D was the district-wide figure for 2025. We traced the same street across three years: 155D in 2024, 165D in 2025, 175D in 2026, consistent with the fringe 170D line moving 150D-160D-170D.

The site plan revealed something important: this is an irregular plot in the shape of a right-angled triangle. The western side measures about 12.58 m, the southern road side about 8.26 m plus about 1.95 m for a frontage of roughly 10.2 m, and the north-eastern hypotenuse about 15.24 m. There is no private-road burden, flag-lot pole or sloping portion, so we made no deduction for area, but the same 66.43 sqm gives less freedom in placing a building than a regular plot would. Together with 50 per cent site coverage and 100 per cent floor area ratio, the usable extent is less than the area figure suggests.

We opened four site photographs including the frontage road. The 6 m public road to the south-west is a wide, flat asphalt street, and the road surface sits at much the same level as the plot. The roadside boundary is two or three courses of concrete block (about 0.4-0.6 m measured from the horizontal joints) with metal fencing, but the ground barely steps across it, so we judged it a boundary wall rather than a retaining structure. The neighbouring plots (a timber house to the north-east, a carport to the south-east) are at the same level, and we found no retaining wall, slope or sloping ground of 1 m or more. There is no step at the frontage and no stepped approach, and the site plan confirms it is not a flag lot.

The land status is given as "existing old house", and a two-storey timber house still stands on the plot. As this is sold as land with no value attributed to the building, demolition costs need to be allowed for separately. No building conditions are attached, so the buyer is free to choose a builder. Mains water, main drainage and town gas are available, and other restrictions are recorded as "-", with no mention of cliff ordinances, retaining walls, level differences, rebuilding restrictions or setbacks.