Approaches from Developers

[Snowy90]

Bloke next door to mums old place came a cropper a few years ago. Tiny cottage with 4 acres of woodland in an AONB, engaged an architect & firm of planning consultants to draw up plans for a new place. They came up with a grandiose design that though in keeping with the area failed to get planning permission. So they appealed after altering the plans etc. And it got knocked back again as it didnt have disabled access amongst other things.
Other issues & costs were Bat survey £800, Amphibian survey £800, Arborcultural survey (trees) £800, Highways report, Parish council report, Environment agency report, (Flood plain & sewage) English heritage report.
Lancaster city council then found that the cottage only had planning permission as a holiday cottage with severely limited occupation times. As he was living there full time he had no option but to move out & revert to weekends & holidays.
The whole shebang cost him £16,500.
When i was looking at selling mums place first thing i did was look at the council planning portal & read up on all the local developments. It was quite illuminating & one of the primary reasons i cut my losses & sold the place!

Its an expensive game, thats why most sell to developers who take that burden of the costs on board and all the risk.

 

[GRW]

My folks place used to have PP for a single extra dwelling, but they kept it lapse donkeys years ago.
A shame, I'd far rather live there than the semi I have now.
As for getting PP here in Carmarthenshire - tbh it seems very much that unless you know the right people and/or are a member of the local "Taffia" (aka Council, Chamber of Trade, Masons and combo's thereof) then your chances are slim.
Sell the land to the right people for agricultural land value though - and don't be surprised if all of a sudden PP is no problem .

I can see that (genuine) Developer's have their place - because I know that my folks place had the potential to make money from property on it.... but that assumes that you HAVE a big chunk of money to spend on PP and building in the first place.... so the owners can only hope to realise monies from selling the Plot for others to build on.

 

[armalites]

Its exactly this kind of practice that gives all developers a bad name, that said, her solictor should have seen that coming.

If think the issue was they saw it as a 2m strip of grass, they didn't really see it as an opportunity to build two houses. It was all done and dusted before anyone realised, there is no way the daughter would have let it happen had she known. They had a couple of thousand as far as I'm aware. One of the other neighbours had said he would have happliy given them 5 times the amount and put a caveat on it to stop it happening in the future. Providing access which allowed 2 properties had to have been worth £20K.

 

[colnerov]

Hi, It sounds like that '2m strip of grass'. could have been a 'ransom strip' so they bought it first to control it.

Colin

 

[MysterG]

My Grandfather sold a bit at the bottom of his back garden off years ago for access so a plot of land could be developed.
They built an entire housing estate on it in the end, he got a couple of grand.

When he died and his house went up for sale my Aunt (an ex estate agent) enquired about selling the bottom of the garden off as a building plot for a single dwelling (garden was long and hardly visible from the house) but they refused.

 

[redlig]

Its an expensive game, thats why most sell to developers who take that burden of the costs on board and all the risk.

And the profits ,naturally.

 

[tigdlo]

Its an expensive game, thats why most sell to developers who take that burden of the costs on board and all the risk.

The burden of costs end up on the house buyers as they inevitably pay for the profit and losses of these companies, if they didn't they would all be bankrupt.

 

[8ob]

I think it was princes Anne that suggested every village town in the UK should allocate a site for 8 houses in a year or two they would have met demand

I think she is right and instead of concrete jungles they could be quality houses with decent gardens, a house situated on a sizeable plot will have a lot more going on in the way of trees/ hedges/plants that are suitable for bird nesting/wildlife habitat than any chemically enhanced farmers field set to grass.

Bob

 

[Snowy90]

The burden of costs end up on the house buyers as they inevitably pay for the profit and losses of these companies, if they didn't they would all be bankrupt.

You are of course right, developers are businesses at the end of the day they are there to make profit, what people dont always realise is that housebuilding/development is so different to most ventures. You commit a huge resource to getting planning permission, then buying the site which could be 30-50% of the cost of the new house, then the build and marketing then finally you actually get some cash in when somebody moves in could be 12months since the ground was dug. Most developers profit only comes in right at the end when the last couple of homes are sold. its a long risky road for a net 15% profit margin. The developers take all the risks market changing up or down and build cost inflation which is going through the roof as everything is. Housebuilding is very debt ladened.

There are not many industries that take those sort of risks hence the profit margins are relatively high when compared to contractors and retail etc...

 

[gaz1]

I have mixed feelings on the right to buy, from a councils perspective it released them from many years of costly maintenance and put money in their coffers which they threw at housing associations, that again supplied new homes without the maintainable liability. Where it goes wrong is the eligibility for the great unwashed to be housed. They would never meet housing associations criteria and end up in rented accommodation or hotels at the local councils expense, in years gone by they were thrown into a rough old council estate with others of the same ilk.
Also very strange how an area considered rough suddenly gets a lift once home ownership comes into play, there was a road in Aldershot which was all council houses, dead cars all over the place, fences and gates hanging off, broken windows. You should see it now the houses are owned, looks like Brookside

Bob

right to buy should never have happened as it was still council property owned by everyone in that area and maintained by that areas council tax

all those should have moved and bought private houses instead

as goes with many areas many owners have been sat empty not paying council tax on there propertys so in a way im glad they changed the rule to 6 months to sort repairs out and then start paying council tax after that and so they should do

as goes for the riff raff ive known estates full of them and they can be rough, rita sue and bob too shows this up rather well

and did get to the stage where the big familys run the estates where so areas became no go areas for the police

an estate can be pulled down once a few wrong familys are moved in

as you i dont agree with housing them in hotels but i also dont agree where the unwashed as you call them are housed in the town center as the workers dont want to live where they work they want there gardens and somewhere to sit and enjoy

its higher council tax thats been paid for in city centers

council 3 floor flats pulled down and where do they house them dont get me wrong its no fun being single male in a flat but im not a lover where the single female has prioraty over the male either ive seen enough single ladies with riff raff males in the areas causing trouble

but i dont like singles housed in the city center either like they are nowadays

 

[8ob]

right to buy should never have happened as it was still council property owned by everyone in that area and maintained by that areas council tax

all those should have moved and bought private houses instead

as goes with many areas many owners have been sat empty not paying council tax on there propertys so in a way im glad they changed the rule to 6 months to sort repairs out and then start paying council tax after that and so they should do

as goes for the riff raff ive known estates full of them and they can be rough, rita sue and bob too shows this up rather well

and did get to the stage where the big familys run the estates where so areas became no go areas for the police

an estate can be pulled down once a few wrong familys are moved in

as you i dont agree with housing them in hotels but i also dont agree where the unwashed as you call them are housed in the town center as the workers dont want to live where they work they want there gardens and somewhere to sit and enjoy

its higher council tax thats been paid for in city centers

council 3 floor flats pulled down and where do they house them dont get me wrong its no fun being single male in a flat but im not a lover where the single female has prioraty over the male either ive seen enough single ladies with riff raff males in the areas causing trouble

but i dont like singles housed in the city center either like they are nowadays

Trouble is Gaz in most cases the council lose that house the second they move tenants in, from there on in they have the financial burden of owning, maintaining, insuring and the administration of it while never getting the chance to relet it, it's gone because it will be handed down to the next generation within in the family whether they need it or not. Far better to let it go with a discount and relieve themselves of the burden that will run into what could be many decades. It's like anything to do with welfare, it's a very poorly managed and expensive millstone around their necks.

Bob

 

[gaz1]

Trouble is Gaz in most cases the council lose that house the second they move tenants in, from there on in they have the financial burden of owning, maintaining, insuring and the administration of it while never getting the chance to relet it, it's gone because it will be handed down to the next generation within in the family whether they need it or not. Far better to let it go with a discount and relieve themselves of the burden that will run into what could be many decades. It's like anything to do with welfare, it's a very poorly managed and expensive millstone around their necks.

Bob

thats changed with new tennant agreement pre 2000 and the bedroom tax soon after with both private and council property

the rules have changed cause trouble for your neighbours wether private or council you will be evicted
keep the gardens clean and tidy same clause as above

theres no longer any right to pass down occupancy to the next generation due to the bedroom tax where you must move to another property smaller than what you are housed within
family only have sitting rights to be rehoused not to stay in that property forever like the old tennacy agreement allowed

bedroom tax 25.00 for a 2 bed house 50.00 for a 3 bed house and so forth that the money had to be paid weekly from your own benefit

 

[8ob]

thats changed with new tennant agreement pre 2000 and the bedroom tax soon after with both private and council property

the rules have changed cause trouble for your neighbours wether private or council you will be evicted
keep the gardens clean and tidy same clause as above

theres no longer any right to pass down occupancy to the next generation due to the bedroom tax where you must move to another property smaller than what you are housed within
family only have sitting rights to be rehoused not to stay in that property forever like the old tennacy agreement allowed

bedroom tax 25.00 for a 2 bed house 50.00 for a 3 bed house and so forth that the money had to be paid weekly from your own benefit

It's called tenancy succession Gaz, take a squint https://www.lbhf.gov.uk/sites/defau...nts/faqs_successions_guidance_for_website.pdf
It's not hard to leave family members on the electoral roll at an address, especially if they are not a home owner elsewhere.

Bob

 

[gaz1]

they have to be named on the tenancy

Reasons for eviction from a council tenancy - Shelter England

The council need a legal reason to evict you from a secure tenancy, like rent arrears or antisocial behaviour. The court decides if eviction is reasonable.

england.shelter.org.uk

rent arrears can be bedroom tax if you dont pay it you can be evicted

and so forth via the above link like i said the rules changed

its the ones wth pre 1995 i think that cant be lowered to a lower bedroom there still sat in a 3 and 4 bed house paying 60-70 a week instead of 120.00 a week

my rent alone was for a 3 bed and it was only 80.00 a week new rent was 120.00 a week for the same property

 

[Pigeon_Droppings2]

I've seen loads of properties where the main house is for sale but half the garden is fenced off...one in Broadstairs I asked what the plan was and was told the guy wanted it as an allotment.

Sounded OK to me....asked the agent if he'd be happy to place a restriction on use....of course not!

Someone must be falling for it otherwise they wouldn't keep doing it. Usually they try to sell the main house...as a "renovation project". Then once the main house is sold they'll throw up a new house(s) in the back garden. I've seen em built within 1m of the boundary fence....yea no thanks.

 

[Bornfree]

I have just under 3 acres of garden and I used to quite regularly get these letters. Every one with a return envelope I would send back saying it was for sale for £3million. Haven't had anymore I guess they think iam mad.

 

[Easywelder]

I think most of the letters we get are from’developers‘ that have no interest in building, they just want to buy the land get as much housing/value crammed in and sell on to the house builders.

 

[gaz1]

Your not wrong, the system of councils planning where development goes knows as the 5 year land supply is a sound policy, it gives developers and land owners the opportunity to put their land forward for future development and the council decides through rigorous process where its best placed. All sounds good! untill the council takes 2-3 years to approve plans then suddenly they cant meet their housing targets and are wide open for windfall sites and the appeals process.

I know the opposite side of that one

the land has been planned by surveyor and the builder is pushing for every little space being used for there buildings

the more houses he builds the more profits he gets

the knock back often is for trees and not enough space for a turning circle bin wagons

then you have issues from other residence as they dont want a building site or muddy roads to contend with and an area for there children to play on

what you dont know is you may get planning to pass 3 houses build then its submit another set of plans to plan for 5 houses build on the same plot remember this is all greed on the part of the developers ive seen many plans knocked back for this greed

so they then sit on this land not building houses as they can build elsewhere then they try again with another set of plans which then gets knocked back so they go to an apeal

in other cases by the big builders bribary payouts is there to get plans past and many are in on it

 

[Pigeon_Droppings2]

so they then sit on this land not building houses as they can build elsewhere then they try again with another set of plans which then gets knocked back so they go to an apeal

Exactly what happens where I live...there should be limits around submissions and appeals I think. After those limits are hit then no more submissions for a fixed period (eg 3 or 5 years). Too many people gaming the system.

 

[8ob]

The trouble with the mailshots are you don't really know who you are dealing with, its easy to make a complete hash of a planning application which could render an otherwise viable plot virtually worthless for a good few years afterwards.

Bob