Buying part of a field to build a conservatory

[astroarcadia]

He should get an agent in who will value it based on the uplift to your house not ag land values.

Will probably also be advised to place restrictive covenant on the sale.

[Equus]

astroarcadia said:

Will probably also be advised to place restrictive covenant on the sale.

It depends on the amount of land involved. If it is enough to build half a dozen houses on, he'd be well advised to impose an overage clause rather than a restrictive covenant. The idea is not to prevent the purchaser from developing the land, but rather to ensure that if he does, you make your share of the uplift in value.

But if it's a 4 metre wide strip of extra garden, common sense should prevail, and it should be possible to persuade him that neither a restrictive covenant nor an overage clause is necessary or beneficial to him gaining maximum land value.

[Welshbeef]

Equus said:

It depends on the amount of land involved. If it is enough to build half a dozen houses on, he'd be well advised to impose an overage clause rather than a restrictive covenant. The idea is not to prevent the purchaser from developing the land, but rather to ensure that if he does, you make your share of the uplift in value.

But if it's a 4 metre wide strip of extra garden, common sense should prevail, and it should be possible to persuade him that neither a restrictive covenant nor an overage clause is necessary or beneficial to him gaining maximum land value.

OP could put a house in his rear garden and use this strip of land to provide access... that's what I'd do then make my margin and buy another

[Equus]

Welshbeef said:

OP could put a house in his rear garden and use this strip of land to provide access... that's what I'd do then make my margin and buy another

Chance of gaining Planning Approval for backland development in open countryside = slightly less than zero.

[Rh14n]

We genuinely have absolutely no desire for any 'Grand Designs' or do anything more than stated in my first post, just to enhance what we hope will be our home for the rest of our lives - simply to have a little more space around the house and a conservatory at a cost of around 10% of the buying price. We're not out to make any money from it and hopefully can keep it simple.

Edited by Rh14n on Tuesday 28th February 09:00

[Welshbeef]

Equus said:

Welshbeef said:

OP could put a house in his rear garden and use this strip of land to provide access... that's what I'd do then make my margin and buy another

Chance of gaining Planning Approval for backland development in open countryside = slightly less than zero.

Masonic lodge is your friend

[tuffer]

Rh14n said:

mikeiow said:

So 4,000 square metres to an acre, 200 sqm ought to be 1/20th of an acre......so perhaps only £2,500 if 50K/acre is right?!
Still sounds a tiny sum in the scheme of a house purchase!?

Yes, I would be happy if it came in at around that for us - add that to legal costs, landscaping and the build of a conservatory and I think it'd be worth doing to add value to the house alone and in addition of course we would enjoy the use of it. A chat with the farmer and the Duty Planning Officer will be our next steps I think. Thank you all.

I am in the same position and the owner is asking for >£20K for 200 sqm, we have been here 10 years so I am not in a rush. Happy to pay the asking price but he cannot make up his mind what that exactly is.

[Equus]

Welshbeef said:

Masonic lodge is your friend

You're a fantasist and an idiot.

I speak as someone who has worked hands-on with the Planning system for 35 years.

[Rh14n]

Equus said:

Welshbeef said:

Masonic lodge is your friend

You're a fantasist and an idiot.

I speak as someone who has worked hands-on with the Planning system for 35 years.

And as a female I don't think I qualify

[Rh14n]

tuffer said:

Rh14n said:

mikeiow said:

So 4,000 square metres to an acre, 200 sqm ought to be 1/20th of an acre......so perhaps only £2,500 if 50K/acre is right?!
Still sounds a tiny sum in the scheme of a house purchase!?

Yes, I would be happy if it came in at around that for us - add that to legal costs, landscaping and the build of a conservatory and I think it'd be worth doing to add value to the house alone and in addition of course we would enjoy the use of it. A chat with the farmer and the Duty Planning Officer will be our next steps I think. Thank you all.

I am in the same position and the owner is asking for >£20K for 200 sqm, we have been here 10 years so I am not in a rush. Happy to pay the asking price but he cannot make up his mind what that exactly is.

Wow! Thanks for that Tuffer. I don't think we'd stretch that far for it though.

[blueg33]

mikeiow said:

hornetrider said:

Rh14n said:

Could anyone suggest what would be 'reasonable' for 200 square metres of good quality agricultural land in North Wales where I believe it is generally valued at between £5000 - £7000 per acre?

Our house borders agricultural land, in fact our whole development does. The local farmer died a few years back prior to us moving here and his estate no longer wished to actively farm the land, so they sold off bits to every house bordering the land. What we know is that agricultural price was completely irrelevant, and the equivalent price was as for developed land even though there is still an agricultural restriction on it. The fact it borders your property adds significant value, and you could be looking at 50k/acre or more.

So 4,000 square metres to an acre, 200 sqm ought to be 1/20th of an acre......so perhaps only £2,500 if 50K/acre is right?!
Still sounds a tiny sum in the scheme of a house purchase!?

Its 4046 sqm to an acre

[blueg33]

Equus said:

Chance of gaining Planning Approval for backland development in open countryside = slightly less than zero.

That was going to be my first and only post on this thread

[Busa mav]

Equus said:

Welshbeef said:

Masonic lodge is your friend

You're a fantasist and an idiot.

I speak as someone who has worked hands-on with the Planning system for 35 years.

Perfect

[Rh14n]

We genuinely have absolutely no desire to do anything more than stated in my first post just to enhance what we hope will be our home for the rest of our lives - simply to have a little more space around the house and a conservatory. We're not out to make any money from it. Hopefully we can keep it simple.

[Welshbeef]

Equus said:

Welshbeef said:

Masonic lodge is your friend

You're a fantasist and an idiot.

I speak as someone who has worked hands-on with the Planning system for 35 years.

So you can honestly say that close networks are NEVER given the ok on what might be boarderline?

Or take a specific example 2 identical semi detached houses - specifically mine and next door identical plot size and house position to the boundary. Now a year ago they got planning permission but infuriating for them they had to step it back (side extension) by 1.5meters. Then we have planning permission for 0.3meters - why? Well not 100% sure why but on ours they made an administrative error missed the formal return deadline of 8 weeks or a request for more time (I made a bit of noise etc week later permission granted).
Now as we are very close to our neighbours we've spoken about this and in the build up they warmed us up for needing to revise drawings but were shocked we got it and they didn't (pissed off as it turns out as it cost them more drawings and total redesign of where bathrooms went (resulting in one room now being a compromise).

Before you say it different planning officer - nope exactly the same verified by the planning portal same senior regional mgr too as our neighbours mentioned her name.

And no I'm not a member / cannot commit the amount of time required with 3 very young kids but when they are older I may revisit

[blueg33]

^^^ not a masonic handshake decision, more likely down to street scene and massing

The two plots are not identical, they cant be, they are a pair of semi's

[Equus]

Welshbeef said:

So you can honestly say that close networks are NEVER given the ok on what might be boarderline?

Borderline is one thing... as are 'close networks'. We employ a (female, non-Masonic) ex-LPA Planning Officer as our Planning Director, and yes, I don't doubt that she gets a more sympathetic hearing from her ex-colleagues in the several Authorities she's worked for than you would... but she also knows her stuff and invariably puts together a robust case under Planning Policy and precedent.

What you are suggesting (backland development in open countryside) is pretty much as far from 'boarderline' [sic] as its possible to get, with residential development.

How, by your own argument, did you manage to get more favourable decision, when you are telling us that you're not a freemason, by little more than grumbling to the LPA about their slowness? Your explanation is self-defeating.

Send me the Planning reference numbers for the two permissions you're talking about, and It'll tell you why the decisions differ. It may be that one was just a bad decision under pressure (they happen). From your own explanation, it is clear that the one thing it is NOT is Masonic corruption.

I stand by my earlier analysis: you're a fantasist and an idiot.

I'll expand on that, though: you're a fantasist and an idiot with a chip on his shoulder and no understanding of the Planning system.

Spare us your conspiracy theories, puurlease!

[Escort3500]

Equus said:

Welshbeef said:

So you can honestly say that close networks are NEVER given the ok on what might be boarderline?

Borderline is one thing... as are 'close networks'. We employ a (female, non-Masonic) ex-LPA Planning Officer as our Planning Director, and yes, I don't doubt that she gets a more sympathetic hearing from her ex-colleagues in the several Authorities she's worked for than you would... but she also knows her stuff and invariably puts together a robust case under Planning Policy and precedent.

What you are suggesting (backland development in open countryside) is pretty much as far from 'boarderline' [sic] as its possible to get, with residential development.

How, by your own argument, did you manage to get more favourable decision, when you are telling us that you're not a freemason, by little more than grumbling to the LPA about their slowness? Your explanation is self-defeating.

Send me the Planning reference numbers for the two permissions you're talking about, and It'll tell you why the decisions differ. It may be that one was just a bad decision under pressure (they happen). From your own explanation, it is clear that the one thing it is NOT is Masonic corruption.

I stand by my earlier analysis: you're a fantasist and an idiot.

I'll expand on that, though: you're a fantasist and an idiot with a chip on his shoulder and no understanding of the Planning system.

Spare us your conspiracy theories, puurlease!

I'm intrigued how he'll answer this.

[Welshbeef]

Equus said:

Welshbeef said:

So you can honestly say that close networks are NEVER given the ok on what might be boarderline?

Borderline is one thing... as are 'close networks'. We employ a (female, non-Masonic) ex-LPA Planning Officer as our Planning Director, and yes, I don't doubt that she gets a more sympathetic hearing from her ex-colleagues in the several Authorities she's worked for than you would... but she also knows her stuff and invariably puts together a robust case under Planning Policy and precedent.

What you are suggesting (backland development in open countryside) is pretty much as far from 'boarderline' [sic] as its possible to get, with residential development.

How, by your own argument, did you manage to get more favourable decision, when you are telling us that you're not a freemason, by little more than grumbling to the LPA about their slowness? Your explanation is self-defeating.

Send me the Planning reference numbers for the two permissions you're talking about, and It'll tell you why the decisions differ. It may be that one was just a bad decision under pressure (they happen). From your own explanation, it is clear that the one thing it is NOT is Masonic corruption.

I stand by my earlier analysis: you're a fantasist and an idiot.

I'll expand on that, though: you're a fantasist and an idiot with a chip on his shoulder and no understanding of the Planning system.

Spare us your conspiracy theories, puurlease!

With many of the local planning schemes approved I really don't.
There seems to literally no thought process on demand planning no real clamp down on pushing it beyond the limit.


So cutting through what you posted above it agrees in the main with what I said boarderline cases if you've a close network will nearly always get the nod v if your not could be either way.

Sure I'm not talking about huge countryside development as that would be plain corruption and frankly would need so many involved for it to be not viable.

These two semis plot size are identical clearly they are mirrored in layout that is all.

[blueg33]

As Equus says, a good planning consultant can make all the difference, hencve different solutions, but I bet there are site differences that are also a factor.

In 30 odd years I have never seen two identical plots, there can be all sorts of issues that make the solution for one different from the solution for another. Non exhaustive list:

massing
building line
shadowing
angle to highway
proximity of other houses
distance and angles to windows
elevation treatment
fenestration
level changes
drive position
boundary treatments
landscaping
tree influence
service locations

I stand by the assertion that no two plots are identical

Why not give us the planning references and a few of us as well as Equus will give you the reason, but it wont be Masonic influence, mates or brown envelopes