Buying land

[Equus]

dazwalsh said:

Ye this is probably the most worrying part of it, its a mound of soil which is going to require about 4 grab trucks to take excess away. It borders a large piece of open land, so my thoughts were that it was to be an access road for this that never materialised, or its where they had the site cabins and what not and by the time they finished it wasn't worth building on perhaps? its not a large estate, maybe 20 houses.

Of course if planning gets granted and soil appears normal then it will always be a mystery, but that was one of my initial worries as to why it wasn't built on before. Again it was a punt so there is some risk involved.

At risk of stating the bleeding obvious, Planning isn't the only reason bits of land don't get built on. Site compound location is not normally one of them, though. Spur for future access road is a possibility, but so are lots of other things (sewer easement, ground conditions, overland flood route, etc., etc.).

I would have been very nervous about committing myself to purchase of such a piece of land, without establishing the reason behind it, though. In fact, I'd have run away screaming - it's basic due diligence, especially when the information, for the most part, is quite easy to get hold of.

[Escort3500]

Who’s selling the land; ie the developer or another party?

[dazwalsh]

Equus said:

dazwalsh said:

Ye this is probably the most worrying part of it, its a mound of soil which is going to require about 4 grab trucks to take excess away. It borders a large piece of open land, so my thoughts were that it was to be an access road for this that never materialised, or its where they had the site cabins and what not and by the time they finished it wasn't worth building on perhaps? its not a large estate, maybe 20 houses.

Of course if planning gets granted and soil appears normal then it will always be a mystery, but that was one of my initial worries as to why it wasn't built on before. Again it was a punt so there is some risk involved.

At risk of stating the bleeding obvious, Planning isn't the only reason bits of land don't get built on. Site compound location is not normally one of them, though. Spur for future access road is a possibility, but so are lots of other things (sewer easement, ground conditions, overland flood route, etc., etc.).

I would have been very nervous about committing myself to purchase of such a piece of land, without establishing the reason behind it, though. In fact, I'd have run away screaming - it's basic due diligence, especially when the information, for the most part, is quite easy to get hold of.

That's the thing I did plenty of research, and there was also plenty of interest in the plot, it started out like at 10k guide, I ended up paying 19.5k plus fees. I know I broke the rule of not buying anything with planning

[dazwalsh]

Equus said:

dazwalsh said:

Ye this is probably the most worrying part of it, its a mound of soil which is going to require about 4 grab trucks to take excess away. It borders a large piece of open land, so my thoughts were that it was to be an access road for this that never materialised, or its where they had the site cabins and what not and by the time they finished it wasn't worth building on perhaps? its not a large estate, maybe 20 houses.

Of course if planning gets granted and soil appears normal then it will always be a mystery, but that was one of my initial worries as to why it wasn't built on before. Again it was a punt so there is some risk involved.

At risk of stating the bleeding obvious, Planning isn't the only reason bits of land don't get built on. Site compound location is not normally one of them, though. Spur for future access road is a possibility, but so are lots of other things (sewer easement, ground conditions, overland flood route, etc., etc.).

I would have been very nervous about committing myself to purchase of such a piece of land, without establishing the reason behind it, though. In fact, I'd have run away screaming - it's basic due diligence, especially when the information, for the most part, is quite easy to get hold of.

That's the thing I did plenty of research, and there was also plenty of interest in the plot, it started out like at 10k guide, I ended up paying 19.5k plus fees. I know I broke the rule of not buying anything without planning but again it was a punt, and a good one if it pays off, not so much if it fails but that's the nature of the beast.

[blueg33]

dazwalsh said:

Equus said:

dazwalsh said:

Ye this is probably the most worrying part of it, its a mound of soil which is going to require about 4 grab trucks to take excess away. It borders a large piece of open land, so my thoughts were that it was to be an access road for this that never materialised, or its where they had the site cabins and what not and by the time they finished it wasn't worth building on perhaps? its not a large estate, maybe 20 houses.

Of course if planning gets granted and soil appears normal then it will always be a mystery, but that was one of my initial worries as to why it wasn't built on before. Again it was a punt so there is some risk involved.

At risk of stating the bleeding obvious, Planning isn't the only reason bits of land don't get built on. Site compound location is not normally one of them, though. Spur for future access road is a possibility, but so are lots of other things (sewer easement, ground conditions, overland flood route, etc., etc.).

I would have been very nervous about committing myself to purchase of such a piece of land, without establishing the reason behind it, though. In fact, I'd have run away screaming - it's basic due diligence, especially when the information, for the most part, is quite easy to get hold of.

That's the thing I did plenty of research, and there was also plenty of interest in the plot, it started out like at 10k guide, I ended up paying 19.5k plus fees. I know I broke the rule of not buying anything with planning

Cheap plot is a worry

[Equus]

blueg33 said:

Cheap plot is a worry

And the bigger worry is that from your description so far, it doesn't sound like a bad risk in terms of Planning...

There are plots that are cheap to develop, and there are plots that are easy to get Planning for. There are very, very seldom plots that are both.

Are you able to post an anonymized Google aerial view of the site (or PM me the location, if you trust me, and I'll anonymize it for you)?

[dazwalsh]

Heres the Setup, circa 300m2 in total.

Edited by dazwalsh on Tuesday 27th October 20:23

[Equus]

Ah, ok... I remember this one?

I think that the advice I gave was that in basic design terms it's 'trapped' between the frontages of the two dwellings to either side, so contriving workable private garden area, parking, etc., whilst maintaining an acceptable streetscape isn't going to be easy.

It looks like it was planned as POS/structural landscaping (integrated with the larger POS with play area, behind) and for this reason alone I'd expect the Planners to resist its loss, and the loss of the trees it is covered with at present.

It was definitely not reserved to accommodate future road access to the land behind - if you wanted to do that, you'd have run a dummy turning head in front of one or other of the houses that front onto it, but in any case the land behind is very clearly POS too, so is unlikely ever to gain permission to be built on.

[sfella]

When the auction house selling it use the term 'speculative future development' it makes me think they don't believe it will gain planning anytime soon if ever but you never know.

[dazwalsh]

Equus said:

Ah, ok... I remember this one?

I think that the advice I gave was that in basic design terms it's 'trapped' between the frontages of the two dwellings to either side, so contriving workable private garden area, parking, etc., whilst maintaining an acceptable streetscape isn't going to be easy.

It looks like it was planned as POS/structural landscaping (integrated with the larger POS with play area, behind) and for this reason alone I'd expect the Planners to resist its loss, and the loss of the trees it is covered with at present.

It was definitely not reserved to accommodate future road access to the land behind - if you wanted to do that, you'd have run a dummy turning head in front of one or other of the houses that front onto it, but in any case the land behind is very clearly POS too, so is unlikely ever to gain permission to be built on.

Ye I have mentioned it at the time of purchase on here. Thanks for the input Equus, it is clearly fenced off from the land behind if that makes any difference, and although looking quite substantial on the aerial, the trees in reality is overgrown shrubbery more than anything with trunks no bigger than say 20cm in diameter on the biggest.

I can see how it appears trapped inbetween the frontages, and i will try find solutions to that aspect, pushing them as far back as possible, no windows on gable ends, and parking I hope will be driveways. The road side is a continuous dropped kerb.

The aim of that general area is to encourage housebuilding and regeneration, so will certainly try and gain some brownie points by aligning the project with their aims, starter homes seem to be severely lacking, and there is housing going up on playing areas and all. sorts of land nearby so perhaps my luck will be in.

Thanks again. I will bear your comments in mind when meeting with planners, and i will try have answers before the questions are asked if that makes sense.

[blueg33]

That little bit of land has a potentially messy ownership structure - It has a a freeholder and a leaseholder

But worse than that - there is a high risk it doesn't have access rights. The estate roads are owned by the houses as each plot incorporates the road in front of it. Generally even if it has a right of access you cant intensify the use, which is what development would do. (I have been bitten by this in the past)

[Equus]

blueg33 said:

...I have been bitten by this in the past...

I'd be interested to know more background to that comment.

Conveyance to the centreline of the road was just how we used to do it, in those days, and I've never seen or (yet) experienced it as an issue, provided the road was then adopted?

The leasehold/freehold thing is certainly an unnecessary complication: I'm not sure why (other than force of habit, at the time) they bothered to convey the road off to individual leasehold plots, when it could just have been adopted directly from the freehold.

[blueg33]

Equus said:

blueg33 said:

...I have been bitten by this in the past...

I'd be interested to know more background to that comment.

Conveyance to the centreline of the road was just how we used to do it, in those days, and I've never seen or (yet) experienced it as an issue, provided the road was then adopted?

The leasehold/freehold thing is certainly an unnecessary complication: I'm not sure why (other than force of habit, at the time) they bothered to convey the road off to individual leasehold plots, when it could just have been adopted directly from the freehold.

Sandford Road in Cheltenham - I will explain later

I agree the plot conveyance is normal, but they probably haven't created rights to access that bit of land, because you dont create rights to POS in that way

Edited by blueg33 on Wednesday 28th October 09:33

[dazwalsh]

blueg33 said:

That little bit of land has a potentially messy ownership structure - It has a a freeholder and a leaseholder

But worse than that - there is a high risk it doesn't have access rights. The estate roads are owned by the houses as each plot incorporates the road in front of it. Generally even if it has a right of access you cant intensify the use, which is what development would do. (I have been bitten by this in the past)

The parcel of land used to belong to leasehold land consisting of several pockets of land on that estate, but I have bought it freehold.

Interesting about the increase in usage, will look further into that to see if its going to be an issue. The boundaries are indeed the centre of the road, and we had a bit of a fight to get the access rights granted, and also rights to access services. It was never mentioned in the auction conditions and only became apparent when the Tr1 was sent over. Solicitor was very good in that regard, glad I didn't skrimp on that.

Its a good insight into how intricate and risky the planning process is, my bread and butter is btl renovations so this is all new to me, so the comments and advice on here is welcome.

Edited by dazwalsh on Wednesday 28th October 15:04

[blueg33]

dazwalsh said:

blueg33 said:

That little bit of land has a potentially messy ownership structure - It has a a freeholder and a leaseholder

But worse than that - there is a high risk it doesn't have access rights. The estate roads are owned by the houses as each plot incorporates the road in front of it. Generally even if it has a right of access you cant intensify the use, which is what development would do. (I have been bitten by this in the past)

The parcel of land used to belong to leasehold land consisting of several pockets of land on that estate, but I have bought it freehold.

Interesting about the increase in usage, will look further into that to see if its going to be an issue. The boundaries are indeed the centre of the road, and we had a bit of a fight to get the access rights granted, and also rights to access services. It was never mentioned in the auction conditions and only became apparent when the Tr1 was sent over. Solicitor was very good in that regard, glad I didn't skrimp on that.

Its a good insight into how intricate and risky the planning process is, my bread and butter is btl renovations so this is all new to me, so the comments and advice on here is welcome.

Edited by dazwalsh on Wednesday 28th October 15:04

Land Registry hasn’t updated yet.

If your access rights are to the land as it is, it’s very likely that they won’t be adequate for a development. If that is the case then you need to find a way of satisfying buyers and their solicitors. Normally you would go for a DTI policy, but if you have recently approached the house owners on the estate for any sort of acres either directly or via the seller, you could have shut down the indemnity option as it’s usually a condition that you have had no discussions.

[dazwalsh]

blueg33 said:

dazwalsh said:

blueg33 said:

That little bit of land has a potentially messy ownership structure - It has a a freeholder and a leaseholder

But worse than that - there is a high risk it doesn't have access rights. The estate roads are owned by the houses as each plot incorporates the road in front of it. Generally even if it has a right of access you cant intensify the use, which is what development would do. (I have been bitten by this in the past)

The parcel of land used to belong to leasehold land consisting of several pockets of land on that estate, but I have bought it freehold.

Interesting about the increase in usage, will look further into that to see if its going to be an issue. The boundaries are indeed the centre of the road, and we had a bit of a fight to get the access rights granted, and also rights to access services. It was never mentioned in the auction conditions and only became apparent when the Tr1 was sent over. Solicitor was very good in that regard, glad I didn't skrimp on that.

Its a good insight into how intricate and risky the planning process is, my bread and butter is btl renovations so this is all new to me, so the comments and advice on here is welcome.

Edited by dazwalsh on Wednesday 28th October 15:04

Land Registry hasn’t updated yet.

If your access rights are to the land as it is, it’s very likely that they won’t be adequate for a development. If that is the case then you need to find a way of satisfying buyers and their solicitors. Normally you would go for a DTI policy, but if you have recently approached the house owners on the estate for any sort of acres either directly or via the seller, you could have shut down the indemnity option as it’s usually a condition that you have had no discussions.

Heres what it currently says.

"The full and free right of way at all times and for all purposes
over and along all roads paths and ways which after the date hereof are
built upon the said land."

would that not be sufficient? i will contact solicitors about this if not, as its not all fully signed yet, i have the TP1 ready to send back, but can request alternations at this stage still.

I guess you make a good point, and something i hadnt thought of before, how an original access right to just a piece of land wouldnt be transferable to access for 2 houses. how would that problem raise itself, shut down by the planners or could it be a valid objection by the neighbours? and would they have to prove it, such as the extra usage causing nuisance?

Sorry for the questions, the access thing appears to be more problematic than I first envisaged.

Edited by dazwalsh on Thursday 29th October 12:07

[blueg33]

dazwalsh said:

blueg33 said:

dazwalsh said:

blueg33 said:

That little bit of land has a potentially messy ownership structure - It has a a freeholder and a leaseholder

But worse than that - there is a high risk it doesn't have access rights. The estate roads are owned by the houses as each plot incorporates the road in front of it. Generally even if it has a right of access you cant intensify the use, which is what development would do. (I have been bitten by this in the past)

The parcel of land used to belong to leasehold land consisting of several pockets of land on that estate, but I have bought it freehold.

Interesting about the increase in usage, will look further into that to see if its going to be an issue. The boundaries are indeed the centre of the road, and we had a bit of a fight to get the access rights granted, and also rights to access services. It was never mentioned in the auction conditions and only became apparent when the Tr1 was sent over. Solicitor was very good in that regard, glad I didn't skrimp on that.

Its a good insight into how intricate and risky the planning process is, my bread and butter is btl renovations so this is all new to me, so the comments and advice on here is welcome.

Edited by dazwalsh on Wednesday 28th October 15:04

Land Registry hasn’t updated yet.

If your access rights are to the land as it is, it’s very likely that they won’t be adequate for a development. If that is the case then you need to find a way of satisfying buyers and their solicitors. Normally you would go for a DTI policy, but if you have recently approached the house owners on the estate for any sort of acres either directly or via the seller, you could have shut down the indemnity option as it’s usually a condition that you have had no discussions.

Heres what it currently says.

"The full and free right of way at all times and for all purposes
over and along all roads paths and ways which after the date hereof are
built upon the said land."

would that not be sufficient? i will contact solicitors about this if not, as its not all fully signed yet, i have the TP1 ready to send back, but can request alternations at this stage still.

I guess you make a good point, and something i hadnt thought of before, how an original access right to just a piece of land wouldnt be transferable to access for 2 houses. how would that problem raise itself, shut down by the planners or could it be a valid objection by the neighbours? and would they have to prove it, such as the extra usage causing nuisance?

Sorry for the questions, the access thing appears to be more problematic than I first envisaged.

Edited by dazwalsh on Thursday 29th October 12:07

I think the wording is OK but I would check with my lawyer being very clear about my intentions for the site - is your lawyer a land law specialist (thats really important, regular lawyers miss this sort of thing) Specifically ask about intensification, and whether the right allows all modes eg on foot, by car etc

Do you have the same rights reserves in every title that you need to cross.

Its usually picked up by buyers solicitors or their mortgage company, and if not robust enough the houses will be un-mortgageable. The owners of the other plots could prevent access if your use is outside of the rights granted, they would do this by an injunction.

As a developer you should always approach titles on the basis that its not you or your solicitor that has to be satisfied, but that its buyers and their solicitors and they will have a range of views, so you have to cover every base.

[eltax91]

Would some of you super planning people be able to comment on the below?

The second image is the overall plot for context. The houses are currently in "open countryside" near a village in Leicestershire.

In the first image:-

In 2017, the guy in orange got planning for and built 2 units, and sold those off to the people who are now in blue.
In 2018, the guy in pink got planning for 1 unit and sold it to the guy in Red (me) who then built the house, I moved in early 2019

What's the liklihood of Mr Pink or Mr Orange gaining planning for their remaining land? Obviously there's access potentially for both to build access roads without demolishing their houses. I'm sort of friendly with Mr Pink and i would hope to one day secure some more land to the rear of my property, however he's currently using it for his horses, so that's a non starter right now.

Opinions and questions welcome

[blueg33]

Depends

[Escort3500]

What local planning policies were applied by the LPA when the new builds were granted pp? You need to check out the relevant planning officer reports to establish this. Also, check whether there are defined development limits for the settlement in the local plan proposals map; it might allow only for infill development along the frontage for example.