Buying land

[eltax91]

Escort3500 said:

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.

The only planning stipulation for my plot were the removal of permitted developments for extentions/ outbuildings and fences. I can't build either of these without prior planning.

Unless of course i've zero understanding of what you just said

[Equus]

eltax91 said:

...I've zero understanding of what you just said

If you look up the Officer report for the Outline that granted permission for your plot (ref. 15/00809/OUT), for example:

it said:

Development Plan Policies:-
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)
National Planning Practice Guidance (PPG)
Core Strategy (2009)Hinckley and Bosworth Local Plan (2001)
Policy IMP 1 - Contributions towards the Provision of Infrastructure and Facilities
Policy REC3 - New Residential Development - Outdoor Play Space for Children
Policy RES5 - Residential Proposals on Unallocated SitesPolicy
NE5 - Development in the Countryside Policy BE1 - Design and Siting of DevelopmentPolicy
T5 - Highway Design and Vehicle Parking StandardsPolicy
NE14 - Protection of Surface Waters and Groundwater Quality Emerging Site Allocations & Development Management Policies DP

If you then go on to read the Officer's appraisal, you'll see a discussion of how those policies were assessed and applied.

Long story short:

• they were actually quite lucky to get permission - I've seen plenty of decisions in similar circumstances that were assessed more stringently and as a result refused.

• They gained permission basically on the grounds that it was an 'infill plot' within a row of established residential 'ribbon' development.

Those special circumstances would not apply to the land behind, therefore I would consider it relatively unlikely under current national and local policy that either landowner would obtain permission to develop the land behind.


ETA: I assume that you're happy with the whole internet knowing where you live, otherwise you wouldn't have posted the map? If this is not the case, say so and I'll edit this post to remove the identifying information.

Edited by Equus on Thursday 29th October 15:01

[eltax91]

The me Equus. All a matter of public record, so yes not a problem posting the information! No need to edit.

Thanks very much for your response, very helpful indeed. Cheers

[Lonoxe]

Hello, need a bit of advice please. looking to buy a land adjoining my property and wondered what I should be paying in solicitors fees. I recently bought my house and paid about £2,500 in conveyancing. I have been quoted similar for the land which cost less than a tenth of my house price. Is this reasonable or a rip off?

Also, does anyone know if there’s any benefit in owning the land directly vs in a limited company? Given the land is agricultural land, could I potentially claim maintenance equipment from tax if it is in a company?

[Snow and Rocks]

Lonoxe said:

Hello, need a bit of advice please. looking to buy a land adjoining my property and wondered what I should be paying in solicitors fees. I recently bought my house and paid about £2,500 in conveyancing. I have been quoted similar for the land which cost less than a tenth of my house price. Is this reasonable or a rip off?

Not sure what's typical but I'm currently going through the same process and have been quoted £750+vat from both my own and the seller's solicitors for their respective parts in the process.

The value involved in the transfer is pretty small (£750 and just under an acre) but can't see why that would affect the work involved.

[LooneyTunes]

It’s impossible to say with certainty whether that fee is reasonable as it depends on how complex the transaction is, for example whether it’s already registered, how simple the vendor is going to make things (farmers can be interesting to deal with!), services/rights crossing the land etc, but it doesn’t sound outrageous.

There can be significant IHT benefits to holding agricultural land personally. Likewise interesting subsidy regime which can help offset some of the costs associated with land (if you’ve got enough to reach the various thresholds and can be bothered with dealing with the Rural Payment Agency). Permitted Development rights are different too, again subject to various thresholds.

You could put it into a Ltd if you felt like it, but remember that a company has a separate legal personality and aims to make money. You may find HMRC come knocking if all you do is try to claim tax back without any attempt to generate revenue.

[Lonoxe]

Thanks guys. The land in question is made up of 3 plots totalling 4.5acres. One is registered but the other two lots are not. The seller has promised to get things sorted for easy transaction so hopefully that minimises issues. If the lots are processed differently, I can see fees adding up but if it is packaged as one sale by the seller, then i think it should be much less than a minimum of £2.5k quoted.
That was very useful info on personal vs Ltd company. I think I’ll keep it simple and buy it personally under my name. I thought I might be able to claim for maintenance machinery under Ltd.

[LooneyTunes]

That doesn’t sound unreasonable to me for several lots, especially if some are unregistered.

Do make sure that you use a solicitor who understands agricultural transactions and, if you’re not going to use it yourself, be extremely careful about who you let use the land later and the terms under which they do so.

[Chamon_Lee]

Wilmslowboy said:

Equus said:

bimsb6 said:

I struggle to get my head round how this can even be “ a thing” on any thing else once you have sold the item thats it , its no longer yours but with land you can have a piece of a pie you have sold!

Yep, it stinks, to be honest - you're letting someone else make all the effort and take all the financial risk, but then expecting a slice of the profit.

It's like selling a barn find classic, but then expecting a cut of the profit when it's sold after restoration.

It's standard practice in the world of land buying, unfortunately.

No really, makes a lot of sense, the buyer gets to buy the land at a low price (paying nothing for the potential that it could get planning) , and if it does the seller get to share some of the upside.

I would suggest this is the best and lowest risk option for both parties.

Really makes no sense.

[Lonoxe]

LooneyTunes said:

That doesn’t sound unreasonable to me for several lots, especially if some are unregistered.

Do make sure that you use a solicitor who understands agricultural transactions and, if you’re not going to use it yourself, be extremely careful about who you let use the land later and the terms under which they do so.

Thanks, that’s helpful. I’ll drop you a PM if you don’t mind on allowing others to use the land and what it may mean

[Granadier]

Once when browsing property auctions I came across several pieces of rural land for sale with chickenfeed guide prices and I was half tempted to bid for one, not to develop but just to have my own private bit of field/forest. Couldn't really justify the extravagance, of course.

[sfella]

Lonoxe said:

Thanks, that’s helpful. I’ll drop you a PM if you don’t mind on allowing others to use the land and what it may mean

In short it means agricultural tenancies can be very tricky, spoken word can hold up in court (so I'm told) and without very clear wording you may not get your land vacated,certainly not easily. Anyone with a cob type horse and caravan in tow would also be tricky to get moved and one horse may turn into 100. Most 'horsey' women are mad and it will never be straight forwards!

[LooneyTunes]

sfella said:

Lonoxe said:

Thanks, that’s helpful. I’ll drop you a PM if you don’t mind on allowing others to use the land and what it may mean

In short it means agricultural tenancies can be very tricky, spoken word can hold up in court (so I'm told) and without very clear wording you may not get your land vacated,certainly not easily. Anyone with a cob type horse and caravan in tow would also be tricky to get moved and one horse may turn into 100. Most 'horsey' women are mad and it will never be straight forwards!

That’s a large part of it, but there are also things to consider around rights of way, both in terms of existing ones and avoiding accidentally allowing new permanent ones to be created.

You are completely right that horsey women are mad..

[Lonoxe]

Thanks guys. Incidentally, I currently allow a lady to keep horses on my existing paddocks! She’s been good so far but when she leaves, I’m not renting it out again. We were initially daunted maintaining a few acreage but I’ve seen ride on brush cutters in action and will shortly be getting one plus also now know a few people that can flail paddocks with tractor add ons so more comfortable at keeping my paddock maintained without having horses on it