people that sell land with a development uplift clause are grabby

[sallyismyname]

I've been quite interested in buying a piece of land. Viewed it s few times and went in to speak to the agent today. They've informed me that the vendors now will only sell with a development uplift clause so that if it increases in price at all over the next 21 years due to gaining planning permission I have to pay them 50% of the value!

This is just graby right? You want to sell something but only with ties so you can profit of someone else's hard work

It's not that they've just added the clause because you're interested. It's common practice and if you had asked the first time you went to view it then they would have mentioned it. They assumed you would be aware of this practice. You weren't. I can see why you're surprised but it really isn't their fault.

Also have a chat with the planning department, depending on the type of 'temporary structure' you might need planning eg caravans can count as both temporary and movable but you still need planning permission in certain instances.

It's called capitalism. The idea is to maximise your profit. If you don't understand this basic fact you shouldn't be buying land.

And don't assume you don't need planning permission.

I think you are being grabby by insisting that the clause be dropped.

You may well need planning permission to even put a tent on the land, which is then the thin end of the wedge for constant development.

I've seen agricultural land turned into fisheries, then a cafe added, then a venue larger venue added, then houses for staff.
Hey presto, in 15 years an agricultural field has become a full on development that never would have been given planning permission at the outset.

I'm surprised it's a minority view but I agree with you op. Just because something's common doesn't mean it's not shit.

I put that clause in the contract when I sold some land. I wanted the field to remain a field so I sold it at an "agricultural" price per acre. The clause was to put off potential developers or, failing that, to get me an appropriate price for land with development potential.

Happily, 5 years on, the field is still a field and there is no likelihood of me "cashing in".

Thanks very nice, I'm surprised its a minority view here also, sometimes you can just never tell.

Don't think calling it capitalism or maximising profits makes it non grabby!

Its like tesco selling some flour and if you make it into something delicious they demand half of it.

I gather it will have some good uses, but it does seem to be being abused.

Its over 20 acres so even if a caravan or something isn't permitted no one would know. Worst case scenario is I'd have to move it off my land. At the end of the day I'm trying too make the world a better place planting more trees that are good for the eco system and by holidaying there my co2 footprint will be massively reduced.

I'm hardly being grabby to say no deal unless its removed. That's called exorcising my free will not to buy something if I don't like the terms!

I agree with you, I would not use the word grabby but I do think its people trying to have the best of both worlds.
I have been seeing it a lot recently on land and never really noticed before, but I do only look for fun so it may have been there more often.
I would not buy with that clause (if I was even in the position).

I wanted the field to remain a field so I sold it at an "agricultural" price per acre.

If you want it to remain a field then you shouldn't sell it. Your just trying to dictate what someone else does with something that used to belong to you. I find it ridiculous how difficult it is to plant trees on pasture land when the whole country used to be forested and more trees benefits the environment. But no if you want to turn a field you own into a forest you have to get permission.

Thanks me, I agree I don't think grabby is the best word I could of used. Cake and eat it maybe.

The ridiculously cheap price it's been advertised at is probably to allow for this clause. Without it I imagine it would be a lot more - so I imagine your demand to remove the clause or drop the price will be seen as laughable.

If your reason for purchase was really as Eco friendly as you claim then you'd have no issue with this clause as you would not intend to sell or get planning permission to develop. So I have a hard time believing this is really your motive.

I've never heard of this but no YANBU. This sounds beyond grabby!

The vendor can insert whatever clause into the deal that they want - it's up to you if you go ahead with the purchase on that basis.
We bought a small strip of land from a field next to our house many years ago. It was agricultural land but the vendor was certain they would get PP for housing in the future, so the sale price was based on building plot prices. They inserted a clause that said we couldn't build on the piece of land we had bought in the future. We got the clause changed to not being allowed to build a separate residential dwelling so that we could build an extension or a new garage if we needed to in the future.
It was an expensive small strip of land but worth every penny to us as they have now built houses on the remaining land (as anticipated) and the dwelling next to us is not on top of our house because of the extra piece of garden we have bought.
Like anything else, if the deal is worth it to you, then go ahead - otherwise walk away.

But it really isn't. It is standard practice when selling small agricultural lots - fields.

It is one of the things that stops developers buying up land around villages then pushing planning permission through.

OP, if you want to plant trees you won't be selling. And the permission you will need is minimal change. And, should you sell then you will be selling with an equivalent clause. Or the purchaser could use/sell it as a going concern for mature tree clearance.

Not grabby at all and is just one of the ways we get to protect greenfield sites.

Pragmatic, not grabby.
I live in a very beautiful area and have put some serious cash into building conservation, if I had to sell the property I would consider such a clause to try and make sure that the buildings were preserved from development for at least the next 20 years.

Having cake and eat it and I can see that it's frustrating to only discover this now. As an aside, have you read 'Feral' by George Monbiot OP?

OP From your later posts it sounds like you are buying this land as a holiday venue. I do think you should discuss with the local authority exactly what you intend doing.
Building a habitable structure 'out of sight' can lead to enforcement action, as has been shown numerous times in the press. Are you going to have services (water, electricity, drainage) connected? If so the council are very likely to wonder why.

I'm not surprised you didn't know about these sorts of clauses, they are the norm in sales of agricultural/woodland lots but if you are not from a land-owning background or haven't thought it through commercially then perhaps it hadn't occurred to you that some people do intend to buy at one price then set about changing the nature of land usage and selling on at a higher price many years later.

I grew up on a farm in a small village and in the 1980's many Southerners ventured up North buying small cottages in the village as they came up for sale. Invariably they approached my parents about buying a small strip of land or a whole field adjacent to their cottage garden and always intended to just use it as "just an extension to their garden" or a "pony paddock". They had researched agricultural land prices and this is what they were prepared to pay. People who have owned land for generations know that prices can fluctuate substantially over longer periods of time, planning laws change from time to time and development land / residential land was worth much more than agricultural values. The increase in value to their property from benefitting from sitting in a larger plot far outweighed the price they were prepared to pay but they always thought my family were unreasonable individuals to turn down the offer every time.

The clause hasn't just been added now. It's nothing to do with you expressing an interest. These clauses are there because buyers are grabby, wanting to buy land at one price and sell it on at another just by having been able to somehow get permission to change the usage of the land. You may say you want it for one thing but with a bit of luck/ any beneficial gradual changes in the planning laws you'd reap a windfall on the asset sold to you. The clause is more of a "sharing any windfall" arrangement.

I really don't see the problem for you as you intend to create an area of forest. You'll surely never have an issue, so why does it bother you so much ? You were interested at £8,000/acre (which is not a bad price at all) so if being able to develop it at all would never happen why are you so put off the purchase ?

No I haven't read that, not sure if it will put me on or off this idea. I'll add it to my list thanks.

Sally I'm only planning to put something small off grid there. As I said not connected to anything. If I get an enforcement notice I'll just take it off site as will be on wheels. At the most I'll be there for a month of the year. I watched that demolish programme, and no I'm not that stupid!

Thanks penfold, what is confusing is some list it in the description, others don't but when you go to enquire they sometimes add it. Just be upfront is all I'm asking.

Other places you have to go I to a private treaty's in order to stop quad biking and that. I'm fine with that.

The problem is what if I want to sell in 5 years. Do I sell with 50 uplift with 16 years remaining and therefore I wouldn't be allowed this uplift myself?

It is not grabby, IMO. Agree with others, standard practice and i don't think it was added because you'd expressed an interest. Also don't agree they are being shady- they have brought your attention to this clause after all. Being shady would have been to try and slip it quietly through and hoping you didn't notice it.

The land without the clause would probably cost more, so I don't think you're alternative is likely to be accepted (but you never know, the vendors may be desperate to sell).

As others have said, if you don't intend to change the usage of the land, get planning permission or sell it on in the near future, so I'm not sure why it bothers you so much. However, at the end of the day if you don't like the clause I think you should walk away.

Yes, the uplift remains with the original vendor. Again, it is designed to prevent developers selling on with ever growing profits. Any sale within the uplift period is profit shared with whoever has the uplift.

Why would you want to sell in 5 years if you are interested in forestation?

It does sound as though the 'hidden/no one will know' holiday caravan is more your focus. And that wouldn't sound as eco friendly as you intended!

There could be many reasons why I want to sell at any time. I'm sinking a lot of money into it and who knows what will happen in the future if I do need to resell. I could need a life changing op that I have to self fund.

Why would hiding a caravan, for example, not be eco friendly? It would stop me flying on holiday and be a base in order to care for the land. I'm 2 hours away, I can't just pop down there do a bit of forestry and pop home. I would build a composting toilet and harvest rainwater.

Read it! It's about how Britain was once forest and how 'greenness' is often fakely preserving already 'made barren by man' environments. He cites Cumbria which is basically a desert thanks to hundreds of years of sheep grazing.

I think it was because you said you would be more than willing to plonk a holiday home caravan in the middle of it until you were forced out, if a caravan fell outside usage. It doesn't sound as altruistic and green once you have said that!

I have just looked at pasture land vs development land round here ... the latter goes for almost 10 times the former. If I hadn't appreciated the uplift clause before, I do now!

Ooh that does sound like a good read and right up my street. Thanks for that.

Well a carvan to holiday and take shelter in is very green, especially if its one made from scrap. Maybe I should just build a cob house.

You appreciate being able to sell something off while still retaining rights? That doesnt sound like capitalism.

I'm going to sell my bungalow, I'll put in an uplift so that if anyone extends and converts the roof I get half of the new value