To sell our land for millions...

[Rosebyanothername19]

Long story short, we baught a house and some land along with it as we had got wind that they might be planning to build houses on it and other surrounding land and we didn't want other houses directly around ours.

We were then told by the local council that there was no chance as it had been rebuffed a number of times and wasn't going to happen. So felt a bit like we had wasted our money.

A few months later we find out that our land is the only land in the area that has been put forward for planning permission, so is potentially worth millions if sold for housing. But also a relief that we baught it so it can't get built on without our consent.

We could sell the land and the house and buy something else. In a way, we have possibly won the lottery. But we love the house and the whole reason for buying the land was so there wasn't houses on it!

So wwyd?

AIBU?

YES: Don't sell the land
NO: Sell the land and the house and buy something else.

@Backbee

With respect, you have your head in the clouds. Removing BTL just means a reduction in the numbers of rental properties, unless you plan to give those renters the means to buy their own homes too? And some people choose to rent, of course.

Plenty of people want to buy, and would be in a position to buy. One of the reasons prices are artificially high some areas is because the supply to BUY outstrips demand, so the properties that are available cost more, if the multiple properties were popped back into the pot, there would be a reduction as there isn't such a stretch on the available stock, and a lot would be more suitable for families. Of course some people want to rent and it's not all landlords are bad, of course they aren't, but they have a negative effect in some areas on house prices. Same for the 10% HA properties in new builds, doesn't touch the surface. Yes we need more homes, build away. But without some measures in place it's just more of the same shit. Plenty of empty homes here that were built to be 'luxury' in an area that doesn't need them. If they had been made apartments or smaller homes without the bullshit added they would have sold like hot cakes. There are plenty of empty properties across the countries that should be invested in and the surrounding communities to make them safe and acceptable places to live before just keep building new ones.

Firstly, the poor quality of some (a lot of!) development and the questionable definition of affordable housing is not the same as the question over whether houses need to be built to allow people to stay living where they want to, where they work, where they have friends and family.

There are plenty of areas where BTL properties are the only way local people can stay local. Low wages, etc mean many people either rent or relocate. Yes, there are bigger picture issues to fix, and a planner would be the first person to list these off. Any local plan will have evidence base documents which break down the very real and imminent needs of buyers and renters, local or moving into an area. They need homes right now.

@ChardonnaysPetDragon

Housing is not in short supply, it’s our economy that depends on low paid high volume workers who creates the need for that because we keep importing workers and their families, mostly for the construction industry and that then they end up building the housing needed for themselves while whole town in Eastern Europe are dying. Also, the greed of developers and the overseas investment marketing.

It only makes developers rich and we end concreting over everywhere.

Bollocks.

There is a housing gap of 1 million, plenty of empirical evidence.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51605912

And presumably Brexit will put paid to the problem if you are right?

That bbc link is about people who are renting, who want to be able to buy. There’s a difference between shortage of housing for sale , and shortage of housing.

I’d rather see laws protecting tenants and enabling long term rentals, than keep building on green fields (cheaper than brown field). They’ve built a new town near us on agricultural land. It’s got a terrible reputation already. As soon as the “ for sale” signs come down , they are replaced with “To Let”.

I get people want to own their own home , because it gives you security and you make money. So change the renting laws to make long term rental the norm - and the accidental landlords who don’t like this can sell up.

Sell it and build a bigger and better house 🏠

No, Brexit won't solve any problems.

It's the economy model and the workers will have to come from somewhere else.

You are welcome to search my posts on Brexit if you are referencing ny views on it.

Oh and btw, this is why it came to Brexit, because legitimate concerns of overdevelopment were not addressed and instead of that everybody who dared bring them was attacked.

@ChardonnaysPetDragon

Oh and btw, this is why it came to Brexit, because legitimate concerns of overdevelopment were not addressed and instead of that everybody who dared bring them was attacked.

Ohhh, sure. House building made people bigots!

Look, everyone is entitled to be concerned about poor development, whether the houses built are old quality, if the people in them can live healthy, happy, successful lives, etc. but this "concreting over the countryside" is utter rubbish. Yes, we can't continue at the rate we are forever as ONE day we'll reach capacity. So we need to look at unlocking brownfield sites, at densification in cities and town centres, etc. but stop pretending a large number of people objecting to new development aren't just anti- any sort of development. I read the things people say about brownfield development - it's just as passionately anti-house building. Especially people whose homes are next door to it.

*are of good quality

Calling people bigots brought us Brexit.

Sell sell sell!

You could build the exact same house somewhere else, in just as nice location and have money left over...

I would be selling in a heartbeat

The bashing of people complaining about developments, the shouts of “NIMBY” are total nonsense, whether the sites are green or brownfield. People usually have legitimate concerns about these developments; construction noise/dust/traffic and disruption, the quality of the housing, the density, the aesthetics and how they fit with the local vernacular (usually not at all as they are all just Lego estates, same the country over), additional resident noise, parking, traffic and how the existing public service and infrastructure will cope with the new influx (schools, healthcare, public transport etc). These aren’t petty or invalid concerns.

Who is to say that complaints, concerns and upset about loss of views and light from existing resident’s homes are invalid too? People may not have a ‘right’ to those things in law but surely we can understand them being upset about the loss of them and wanting to fight against it? Wouldn’t we do the same?

I think unless something like this has affected you personally then it is very hard to understand why people get upset.

There are lots of large housing developments going up near us on farm land. They are huge. The houses are like matchboxes and the build quality is pretty poor. They are being built on the fringes of small villages and not an awful lot of thought is being given to infrastructure in terms of roads, GP surgeries, schools.

Some of the spiel from the developers is an absolute joke. They can't even get their facts right about distances to local train stations, bus services and bang on about working with the existing local community.

This is why people get upset.

You could build the exact same house somewhere else, in just as nice location and have money left over...

Well, fuck the village who will have to deal with the development and find somewhere nice.

Just Hope your new nice place won’t be built over soon as well.

@ChardonnaysPetDragon

Calling people bigots brought us Brexit.

Anyone who thought Brexit was a solution to overdevelopment is a bigot. Join the dots

@BalladOfBarryAndFreda

The bashing of people complaining about developments, the shouts of “NIMBY” are total nonsense, whether the sites are green or brownfield. People usually have legitimate concerns about these developments; construction noise/dust/traffic and disruption, the quality of the housing, the density, the aesthetics and how they fit with the local vernacular (usually not at all as they are all just Lego estates, same the country over), additional resident noise, parking, traffic and how the existing public service and infrastructure will cope with the new influx (schools, healthcare, public transport etc). These aren’t petty or invalid concerns.

Who is to say that complaints, concerns and upset about loss of views and light from existing resident’s homes are invalid too? People may not have a ‘right’ to those things in law but surely we can understand them being upset about the loss of them and wanting to fight against it? Wouldn’t we do the same?

I didn't say every complaint was invalid. There are plenty of objections which are 100% legitimate, plenty of developments which are in the wrong place, the wrong scale, not delivering the right scheme or delivering sufficient infrastructure. Some will never be acceptable, some can be amended off the back of objections and improved to a point they become "good". Ive objected to plenty of development in my time.

There is a group of people (sadly often people with time and money and a nice house) who object to any development. Their solution isn't "change the layout, make it lower density, build it in x location instead" it's "we don't need any more houses". And frustratingly, the planning system gets so clogged up with that shite there's little time and resource left to focus on making sure what is delivered is actually beautiful!

So that would be UntamedWisteria then?

I never suggested that.

Below is my post, if you care to read before you post.

"No, Brexit won't solve any problems.

It's the economy model and the workers will have to come from somewhere else.

You are welcome to search my posts on Brexit if you are referencing ny views on it."

@ChardonnaysPetDragon

You could build the exact same house somewhere else, in just as nice location and have money left over...

Well, fuck the village who will have to deal with the development and find somewhere nice.

Just Hope your new nice place won’t be built over soon as well.

What about the three or four young families looking to upsize or the couple who want a one bed flat - who already living in the village and want to stay there and who might love a new build? Or the other villages who could benefit from a small community building which gets built as part of with the development?

Have you actually been contacted by any potential developers? Where are you getting your figure of 'millions'?

@ChardonnaysPetDragon

So that would be UntamedWisteria then?

I never suggested that.

Below is my post, if you care to read before you post.

"No, Brexit won't solve any problems.

It's the economy model and the workers will have to come from somewhere else.

You are welcome to search my posts on Brexit if you are referencing ny views on it."

I don't remember quoting that post.

I was referring to your comment insinuating that people voicing frustrations about certain time wasters clogging up the planning system led to Brexit.

I wasn't insinuating anything.

I clearly said that not being able to discuss overdevelopment and the los wage economy that leads to to that, and calling people bigots led to Brexit.

Has the land got an overage clause on it?

@ChardonnaysPetDragon

I wasn't insinuating anything.

I clearly said that not being able to discuss overdevelopment and the los wage economy that leads to to that, and calling people bigots led to Brexit.

Who isn't able to discuss over development?

That isn't the issue here - the real question is about who gets to define over development. It shouldn't be reserved for those who shout loudest and longest, or those who can buy a couple of plots of land around their house to sit on it.

@ChardonnaysPetDragon

I wasn't insinuating anything.

I clearly said that not being able to discuss overdevelopment and the los wage economy that leads to to that, and calling people bigots led to Brexit.

And on a personal level, I've been very careful not to use the "bigot" label for Brexit voters. I am close to a few and don't believe any of them are bigots. But someone who thinks Brexit is a way to stop development is very likely to be a bigot as I assume they think it will stop foreigners coming over here, taking ours jobs, demanding houses. What am I missing?