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.

@Panicmode1

If it has been allocated in the Local Plan, you will be inundated with letters from land buyers/developers. You may be better off optionng it to a land promoter who will get planning permission on it, and then sell to the highest bidder, splitting the profit with you. Chances are you will get more that way as a developer will be trying to buy your land for the cheapest price possible.

Your land will not be compulsorily purchased by a Council unless you are on land marked for a new road/railway for example.

No one can force you to sell. It would just be removed from the SHLAA/Local Plan on the next round.

This is a good point. If the plan is draft the council will still be looking at sites. One of things the need to have thought about is whether the site is "available and deliverable" and a big element of that will be ownership/option agreements. The council must show they've allocated sites which have a realistic prospect of actually being built. The fact that you know nothing about it implies that either it could be removed from the list of sites for this reason. If this is something you're considering you need to decide soon as developers are likely to be knocking on your door soon.

In what context did the council tell you "no chance"? It's so rare for them to commit in this way - it makes me think it's not actually a site being taken forward (ie it's on the middle of the countryside, or in a National Park) and it's just been put forward in a call for sites.

@WhateverJudy

The council need to establish ownership of the land and willingness of the owner for it to be developed, before they allocate the land. If they allocate it and the owner isn’t interested, and that happens for several of the sites in the local plan, the housing target rapidly becomes undeliverable. As part of the process of assessing the site options they have, they will assess information about ownership and deliverability. Has no one from the council contacted you about this?

This is more concisely out than my post. Though the council won't contact the land owner, they'll engage with whoever submitted the site to them

@nicebreeze OP mentions having purchased from a liquidator so I imagine the previous owner put it in to the Call for Sites. Given the glacial pace of the Local Plan process (bar one of my local ones in Kent who is galloping through!) particularly at the moment, I imagine they haven't checked the change of ownership before allocating. And esp if they can't demonstrate a 5 yr supply.

Personally I would sell and buy elsewhere. You are constantly going to be in a battle to keep development from your door.

With the money buy somewhere where that really won't be a problem again.

Or just keep buying houses with bits of land near them and become millionaires.

@Backbee

Given the current housing crisis, I'd disagree with your comment about "too many" homes appearing

There are plenty of houses. Just not enough affordable ones, and few controls over landlords who own multiple properties. If they sorted that out there wouldn't be the need to keep building.

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.

Anyone who acknowledges the housing crisis, but denies that building more homes is the answer, is part of the problem.

[quote Panicmode1]@nicebreeze OP mentions having purchased from a liquidator so I imagine the previous owner put it in to the Call for Sites. Given the glacial pace of the Local Plan process (bar one of my local ones in Kent who is galloping through!) particularly at the moment, I imagine they haven't checked the change of ownership before allocating. And esp if they can't demonstrate a 5 yr supply. [/quote]
In my experience anyone serious about getting land allocated uses an agent anyway.

I'm surprised that you don't have 100s of developers hassling you for option agreements! PM me if you need advice.

If you're thinking of selling, get on with it as soon as possible. The government are looking at ways to tax planning gain of this sort so that landowners don't end up with millions while the new housing estates rely on public funding to complete their infrastructure.

Why would anyone sell farmland for a ghastly newbuild estate? It would be a hell no from me.

Integrity is more important than money. (It won’t be millions anyway).

Developers can put in planning permission before buying the land, happened in our village, the developer only purchased once planning was granted. I'm not sure to what extent the farmer was involved in the planning stages, but I guess it's hard to gauge the worth of the land until you know what you can build on it?

For what it's worth, seems a no brainer to me, sell for millions and buy an Island! It's no bad thing, we need more houses built.

Not on unspoilt farmland we don’t.

There’s plenty of places in towns and cities - brownfield sites and empty office space that could be repurposed as residential.

Just because its on the SLAA doesn't mean it will get planning. If it is included in the local plan for housing then the chances are quite good.

However not all the stuff in the SLAA gets put in the local plan and local councillors will take a view about whether or not local people will strongly object and then consider that against the wider housing requirements in the city.

Essentially at the moment local councils have been told by the government to build X number of homes a year or lose their planning powers (eg planning decision made by the Appeals body in Bristol rather than locally). If councils dont provide enough land for this in the local plan then they can get taken to court be developers - so councils are putting all kind of land in to the local plan.

For instance my council has to build just over 2000 houses a year to retain planning powers in 2021. The most homes we have ever built is 1200 homes in a year in 2014. We highly likely wont hit this target so will lose our planning powers. It should be a scandal but the papers havent picked up on it yet.

You can put in a planning application without owning the land. Developers do this a lot. However, I've never known the owner not to be involved in the process. OP, you have to do what's right for you, but having grown up really rural it does break my heart a little bit to see all these housing developments usually without any infrastructure like schools.

@TatianaBis there's plenty of green spaces, only 95% of the UK is built on. I think the stats are in the environment's behaviour tbh!

*favour, not behaviour!

Given the current housing crisis, I'd disagree with your comment about "too many" homes appearing

We have just had 2000 homes built across 3 different sites in my town. They all cost upwards of 400k. They look like shit, on top of each other, cost a fortune and all it’s done is move those from London into the area. The homeless are still homeless. Those who can’t get on the property ladder still aren’t on the property ladder.

No extra schools, doctors surgeries, parks. The roads are always blocked from sheer weight of traffic. Yet there’s another parcel of land earmarked for the same thing.

We are looking at moving, it’s like living in little London. Tarmac and fumes everywhere.

Sell up and move. But get a more realistic idea of prices. Imagine not sure if the land will be worth millions. Dh owns 10 acres of land which has been identified on a local plan as ok for development. We probably will sell it for building but I’m not expecting millions. Maybe I’m wrong.

@nicebreeze I didn't say there were "too many homes" appearing.

I said too much green space was disappearing.

Don't make shit up because you disagree with me.

@Covidcovid

Sell up and move. But get a more realistic idea of prices. Imagine not sure if the land will be worth millions. Dh owns 10 acres of land which has been identified on a local plan as ok for development. We probably will sell it for building but I’m not expecting millions. Maybe I’m wrong.

I don't think you're wrong. People vastly over-estimate the value of their land. Re the OP, unless it's many acres, it won't be "millions" at all. A small building plot, adjacent to a house, can be worth a lot, but the "price per plot" for larger areas, such as large fields etc comes is usually much less because the developer has to pay for the infrastructure, such as drainage, power, utilities etc., whereas a single one-off plot can usually "tap in" to what's already there serving the existing property at minimal cost.

Has a developer offered to purchase the land? Are you aware of planning gain tax?

OP, you remind me of someone I used to know when I lived in Wales who talked all the time about the value of their land and how they were in negotiation with a developer and the local council and how once the contracts were tied and permissions granted, they would be multi-millionaires. Or the acquaintance who bought a house in Devon for its large garden, in which she planned to build a bungalow on which she'd make enough of a profit to retire on. Neither project got planning permission.

Make your decision once PP has been granted and a developer has made you an offer but it's bad taste to rub people's noses in your good fortune until then and you'll look a bit of an arse if, having boasted about how much the land is worth, nothing happens.

I'd sell before planning permission expires.

There will be other nice houses and the windfall could significantly change the quality of your life - no mortgage, money for retirement, kids education etc.

I think that corona virus and brexit have shown that it is important to become more self sufficient as a country. With global warming and increased population there will be more crises in the future. There may be time in the future when food imports may reduce and we need to feed the population. It is important to keep green spaces and farmland. If offices are to be used less , then more housing could be made there including schools doctors etc..