To buy a house that backs onto farm land?

[Superhotwheels]

Hi all, so I've recently viewed a house that I've absolutely fallen in love with. I cannot get it out of my head, it just ticks every box and more. It's my dream house. The garden is fantastic, but it backs onto extensive farm land. I'm worried I'm being foolish and that one day, the farmer might sell for redevelopment. I wouldn't necessarily mind losing the view, its just the idea of all that works for years on end.

To provide a bit more context - it's set back off a busy main road; and on the other side of that road has been a massive redevelopment where 700 houses have been built. Do you think this makes it more likely or less likely? My immediate thought was less likely due to risk of overdevelopment, but I know so very little about all this, so would really appreciate some views!

Thanks

The Government has made no such changes. What it has done has been to amend the way in which compensation for the land will be calculated.

Developers will no more be "able to compulsorily purchase farm land" than they were before.

I agree with the planner that it may well be built on in time. In terms of the ask the farmer recommendations - how to see who farms it and whether they own it or are a tenant farmer? In any event why would they tell a perfect stranger their long term plans if indeed they have them. Also in the light of inheritance tax on farm land being introduced this is quite a loaded question they might even be asking themselves. Its massively unlikely they would sell a bit of the field to one house but no harm in asking if you are happy to incur all the fees involved in drawing up plans and first registration of the land. If the garden is far enough from the end of the field to have privacy and an adequate garden I would buy. If you only really want it because of the view which you won't be owing I would not buy.

Definitely try and ask the landowner. In my area we live in a new build built on farmland. The people in the housing estate that used to back onto the field were not happy. But we needed somewhere to live so…

But why would you be able to trust the landowner? It would be unwise to rely on a conversation for something this important, there would be nothing you could do if it went wrong and they cannot truthfully give you any form of long term guarantee as obviously things change for everyone all the time, the land is likely to be their main asset I think its a bit cheeky and unwise myself for a random person to turn up and question someone else about it....

Thanks everyone for your replies. To answer a few of the questions raised, I don't think it would bother me if we lost the view. It's an added bonus, but I would buy this house even if it didn't have the view. For me it's the layout and the garden size that sells it.

I don't think it would bother me too much if we were suddenly surrounded by newly built houses, but the idea of us being surrounded by ongoing development for years on end is quite off-putting. If you could just fast forward the process, I'd buy it at that point!

In terms of access, there's a road that comes off the main road leading up to the house. The house is at the end of this track, and the farmer owns it. So the farmer would be responsible for all maintenance of that road, and we would have a right of way. There is an extensive amount of land, and relatively close by (turning before ours about 100m away) is a grade II listed house. I've come across denied planning applications because of the impact on that house

@Superhotwheels You need to find out if the land is currently mentioned in the local Development plan. Or in the larger LA plan for development and growth. These, at the moment, are the definitive documents for presumed development.

If the land is not included, it still might be in the future. Very few farmers say no when a few £ million is dangled in front of them. They won’t tell you what they might do but they will sell. Labour wants more homes. Plans will change. Areas with no plans do see speculative builds. So check what area plans have been drawn up. You may get many years with no development.

Hand in glove with the changes to APR!

Find out what grade the land is. Prime agricultural land will be the last to be sold. Less productive fields will go first.

If that did happen in the future you might be in a good position to sell up to the developers and make a big profit.

The fact the developers potentially only have to pay based on agricultural prices, average £15k per acre makes it significantly cheaper and therefore easier to compulsory purchase. The government are naive if they think that the reduced land coat will filter down to affordable housing. This might be a good time to buy shares in building companies.

We did, the land has had planning declined 3 times now, twice since we've lived here. It's a small plot so would only be a handful of houses at best so a short build time in terms of disruption. Ultimately if it's ever developed and we hate it we can move....other houses back onto houses and they sell so it's not the end of the world. Just make sure you aren't paying way over the odds for the views and consider how you'd feel if it did get developed, would you move? Do the other houses you're considering back onto houses? If yes then this one is a bonus for the time that it doesn't.

Compulsory purchase powers are for public bodies. The likes of Barrett homes can't just rock up and do it. It's a huge process to go through as well.

Scaremongering.

Personally I wouldn’t do it. There will be a building boom and developers much prefer green field to brown field development.
I’d also be extremely concerned about the track and right of way. Could that be an access road to the fields?
An estate can take years to build in phases. All that said, if it’s the ‘perfect’ house and priced competitively, and you are not too concerned, do it. There are so many absolutely sh1te houses for sale, a suitable replacement may take months or years to pop up.

Id be more concerned that it could be turned into a solar farm.

@TizerorFizz thanks for that - I've checked the local plan which outlines proposed development up until 2038 and the land isn't mentioned

@TwentyBillion that's a good point, I would hate that so much!!!

We live in the edge of a village , a bridle path runs alongside my house , a farm house opposite us over the lane .
The farmer sold some land and a housing estate has gone up , it's thankfully not right by us but the houses that used to look over a field , now have houses .
The people that live in the houses being the bridle path have purchased the land to stop any potential builders eyeing it up .

I wouldn’t to be honest. As you say you don’t mind the houses going up, but if they are going to be using your access road you will have the builders larger Lorrie’s and vehicles trundling up and down your lane and all the noise and disruption while the build happens. Plus the increased traffic down the lane once built.

Thats what I thought, but a massive development round here, many 100’s of acres, is looking like its going ahead as a development consent order, which as far as i can see means the government gives the planning permission not the local planning authority.
Basically compulsory purchase for developers!
This government seems keen to concrete over everything.

A DCO is for infrastructure though. Not housing.

Developers can appeal non inclusion of their option sites. Local authorities can even include land for development and then not agree detailed PP for it. If LA is unreasonable an appeal can be lodged with the government.

Labour do want to build more. They will have to go somewhere. @Superhotwheels That is a long term plan but it probsmably can be tweaked as Labour push through building plans. We don’t really know how planning will speed up applications for inclusion in plans in the future.

Ransom strips can be bought but again the government can allow compulsory purchase. Many houses were new once!

You also need to check whether the Council can demonstrate a 5 year supply of housing land. If they can't, PP is more likely to be given to sites which aren't allocated in the Local Plan. Again, the new government are proposing changes to the way this is calculated, and treated, which will result in some authorities having huge increases in their housing targets (some will be reduced too, but not as many).

This is for warehousing.
Can’t see how that is “public good” myself, but thats whats happening…

Yes. There does need to be a supply of land for housing in line with Govt requirements. These will now change one assumes.

However it’s absolutely not true to say the lowest grade structural land is used first. If so, that would be in Wales and Scotland. That’s clearly not the case. The government have coined the phrase “grey belt”. This has no meaning in planning but could have a meaning if Labour want it to. It’s clearly supposed to signify poorer quality green belt land but where is it?

There is supposed to be a presumption of building on brownfield sites but it’s hardly going anywhere due to cost. Old airfields are up for that bug it takes years and years of negotiation and nothing happens.

Rural HAs like Hastoe build social housing (few homes in the countryside) on land they buy for agricultural prices. No developer can do this for profit. In the 09/10 slump developers shares were about 20p. They are obviously more now but building is always hampered by planning, land availability, labour availability, highway and environmental arguments and lengthy negotiation. Years of it.