Ransom Strip valuation
Andy davz
access to an adjacent plot of land. On this land he wants to build 22
houses, ranging in value between 160k and 260k, the development will
have a value of approx 5 million. The builder has an agreement with
the landowner of the development site to purchase the land if planning
permission is given. I guestimate the land value at least 2 million
with planning permission and very little without permission. The only
access to the site is via a strip of land belonging to me.
Question is how do i value the strip of land I own? What would it be
worth? Should I open a swiss bank account or just book a cruise in the
med?
Dr Zoidberg
Like anything , the land is worth what someone is prepared to pay for it.
If your land is going to enable a developer to make a hefty profit then
they'll obviously pay much more than if it wasn't the only access route
to the site.
A couple of things to bear in mind though , the first of which is how
sure are you that your land is the only possible way on?
If there are other bits of land they could buy then they will go for
whichever is cheapest.
Also it sounds like they don't have planning permission yet - your plot
is only of interest to them if they get this. If it's denied then your
chance of a sale is out the window.
I'd start with a straightforward question asking them how much they
think it's worth and take it from there.
--
Alex
"I laugh in the face of danger, then I hide until it goes away"
A.Lee
> I have a strip of land which a builder wants to buy off me to gain
> access to an adjacent plot of land.....
> Question is how do i value the strip of land I own? What would it be
> worth? Should I open a swiss bank account or just book a cruise in the
> med?
This has come up a few times recently, and there is no single answer.
Generally, it is 'whatever the buyer will pay'.
If the building land relies on the access to go ahead, then you are in a
good position to ask whatever you think they'll pay.
Alan.
--
To reply by e-mail, change the ' + ' to 'plus'.
Peter Crosland
news:154c79b2-e5fb-44a6...@r24g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
Wait until they have planning permission then get the valuation, and
negotiation, done professionally. A decent valuer will get you more than you
can yourself even taking the fee into account.
Peter Crosland
Philip
Your best bet is to get a professional surveyor to advise you. The real
issue you have to look at is the potential revenue the developer might
realise after costs have been incurred, and while the top-line property
values might be �5 million, that's after they have paid out construction
costs.
steve robinson
Its only worth what the builder is prepared to pay
Asumming his gross profit margin is likely to be around the one
million mark then you might squeeze him for 5% of that if your very
lucky , he may decide in these uncertain times though that its not
worth the hassle , theres plenty of land up for grabs at the moment .
Whats the land worth to you is more the question you need to ask
Roland Perry
13:45:08 on Sat, 21 Nov 2009, Philip <Phi...@invalid.invalid> remarked:
>Your best bet is to get a professional surveyor to advise you. The real
>issue you have to look at is the potential revenue the developer might
>realise after costs have been incurred, and while the top-line property
>values might be £5 million, that's after they have paid out construction
>costs.
The developer will be working to approximately 20% profit margin after
build costs, but before the costs of marketing the houses.
--
Roland Perry
Andy davz
many thanks for the prompt reply.
To answer some of your questions. Because I live in a conservation
area the builders have been refused planning permission due to access
requirements and the only way in is through my land and the builders
are waiting on me to agree to sell before they apply again.
Sure the builders will only be working to a 7-10% profit margin but
the owner of the development land is not the builder and he stands to
make 70k-100k per plot, to put that in perspective 2.2 million
profit. Now I would have thought that a good percentage of the sale
of the development land (let alone a percentage of the builders
profits) would benefit myself as i hold the key to open the door to
that land?
Road_Hog
"Andy davz" <da...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:154c79b2-e5fb-44a6...@r24g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>
> worth? Should I open a swiss bank account or just book a cruise in the
> med?
As others have said, it is worth what the developer is willing to pay. I
used to deal with a business (dealt with the owner) who although was in
agricultural/horticultural machinery, made an awful lot of money in buying
up land and selling some of it. He had a ransom strip and made a fair sum
out of it, but it did take a couple of years before the buying decided to go
ahead with the project and paid up.
It certainly would be worth more than a cruise in the Med. Going on the
figures that you have provided and assuming this is no other access to the
land, the possibility of �50K is not unreasonable. It all depends on the
market and how much profit the developer is making and what other projects
he has on the go. As others have said, get it valued when the planning
permission has been granted, let the developer know that it is definitely up
for sale at the right price and always be positive in any
discussions/negociations.
GB
> Sure the builders will only be working to a 7-10% profit margin
I thought the 20% figure was on the low side.
but
> the owner of the development land is not the builder and he stands to
> make 70k-100k per plot, to put that in perspective 2.2 million
> profit. Now I would have thought that a good percentage of the sale
> of the development land
Your land is arguably worth most of the �2.2m - certainly I would be arguing
for half.
--
Take it easy on the kid, SilverFox316; everybody kills Hitler on their
first trip.
Owain
> I have a strip of land which a builder wants to buy off me to gain
> access to an adjacent plot of land.
Would you be able to get planning permission to build a single
dwelling (or even an extension to your house, if applicable) on this
strip? Because if you could get permission and single plots go for
about the £100k level in your area then that immediately puts pressure
on the developer to acquire the strip before you or someone else put a
house on it - and possibly closes off access to his site for the next
60 years or so.
Owain
steve robinson
The key to this is the builder can he make a profit . If its unlikely
that a quick return can be made its unlikely any builder will be
interested in the land in the present economic climate , there plenty
of land with planning permission already floating around the
marketplace at the moment , several of the larger companies are
having to offload to keep a cashflow going .
Its also possible the council may change their minds and allow access
elseware making your plot worthless so dont count your chickens ,
they may even compulsery purchase your plot at face value if the
developer offers to include an element of social houseing , councils
planning are very fickle and open to a certain amount of
encouragement .
One company i used to deal with had private boxes at some of the top
football clubs , used to take the officals there to watch the footy ,
wine and dine them hold elaberate events to discuss the new
developments , school refits etc , used to work every time
If you think your going to walk away with many hundreds of thousands
of pounds you are living in a dream , if your lucky you might get
£100000 , may be even £150000 but you certainly wont pocket much
more than that and thats before any tax implications
Andy davz
wrote:
Thanks for all the replies.
I have been researching this all afternoon. I don't think the builder
is implicated in this as he doesn't own the land. It is the owner of
the land that is going to make a large amount as i would have thought
that the builder will pay the landowner about 70k-100k per plot
whatever the market value is and will not pay more, so the landowner
is looking at over 2 million! Based on many forced purchased court
cases it seems that the "ransom strip" is worth anything between 50%
to 10% of the increased value of the land, with an average being
33.3%. So I am now of the opinion that i should be negotiating at
around 33% to purchase my land to unlock the door? The builder
shouldn't be concerned with this as they will only pay market value
per plot and whoever gets the money will not affect him. Could i also
claim a percentage of his profit say 5%?
Tim Jackson
> On 21 Nov, 13:10, Andy davz <d...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> > I have a strip of land which a builder wants to buy off me to gain
> > houses, ranging in value between 160k and 260k, the development will
> > the landowner of the development site to purchase the land if planning
> > permission is given. I guestimate the land value at least 2 million
> > access to the site is via a strip of land belonging to me.
> >
> > worth? Should I open a swiss bank account or just book a cruise in the
> > med?
>
>
>
> many thanks for the prompt reply.
>
> To answer some of your questions. Because I live in a conservation
> area the builders have been refused planning permission due to access
> requirements and the only way in is through my land and the builders
> are waiting on me to agree to sell before they apply again.
>
> Sure the builders will only be working to a 7-10% profit margin but
> the owner of the development land is not the builder and he stands to
> make 70k-100k per plot, to put that in perspective 2.2 million
> profit. Now I would have thought that a good percentage of the sale
> of the development land (let alone a percentage of the builders
> profits) would benefit myself as i hold the key to open the door to
> that land?
AIUI, you have been approached by the builder. To him, the price he
pays you is on top of what he pays to the owner of the development land.
After paying both of you, and building the houses, will he still be able
make the level of profit he is expecting?
If not, then he won't proceed. He will move on to a different project
instead, perhaps on some similar local plot of land that doesn't have
the access difficulties.
That puts a cap on what the builder will be prepared to pay you. The
cap might be quite low, if the development land has been valued at the
same rate as other similar land in your area, without taking account of
the access difficulties.
Of course, if the builder doesn't proceed, it means that both you and
the owner of the development land will lose out.
So as an alternative to dealing with the builder, have you thought of
approaching the development landowner? Point out to him that he'll lose
out in the above scenario, and that it's in both your interests to be
able to present the builder with a package that makes economic sense to
him.
You could then try to agree to sell the ransom strip to the development
landowner (on condition that the builder proceeds). Haggle the price
with the development landowner instead of the builder.
If successful, the effect would be that some of the development
landowner's profit will come to you instead. Effectively, the value of
the development land will have been lowered because of the access
difficulties. You will have realised some of that value for your ransom
strip, which the builder himself wouldn't have been prepared to pay you.
--
Tim Jackson
ne...@timjackson.invalid
(Change '.invalid' to '.plus.com' to reply direct)
Norman Wells
> Andy davz wrote:
>
>> Sure the builders will only be working to a 7-10% profit margin
>
> I thought the 20% figure was on the low side.
>
> but
>> the owner of the development land is not the builder and he stands to
>> make 70k-100k per plot, to put that in perspective 2.2 million
>> profit. Now I would have thought that a good percentage of the sale
>> of the development land
>
> Your land is arguably worth most of the £2.2m - certainly I would be
> arguing for half.
On the other hand, they might then just apply for a compulsory purchase
order, and get it given to them for just a fraction of what might have been
achieved if reason had prevailed.
steve robinson
> Andy davz wrote:
>
> > Sure the builders will only be working to a 7-10% profit margin
>
> I thought the 20% figure was on the low side.
>
> but
> > the owner of the development land is not the builder and he
> > stands to make 70k-100k per plot, to put that in perspective 2.2
> > million profit. Now I would have thought that a good percentage
> > of the sale of the development land
>
> Your land is arguably worth most of the £2.2m - certainly I would
> be arguing for half.
You may argue you are unlikely to get
steve robinson
The developer wouldnt worry to much because the fact that they have
applied for a large development at the rear would make any house o
the ransom sthatvery difficult to sell thats assumming the strip is
wide enough for a house and these strips usally are not
steve robinson
No
In the current climate you are unlikely to get anywhere near that
JohnT
<st...@colevalleyinteriors.co.uk> wrote:
With so many variables, two other parties involved etc, rather than
asking a fixed price I would negotiate with the landowner to sell it
to him for a percentage of his total sale price, contingent of course
on the builder going ahead.
If the builder is any doubts about the project, having two landowners
to negotiate with may put him off.
robert
It seems well worth paying a professional to do the negotiations and
advise you of any reduction in value of your property.
Any fees he charges are likely to be more than covered by the extra he
gets and as a middleman he is probably in a better negotiating position
than you would be.
R. Mark Clayton
"Andy davz" <da...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:154c79b2-e5fb-44a6...@r24g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
Fully developed the site is around �5M (bit less for 22 @~�200k).
The land value at 42% is around �2M. The builder will spend ~�2M building
the houses and have a gross profit of ~�1M.
I am going to guess that they could acquire and demolish another house in
your street for say �250k and gain access that way (OK so it's a
conservation area and this is more difficult) That puts a ceiling on the
value.
If there is enough room on the land to build another house then it would be
worth �100k in any event. So for a cash sale that is the minimum and if
they forego their usual builder's profit �150k. This means if their PP is
refused they can still recover the [outright] purchase price.
OTOH if you think they will get planning then a structured deal whereby you
agree to sell subject to planning permission, with some money up front (say
�50k for an option) and the balance in stages when PP is granted (�50k),
work starts (�50k) and when the first unit is sold (�50k) making �200k
altogether or about ~10% of the total land value.. Make sure title reverts
if they blow out part way through.
If you like risk you could do a profit share deal or offer to buy the
landlocked site from its owner.
Do some tax planning so the payments are in different years (and possibly
for different bits) as otherwise you may get hit badly by CGT unless the
land is part of the garden of your main and principle residence... -
Definitely no need for a Swiss bank account in that case the money would be
yours tax free.
Judith M Smith
Can a cpo be granted in these circumstances?
Who grants it?
Judith M Smith
wrote:
You need to be careful that there is not an "alternative" access which
does not exist at the moment; ie they buy a neighbouring house and
knock it down to make the access road (if, of course that is an
option).
If it is - it certainly values your strip of land at the price of the
neighbouring houses.
Steve Walker
> To answer some of your questions. Because I live in a conservation
> area the builders have been refused planning permission due to access
> requirements and the only way in is through my land
Remember that councils have been directed by govt to lighten-up on the
planning restrictions in order to get a large number of new houses built.
That suggests that retaining your strip indefinitely may not be a good
idea - you should seek expert advice about how, and when, to cash it in.
Steve Walker
That's exceedingly unlikely. CPO's can only be used in pursuit of
publicly-important projects & facilities, eg railway lines. If the
developer wished to build an urgently-needed hospital or a water works then
the OP should worry, but a generic housing estate of Barratt boxes would not
remotely qualify.
peterwn
> "Andy davz" <d...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
Perhaps the developer needs the land 'under his belt' before he goes
to the expense of seeking planning permission. You could sell
unconditionally now at a lower price or give him an option to purchase
at a higher price if planning approval is successful. In the latter
case you would need to bear the risk of the cost of a valuer if the
option is not taken up.
steve robinson
The downside is waiting until the development starts ,i know of one
development in South Wales where all work has come to a halt for the
foreseeable future , ok the owners have got a million pounds out of
it , but they expected to double that on the sale of homes ,
unfortunatly it looks like they may have to wait several years
steve robinson
Its not just the negotiations its all the legals as well
steve robinson
That depends on what the developer puts on offer , if they offer up
some social housing or targeted housing for local people possibly a
bit of road widdening , or flood defence work next to the ransom
strip then a cpo would be an option
steve robinson
Yes , the local authority
All it needs is the developer to offer up some social housing ,
usally through a partnership deal
The op could fight his corner and would get an enhanced price for it
but not as much as he would if he had a straight deal with the
developer plus its going to cost him , if he deals with the developer
then they will usally pick up most of the legals
Developers dont like going down the cpo path if they can aviod it to
much bad publicity and its costly , if the op put up a fight its
quite possible it could drag on for a couple of years which eats into
there margins
Owain
> > On the other hand, they might then just apply for a compulsory purchase
> > order, and get it given to them for just a fraction of what might have
> > been achieved if reason had prevailed.
> That's exceedingly unlikely. CPO's can only be used in pursuit of
> publicly-important projects & facilities, eg railway lines. If the
> developer wished to build an urgently-needed hospital or a water works then
> the OP should worry, but a generic housing estate of Barratt boxes would not
> remotely qualify.
IANAL
CPOs can be used to purchase land for additional or wider roads. It
seems likely to me that the local authority could make a good try for
compulsory purchase especially if this doesn't involve making anyone
homeless.
Owain
andrew
> The op could fight his corner and would get an enhanced price for it
> but not as much as he would if he had a straight deal with the
> developer plus its going to cost him , if he deals with the developer
> then they will usally pick up most of the legals
If it were to be CPed then won't the stokes v cambridge precedent establish
the starting point for valuation?
AJH
Norman Wells
It's wider than that. The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 says this:
"226. Compulsory acquisition of land for development and other planning
purposes .
(1) A local authority to whom this section applies shall, on being
authorised to do so by the Secretary of State, have power to acquire
compulsorily any land in their area which- .
(a) is suitable for and required in order to secure the carrying out of
development, redevelopment or improvement; or .
(b) is required for a purpose which it is necessary to achieve in the
interests of the proper planning of an area in which the land is situated."
No need there for anything special or publicly important, just 'development,
redevelopment or improvement'.
Steve Walker
> It's wider than that. The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 says this:
>
> "226. Compulsory acquisition of land for development and other planning
> purposes .
>
> (1) A local authority to whom this section applies shall, on being
> authorised to do so by the Secretary of State, have power to acquire
> compulsorily any land in their area which- .
>
> (a) is suitable for and required in order to secure the carrying out of
> development, redevelopment or improvement; or .
>
> (b) is required for a purpose which it is necessary to achieve in the
> interests of the proper planning of an area in which the land is
> situated."
> No need there for anything special or publicly important, just
> 'development, redevelopment or improvement'.
Up to a point, Lord Copper. Like all UK legislation this must now be
applied in accordance with European Convention Rights, or else amended to
make it compliant.
In particular the OP would find protection in Protocol 1, Article 1 -
"Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his
possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the
public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the
general principles of international law".
In reaching a view of "the public interest" it would therefore be necessary
to address necessity & proportionality, and to demonstrate a compelling
public interest reason for depriving a citizen of peaceful enjoyment of his
possessions (if the council failed to address these issues, their decision
would be surely quashed by judicial review).
Steve R is right of course - the risk is that the developer throws in an
urgently-needed local amenity as part of the bundle, and this provides the
public interest basis. The OP will have to take care to set his price
below such options.
steve robinson
My point was that given certain senerios the op would have less
chance of challenging the CPO successfully and at the same time
maximising his return
GB
> GB wrote:
>> Your land is arguably worth most of the �2.2m - certainly I would
>> be arguing for half.
>
> You may argue you are unlikely to get
Well, the OP doesn't have to sell then. Even if there's a CPO he should get
at least 30% of the development value of the land his strip gives access to.
That's an old case pre HRA, so maybe more now?
GB
>
> In the current climate you are unlikely to get anywhere near that
So, I would suggest that the OP does not sell in the current climate then.
It's clearly worth the best part of a million. If the other landowner and
the builder don't want to play ball 'in the current climate' then the OP has
the least to lose out of any of them by sitting tight.
--
Take it easy on the kid, SilverFox316; everybody kills Hitler on their
first trip.
steve robinson
Its a nice dream but the reality of the situation is somewhat
different
Unless the op owns all the land around the propsed developement then
there are always other options
If the local authority decide to widen the road all he will get is
the value of the land as it is now , the developement will come later
, as it is at the moment planning has been denied
steve robinson
> steve robinson wrote:
> >
> > In the current climate you are unlikely to get anywhere near that
>
> So, I would suggest that the OP does not sell in the current
> climate then. It's clearly worth the best part of a million. If
> the other landowner and the builder don't want to play ball 'in the
> current climate' then the OP has the least to lose out of any of
> them by sitting tight.
Unless he gets cpo ed which as no planning on the large plot has
gone through makes the ransom strip worthless for anything other
than road widening
He can have his pipe dream if he wants but reality is somewhat
different , being greedy will just make the developer if he wishes to
continue seek other alternatives , im sure some counciller seeking re
election will assist in finding other access points
Norman Wells
Who better than the local authority to determine public interest in planning
matters?
It's a local matter. They will be presumed to know and decide the local
public interest. If they decide that more housing is necessary, indeed
imposed on them by central government, and decide that is where it should
go, then there is no-one better qualified. It's likely therefore that their
decision will be effectively final and that any Euro-defence will be a
non-runner.
GB
>
> Unless he gets cpo ed which as no planning on the large plot has
> gone through makes the ransom strip worthless for anything other
> than road widening
Planning has not been denied, just not granted yet - unless I have missed
something in this long thread. There would be no justification for a CPO
unless planning permission were being granted. The compensation under a CPO
includes 'hope value'.
> He can have his pipe dream if he wants but reality is somewhat
> different , being greedy will just make the developer if he wishes to
> continue seek other alternatives
That's an obvious danger, as other posters have pointed out. As always on
this group, people build arguments out of nothing, All we have to go on is
what the OP said, namely that the development needs his strip. If the
development does not need his strip, that is obviously a different matter,
ie if it isn't a ransom strip it can't be valued as a ransom strip.
However, if the OP is right and the development land cannot be accessed
without his strip, then each piece of land is worthless without the other.
If his land is CPO'd then 30% of the value of the development land seems to
be the starting point, ie �700k. If it's not CPO'd, it's a matter for
negotiation. However, to suggest that the ransom strip is only worth �100k
"if lucky" is simply misguided.
steve robinson
I also said it might possibly push to £150000 , any more than that
and it becomes uneconomic for any builder , unless the ops neighbour
drops his price dramatically we dont know wether this is feasable
It might be a consrvation area but it doesnt stop the demolishion of
property boardering onto the land if the op gets greedy , for 22
houses possibly in an area that needs more housing the LA under new
guidlines recently issued by the government may allow such a move
Usenet Nutter
I wonder if the Trump objectors in Aberdeenshire have seen that .I'd
imagine so.
Norman Wells
I honestly don't know where these ideas of massive compensation come from.
The normal starting point for compensation under a Compulsory Purchse Order
is the market value of the land or property to be purchased, prior to the
proposed development. This assumes that you are a willing seller attempting
to get the best reasonable price for it. There may be a premium paid in the
event of the property having a ransom value, but that will certainly not be
based on the value of the development as a whole, but just on the value of
the land or property being purchsed under the CPO.
Norman Wells
Throwing in an urgently-needed local amenity is not done to justify
potential compulsory purchase orders. The company concerned has usually
bought up the necessary land in advance, so it's theirs. What they are
offering is a sweetener in order to persuade, some would say bribe, the
local authority that granting planning permission would be a good thing.
GB
>
> I honestly don't know where these ideas of massive compensation come
> from. The normal starting point for compensation under a Compulsory
> Purchse Order is the market value of the land or property to be
> purchased, prior to the proposed development. This assumes that you
> are a willing seller attempting to get the best reasonable price for
> it. There may be a premium paid in the event of the property having
> a ransom value, but that will certainly not be based on the value of
> the development as a whole, but just on the value of the land or
> property being purchsed under the CPO.
Stokes v Cambridge has been mentioned several times in this thread. That
dealt with access issues and ascribed a starting point for valuation as
one-third of the development value of the land to which the ransom strip
grants access. As a general rule for CPOs, the valuation includes hope
value. That means in a case like this that it includes the amount that a
seller could expect to get on a private sale as a ransom strip - although
not taking into account the specific development under consideration.
This is all very fanciful, as there is no suggestion of a CPO anyway.
Finally, of course the builder is not going to spend more in total than the
entire site is worth. However, how that amount is split between the OP and
the owner of the main block of land is what is being discussed here.
Jon Ribbens
> That's exceedingly unlikely. CPO's can only be used in pursuit of
> publicly-important projects & facilities, eg railway lines.
Or for getting rid of "social undesirables".
tim....
"steve robinson" <st...@colevalleyinteriors.co.uk> wrote in message
news:xn0ghx9s...@news.virginmedia.com...
Judith M Smith wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 15:35:07 +0000, "Norman Wells"
> <cm...@dibblers-pies.co.am> wrote:
>
> > GB wrote:
> >> Andy davz wrote:
> > >
> >>> Sure the builders will only be working to a 7-10% profit margin
> > >
> >> I thought the 20% figure was on the low side.
> > >
> >> but
> >>> the owner of the development land is not the builder and he
> stands to >>> make 70k-100k per plot, to put that in perspective
> 2.2 million >>> profit. Now I would have thought that a good
> percentage of the sale >>> of the development land
> > >
> >> Your land is arguably worth most of the �2.2m - certainly I
> would be >> arguing for half.
> >
> > On the other hand, they might then just apply for a compulsory
> > purchase order, and get it given to them for just a fraction of
> > what might have been achieved if reason had prevailed.
>
>
>
> Can a cpo be granted in these circumstances?
>
> Who grants it?
Yes , the local authority
All it needs is the developer to offer up some social housing ,
usally through a partnership deal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
If they are building 22 houses they will already have had to offer 5 - 8
social houses as part of the process of getting permission
tim
steve robinson
Not on such a small development as it would make the project unviable
thats between 23 and 37 % of the value of the project value
Chris R
>>> purchase order, and get it given to them for just a fraction of
>>> what might have been achieved if reason had prevailed.
>>
>>
>>
>> Can a cpo be granted in these circumstances?
>>
>> Who grants it?
>
> Yes , the local authority
>
> All it needs is the developer to offer up some social housing ,
> usally through a partnership deal
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> If they are building 22 houses they will already have had to offer 5
> - 8 social houses as part of the process of getting permission
>
> tim
Does anyone know if local authorities actually use CPO powers for small
developments of this kind? I seem to remember from long ago that they are
very reluctant to use CPO powers, if only becuase it requires the authority
to pay out public money and involves them in costs, especially if it results
in litigation. CPO powers are used for city centre redevelopments and other
major schemes, but I wouldn't expect them to be used to deprive someone of
his property just becuase a neighbour wanted it in order to redevelop.
Chris R
tim....
tim.... wrote:
----------------------------------------------------
Firstly, 22 properties is a "large" development in these terms. The
requirement to provide social "offset" in order to get planning for a new
estate usually apply for all developments over 10 or 15 properties (and
there are cases where it has been rerquired for new builds of 1 property).
Second I can do percentages. This is well within the range of the figure
required by most LAs (usually 25 or 33%)
tim
steve robinson
As i said it makes the site non viable , if i were developing that
particular site , i would either scale down the development or
upmarket the properties if the LA tried to push the issue , its in a
conservation area so they would be marketable .
steve robinson
They can do , it all depends on the benefits to the local area
although it is unusual and often very costly both financially and
politically
Roland Perry
Sun, 29 Nov 2009, steve robinson <st...@colevalleyinteriors.co.uk>
remarked:
>> Firstly, 22 properties is a "large" development in these terms.
>> The requirement to provide social "offset" in order to get planning
>> for a new estate usually apply for all developments over 10 or 15
>> properties (and there are cases where it has been rerquired for new
>> builds of 1 property).
>>
>> Second I can do percentages. This is well within the range of the
>> figure required by most LAs (usually 25 or 33%)
>>
>> tim
>
>As i said it makes the site non viable , if i were developing that
>particular site , i would either scale down the development or
>upmarket the properties if the LA tried to push the issue , its in a
>conservation area so they would be marketable .
On what basis? It's extremely unusual from what I can tell, and even if
you successfully argue that you can't provide that amount of social
housing for some strange reason[1], the council will whack you for a
compensatory payment that hits your pocket just as much as if you'd
built them.
[1] In Cambridge one developer of £1m+ flats argued that the social
housing wouldn't somehow "sit properly" inside his upmarket gated
community.
--
Roland Perry
tim....
"Roland Perry" <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote in message
news:sjrrhzHX...@perry.co.uk...
----------------------------------------------------------
It's normal to be allowed to provide the social properties elsewhere
tim
tim....
>tim.... wrote:
>>
>> Firstly, 22 properties is a "large" development in these terms.
>> The requirement to provide social "offset" in order to get planning
>> for a new estate usually apply for all developments over 10 or 15
>> properties (and there are cases where it has been rerquired for new
>> builds of 1 property).
>>
>> Second I can do percentages. This is well within the range of the
>> figure required by most LAs (usually 25 or 33%)
>>
>> tim
>As i said it makes the site non viable ,
You may think that, developers presumably think otherwise as they routinely
make these "payments"
>if i were developing that
>particular site , i would either scale down the development
which is what sometimes happens.
>or
>upmarket the properties if the LA tried to push the issue ,
If you deliberately undeveloped the LA will refuse permission on that
ground.
> its in a
>conservation area so they would be marketable .
perhaps
tim
Roland Perry
Nov 2009, tim.... <tims_n...@yahoo.co.uk> remarked:
>[1] In Cambridge one developer of £1m+ flats argued that the social
>housing wouldn't somehow "sit properly" inside his upmarket gated
>community.
>
>----------------------------------------------------------
>
>It's normal to be allowed to provide the social properties elsewhere
Although in this case, aiui, the developer just shelled out the money,
for the council to spend elsewhere.
--
Roland Perry
steve robinson
Its quite common to 'bribe' the LA
It usally works on a % value , at the moment tescos are building a
new store by me , as a sweetner they are paying for road
modifications , upgrade of the local shops and have bought several
properties that may be affected by there operation , plus the paid
for several fact finding trips et al
steve robinson
The valuation would be post outline planning which in the ops case
would increase the value of his ransom strip somewhat but not to the
levels he or some of the other posters seem to think
If his strip is wide enough to build property on himself then there
is nothing in princible stopping him applying for permission to build
and the LA could not refuse on the basis of a possible new
developement behind . This would significantly increase the value of
the plot because any valuation would take into account the loss of
profit he would make from the build
Norman Wells
Who better than the local authority to determine public interest in planning
Norman Wells
Is it Groundhog Day? Or is there some other reason you're resurrecting a
thread that died two and a half months ago?
steve robinson
Unfortunatly the local athorities are not best placed to decide this
, thier infomation is often out of date , to narrowly scourced and
often biased by political need
There are far more accurate and up to date figures to be had from
independant consultants
Quick example
Birmingham LA through there full weight behind tescos sticking a
supermarket up by me
At the meeting the foot fall figures , lack of amenities were all
wheeled out using thier latest figures
They omitted to include the other amenities within soilihull LA which
are less than 5 minutes drive away including 3 large supermarkets
(morrisions , azda and sainsburies ) , Didnt realise that a new
shopping centre had been built (the fort) 8 minutes drive away and 12
minutes drive away the Swan centre was being completely redeveloped
Hadn't included the supermarkets within 1 minutes walk of the site
Traffic figures were at least 5 years out of date too
Were not aware that the road layouts had changed and the graphics
showed a traffic island that was removed at least 40 years ago
But hey ho the land owned by the LA was still eventually sold off
steve robinson
No for some reason this thread is flagging as a new thread it seems
as tough the news server has re hashed the old postings