The Property Partnership

planning_officer

Firefox1975 wrote: »

To be honest - if you were to buy land currently in the Green or Brown belts it could be a potential moneymaker in the future. They are all up for review by the governement in the next 2-3 years with a view to them becoming available for construction upon.

Two points to make -

Firstly, Green Belts are not up for review - you make it sound like they'll all be abolished, which is simply not the case. Green Belt protection is as strong now as it ever was. All the reports you may see in the media about Green Belts only refers to carefully planned areas in areas of defined need - around Cambridge was one such example I believe. This does not mean that all Green Belt land is up for review - if anything, it makes the protection even stronger elsewhere. Plus, all the landbanking schemes I've come across (which is quite a few in my District!) are all in stupidly located positions - in AONBs as well as Green Belts, close to SSSIs, in very unsustainable locations - in short, completely unsuitable for housing - either now and at any point in the future.

It's also worth pointing out that no landbanking scheme in the UK has EVER been granted planning permission for housing - ever!! That demonstrates that the locations chosen by these companies are poor ones. Any 'more suitable' locations within the Green Belt for housing will already have bought by the major housebuilders - they all have huge landbanks of land for future housing.

PS There is no such thing as Brown Belts!

planning_officer

theinvestmentman wrote: »

After my win the first time I was more open to this the second, but like all investments you have to do your research. On doing so this site popped up and what appeared to be very blinkerd views, from people that I do not beleave have ever taken part in land banking or have never taken part with the services of this particuler company!!.

See my post above - no landbanking scheme in the UK has ever been recorded as gaining planning permission for housing, so not sure how you arrive at this statement!! Do you work for Scala? I don't mind reiterating that your spelling is absolutely awful - virtually every other word is spelled wrongly!

theinvestmentman wrote: »

regardless of what company. land banking is a good option, providing that its a calculated risk and providing you choose your plot correctly!!.

Rubbish. See above. I see first hand the damage caused to our countryside by these get-rich-quick schemes, which are ethically wrong - unwitting people buy these plots of land not realising they will never be granted planning permission for housing - they leave the plots to waste and once attractive fields in the countryside just become like areas of wasteland. Enforcement from local authorities (to tidy up the land) is extremely difficult, as there are so many land owners involved.

MothballsWallet

planning_officer - what are AONBs and SSSIs? Sounds like parts of an orbital laser platform for me

ManAtHome

(Hopefully) Area Of Natural Beauty and Site of Special Scientific Interest

theinvestmentman_2

Greenbelt is protected for a reason. Greenfield is what is offered via landbanking companies.

Firstly I was in an area with a CPO order attached to the site.

Im sure the Planning Officer could tell all what that is!!!.

Barrett homes is a key example to mention here. They specialize in construction. The land banking company specialize in finding plots of land in key ear marked locations. (cambridge corridor, Kings Lynn, Ashford,Thames Gateway, etc etc)

Lets face facts. If a land firm has a site thats in close proximity to a major developers site. Of corse they are going to express an interest. You are in this for the Re-zoneing process to take place, or if your like me!, land with detailed planning,and a CPO order attached!!

MothballsWallet

ManAtHome wrote: »

(Hopefully) Area Of Natural Beauty and Site of Special Scientific Interest

If they ever wanted to apply AONB and SSSI to Parliament, they'd have to change the meanings...

AONB would be Area of Outstanding National Bull!!!!
SSSI would be Site of Stupendously Stupid Statutory Instruments

theinvestmentman_2

this may be of interest...

''Green belts are not rich in wildlife; indeed, a more accurateterm for them might well be 'green deserts'. Farming in Britain is pesticide intensive, which limits the number of insects (and, bt extension,animals) which canlive off green belt land: Source: Land Economy. By Mischa Bolen, 2006: Adam Smith Institute.

''So my solution is to make more land available, and to solve the crisis in farming at the same time, by srcapping the common agricultural policy and instead let farmers sell or lease thier land for construction: 'Source: Kevin McCloud, Sunday Times, September 2005.

Green belt land is now simply to toxic to be able to support a variety of creatures. Indeed, Dr Keith Porter of English Nature remarked that low density developments with gardens and public open spaces would provide more favourable habitats for species than the giant pesticide treated cereal fields that dominate much of the countryside now. The different plant species grown in a typical garden enable a wide variety of insects to flourish. In turn, this support a complex network of birds and other small animals. So housing development can actually promote biodiverstiy; development on green belt land would have at worst a neutral impact on levels of biodeiversity. ' Source: Land Economy. By Mischa Bolen,

maybe some of those points could help ballance an argument!.

Development is going to take place regardless.
Im sure the the PLANNING OFFICER could tell all what the Barker Review pointed out??.

Be lucky all!!!.

planning_officer

What a load of utter tripe.

Firstly, I fail to see what a CPO Order has to do with anything - that's a compulsory purchase order, where the Council is intending to (forcibly) buy the land.

Secondly, the three quotes above only give a very narrow and blinkered view of Green Belts (GBs) - if you read PPG2 (that's Central Government guidance on GBs) you will see that the main attribute of GBs is their openness - i.e. (in its simplest explanation) a lack of built form. Therefore any new building work affects the openness of the GB, and is rarely permitted - unless it's for agriculture or forestry, or for certain types of essential development that are allowed in the various policies of Local Plans (for example, affordable housing to meet the specific needs of a village). The above quotes are utter rubbish too - of course GB land is not too toxic to support wildlife!!! In my District (which is all Green Belt), most of it is also AONB (Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty - and very rich in wildlife) and there are several SSSIs (Sites of Special Scientific Interest) and most of the rural areas are the highest grade of agricultural land. To claim GB land is all polluted and incapable of any agricultural use is just plain stupid.

You are also confusing Green Belt and greenfield - GB is a land designation and greenfield is simply a site that has not previously been developed (i.e. it can be in the GB or it may not be in the GB). Yes, landbanking schemes are all greenfield sites (which are encouraged by Government not to be built on - not ahead of brownfield sites anyway) but most of the documented landbanking schemes are also in the Green Belt. I've dealt with at least a dozen in my District - all in the Green Belt, all appallingly located in unsustainable locations and all with zero chance of ever gaining planning permission.

And lastly, your quote "Development is going to take place regardless"... eh? Of course it isn't!! You probably believe this rubbish because you have been spoonfed this to tell clients, but I can assure you that's not true. The Barker Review mentioned many things, and it included 34 recommendations, No. 9 of which stated that, “local authorities should review their greenbelt allocations to ensure sustainable future development.” That does not mean "Green Belt land will be built on". I’m well aware that landbanking companies quote this to prospective clients, but they just misquote, or simply misunderstand, what it actually means. In reality, it means that carefully chosen locations in the GB may be selected for development - like around Cambridge and south of Oxford, but these are chosen because they will actually contribute to sustainable development, i.e. by decreasing commuting from afar for example, and they are identified in response to a very specific need in these areas. The Green Belt is also usually increased elsewhere to make up for the loss. This does not however mean that all Green Belt land is up for review - far from it!! The sites landbanking companies sell are certainly not well planned sites in response to any specific local need - they are just fields sold by farmers in any location, and have next to zero chance of ever being developed for housing.

I just feel sorry for the individuals who are misled by this spoonfed tripe and buy these plots of useless land and then find they can’t do anything with them. Plus, when they eventually sell them, when they realise they can’t be developed, they’ll probably get a fraction of the price they actually paid for them. Luckily I have been able to explain this to several people who have enquired about these plots for sale in my District and made them fully aware of the minimal chance of ever getting planning permission for anything on them.

I’ll finish my rant by reiterating what I said earlier - no landbanking scheme has ever been granted planning permission for housing! I rest my case.

Firefox1975

Lol, planning officer - I like you! :-)

Please don;t misunderstand my post above - I am NOT and expert in this field.

However, what I should have maybe stated was that INVESTMENT in land could potentially yield a future profit. (Not guaranteed of course!)

And I would also briefly add that land is not always developed into housing. Office space and amenities can be and IS granted permission to build on.

Just my twopennies worth!

:-)

BFG_2

HOW TO MAKE MONEY FROM LAND BANKING [THE ONLY WAY IMO].......

The boss of a £3.5million land banking scam has been banned as a company director for seven years.
Timothy Wren, of Ormskirk, Lancs, bought agricultural land and sold it in strips claiming it was "very likely" that planning permission would increase its value 10-fold.
In fact, what Wren sold was a tissue of lies.
There wasn't a "hope in hell" of planning permission, according to the Insolvency Service.


Wren told 300 investors that money would be held in trust. It wasn't. He even re-sold some plots he'd already sold.
Meanwhile, Wren trousered £300,000 on top of his £50,000 wages and failed to explain other payments totalling £950,000.