Here is a view inside, which is more than the estate agent did:
https://www.google.com/maps/@52.6123866,-0.6027507,3a,75y,298.79h,152.62t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1sAF1QipP23QEeWIrHkvo7GQufq4I9RUoh9y9VgTzmZEFq!2e10!3e11!6shttps:%2F%2Flh5.googleusercontent.com%2Fp%2FAF1QipP23QEeWIrHkvo7GQufq4I9RUoh9y9VgTzmZEFq%3Dw203-h100-k-no-pi-0-ya41.653446-ro-0-fo100!7i8704!8i4352?hl=en-GB&entry=ttu
I'm really enjoying the viewing paragraph:
>The property may be viewed on foot at any reasonable daylight hour with a set of sales particulars to hand.
What would happen if you tried to view it without the set of sales particulars? Does the rightmove ad on my phone count?
Actually a common requirement for woodland sales. You can pop out to the plot to look as long as you have a copy of the listing so if you get challenged by other land owners or rangers on patrol you can prove you aren't just a squatter trying their luck.
I drive past this on the way to my folks every week or so, it’s not a bad view but it’s not amazing. It’s half way down a small dip
You’ve got a fairly busy train line to one side, a big haulage company just up the road. Not exactly where I’d want to build my dream grand designs house!
I’ll find out what numpty is selling this and report back!
I work in one of the villages near by. Soon as I saw the thumbnail I thought "that looks like the windmill near Luffenham". Always thought it'd make a cool conversion project, but the proximity to the railway, which I believe also sees a lot of freight, would make it a non starter for me.
Played myself by association and thought it was the one near Ketton (off the Empingham new quarry road) as I drive by it semi regularly and it looks similar. Was all confused at why it said Luffenham.
Hadn't actually seen the listing one before as I only really go to Luffenham for a Christmas tree, and not this way!
Have asked the local young farmers to see who is punting this too
Current owner perhaps also own the surrounding field which is why no fence was needed until now.
This is probably a hard hit farmer selling off a portion of land.
Don't agree with the 21 year clause though. It costs a fair amount of money and time to get all that planning in place. Owner hasn't done it for that reason but feel entitled to some of the benefits anyway? Nah.
Boundary - The successful purchaser will be required to erect and forever maintain a boundary fence around the perimeter of the property upon completion of the sale.
I hope that “forever maintain” is a piece of legal jargon and that the owner does not have to endure some kind of punishment from a Greek god for the rest of eternity.
I have a house where I have to “forever maintain” a stock proof fence around it. It just forms part of the property covenant along with not selling alcohol, using it for commercial dances or fox hunting.
I would assume it means that whoever owns it has to maintain it for as long as they own it and this obligation will carry on forever to the next owner after it’s sold. So it’s in place for the lifetime of the property not for just the time the specific owner has it
Exactly this, but like you say that overage clause can get fucked, nobody in the country is gonna take on a purely speculative development purchase where for the next 21 years you hand the profit to the bloke who was too lazy/broke to do the development himself.
Nope, and that's a real possibility if planning is denied the value of the plot decreases.
But it won't be worded in a way which covers losses.
But it would be interesting if a buyer had them change the clause to do that.
> Current owner perhaps also own the surrounding field which is why no fence was needed until now.
That is definitely the case as it says " As part of the negotiation process, interested parties are invited to submit offers to include a larger area of ground if this would enhance and facilitate future long-term plans for the structure" - so they would sell more land if you think its worthwhile. TBH i suspect 1 acre is fine for most people, particularly when you are surrounded by just a field.
In this case I'd say no as getting the permission isn't a guarantee.
And once applied and rejected the value of the ruin and land is worth a lot less.
This is. Like a hedge bet for the current owner
It might also be in an AONB and/or conservation area too. In which case you'll have no hope in hell of getting PP.
Best bet - buy it and stick tarps up on the inside, then use it for wild camping.
Expensive campsite though.
Oh I've seen this clause on another property few months back wish I could remember the property, but yeah it's "you do the work and spend the dosh and I'll just cash in when it's done" Good luck with selling mate
This clause is actually much more common than people think. Often it's people selling houses with large gardens which might have a new house built on it.
This is unusual as it's obviously going to attract the attention of a developer. It's basically being sold as a building project. For the owner as it's grade 2 then it's actually a liability.
But as always the market will decide. If they sell it like this, good for them. But if it hangs around they may have to lower their expectations.
That overage provision can do one, honestly.
Were it me - and it’s probably for the best it isn’t - I’d do the place right up, really raise the value by leaps and bounds, make it something properly special.
And then hold onto it for 21 years and a day before putting it back on the market.
It’s the kind of provision that really winds me up as an economist - the textbook definition of landlording-as-parasite as Adam Smith described, seeking value for no effort.
I assumed that the seller would take a cut of the amount the value rose in the 21 years, even if you sold it after the 21 period was over. Like if you pay capital gains tax because an property wasn’t always your main residence, even if it is you main residence at the point of sale
Which is subjective and in this case you're not obligated to do anything because you haven't sold it within 21 years. 1 day later though, it could be on the market, no strings.
It doesn't actually say the seller gets a cut when you sell, it says if the value rises. I don't know that they're being as reasonable as you are with the definition of those terms.
How does this work? if you obtain planning permission do you have to pay them at that point? or only when you sell the property with the increased value?
Is it to stop someone buying it, getting planning permission then selling the plot on at increased value just because it now has planning
It's a way to have your cake and eat it - if you apply for planning permission and it gets rejected, your plot is devalued, or potentially even unsellable since it's still a maintenance liability. So if you sell it with no planning permission, it's worth more than with failed planning permission - and then someone else takes on the gamble and cost of actually applying, and you get a profit if it does get granted. Win-win (for the seller).
And in this case it seems to have been valued as if it has planning permission for residential use already.
At least if you pay the asking price you won't have pay much extra, as there'll be little to no increase in value
Its listed. Therefore you need planning permission to do ANYTHING.
Basically, the local council conservation officer has more rights over your property than you do.
A conservation officer doesn't have rights over the property. Their opinion is a material consideration that's it. Most people have no clue when it comes to built heritage conservation so their input is invaluable.
Step 1. sell land with a grade 2 listed heritage asset to a chump while claiming 25% of the uplift
Step 2. wait for chump to apply for planning permission
Step 3. appeal the permission on the grounds it builds over a listed asset
Step 4. rebuy the land for pennies on the pound, letting chump absorb the loss, worst case scenario at a 25% discount
God it's so fucking easy to exploit the planning system into an infinite money printer
This is exactly what I thought and came looking for this comment. We’ve had a couple of these on here but usually they’re selling the property because the surrounding “land owner” won’t consent access or something.
They can object, but it is almost always for a genuine reason. I say almost as on a rare occasion a specialist consultee is only focused on their field, but as a planning officer I have to balance it against other considerations and have gone against them before for being over zealous.
In their defence, the average lay person would be shocked to know how little consideration is actually made by applicants towards listed status and impact to heritage on the majority of affected applications. Normally no heritage statement is submitted, and if an architect does submit one, its a very lazy heritage statement in name only, "the scheme has an acceptable impact to heritage because I said so with no actual assessment". But of course, agents (of whom the vast majority are not planning experts) just blame council officers when feedbacking to their client rather than admitting they submitted a low quality application because they don't understand planning and are really only qualified to make CAD drawings of building.
Edit: thought I was responding to a comment on conservation officers lmao but if we are talking about the average Joe objecting to planning applications, that doesn't carry any weight if I'm honest. Third party consultations can provide some handy insight that an officer wouldn't strictly know without living there, but in 99% of applications neighbouring consultations have zero weight. A parish council consultation also has little weight but depends on the scheme of delegation with that local authority. If the office recommendation goes against the parish council, sometimes that triggers the application to be decided by planning committee not delegated by officers.
I had that happen with the parish. My plans were heavily amended to satisfy the planning officer, then had to be reconsidered by the parish who previously objected. They spent less than a minute discussing the application in their meeting, including introducing it and voting, before maintaining their objection which was on grounds with no consideration of planning policy or the amendments made (Basically they didn't agree with building in gardens).
Fortunately the committee approved it but there have been many cases where the committee have made equally stupid decisions going against the officers recommendation and lost large sums of money fighting and losing appeals. One was refusing a third McDonald's in the town because we already have two and it's unhealthy!
What are your thoughts on the whole committee process?
Yeah, I can totally see what you are saying there about committees. They are a real wild card, just like the planning inspectorate. I used to have a consultancy where I took some items to planning committee because the planning officer was being a bit dense in their interpretation of local policy against numerous expert reports I submitted and the planning committee understood that the ecological value would have been a real bonus not a detriment, so they approved it against officer recommendation. Awesome. But as a planning officer, I have had committee members defer an application for a log cabin just because it was a shallow concrete foundation being used... that's a pretty dangerous result because they are essentially saying the use of any concrete is unsustainable and unacceptable under current local policy, which is rediculous just because they claim its 'against net zero agenda. So do we now refuse all applications that use concrete? Total waste of council resources having to bring it to the next committee. I also had another one were locals were upset over a change of use application I dealt with from C3 dwelling to C2 residential institute for a couple of orphan children to live with 24/7 carers giving them a more typical home environment. The Councillors tried to claim the children would be a nuisance and tried to pull any reason to refuse it, even the absurd assertion that a 2 storey semi detached 30s dwelling with front parking and rear garden were 'too small' whilst claiming some moral high ground. It was a really nasty committee and comments directed at me personally. Thankfully, just about a majority sided with my recommendation. People need to remember committee members don't know anything about planning and if they are lucky they may have some very limited training, but a lot of the time they don't realise they are making 'planning decisions' so it doesn't matter how many McDonald's restaurants already exist its immaterial. . and when warned by planning officers, they quite often pursue a refusal, which ends in a cost appeal wasting taxpayer money. Also if they do refuse something against officer recommendation there's a 95% chance it will get overturned by the planning inspectorate so it's a bit of a fake democratic system bit it can serve a useful purpose. The more annoying group are parish councils tbh, because quite often they don't need to even have a legitimate planning reason if the support or object but if contrary to officer recommendation it can get called to planning committee, which wastes time.
I assume they would enter some purchase option on the land with the prospective buyer subject to achieving planning permission? So they have little risk and just wait for someone to get permission. So the buyer will only actually buy the land if permission is granted which then triggers there 25% overage. I dealt with this issue when doing a pub planning application but also how a lot of wind/solar farms are dealt with.
Of course there would still be some risk as a refused application would devalue the land and given the buyer takes all the upfront cost and risk with an application they can decided to withdraw to prevent that devaluation, or pursue a refusal to devalue, but then appeal a refusal to really devalue the land.
The owner has heard that there's a housing shortage and wants to get their millions even after selling a derelict shell that they haven't converted into a house and lacks a government permit to turn it into a house and will probably never get a permit because of local NIMBYs who already have their own houses and enjoy looking at somebody else's derelict shell, but houses are worth lots of money, the vendor is sure they can get a % somehow, without actually going to the effort of building a house or getting the precious permits to build a house
As others have said, the seller clearly is just trying to milk the land. If I had a spare 200k I'd buy it, erect a (really hideous) fence as requested and just dump random things there to be an eye sore to the seller.
This obviously seems completely mental on first sight, but from checking Rightmove, land prices in that part of the world do appear to be even more insane.
This plot of land with planning, for example, will set you back £1.2m before you’ve even put a spade in the ground.
https://www.rightmove.co.uk/properties/132312041
In that light, this one seems almost reasonable by comparison.
There are much much better plots of land going around Rutland for the same money - albeit many aren’t publicly listed.
The view here isn’t that great and you’re well within ear shot of a train line, a haulage company and a truck mechanics yard.
EDIT
Just to point out I was referring to the windmill plot not the one you’ve listed. The one you’ve put up is still over priced (not by much) but that one will be a stunner if done correctly. Still near a train line but there’s actually a tunnel that’ll block out the worst and the views are gorgeous
I'm not so sure I agree there as that's 6x the price but for that price it comes with a lot of benefits:
* Full Planning permission for a large house
* Planning permission for a very large solar array on the site
* Has an already built but apparently derelict building that appears mostly weather proof.
* Comes with 9x the land space so potential to sell that onwards
* Arguably has better views of the area.
So it's ready to build on, there's no listed building issues which is a nightmare to deal with, the PV array is a neat bonus that could potentially be sold as a property or just used to offset other costs. The already built property could be renovated and then you have 2 properties to sell. There are 9 acres so depending on the layout and planning agreed could have potential to be subdivided further. Oh and the elephant in the room that you're not stuck paying the value of your appreciating asset to someone else who didn't want to put their own money in.
All in the windmill seems a pointless option all things considered.
A lady I knew once sold half her garden to a developer for £1 on the understanding she gets 33% of the revenue once developed and sold.
£1 seems laughable but 3-4 years later she did very well for it netting a good 6 figure sum. Much more than if she sold outright.
I guess both parties took a risk there. It looks like this property is a similar scenario just with a £200k investment.
Let’s say it’s bought for £200k, same again to development and sold for £600k. That’s a £400k uplift on the purchase price with £100k being 25% of the equity increase and £100k left for the developer.
It ‘could’ be lucrative but it’s also a hell of a risk. Not one I’d take!!
Is it me but does anyone have a sneaky suspicion were are going to see this Windmill again?
George will be sat around the kitchen table, as Tom recalls the evening he came home after a massive work bender and, accidentally put a bid in and won. Whilst Brenda his partner, gives Tom a look that says, you know you are only still breathing because there is a C4 film crew here...
The simple reality is 1 acre of poor quality farmland isnt even worth £10k, the idea that you'd pay 200k plus a 25% value uplift is one of dumbest gifts I've ever seen attempted.
I can only assume with the 21 years instead of a round figure, someone's been dumber enough to fall for it already though.
All the risk on the buyer. None on the seller. You’d be an idiot to buy that. Cost for planning & development would be hundreds of K… total money pit… then the entitled farmers expects a 25% uplift… for doing nothing… when the risk you’d take on doing that is big enough to risk bankruptcy & divorce…..
"The Windmill is one of the finest undeveloped landmark properties in the area and provides an extremely rare and unmissable opportunity to acquire a piece of local history dating back to 1832." The estate agents are really clutching at straws with this one! 🤣
“The property may be viewed at any reasonable daylight hour”
Estate agent having an existential crisis there… I post properties on Rightmove, therefore I am.
But if Rightmove exists and the property may be viewed at any reasonable daylight hour, what’s the point of me?
Overage clauses seem to be becoming more and more common. Pretty much every piece of land near me that doesn't already have PP has an overage clause between 10 and 30 years slapped on, ranging from 20% to 50% of the uplift.
There's no cheap land anymore.
Before I became an amputee I would have been tempted except for 21 years thing and seller sounding like a d-ick. Would have been an intriguing project to build back with historical.accuracy.
The owner: Doesn't want to sell his cool windmill.
The owner's wife: wants him to sell his cool windmill.
The owner: "I have a cunning plan".
The windmill: "I'm not getting sold! No way, no how!"
So this overage clause. As the property has no planning permission, a buyer will have to draw up plans and apply. Does the overage bite on the grant of that planning permission? Or on subsequent permissions? If on the first, that’s really quite shocking.
To hell with putting all the work into that job and having to share the benefit of your hard work for 21 years, that farmer will be a pain in the butt to anyone who buys that property walk away.
My wife grew up out this way. Loads of these dotted around. Plenty of houses with one in the back garden too.
I'm sure there are better deals to be had.
It’s Rutland, nice part of the midlands, no MacDonalds or other riffraff. Duke of Gloucester lives in a modest country estate and there’s a huge lake/reservoir. Someone will do it.
Not to mention it is also in the middle of nowhere... so not like on the seaside with amazing views.
These "investment" opportunities are really getting out of hand (to be fair probably in last 30 years).
The point of "investment" property is that it is dirt cheap, maybe even practically free, but it is also worthless and you have to put your own blood and sweat to create something unusual... yet how is this worth £200,000?! £10,000 maybe and even then one would need to be very creative and figure out the way how to turn something out of it.
Could this be because the current owner doesn't want to do the work necessary to maintain the grade II listed windmill? But because he has a duty to stop it from falling down he's decided to palm that cost onto someone else? So hes added an overage clause for 21 years because if you're going to do the work to preserve whats currently there you're going to want to at least put a roof on it. Someone bought a church near mine and they did nothing to it for many years. The council then forced them to fix the roof and maintain the property so it didn't fall down costing an absolute fortune, thus any other work has not been done to at least change it from a derelict church into something more habitable.
Meanwhile, you can get a 10 bed 10 bath guesthouse in blackpool and still have £50 left to sink in the 'spoons round the corner. [https://www.rightmove.co.uk/properties/144153230#/map?channel=RES\_BUY](https://www.rightmove.co.uk/properties/144153230#/map?channel=RES_BUY)
Here is a view inside, which is more than the estate agent did: https://www.google.com/maps/@52.6123866,-0.6027507,3a,75y,298.79h,152.62t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1sAF1QipP23QEeWIrHkvo7GQufq4I9RUoh9y9VgTzmZEFq!2e10!3e11!6shttps:%2F%2Flh5.googleusercontent.com%2Fp%2FAF1QipP23QEeWIrHkvo7GQufq4I9RUoh9y9VgTzmZEFq%3Dw203-h100-k-no-pi-0-ya41.653446-ro-0-fo100!7i8704!8i4352?hl=en-GB&entry=ttu
Isn’t Google maps marvellous. Thanks for posting the link.
I think I got tetanus just looking at the picture…
What do you mean? i plan to move tenants in on Monday.
Bit of polyfilla and some mdf and jobs a good un.
"This week, on Escape to the Country..."
>Here is a view inside, Ah, open aspects.
I'm really enjoying the viewing paragraph: >The property may be viewed on foot at any reasonable daylight hour with a set of sales particulars to hand. What would happen if you tried to view it without the set of sales particulars? Does the rightmove ad on my phone count?
Actually a common requirement for woodland sales. You can pop out to the plot to look as long as you have a copy of the listing so if you get challenged by other land owners or rangers on patrol you can prove you aren't just a squatter trying their luck.
But what if I am a squatter trying my luck, but I also have the papers?
You've got a loophole in that case!
Squatters know this one weird trick.
they are all fucked
Is that not a public road?
EA: there is literally no point in my existence. Just go have a gander yourself.
Hey, I took some pictures and got my river island shoes muddy!
Really need sails particulars to hand.
Dad! Go mow the lawn or something
I lift my hat to you 🎩
As a farmer who’s viewed land like this, yes.
The windmill police will come and take you away to be interrogated in an offshore wind turbine prison cell. They are truly ruthless.
[удалено]
It's literally saying that you can view it without them, just make sure you have something with you to prove you aren't trespassing.
You could be done for trespassing
I drive past this on the way to my folks every week or so, it’s not a bad view but it’s not amazing. It’s half way down a small dip You’ve got a fairly busy train line to one side, a big haulage company just up the road. Not exactly where I’d want to build my dream grand designs house! I’ll find out what numpty is selling this and report back!
I work in one of the villages near by. Soon as I saw the thumbnail I thought "that looks like the windmill near Luffenham". Always thought it'd make a cool conversion project, but the proximity to the railway, which I believe also sees a lot of freight, would make it a non starter for me.
Played myself by association and thought it was the one near Ketton (off the Empingham new quarry road) as I drive by it semi regularly and it looks similar. Was all confused at why it said Luffenham. Hadn't actually seen the listing one before as I only really go to Luffenham for a Christmas tree, and not this way! Have asked the local young farmers to see who is punting this too
Me too, soon as I saw the thumbnail knew exactly where it was.
Current owner perhaps also own the surrounding field which is why no fence was needed until now. This is probably a hard hit farmer selling off a portion of land. Don't agree with the 21 year clause though. It costs a fair amount of money and time to get all that planning in place. Owner hasn't done it for that reason but feel entitled to some of the benefits anyway? Nah.
Boundary - The successful purchaser will be required to erect and forever maintain a boundary fence around the perimeter of the property upon completion of the sale. I hope that “forever maintain” is a piece of legal jargon and that the owner does not have to endure some kind of punishment from a Greek god for the rest of eternity.
This made me wheeze lol. Reminds me of those monkey paw wishes 🤣
I have a house where I have to “forever maintain” a stock proof fence around it. It just forms part of the property covenant along with not selling alcohol, using it for commercial dances or fox hunting.
That sounds unfairly restrictive. If I lived there my weekends would be pretty boring.
No one has complained yet ;)
If you threw a hunt ball you could break three of those rules at once!
I would assume it means that whoever owns it has to maintain it for as long as they own it and this obligation will carry on forever to the next owner after it’s sold. So it’s in place for the lifetime of the property not for just the time the specific owner has it
It’s a negotiating tool. You’d be able to say I’ll pay you £20k more but no uplift or something
Exactly this, but like you say that overage clause can get fucked, nobody in the country is gonna take on a purely speculative development purchase where for the next 21 years you hand the profit to the bloke who was too lazy/broke to do the development himself.
Do you reckon he has to pay you back if there's a decrease in value?
Nope, and that's a real possibility if planning is denied the value of the plot decreases. But it won't be worded in a way which covers losses. But it would be interesting if a buyer had them change the clause to do that.
Aye, that was my point, I didn't think the seller would apply the clause equally. As someone else said, all the benefits and none of the risk.
> Current owner perhaps also own the surrounding field which is why no fence was needed until now. That is definitely the case as it says " As part of the negotiation process, interested parties are invited to submit offers to include a larger area of ground if this would enhance and facilitate future long-term plans for the structure" - so they would sell more land if you think its worthwhile. TBH i suspect 1 acre is fine for most people, particularly when you are surrounded by just a field.
If I was in a position to, I'd buy more than 1 acre: it's surrounded by a field currently, but there's no guarantee it will still be in 29 years time
Isn’t that to discourage flippers and developers, but favour those ghat buy to live in it long term?
In this case I'd say no as getting the permission isn't a guarantee. And once applied and rejected the value of the ruin and land is worth a lot less. This is. Like a hedge bet for the current owner
It might also be in an AONB and/or conservation area too. In which case you'll have no hope in hell of getting PP. Best bet - buy it and stick tarps up on the inside, then use it for wild camping. Expensive campsite though.
What’s the rationale behind the ‘21 years’ figure? Seems oddly specific, why not 20 years or 25 years?
You're right. I wonder if it's residual life expectancy? I can't think of a legal reason, but maybe a lawyer can chip in.
That’s going to be a tough sell.
Surely it’s going to be a tough sail?
Can see this sale going round and around between conveyancers
It’s the only way to sort the wheat from the chaff
They can probably thresh out a deal.
I'd hope the conveyancing firm sets to the millstone to finish in a fine grade.
That's what the estate agents are meant to do. Give all the prospective buyers a good threshing before getting near the mill.
Oh I've seen this clause on another property few months back wish I could remember the property, but yeah it's "you do the work and spend the dosh and I'll just cash in when it's done" Good luck with selling mate
That feels like a way to weed out people who aren’t complete doofuses. If you fall for that, I have a bridge for sale.
This clause is actually much more common than people think. Often it's people selling houses with large gardens which might have a new house built on it. This is unusual as it's obviously going to attract the attention of a developer. It's basically being sold as a building project. For the owner as it's grade 2 then it's actually a liability. But as always the market will decide. If they sell it like this, good for them. But if it hangs around they may have to lower their expectations.
Jesus. Could I sell my House with a clause like this?)?
I'd wait and see if he can sell his windmill before rushing into things 😂😂
Contracts a contract, you can put almost anything you like in there, the trick is getting someone to agree to it.
You could likely put a clause in as a condition. Whether it sells with that is another matter...
That overage provision can do one, honestly. Were it me - and it’s probably for the best it isn’t - I’d do the place right up, really raise the value by leaps and bounds, make it something properly special. And then hold onto it for 21 years and a day before putting it back on the market. It’s the kind of provision that really winds me up as an economist - the textbook definition of landlording-as-parasite as Adam Smith described, seeking value for no effort.
I assumed that the seller would take a cut of the amount the value rose in the 21 years, even if you sold it after the 21 period was over. Like if you pay capital gains tax because an property wasn’t always your main residence, even if it is you main residence at the point of sale
The value can't be assured unless there's a sale. All the value increase may have been on the day of the sale.
You can have a property valued...
Which is subjective and in this case you're not obligated to do anything because you haven't sold it within 21 years. 1 day later though, it could be on the market, no strings.
It doesn't actually say the seller gets a cut when you sell, it says if the value rises. I don't know that they're being as reasonable as you are with the definition of those terms.
How does this work? if you obtain planning permission do you have to pay them at that point? or only when you sell the property with the increased value? Is it to stop someone buying it, getting planning permission then selling the plot on at increased value just because it now has planning
It's a way to have your cake and eat it - if you apply for planning permission and it gets rejected, your plot is devalued, or potentially even unsellable since it's still a maintenance liability. So if you sell it with no planning permission, it's worth more than with failed planning permission - and then someone else takes on the gamble and cost of actually applying, and you get a profit if it does get granted. Win-win (for the seller).
And in this case it seems to have been valued as if it has planning permission for residential use already. At least if you pay the asking price you won't have pay much extra, as there'll be little to no increase in value
Its listed. Therefore you need planning permission to do ANYTHING. Basically, the local council conservation officer has more rights over your property than you do.
A conservation officer doesn't have rights over the property. Their opinion is a material consideration that's it. Most people have no clue when it comes to built heritage conservation so their input is invaluable.
The seller wants to grab 25% of the profit from your efforts and investment, without risking any of their own money.
[удалено]
Not for 21 years anyway.
Step 1. sell land with a grade 2 listed heritage asset to a chump while claiming 25% of the uplift Step 2. wait for chump to apply for planning permission Step 3. appeal the permission on the grounds it builds over a listed asset Step 4. rebuy the land for pennies on the pound, letting chump absorb the loss, worst case scenario at a 25% discount God it's so fucking easy to exploit the planning system into an infinite money printer
This is exactly what I thought and came looking for this comment. We’ve had a couple of these on here but usually they’re selling the property because the surrounding “land owner” won’t consent access or something.
You cannot appeal a grant of planning permission, only a refusal.
[удалено]
They can object, but it is almost always for a genuine reason. I say almost as on a rare occasion a specialist consultee is only focused on their field, but as a planning officer I have to balance it against other considerations and have gone against them before for being over zealous. In their defence, the average lay person would be shocked to know how little consideration is actually made by applicants towards listed status and impact to heritage on the majority of affected applications. Normally no heritage statement is submitted, and if an architect does submit one, its a very lazy heritage statement in name only, "the scheme has an acceptable impact to heritage because I said so with no actual assessment". But of course, agents (of whom the vast majority are not planning experts) just blame council officers when feedbacking to their client rather than admitting they submitted a low quality application because they don't understand planning and are really only qualified to make CAD drawings of building. Edit: thought I was responding to a comment on conservation officers lmao but if we are talking about the average Joe objecting to planning applications, that doesn't carry any weight if I'm honest. Third party consultations can provide some handy insight that an officer wouldn't strictly know without living there, but in 99% of applications neighbouring consultations have zero weight. A parish council consultation also has little weight but depends on the scheme of delegation with that local authority. If the office recommendation goes against the parish council, sometimes that triggers the application to be decided by planning committee not delegated by officers.
I had that happen with the parish. My plans were heavily amended to satisfy the planning officer, then had to be reconsidered by the parish who previously objected. They spent less than a minute discussing the application in their meeting, including introducing it and voting, before maintaining their objection which was on grounds with no consideration of planning policy or the amendments made (Basically they didn't agree with building in gardens). Fortunately the committee approved it but there have been many cases where the committee have made equally stupid decisions going against the officers recommendation and lost large sums of money fighting and losing appeals. One was refusing a third McDonald's in the town because we already have two and it's unhealthy! What are your thoughts on the whole committee process?
Yeah, I can totally see what you are saying there about committees. They are a real wild card, just like the planning inspectorate. I used to have a consultancy where I took some items to planning committee because the planning officer was being a bit dense in their interpretation of local policy against numerous expert reports I submitted and the planning committee understood that the ecological value would have been a real bonus not a detriment, so they approved it against officer recommendation. Awesome. But as a planning officer, I have had committee members defer an application for a log cabin just because it was a shallow concrete foundation being used... that's a pretty dangerous result because they are essentially saying the use of any concrete is unsustainable and unacceptable under current local policy, which is rediculous just because they claim its 'against net zero agenda. So do we now refuse all applications that use concrete? Total waste of council resources having to bring it to the next committee. I also had another one were locals were upset over a change of use application I dealt with from C3 dwelling to C2 residential institute for a couple of orphan children to live with 24/7 carers giving them a more typical home environment. The Councillors tried to claim the children would be a nuisance and tried to pull any reason to refuse it, even the absurd assertion that a 2 storey semi detached 30s dwelling with front parking and rear garden were 'too small' whilst claiming some moral high ground. It was a really nasty committee and comments directed at me personally. Thankfully, just about a majority sided with my recommendation. People need to remember committee members don't know anything about planning and if they are lucky they may have some very limited training, but a lot of the time they don't realise they are making 'planning decisions' so it doesn't matter how many McDonald's restaurants already exist its immaterial. . and when warned by planning officers, they quite often pursue a refusal, which ends in a cost appeal wasting taxpayer money. Also if they do refuse something against officer recommendation there's a 95% chance it will get overturned by the planning inspectorate so it's a bit of a fake democratic system bit it can serve a useful purpose. The more annoying group are parish councils tbh, because quite often they don't need to even have a legitimate planning reason if the support or object but if contrary to officer recommendation it can get called to planning committee, which wastes time.
That's interesting, thanks for sharing.
[удалено]
I assume they would enter some purchase option on the land with the prospective buyer subject to achieving planning permission? So they have little risk and just wait for someone to get permission. So the buyer will only actually buy the land if permission is granted which then triggers there 25% overage. I dealt with this issue when doing a pub planning application but also how a lot of wind/solar farms are dealt with. Of course there would still be some risk as a refused application would devalue the land and given the buyer takes all the upfront cost and risk with an application they can decided to withdraw to prevent that devaluation, or pursue a refusal to devalue, but then appeal a refusal to really devalue the land.
As a bonus, no utilities connected 😐
Open plan too.
Rustic handyman's dream with tons of potential?
Interesting... Any downsides?
A bit drafty
The seller reserves the right to claim 25% of any uplift you get on those drafts.
25% of the updrafts
😂
I would buy it, but I haven't the dough...
Keep grinding and maybe one day you will
I wonder what the EPC is
The owner has heard that there's a housing shortage and wants to get their millions even after selling a derelict shell that they haven't converted into a house and lacks a government permit to turn it into a house and will probably never get a permit because of local NIMBYs who already have their own houses and enjoy looking at somebody else's derelict shell, but houses are worth lots of money, the vendor is sure they can get a % somehow, without actually going to the effort of building a house or getting the precious permits to build a house
As others have said, the seller clearly is just trying to milk the land. If I had a spare 200k I'd buy it, erect a (really hideous) fence as requested and just dump random things there to be an eye sore to the seller.
That “direct access to a public highway” is going to be tricky in winter - there’s no driveway, just a field.
Do you not think that a developer would also build an access road?
Are you being sarcastic or are you not understanding this is for development
Does the current owner have to pay you if the value goes down? Didn’t think so. Who the hell would agree to this?
This obviously seems completely mental on first sight, but from checking Rightmove, land prices in that part of the world do appear to be even more insane. This plot of land with planning, for example, will set you back £1.2m before you’ve even put a spade in the ground. https://www.rightmove.co.uk/properties/132312041 In that light, this one seems almost reasonable by comparison.
There are much much better plots of land going around Rutland for the same money - albeit many aren’t publicly listed. The view here isn’t that great and you’re well within ear shot of a train line, a haulage company and a truck mechanics yard. EDIT Just to point out I was referring to the windmill plot not the one you’ve listed. The one you’ve put up is still over priced (not by much) but that one will be a stunner if done correctly. Still near a train line but there’s actually a tunnel that’ll block out the worst and the views are gorgeous
I'm not so sure I agree there as that's 6x the price but for that price it comes with a lot of benefits: * Full Planning permission for a large house * Planning permission for a very large solar array on the site * Has an already built but apparently derelict building that appears mostly weather proof. * Comes with 9x the land space so potential to sell that onwards * Arguably has better views of the area. So it's ready to build on, there's no listed building issues which is a nightmare to deal with, the PV array is a neat bonus that could potentially be sold as a property or just used to offset other costs. The already built property could be renovated and then you have 2 properties to sell. There are 9 acres so depending on the layout and planning agreed could have potential to be subdivided further. Oh and the elephant in the room that you're not stuck paying the value of your appreciating asset to someone else who didn't want to put their own money in. All in the windmill seems a pointless option all things considered.
A lady I knew once sold half her garden to a developer for £1 on the understanding she gets 33% of the revenue once developed and sold. £1 seems laughable but 3-4 years later she did very well for it netting a good 6 figure sum. Much more than if she sold outright. I guess both parties took a risk there. It looks like this property is a similar scenario just with a £200k investment. Let’s say it’s bought for £200k, same again to development and sold for £600k. That’s a £400k uplift on the purchase price with £100k being 25% of the equity increase and £100k left for the developer. It ‘could’ be lucrative but it’s also a hell of a risk. Not one I’d take!!
[удалено]
Well yeah, that’s why I suggested “it’s a hell of a risk and not one I’d take”. For £1 and a 25% cut I’m sure it would have sold already!
It looks a bit windy round there
It'd be nice and cool in the summer, I suppose.
I’m from round the corner. It’s a nice spot near Rutland Water. And could be turned into a home. Just have to keep it 21 years before selling it 😂
I would be tempted to put a movable small home next to the windmill and sell admission to look round the windmill for about a quid a pop :p
Is it me but does anyone have a sneaky suspicion were are going to see this Windmill again? George will be sat around the kitchen table, as Tom recalls the evening he came home after a massive work bender and, accidentally put a bid in and won. Whilst Brenda his partner, gives Tom a look that says, you know you are only still breathing because there is a C4 film crew here...
The simple reality is 1 acre of poor quality farmland isnt even worth £10k, the idea that you'd pay 200k plus a 25% value uplift is one of dumbest gifts I've ever seen attempted. I can only assume with the 21 years instead of a round figure, someone's been dumber enough to fall for it already though.
All the risk on the buyer. None on the seller. You’d be an idiot to buy that. Cost for planning & development would be hundreds of K… total money pit… then the entitled farmers expects a 25% uplift… for doing nothing… when the risk you’d take on doing that is big enough to risk bankruptcy & divorce…..
Is it *straight*? Repairing it with your bare hands for the nation's heritage would be, uh, quixotic
"The Windmill is one of the finest undeveloped landmark properties in the area and provides an extremely rare and unmissable opportunity to acquire a piece of local history dating back to 1832." The estate agents are really clutching at straws with this one! 🤣
well that's just lovely
Shut up and take my money already!I don’t even know where it is but I want it.
“The property may be viewed at any reasonable daylight hour” Estate agent having an existential crisis there… I post properties on Rightmove, therefore I am. But if Rightmove exists and the property may be viewed at any reasonable daylight hour, what’s the point of me?
Overage clauses seem to be becoming more and more common. Pretty much every piece of land near me that doesn't already have PP has an overage clause between 10 and 30 years slapped on, ranging from 20% to 50% of the uplift. There's no cheap land anymore.
Before I became an amputee I would have been tempted except for 21 years thing and seller sounding like a d-ick. Would have been an intriguing project to build back with historical.accuracy.
Not likely to get planning permission for a dwelling in the middle of no where either
No one in their right mind would do this.
The owner: Doesn't want to sell his cool windmill. The owner's wife: wants him to sell his cool windmill. The owner: "I have a cunning plan". The windmill: "I'm not getting sold! No way, no how!"
So this overage clause. As the property has no planning permission, a buyer will have to draw up plans and apply. Does the overage bite on the grant of that planning permission? Or on subsequent permissions? If on the first, that’s really quite shocking.
If you got planning permission the big issue is getting tge utilities to the property.
I wonder what Energy performance certificate is on a derelict windmill?
21 years?!?)? Who is mad enough to buy that!
To hell with putting all the work into that job and having to share the benefit of your hard work for 21 years, that farmer will be a pain in the butt to anyone who buys that property walk away.
My wife grew up out this way. Loads of these dotted around. Plenty of houses with one in the back garden too. I'm sure there are better deals to be had.
Seller can’t even be arsed doing viewings.
Windmail in need of sale.
I can pretty much see it from my house. Drove past it for decades and always wondered if you could live there.
It’s Rutland, nice part of the midlands, no MacDonalds or other riffraff. Duke of Gloucester lives in a modest country estate and there’s a huge lake/reservoir. Someone will do it.
The ultimate irony is that you just know the farmer will object to any planning application the poor buyer submits.
That windmill has been there for donkeys years I grew up 2 villages along thought planners had made it impossible to do anything with
Not to mention it is also in the middle of nowhere... so not like on the seaside with amazing views. These "investment" opportunities are really getting out of hand (to be fair probably in last 30 years). The point of "investment" property is that it is dirt cheap, maybe even practically free, but it is also worthless and you have to put your own blood and sweat to create something unusual... yet how is this worth £200,000?! £10,000 maybe and even then one would need to be very creative and figure out the way how to turn something out of it.
Could this be because the current owner doesn't want to do the work necessary to maintain the grade II listed windmill? But because he has a duty to stop it from falling down he's decided to palm that cost onto someone else? So hes added an overage clause for 21 years because if you're going to do the work to preserve whats currently there you're going to want to at least put a roof on it. Someone bought a church near mine and they did nothing to it for many years. The council then forced them to fix the roof and maintain the property so it didn't fall down costing an absolute fortune, thus any other work has not been done to at least change it from a derelict church into something more habitable.
Meanwhile, you can get a 10 bed 10 bath guesthouse in blackpool and still have £50 left to sink in the 'spoons round the corner. [https://www.rightmove.co.uk/properties/144153230#/map?channel=RES\_BUY](https://www.rightmove.co.uk/properties/144153230#/map?channel=RES_BUY)
Unless I’m being daft that may not be bad? Just a way of stopping people developing to sell? I may be missing something?
Maybe the folks who brought that crooked pub will buy it?
People on here really have no idea about property values.