mattd - Aston Mead Land and Planning | Land with development potential across Surrey - Page 3
    01932 950500

Maximising the Value of Your Land

Posts By :

mattd

We're hiring

Looking for a new challenge? We’re hiring!

 370 230 Aston Mead Land and Planning | Land with development potential across Surrey
We are expanding and looking for hard working, articulate and self-motivated individuals to be part of our ever growing, experienced team. We would welcome applications from RICS qualified individuals with property experience, freshly qualified and would also be delighted to speak to those without property experience as full training will be given.

Please send your CV or covering letter to careers@astonmead.land
We look forward to hearing from you!

Charles Hesse

Aston Mead says time limit on land lay blame at wrong door

 370 230 Aston Mead Land and Planning | Land with development potential across Surrey

Leading land agent Aston Mead says government plans to introduce time limits for building on land with planning consent, with levies if developers miss deadlines, are fundamentally misguided.

The company’s comments follow news that a ‘use it or lose it’ scheme is being considered by ministers, to try to increase construction rates in the industry.

Aston Mead Land & Planning Director Charles Hesse said: “Unfortunately, the idea of time limits on land lays blame for slow build rates at entirely the wrong door. It suggests that developers are deliberately holding back from starting construction on sites, even when planning permission has been approved.

“But as a government report concluded as recently as 2018, there’s no evidence that delays are down to land being deliberately hoarded by developers. Instead, the finger of blame should be pointed fairly and squarely at the planning system – which, frankly, is currently not fit for purpose.”

Charles Hesse says that rather than beating developers with a stick, time and money would be better spent on making sure planning departments were fully funded, to enable permissions to be given more quickly.

He explains: “Take one of the UK’s biggest housebuilders, Taylor Wimpey. They have around 40,000 plots with implementable planning permission and have started developing on 94.5% of them. The remainder have issues like Tree Protection Orders or other pre-conditions preventing construction from getting underway. They simply don’t have any sites that they are not currently progressing.

“But the same is true for smaller developers as well. To suggest otherwise demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding about how housebuilders run their businesses. Developers’ profits are generated from selling homes, not from an increase in the value of land they own. They never sit on sites, even when market conditions are tough. The idea that they spend their time acting like financial investors, speculating over future land values is a complete and utter myth.

“Without question, of course there are barriers to development out there. But they lie in under-funded and over-worked planning departments, each trying to deal with an avalanche of requests, without the staffing or capabilities to handle them.

“Yes, we could do with a wider variety of homes in each development, differing in size, design and setting, to increase the appeal to a range of markets.

“But the government seems deaf to the results of a series of reviews it has itself commissioned, which have warned of the downsides of such a policy. They need to listen to what the industry is telling them, reform the planning system to make it simpler, faster and more agile – and then perhaps the target figure of 300,000 homes per year could be reached after all.”

Adam Hesse

Developers have been made the whipping boy for alleged land banking when it’s the planning system that’s at fault, says Aston Mead

 370 230 Aston Mead Land and Planning | Land with development potential across Surrey

Leading land agent Aston Mead has questioned new recommendations to penalise developers who fail to build new homes on sites they have acquired, despite having been given planning permission.

The suggestions have been made in a wide-ranging report on the government’s proposed planning changes, published by the Housing, Communities and Local Government (HCLG) Committee.

The report urges the government to ‘set a limit of 18 months following discharge of planning conditions for work to commence on site’, after which permission ‘may be revoked’. Following a further 18 months for development to be completed, the local authority ‘should be able to levy full council tax for each housing unit which has not been completed’.

Aston Mead Land & Planning Director Adam Hesse said: “Firstly, the idea of charging council tax on uncompleted homes is a complete non-starter. Any barrister worth their salt working on behalf of a developer would be able to point out that this would be charging for services – like maintaining roads, collecting bins, and cleaning streets – which were not yet being provided. They would have to create a new levy instead, but it wouldn’t be council tax!

“Secondly, all of this presupposes that developers are deliberately sitting on land they’ve acquired and doing nothing with it – or what has become known as ‘land banking’. But to be honest, we are at a loss to see where these claims are coming from.

“As land agents for the past twenty years, we’ve been working day in, day out, with people who buy and sell land. That’s what we do. And I can honestly say that for every single site that we’ve sold in that time, I don’t know any company which hasn’t built out as quickly as possible.”

An investigation into land banking in the housing industry conducted by Sir Oliver Letwin under Theresa May’s government and published as recently as 2018 concluded that it was not an important factor in slow build rates.

Adam Hesse says the perception that developers are land banking demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding about how housebuilders run their businesses.

He explains: “Housebuilders’ profits are generated from selling homes, not from an increase in the value of land they own. The idea that they spend their time acting like financial investors, speculating over future land values is a myth.

“If anything, it’s the absorption rate which is slowing delivery; most housebuilders simply build out sites at the pace demanded by local market conditions. Admittedly, they could help themselves by producing a wider variety of homes in each development, differing in size, design and setting, to increase the appeal to a range of markets. That could accelerate built out rates substantially.

“But the truth is that developers have been used as the whipping boy for the slow pace of development, when actually it’s the planning system which is at fault. One minute it’s Nimbys protesting about development, the next it’s MPs saying you’re not building fast enough!

“So rather than beating developers with a stick, time and money would be better spent on making sure planning departments were fully funded, to enable permissions to be given more quickly. That’s the only way we’ll get to building the target figure of 300,000 homes per year the government are demanding.”

Adam Hesse

Aston Mead calls on government to identify types of green belt land that could be built on

 370 230 Aston Mead Land and Planning | Land with development potential across Surrey

Leading land agent Aston Mead is calling on the government to identify which areas of the Green Belt could be earmarked for new housing, to reassure the public about the type of land involved.

The company says that concern about building on protected land would diminish, once people understood what sort of locations were being considered.

Aston Mead Land & Planning Director Adam Hesse said: “For years, we’ve been saying that building on green belt land is inevitable. But it’s only in the last month that the Housing Secretary has admitted it too.

“Now he needs to explain which sort of sites are under discussion – because we believe that most people wouldn’t have even considered many of them to be green belt in the first place. Once they discover that they are mostly grubby scraps of land next to railway lines or road junctions, the vast majority will be on our side!”

Adam Hesse points out that the general public has a fundamental misunderstanding about what the concept of green belt land means.

He explained: “There’s this persistent idea that that green belt land has an inherent ecological or agricultural value, or that it has natural beauty or protected wildlife. But this is simply not the case. Having a Green Belt is just a limit on development land supply, and it’s essentially arbitrary.

“Of course, there are areas of the Green Belt which should be protected – but they could be turned into Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONBs), National Parks, protected woodland, Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs), or Conservation Areas, as appropriate.

“But much of it is what I call ‘grubby’ green belt – often close to existing town or city centres, where it tends to push house building into genuinely valuable parts of the countryside. All of which has meant longer commuting times, increased expense and more pollution.

Adam Hesse points to a particular case of greenbelt land in Surrey, which he suggests contains all the right ingredients for planning permission to be obtained and is a prime contender for the sort of location where new homes might even enhance the area.

He added: “For example, there’s a patch of land near Junction 11 of the M25. There are over 20 acres of uninspiring green belt there, big enough for over 200 homes. It’s within walking distance of Addlestone station, there are hundreds of existing homes nearby, and the network of roads around it would prevent further development once it was built. Most people wouldn’t even realise this is green belt land and few people would miss it if it was built on.

“The truth is there are hundreds of similar sites all over the UK. But if we classify them all as ‘Green Belt’ and therefore put them out of reach of developers, the government will never hit its housing targets.”

Adam Hesse

Government must help high streets build back better, says Aston Mead

 370 230 Aston Mead Land and Planning | Land with development potential across Surrey

The government must go further to assist high streets to transition into the era after Covid, according to leading land agents Aston Mead.

The company says that whilst grants, a VAT freeze and an extension to business rates relief have all helped during the pandemic, more needs to be done to ensure that high streets can recover from the hits they have taken during the pandemic and find a sustainable future.

Aston Mead Land & Planning Director Adam Hesse said: “The high street was already struggling before Coronavirus. But in the past year, the impact from e-commerce has been immense. Only last week it was announced that online sales in February made up the highest proportion of UK sales on record. Coupled with business rates which are still too high – and a review now pushed back until later in the year – if we don’t act soon, there will be a bloodbath of businesses out there.”

However, Adam Hesse says that all is not lost, and some simple measures could ensure that high streets could be transformed in a way that would continue to make them places people will want to visit, in order to eat, drink, socialise and shop.

He explained: “The UK high street is a key part of what gives our towns and cities character. But they are not going to be saved if we stand still. Part of the problem is that currently, if a retail building is vacant, the landlord still has to pay rates. This is not helpful in the post-Covid era. So new rules could state that if shops were made available free of rent to short-term pop-up tenants, no empty rates would be payable – a massive bugbear for landlords! Plus smaller retailers would get a cheap taste of the high street – a win-win situation. This would also help prevent having rows of run-down premises and create a sense of vibrancy, which in turn would attract more people into the centre.

“Another problem is that our town and city centres have grown too large. In some cases, it can seem like high streets run on and on, with secondary retail at either end not bringing the vibrancy required to attract enough customers. At a time when we are already seeing an exodus to the countryside and traditional commercial stock evaporating to make way for new homes, this situation is unsustainable. Therefore, I propose that planners agree a ‘Shopping Zone Redline’ around a retail area, to ensure that it is never lost.

“Then there could be an immediate ‘Outer Zone’ which is looked upon favourably for the private rental sector so that more people live, work and play in the centres 24/7. And we mustn’t forget that by 2030, one in five people in the UK will be aged 65 or over – so retirement homes and care homes should be part of that mix. That way, those residents would be within walking distance of all the local attractions, facilities and healthcare services. In fact, the demand for over-60’s apartments in town centres is only going to escalate – and this would be a great way of repurposing the secondary retail in each town that is no longer viable.

“So whilst we’ve all endured recessions before, Covid has forced us to think very differently. In the future we will need smaller, buzzier centres with enough housing to make sure they don’t become ghettos at night, and a better variety of shops, restaurants and experiences.

“Building back better means finding space for much needed housing. But it also means finding a new role for the UK high street, so that it manages to thrive in the years ahead.”

Richard Watkins

New law will end “sanction to squeeze and disregard for daylight”, says Aston Mead

 370 230 Aston Mead Land and Planning | Land with development potential across Surrey

Leading land agent Aston Mead has welcomed the national space requirements which will be imposed on all new houses delivered through Permitted Development Rights (PDR) from this April.

Since 2013, developers have been able to change existing office and light-industrial buildings into homes without the need to go through a full planning application. Instead, such houses have a lighter-touch ‘prior approval’ process, which considerably speeds up their delivery.

Aston Mead Land & Planning Director Richard Watkins said: “We’ve been calling for a speedier, smoother, fast-track planning procedure for years. But, crucially, this should not come at the expense of adequate space and light. Sadly, there are a minority of developers out there who have been abusing the system. These new rules should end their sanction to squeeze-in as many homes as possible, and their disregard for daylight.

“Make no mistake – these shoe box-style homes are substandard. You wouldn’t even find this lack of space in a budget hotel, so why anyone would believe they are suitable for people to live in is beyond me.”

The new standards set out the minimum floorspace allowed for various configurations of new home – starting at 37 square metres for a studio flat and 50 square metres for a flat with a double bedroom.

However, a recent report from University College London and the University of Liverpool found that fewer than one in four dwellings created through permitted development would meet nationally described space standards.

Richard Watkins added: “It may only be a minority of developers who are abusing the system – but unfortunately it accounts for a majority of PDR homes out there.”

“This has become even more important during lockdown when people have been stuck indoors for days on end. Indeed, the lasting legacy of the pandemic will be the increase in the number of people working from home in the future. This means more redundant offices are likely to be converted into residential accommodation – so setting minimum space requirements will become even more important.

“What’s more, building societies and lenders are now paying closer attention to this issue, and poorly-converted offices in the wrong locations are struggling to get loans against them. And if you can’t get mortgages, you can’t sell them.

“Now we want to see these minimum standards apply to all new homes – even those outside the PRD sector, where, bizarrely, they are still optional. Adequate space and light should be a given in the 21st Century. It’s a minimum possible standard and the least we should expect from developers. And this new law will ensure they have to provide it.”

Natasha Aston Mead

Sell land now to avoid higher taxes later, say Aston Mead

 370 230 Aston Mead Land and Planning | Land with development potential across Surrey

Leading land agents Aston Mead are advising anyone who is considering selling land to do so as soon as possible, before the UK government introduces tax rises to help pay for the Coronavirus crisis.

The Chancellor Rishi Sunak has already warned that “hard choices” will need to be made, after the state pumped over £200bn extra into the economy to support jobs, business and incomes. Meanwhile, the Institute for Fiscal Studies has said borrowing will hit levels not previously seen in peacetime, which will mean that tax rises of more than £40bn a year are “all but inevitable”.

Aston Mead Land Consultant Natasha Burr said “Make no mistake – when the Chancellor talks about ‘hard choices’, he’s talking about tax rises. And as one of the largest sectors of the UK economy, he is likely to see property transactions as low-hanging fruit, ripe for picking.

“So if you have land to sell, and want to avoid any additional taxes, we would advise you to do so sooner rather than later. After all, at the moment, selling-off part of your garden can be carried out completely tax-free. But there are no guarantees the situation will stay that way.”

Natasha Burr points out that previous Conservative manifesto commitments might prevent raises to the three biggest taxes – income tax, national insurance and VAT, which currently bring in more than half of government revenue.

She adds: “At the moment, state pensions are protected by a so-called ‘triple lock’, which guarantees they rise with wages, prices, or 2.5% every year, whichever is highest. Cutting spending might be difficult too – especially on health when the NHS has been pushed to its limits during the pandemic.

“But one tax noticeable by its absence in this list is Capital Gains Tax (CGT). The Chancellor could decide to align rates more closely with income tax – something which could theoretically raise an additional £14bn a year for the exchequer. Similarly, there are suggestions that the annual tax-free amount could drop to as little as £1,000. Both of these measures would have a huge impact on the finances of those selling land.

“Finally, of course, there is of course the option of a new tax. There could be a Covid-19 levy on payslips and tax returns which could be created to pay off the virus debt – something which would probably last for decades.

“The truth is – nobody knows how big the final Covid bill is going to be, and nobody knows what measures will be taken to pay for it. But the easy solution to avoid any future tax rises is to sell land now to avoid a nasty surprise later.

“Recognising that getting planning permission on any proposed area of land can take some considerable time, if you want to squeeze the maximum out of your next investment decision by selling land, you need expert advice now. And we’re happy to provide it.”

Richard Watkins

Aston Mead call for ban on the sale of ‘pipe dream’ parcels of land

 370 230 Aston Mead Land and Planning | Land with development potential across Surrey

Leading land agents Aston Mead has called for a ban on the sale of fields carved up into dozens of tiny plots of land, saying that those behind them are “preying on people’s pipe dreams”.

The company is referring to fields in rural areas which are divided up into multiple segments, then offered on the property market as having ‘development potential subject to planning permission’, and bought by naïve investors who hope to build properties on them.

Aston Mead Land & Planning Director Adam Hesse said: “We get half-a-dozen requests to value these miniscule parcels of land every week. But we have to break it to those making the enquiries that, unfortunately, the plots they have bought are practically worthless.

“First of all, these sites are usually situated far away from villages, towns or other local amenities – so they are the least likely locations to be granted planning permission, even if they were to be kept intact.

“Secondly, if the new owner of any one of these plots is under the impression that they would be able to get planning permission on their individual site stuck in the middle of a field, while the surrounding plots are still on the market, with all the access issues that entails, they need to think again; it’s simply never going to happen.

“The only way this could possibly work would be if all the plots were sold and then all the owners came together in order to seek planning permission for the entire site simultaneously – which is obviously difficult when these plots often change hands at different times.

“That would also require all the owners to unanimously agree on a collective style of build for the proposed properties, regardless of their individual preferences. For example, there would be no opportunity for one to suggest a bungalow, while another suggested a two-bed house, and yet another wanted a small block of flats.

“And even if this highly unlikely scenario was to take place, each of the owners would then have to stump up their share of the total cost of the planning application and installation of services in advance – which collectively could easily run into hundreds of thousands of pounds.

“Of course, the frustrating thing is that the original seller of these sites knows that this is the case. After all, if planning permission was likely in the first place, they would have saved themselves the trouble of dividing it into individual plots and taken that much simpler route instead!”

Adam Hesse says that while the purchase of a plot of land at a few thousand pounds appears to be a bargain, it can quickly turn into something much more expensive. The only realistic advice he could offer such unfortunate owners would be to put it into an auction and sell it on – but doesn’t want other potential buyers to be mislead in the same way.

He explained: “The problem is that this all ends up with a race to the bottom. It turns into an endless round of ‘pass-the-parcel of land’, with each owner even more desperate than the last to get rid of it.

“Of course, while I accept that there is a case for ‘buyer beware’ in transactions like these, this is simply preying on people’s pipe dreams. It’s immoral and it needs to be stopped.”

Adam Hesse

New planning reforms are not all that they seem

 370 230 Aston Mead Land and Planning | Land with development potential across Surrey

Adam Hesse takes a look at the Government’s recent announcements and finds a change of perspective puts the proposals in a rather different light.

When the Prime Minister Boris Johnson promised back in June that his Government was going to deliver “the most radical reforms to our planning system since the Second World War”, it was music to our ears.

At long last, it seemed that the sort of sweeping changes we’ve been demanding for over a decade were going to be introduced, allowing the house-building this country desperately needs to begin in earnest. Restrictions would be lifted, applications would be fast-tracked, and the whole process re-engineered to suit the development requirements of the 21st century.

Some two months later however, now that the dust has settled, it’s clear that the truth is rather different. As with so many Government announcements – and this is true for announcements from Governments of all political colours – closer examination of the proposals indicates that they are not what they initially seem. Whilst expectations about the new reforms were high, and heralded though they may have been at the time, they now remind us of the story of the Emperor’s New Clothes…

Make no mistake – ANY improvements to our tired, outdated, and unfit-for-purpose planning system should be welcomed. But our concern is that the impressive rhetoric of the announcements tend to drown out the reality of what they will entail – and more importantly, what real ‘freedoms’ they will permit.

For example, take the claim that builders will no longer need a “normal planning application to demolish and rebuild vacant and redundant residential and commercial buildings if they are rebuilt as homes”.

Sounds promising, doesn’t it? Especially as in early July Housing Secretary Robert Jenrick confirmed that the “planning freedom” to demolish would be done via new ‘Permitted Development’ (PD) rights, rather than the lengthier, two-stage ‘Permission in Principle’ (PiP) route.

But look a little deeper and you’ll uncover a whole raft of conditions that will make the impact of any changes extremely limited. For example, buildings must have been “entirely vacant for at least six months prior to the date of the application for prior approval” and built before 1 January 1990. What’s more, a new building cannot be larger than the footprint of the existing building and cannot exceed a maximum size of 1,000 square metres – which in development terms is pretty small. Similarly, the local authority must decide on an application for prior approval within eight weeks, after which the applicant has a right of appeal to the secretary of state. For many developers, this will feel like submitting a planning application in all but name.

Plenty of exemptions are listed too. The new regulations do not permit conversion of any “public house, wine bar, or drinking establishment”, “drinking establishment with expanded food provision”, hot food takeaway, live music venue, cinema, concert hall, bingo hall and or dance hall.

The trouble with this blanket ban is that it takes a ‘one size fits all’ approach. The last remaining pub in a village should obviously be protected as a valuable community asset. But if there are a dozen closed pubs in a town – some of which are highly unlikely to ever open again – then a more tailored, bespoke solution is needed.

The truth is that many of our town centres need to be remodelled and many more will need to be transformed after the Covid crisis is over. The problem is less about individual properties and more about the planning process itself. The whole system needs a root and branch overhaul – which would also help protect against bad development in the future. In fact, if the right reforms had been introduced ten years ago, we wouldn’t have a shortage of property now.

This is not to say there aren’t promising improvements to the old system. For example, buildings will be allowed to be up to seven metres higher to accommodate up to two additional residential storeys, within a final overall maximum height of 18 metres. This is a sensible and welcome decision.

We also don’t want to deny that this represents progress of a sort. Some aspects of our lives as developers will be made easier; some applications will make it through the system more quickly; some permissions will be granted with less fuss.

But as they stand, the proposals are somewhat half-hearted. If the government genuinely wants the radical reforms it promised back in late June, it needs to act in a more joined-up manner. It needs to be braver to allow the procedures that will make a real difference.  It needs to truly believe in a simpler system – and run with it.

So, unlike the Emperor’s New Clothes, it’s wouldn’t be true to say that there’s really nothing to see in the Government’s new reforms. But look a little closer and what becomes apparent is that their original claims have been dressed up way beyond recognition.

Charles Hesse

The right decision – it just shouldn’t have taken a global pandemic to get us there”: Aston Mead on Boris’ ‘New Deal

 370 230 Aston Mead Land and Planning | Land with development potential across Surrey

Leading land agent Aston Mead has supported the ideas set out in Boris Johnson’s ‘New Deal’ – but says that the conclusions he has reached should have been adopted years ago.

The company was responding to the Prime Minister’s speech in Dudley yesterday (Tuesday 30 June), in which he pledged to “build back better” and “build back bolder”, and promised the “most radical reforms” of the planning system since World War Two.

Aston Mead Land & Planning Director Charles Hesse said: “What Boris has announced is something we’ve been demanding for years. The UK has failed to build enough homes for decades, and brownfield sites – as long as they are combined with the right transport and infrastructure – provide the perfect opportunity to do just that.

“But it’s the planning system which is in most need of radical reform. Everything takes too long, is too costly and too complicated. The delays create a huge drag on the productivity and the prosperity of the country. So ultimately, this is the right decision – it just shouldn’t have taken a global pandemic to get us there!”

In his speech, the Prime Minister also compared the pace of building in the UK with other European countries, pointing out that in 2018 the United Kingdom built 2.25 homes per thousand people, whereas Germany managed 3.6, the Netherlands 3.8 and France 6.8.

Charles Hesse explained: “Boris is right. Construction in this country does compare very unfavourably to Europe – especially in France, where they manage to build more than three time the number of homes we do!

“We need to take a radical new approach to discover how we can get proposals fast-tracked through the planning system, and not allow the ‘newt-counting delays’ Boris mentioned to hold us back.

“To be honest we’ve been calling for such an approach for ages. But let’s hope that one upside of this dreadful virus will be to propel us even faster into a new stage of construction, to provide the homes that the people of this country so badly need.

“In his speech, the Prime Minister said that we needed to ‘help young people get on the housing ladder in the way their parents and grandparents could’. I’m sorry to say that without the speedy implementation of the sort of dramatic changes he has been describing, that simply won’t be possible.”