Executive Summary
Lotting of ancient woodlands is a growing threat now on a scale requiring national policy and co-ordinated action. Previous enquiries and reports urged action to prevent further damage to sensitive sites but nothing has been done while the problem has recently intensified. Very substantial profits are being made at the expense of serious deterioration at some of our most environmentally sensitive locations. It is not possible to identify who is profiting from this exploitation. The present situation offers potential for money laundering activities. There are existing remedies available which require more consistent implementation Additional measures are proposed which would greatly strengthen the protection of the most precious landscape in the country.
The history of ‘lotting’.
The lotting of land – purchasing a larger area and then breaking it up and selling smaller plots usually with planning consent for development - is a centuries-old practice. It is at the very heart of much residential and commercial development and its legitimate use must be allowed to continue.
Recent exploitation of this principle
More recently (20 years plus) this principle has been exploited and distorted, enabling persons unknown to purchase protected woodland or agricultural land (already thus designated because of their amenity or historical value) to then be broken up into small plots and sold-on via auction at prices which are several multiples of their real value, in spite of a minimal prospect of planning consent for development being granted. The auction process generically means that purchasers have less time to carry out their own due diligence, usually two to four days, but in these cases the legal packs are only made available to buyers the night before the auction, with only few hours to satisfy themselves about the conditionalities and limitations of the property for which they are bidding. Sale particulars while technically within the law (according to one legal opinion, they ‘go right up to the wire’ of legality) give an impression of development potential, and they also omit important information, with a caveat emptor approach. A significant number of buyers are from overseas, investing in the hope value that a quick upside will be available, only to later discover that their purchase is worthless. Many buyers are UK based, who often see this as an opportunity to build a dream home in a beautiful environment.
This basic process is in itself legal.
The impact on some of this country’s most protected environment
The result is that important protected sites suffer serious deterioration. Instead of previously having one owner with a clear accountability for the management and conservation of an ancient woodland, they become fragmented with multiple ownership, so that no one person has overall responsibility. They are exposed to piecemeal permitted development rights including caravans, sheds, fences, boundaries of various kinds and access tracks. They lose their amenity value for their community since they are no longer unspoilt fields and woodlands. replacing (1) what was our collective social wealth with, in effect a social scar. Their environmental viability and integrity is also damaged or destroyed with dramatic reductions in biodiversity. Local authority planning departments, whose resources are already stretched, are faced with dozens of additional applications, appeals and challenges, as well as in some cases the restitution of sites.
How widespread is the problem?
This below-the-radar approach has been stealthily employed for at least 20 years; in 2007 alone there were 44 sites identified just in Kent (2) and there has been a sharp upturn across the South of England more recently. (3) The result is that planning and environmental protections are subverted even in the most sensitive locations such as AONB’s. Those living near these sites who are concerned about the threat, and who seek to resist it, usually believe it is only a local problem, possibly unaware that at any one time ten or more such sites may be suffering from this kind of attack. Attempts to challenge the deceptive marketing of the plots are usually met with aggressive letters purporting to be from solicitors threatening injunctions, six-figure financial damages and other legal penalties. These threats can cause significant distress to recipients who are often randomly selected from those on social media websites expressing concern. Significantly, these menacing letters are usually unsigned without the name of a
‘solicitor’.
What is the scale of profits being made?
The profits for those inflicting these exploitative tactics are considerable. Typically a large site is initially purchased at a price roughly double its value as agricultural or woodland, usually with a long interval between contracts being exchanged and the eventual completion of the purchase.
A current local case provides a vivid example. The purchase of the whole site was agreed at around £475,000. A deposit of 10% was paid on exchange, but with a clause for this buyer to revoke if sufficient lots have not been sold. (The deposit is the only money put at risk by those behind this scheme). 29 small plots were then to be individually auctioned, supported by marketing collateral more appropriate to a residential development, with guide prices of £30,000 for a 0.5 acre plot. Completion of the purchase of these smaller plots has to be made on the same date as the original agreement for the purchase of the whole site.
The overall potential aggregate revenue if all the plots are purchased is £1,200,000.
There are also ‘overage’ obligations in the contracts of sale for the plots, whereby if planning is eventually granted for residential or other development of an individual plot, 25% of any resultant increase in the value of the land at any point in the next 80 years is payable by the purchasers. It is possible to buy-out this obligation by paying approximately £20,000 at the outset, almost doubling the purchase price of the lot.
If all these smaller plots are sold this represents a profit of £725,000 in approximately 12 weeks, a return of 152%. If the overage obligations are all ‘bought out’, the total profit would be £1,305,000. Even if ‘only’ 70% of the plots are sold and no overage is bought out, it is still a return of almost 80%.
Assuming around ten sites a year fall victim to this approach, the profits being made are colossal, and all at the expense of serious deterioration for some of Britain’s most precious and protected environment.
Total profits to date could approach a nine figure sum.
By any standard this represents an issue which should be of national concern.
Who is behind this?
It is alarming that it is impossible to answer this question. Typically, a SPV (Special Purpose Vehicle) company is created solely for the purpose of each individual transaction. This company has no trading record. It has one nominee director. The address on the Companies House registration is in fact an accommodation address, from which mail is forwarded. One nominee director, a woman resident in Blackpool, has been a director of 178 companies in the last [two] years and has a history of involvement with organisations which have been proven to be scams.Contrary to the objectives of recent legislation, no details of [controlling] shareholders or
Beneficial Owners are available.
This could provide a perfect mechanism for money launderers or those who are proscribed from being controllers or shareholders of UK businesses by virtue of sanctions or criminal activities. It is of course possible that the beneficial owners are merely greedy and ruthless UK citizens.It is not known if there is one main operator of these schemes, or whether there are several each independent of each other. It is though notable that the marketing approach and materials are identical across many cases, and that the same auctioneers are most frequently used
(Barnard Marcus and Barney Estates).
The role of the auctioneers
The auctioneers who make this possible are arguably complicit assuming they have complied with the recently strengthened Due Diligence requirements imposed on all agents selling land or property to determine the probity of their clients. The auctioneers in the most recent local case gave evasive responses when challenged about the identity of their client principal, saying ‘it is a long-established investment company in London’ (it is in fact an accommodation address). Auctioneers also fail to mention in their materials facts of which they are aware which would make clear that there is no prospect of consent for building or other development. They instead place the onus on to the purchaser. Trading Standards enforcement (with which auctioneers do comply when formally advised) is variable, and significantly different (and weaker) criteria compared to those applied to other categories of sales descriptions, are used to determine whether a description or omission is ‘material’.
Who shares these concerns?
As it is becoming increasingly apparent that this is not a matter of one or two isolated instances but a considerable number of cases annually, a wide range of bodies involved with protecting the environment have expressed their concern at the threat. The organisations with which we have been in contact include the following:-
Historic England
Woodland Trust
South Oxfordshire Archaeology Group
Oxfordshire County Council
Chilterns AONB
Forestry Commission
National Trust
BBOWT
CPRE (4)
Remedies
This issue is inextricably connected to matters of national policy and law. For example it would not be a straightforward task to legislate against inappropriate lotting without interfering with or unduly complicating legitimate property development and transaction. Similarly, the question of identifying beneficial ownership has in recent years been intensively discussed. New policy has been defined and announced although implementation and enforcement is not yet in place.
It therefore seems prudent to consider more practicable short term remedies which could more rapidly mitigate the impact of lotting as well as proposing longer term solutions. Several remedies already exist but are not consistently used.
One relatively simple measure could have immediate effect and was originally proposed in the Kent County Council report. There is an urgent need to review the Permitted Development Rights available to woodland lot owners. As in the case of agricultural Permitted Development Rights there is a clear case for forestry permitted development rights to only apply to woodlands and woodlots above a certain size – perhaps 25 ha+. There is also a clear case for considering whether all permitted development rights should be removed from ancient woodland (as is the case for other protected habitats and areas)
There is a gradient of other possible measures ranging from those which could quickly be put in place, to those which would require primary legislation. Recommendations which would be new measures are marked with an asterix.
1. A central online database* This should have the objective of identifying all instances of lotting abuse, so that its regional and national impact can be made visible, and the scale of the threat more fully realised. A central resource should also bring together examples of best practice (BPX) which have been demonstrably effective, so that local communities can benefit from the experiences of others and respond more rapidly to a new local threat. There will inevitably be questions about who should host/manage a site like this, who may
access it, and how it should be populated and maintained.
2. A national conference*, whose participants should be local authorities, bodies concerned with rural protection and heritage, and relevant experts in planning law and effective campaigning. This would enable collective response, experiences and successful remedies to be shared, and new collaborations to be formed producing new initiatives.
3. A communication campaign*, run by government, to raise awareness of the potential threat, to inform those who might otherwise have been induced to bid for a plot so they are more aware of the risks and likely outturn, and to make lotting a less easy route to unwarranted profits.
4. A consistent approach to A4 Directions. There is a wide disparity in attitudes to the use of these. Some authorities and councils have used them in this exact context with great
success. Others have refused to consider them. It is an instrument originally devised for a different context (mainly HMO’s) but clarification rather than wholesale redefinition may
enable it to be more consistently used. It is not an absolute protection, but it can limit
‘permitted development rights’ which would reduce some of the worst consequential
impacts of lotting. If resource is a major inhibitor preventing the use of A4D’s, this should be addressed. A major agenda item at an initial conference.
5. Implementing mandatory identification of beneficial owners. Part of a much wider issue, but this policy exists but is not yet fully or promptly implemented. There should be no delay between a company being set-up and the information being made available and easily accessible. Registration of a company should be contingent on this information being made simultaneously available.
6. A requirement for all auctioneers to state the identity of their client principals and/or those who are the beneficial owners, enforced by their regulatory body, the National Association of Valuers and Auctioneers (NAVA). Auctioneers are the key to this vital information being made available so as to eliminate any possibility of money laundering or other illegal activity.
7. More rapid imposition of permanent blanket TPO’s. This is highly relevant given ancient woodlands are frequently purchased for these schemes. Interim orders lasting six months have been rapidly issued to great effect by some councils, but the process for a permanent order is more protracted. There should be provision for emergency imposition, with a different balance of protections and appeals.
8. Mandatory statements of planning status for properties/land affected. Planning authorities should immediately issue defining statements of planning status for the land involved and require that these are featured prominently in all their marketing collateral by any agent marketing sub-divided plots This would have the aim of deterrence so that potential purchasers are in full knowledge of the facts relating to the likely permitted use of the land in question.
9. More consistent criteria and enforcement by Trading Standards. In a lotting context, all those involved in selling sub-divided plots should be required to include all material information known to them or which could reasonably be supposed to be known to them, in all their marketing outputs. Sanctions for not doing so should reflect the potential financial upside so they are appropriately onerous. Again, this would have the aim of ensuring full awareness of all the relevant issues relating to the purchase of a plot. Trading Standards potentially have a powerful role to play in lotting situations. Criteria should be harmonised across authorities and councils and consistently applied.
10. The requirement for a felling licence should contain linked size and volume thresholds* down to an absolute minimum size below which there is no permitted removal without a licence.
11. Open-ended responsibility for conservation of the whole site*. The operators of these
schemes should have an ongoing obligation to maintain and conserve the site as a whole. The enforcement of this will almost certainly raise significant issues to be resolved if the purchasing entity is a SPV company under foreign ownership.
12. Legislation for a Community Right to Buy* based on existing tried and tested legislation in Scotland. The existing Assets of Community Value scheme could complement this by providing sufficient time for funds to be raised.
1 in 2022 Ancient Woodland covers only 2.5% of the UK, by far the lowest in Europe
2 2003 House of Commons Standing Committee A part 3 meeting proceedings;
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200203/cmstand/a/st031016/pm/31016s03.htm
and the excellent comprehensive report commissioned by Kent County Council ‘Wood Lotting in Kent. Final
Report 2007’.
3 https://www.henleystandard.co.uk/news/stoke-row/157264/wood-you-believe-it.html
https://www.bishopsstortfordindependent.co.uk/news/councillors-pledge-to-protect-woodland-from-
speculators-9269504/
https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/mortgageshome/article-8582117/Farmers-land-owners-warned-
Country-Land-Conservation.html
https://www.bucksfreepress.co.uk/news/23384982.campaigners-fight-save-ancient-woodland-sale-600k/
https://thorleywoods.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Letter-to-Barney-Estates.pdf
https://www.finingswood.org.uk/
https://www.forestryjournal.co.uk/news/20048938.fining-wood-pittmans-shaw-chiltern-hills-woodlands-go-
market/
https://www.kentonline.co.uk/canterbury/news/amp/villagers-fear-threat-to-carved-up-ancient-woodland-
240681/
https://www.kentwildlifetrust.org.uk/appeals/covert-wood
https://bwag.org.uk/about/
https://adishamwoods.co.uk/about-us-1
http://saveboxwood.co.uk/friends-of-boxwood
https://woodcotecg.org.uk/birchen-copse/
Digswell
Liphook
Little Gaddesden
Hughenden
https://www.cpreherts.org.uk/about-us/our-successes/speculative-plotlands-at-digswell-box-wood-and-little-
gaddesden-2020/
4 “We, at CPRE Oxfordshire are concerned that this is happening more and more and the latest example at Swyncombe is particularly concerning given the sensitivity of the site as an area of Ancient Woodland, of
archaeological importance, within the Chilterns AONB.” Says Helen Marshall, Director CPRE Oxon
We are concerned that land promoters are unreasonably talking up the development potential of land like this, selling it in single plots, with the potential new purchasers applying for planning individually. Buyers must be aware, that given the protections on the site no development would be allowed even if applications come through, and we feel it puts unreasonable pressure on residents and parish councils to have to be continually vigilant and, where necessary, monitor and respond to applications, however speculative. CPRE Oxfordshire along with local communities, residents, parish and district councils will express their collective concerns regarding this proposal, which will rob our community of a vital part of its identity.