Why I Decided To Buy My Own Forest For £20,000
- Thread starter spader
- Start date
Personally I think that if you buy a piece of woodland freehold, and someone somewhere says you can only sleep here for 28 nights per years, its a complete rip off. Its quite angering in fact.
I mean would those rules apply in Scotland, Norway, Sweden, the USA, New Zealand, Canada, Russia etc? I dont know, but I doubt it.
I mean would those rules apply in Scotland, Norway, Sweden, the USA, New Zealand, Canada, Russia etc? I dont know, but I doubt it.
Last edited:
Some lawyer will no doubt tell me why this would not work, but what is to stop you parcelling the land into several parts, selling it back to yourself so as to establish seperate title deeds for each, and then moving between them every 28 days?
I didn't think of that, that is very clever. Surely the rule should be as much time away as there, and when does the year start from, December and January all as one chunk seems permissable but illogical.
Interesting idea , I'd like to think that would work , i just get an idea that land without a separating strip or different owners would be seen as one piece and thus rules apply. However one large piece of land subdivided into 12 and resold to 12 individuals that allow others to camp on their land maybe an angle worth investigation.
( Obviously there is an incurred cost for each legal subdivision - not sure if one fee would apply for all 12 sub sections??? Ideas? )
Like your out of the box thinking.
Last edited:
Word of warning to those wanting to bend the system. There has been a call to require planning permission for sub-dividing plots of land. Although there have been cons it does make it possible for such as people like us to own a small piece of woodland. We are so quick to enact bad laws based on bad cases in this country that I wouldn't want to give those in favour of requiring planning permission any more ammunition.
our local football team has had its pitch sold in 3000 pieces to stop any one person being able to sell the land to a supermarket.
if you split it into 12 different sections wouldn't you have to move around those sections? so couldn't sleep in a hut in every section.
if you split it into 12 different sections wouldn't you have to move around those sections? so couldn't sleep in a hut in every section.
In practice unless you have a nosey neighbour or someone trying to get back at you then you could easily spend more time camping on it than the stipulated 28 days, as who would actually be counting. Its not as if you have to check in and check out every night. And if you did get reported you'd only get told to stop.
I belive the rules in place to stop you living on these sort of sites but like all palnning it can be subject to change via an application if aproached correctly. The best method is to create a need to be on site more than the 28 days and present and justify it properley to the planning department but this can sometimes be easier said than done.
It sounds as if he might have bought it from www.woodlands.co.uk they have a clause with most of thier sales.
"The purchasers of the woodland will be asked to enter into a covenant to ensure the quiet and peaceful enjoyment of adjoining woodlands and meadows." it usually involves fixed buildings and restrictions on the number of over nigth stays.
I belive the rules in place to stop you living on these sort of sites but like all palnning it can be subject to change via an application if aproached correctly. The best method is to create a need to be on site more than the 28 days and present and justify it properley to the planning department but this can sometimes be easier said than done.
It sounds as if he might have bought it from www.woodlands.co.uk they have a clause with most of thier sales.
"The purchasers of the woodland will be asked to enter into a covenant to ensure the quiet and peaceful enjoyment of adjoining woodlands and meadows." it usually involves fixed buildings and restrictions on the number of over nigth stays.
A field next to my local pub is very near large Japanese based car manufacturer factory, much of the land is up for development and there's been a problem with a similar thing in planning. The farmer and owner of the field sold off 1 square foot sections of the land to Americans as being able to own part of the original washington on a 99 year lease basis. Almost 1000 people bought them, and since they are the title deed owners they still to this day can't develop that land.
As for someone telling you you can't spend time on your own land. There would be swift and none too friendly words exchanged with busy bodies like that!
I believe it's less about stopping you camping/bushcrafting and more to stop the unlawful precedent of occupation. You might well stay there half the year in practice, but it doesn't turn the land from agricultural or amenity use into residential use.
Perhaps it makes more sense in the context of big developers wanting to acquire farmers fields on the edge of pretty villages, or community assets like sports fields as mentioned.
Perhaps it makes more sense in the context of big developers wanting to acquire farmers fields on the edge of pretty villages, or community assets like sports fields as mentioned.
"Personally I think that if you buy a piece of woodland freehold, and someone somewhere says you can only sleep here for 28 nights per years, its a complete rip off. Its quite angering in fact."
The thing is usually these kinds of restrictions are in the form of covenants which the buyer pledges to honor as a condition of the sale. So it's not someone stepping on your rights as a freeholder, but rather insisting that you keep your word and do what you already promised. The options are to seek unrestricted land to purchase - not figure out how to break your agreement - or as sometimes happens, convince the local government to declare onerous restrictions void. Good luck with that.
I'm sympathetic with the frustration though. Restrictive covenents are almost always designed to keep out the riffraff rather than to make the world better - and being riffraff myself I don't like them much either.
The thing is usually these kinds of restrictions are in the form of covenants which the buyer pledges to honor as a condition of the sale. So it's not someone stepping on your rights as a freeholder, but rather insisting that you keep your word and do what you already promised. The options are to seek unrestricted land to purchase - not figure out how to break your agreement - or as sometimes happens, convince the local government to declare onerous restrictions void. Good luck with that.
I'm sympathetic with the frustration though. Restrictive covenents are almost always designed to keep out the riffraff rather than to make the world better - and being riffraff myself I don't like them much either.
There is one particular seller of Woodlands on the web, who I would not recommend buying from, as they do stipulate certain restrictive rules, on ownership, which others do not. [As the old saying goes, you cant beat the establishment.]
I am a property lawyer and I did look at the covenant that woodlands.co.uk put on their sales. I don't think the 28 day restriction was in there, as I understand it it's a planning designation- any more than 28 days camping and you need to register it as a campsite.
Any restrictive covenants need to be for the benefit of other land owned by the vendor, if they don't own any other plots nearby there is a chance that no land benefits and the restrictions are ineffective.
As for the idea of transferring land to yourself or a friend etc to get around the restrictions there will normally be a restriction on making such a transfer without that person also giving a covenant to also be bound.
While restrictive covenants may seem unfair they do stop for example someone buying an acre of woodland for £10000 and then building a housing development on it. Unencumbered land with development potential would be perhaps 50 times the price.
Any restrictive covenants need to be for the benefit of other land owned by the vendor, if they don't own any other plots nearby there is a chance that no land benefits and the restrictions are ineffective.
As for the idea of transferring land to yourself or a friend etc to get around the restrictions there will normally be a restriction on making such a transfer without that person also giving a covenant to also be bound.
While restrictive covenants may seem unfair they do stop for example someone buying an acre of woodland for £10000 and then building a housing development on it. Unencumbered land with development potential would be perhaps 50 times the price.
Wow, that seems brilliant. I appreciate the restrictions so that it doesn't change in its use. And I'm sure no one's going to say anything if you stay a few extra weeks a year...
Now if only I had £20,000...
Now if only I had £20,000...
