-----Original Message-----
From: Simon Hoets
Sent: 01 June 2007 09:35
To: 
Cc: Brendan Tinney
Subject: RE: Profitable Plots Rebuttal


Thank you for yours. Interesting! I think that there is a serious danger that certain opinions 
and facts are getting distorted by distance. The only contact I'm aware of that 'Profitable Plots' have 
had with this Council is through planning consultants who came to see us a year or two ago. I have worked 
for this Council for three years which, as I understand it, is longer than 'Profitable Plots' have been 
involved with this site. During this time I have seen no specific proposal to plant trees on the site and 
have seen no specific proposal to build houses, or anything else, on it. There are two planning permissions, 
both of which have been implemented by Taylor Woodrow, on a site adjoining the site that I understand to be 
that owned by 'Profitable Plots'. This adjoining site is not in the green belt and is not a nature conservation area. 
I don't understand what D means by a time-line for approval.

I would be happy to talk to you on the phone. I'm in the office today though I do move around it from time to time. 
But I must emphasise that I am not an investment consultant. If you are speaking to Mr  please feel free to show him 
this and tell him that I have absolutely no wish, or reason, to mislead anyone. 

Simon Hoets 

-----Original Message-----
From: 
Sent: 01 June 2007 05:45
To: Simon Hoets
Cc: Brendan Tinney
Subject: Profitable Plots Rebuttal



Dear Mr. Hoets:

I'm forwarding an email writen by D, a member of the Canadian 
management team for Profitable Plots (PP).  The contents of which is meant 
to serve as a rebuttal to your e-mail response of my inquiry regarding  PP 
Chertsey property. Would you be kind enough to review the e-mail and comment 
on statements or opinions expressed by Mr.  as to their accuracy.

I will try and contact you by phone at 2 p.m. your time later today to 
discuss the matter.  your continued assistance in this matter is greatly 
appreciated.

Yours truly,


>
>From: "
>   To: "
>   CC: "
>   Subject: Re: Re: Concord village
>   Date: Thursday, May 24 13:59
>
>

>
>This is not the time to be re-selling a client. Every deal on the waiting 
>list was to be closed and solid. You have until the end of your business 
>day on Friday to let me know if he wishes to proceed, otherwise Mr. 
>Persaud's plots will be made available for sale to others on our team, 
>otherwise, we will lose these plots from Canadian inventory. No client 
>should have ever been told that this was 'zero risk' or that planning 
>permission was going to be attained within one year (or for that matter, 
>within two years). If you indicated to Mr. that this investment was 
>a short-term sure-thing, you must recant those statements. See the 
>following and reply to Mr. :
>
>Yes, Concorde Village is partly considered a conservation area. A pond on 
>the site is even being used weekly by a local fishing club. Fifty (50) 
>acres of the 120 acre total will continue to be conserved as parkland. In 
>fact, to further this conservation, within that 50 acres, Profitable Plots 
>has agreed to plant 1000 rare English Oak trees. The remaining 70 acres of 
>the site will be developed with much needed housing. As you know, West 
>London has been targeted in ‘The London Plan’ for 45,000 homes needed, to 
>satisfy the continuing economical growth of inner and outer London.
>
>
>
>To continue, yes, the surrounding area is in the Greenbelt. However, 
>because the Concorde Village site was formerly a sand and gravel 
>distribution site used by Taylor Woodrow, among other projects, to build 
>parts of Heathrow Airport, thus, formerly identified in the local plan for 
>commercial use, this site is now classified as Brownfield. Furthermore, PP 
>has never indicated to any client that we would attain ‘outlying’ planning 
>permission any earlier than 3-5 years. So yes, the surrounding area will 
>very likely remain as Greenbelt this time next year. However, within 5 
>years, we will very likely attain planning permission for the 
>aforementioned, much needed, residential development. What Mr. Hoets fails 
>to mention, is that the site has been moved ahead in the planning 
>permission process twice in the last 2 years. Consequently, the projected 
>time-line for approval has moved from as long as 10 years, to less than 5 
>years.
>
>
>Sent with best regards,
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From:"
>Sent:23-05-2007 22:54
>To:
>Subject: Re: Concord village
>

>
>
>Hi I just recieved the following email fron XXX business advisor 
>
.
>Please advise.

>
> --  Thank you for your email.
>
>My understanding is that 'Profitable Plots' own this site in Chertsey Road. 
>The site is part of London's Metropolitan Green Belt and is mostly also 
>identified as a nature conservation area in the Hounslow Unitary 
>Development Plan. Both of these designations mean that residential 
>development is very unlikely to be acceptable. If you would like further 
>information about green belt policy you could look up PPG2 (UK Government 
>Planning Policy Guidance on green belts). This will tell you that any 
>building construction in green belts, other than in exceptional 
>circumstances, has little chance of getting planning permission. You can 
>also see the London Borough of Hounslow's Unitary Development Plan online 
>(hounslow.gov.uk) and this will give you the same message.
>
>What I can not confirm is whether or not the site will remain part of the 
>green belt. Profitable Plots have made a case to the Council to have it 
>excluded. This will be considered at the appropriate time in the future - 
>certainly not in the immediate future. The indications are that the 
>likelihood of exclusion is limited.
>
>You say that PP have indicated that there is a current planning application 
>and that we have asked for a higher density. This isn't the case if we are 
>talking about the Chertsey Road site - and I can't think of another that it 
>might be confused with. I wonder if there might be a misunderstanding about 
>the term 'planning permission'?
>
>In conclusion, in my opinion there is no chance whatever of this land not 
>being green belt this time next year. And this means that the chances of a 
>speculative planning permission being granted, within this time, for 
>residential development is next to nil. The chances for such a permission 
>over the longer period depend upon major changes to the planning regime - 
>not impossible to imagine but, in my personal view, unlikely in the 
>foreseeable future.
>
>I have been told much about PP's marketing technique but I would prefer not 
>to comment on this without first hand evidence. I also can not comment on 
>the actual investment value of this site.
>
>I hope this helps.
>
>Simon Hoets
>West Area Planning Manager
>London Borough of Hounslow
>
>