Position on Green Belt and Lower Feltham Lakes

Denise L made this Freedom of Information request to Hounslow Borough Council

The request was partially successful.

From: Denise L

Dear Sir or Madam,

My question is on the proposed development of the site called
variously Concorde Village / New Feltham Lakes (Land Registry Title
Number : MX27374 land on the South side of Ashford Road and West
side of Chertsey Road, Feltham). This land is being sold marketed
and promoted as land suitable for development within 3 years.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=GB&h...

The land currently has Green Belt status but Hounslow has set a
precedent as one of only 15 UK Local Authorities to approve
development on the Green Belt since 2002.

Can the Hounslow authority make a statement on its attitude to
Green Belt Land development generally and to development of the
Lower Feltham Lakes / Concorde site specifically?

Can the council provide publicly a copy of all communications
received and transmitted related to this site MX27374 since it was
first offered for sale in 2005?

Yours faithfully,

Denise Leahy

Link to this

Joe Piper left an annotation ()

There is a history item on this site here
http://www.propertyscam.org.uk/htdocs/ho...

and a local forum discussion here
http://forums.hounslowchronicle.co.uk/vi...

A search for "Green Belt Hounslow" returns a fair number of links. The silence from Hounslow council does appear to be deafening. Since Land Banking came about as part of changes in the Land Registration Act 2002 it may be politically insensitive for certain councils to point out the policy failings that have caused a boom in selling small dodgy plots of land.

Link to this

From: Hounslow Local Development Framework
Hounslow Borough Council


Attachment Concorde VillageProfitable Plots 191007..rtf
10K Download View as HTML

Attachment Concorde Village1 131107.htm.html
36K Download

Attachment Concorde Village 030507.htm.html
14K Download

Attachment Concorde Village Profitable Plots Pte Limited 220307.txt
4K Download View as HTML

Attachment Concorde Village attached to email 220307.pdf
751K Download View as HTML

Attachment Concorde Village consultation 100908.rtf
1.6M Download View as HTML

Attachment Concorde Village email 030507.pdf
278K Download View as HTML

Attachment Concorde Village email 260307.pdf
36K Download View as HTML

Attachment Concorde Village email 300407.pdf
183K Download View as HTML

Attachment Concorde Village letter 180706.pdf
30K Download View as HTML

Attachment Concorde VillageProfitable Plots 191007..htm.html
14K Download


Dear Ms. Leahy,

Thank you for your request. Firstly, the statement that "Hounslow has set
a precedent as one of only 15 UK Local Authorities to approve development
on the Green Belt since 2002" is incorrect and does not appear to be based
upon factual evidence.

Hounslow's attitude to Green Belt land development is clearly set out in
its statutory development plan, made up of the Unitary Development Plan
(UDP, 2003) and the London Plan (2008). Policy ENV-N.1.2 of the UDP states
a general presumption against inappropriate development (this term is
explained in the policy criteria) within the Green Belt and states that it
will not permit such development, except where very special circumstances
can be demonstrated. This approach is consistent with the London Plan,
which outlines the intention for London's growth to take place within its
existing urban boundaries and without encroaching on open space. The
approach to development in the Green Belt set out Hounslow's development
plan reflects national Planning Policy Guidance (PPG 2) on Green Belts.
These documents are available online by following the weblinks at the end
of this email.

Relating to the attitude to development at the site at `Concorde Village',
the approach described above would be applied and an applicant would need
to present very special circumstances if development were to be allowed.
It should be noted that a planning application for this site has not been
submitted to the Council. Given that the Council has evidence that it can
meet its development needs (for both housing and commercial/ industrial
uses) for the foreseeable future and the housing targets set out in the
London Plan (which have been established on this basis) by developing
existing urban land that is not designated as Green Belt or open space, it
is very unlikely that planning permission would be given for development
on this site.

For information, the Council is in the process of producing a new
statutory development plan, the Local Development Framework, which is
gradually replacing the UDP. The main element of this will be the Core
Strategy, which will cover Green Belt designation and policies, and will
undergo a second phase of consultation (preferred options or preferred
strategy stage) early in 2010. The Core Strategy will be informed be a
review of the Green Belt boundary, which will identify and deal with any
anomalies in the Green Belt whilst ensuring the integrity and permanence
of the Green Belt is maintained, as outlined in the London Plan and PPG 2.
There is no expected change (although reliance should not be placed upon
this) to the strategic approach to Green Belt set out in the London Plan
and PPG2, and the review of Green Belt boundaries together with the
assessment of any proposals to build on the Green Belt will be made in
this context. We do not anticipate the need to make any exception to this
policy to accommodate the borough's expected growth.

In response to your request for a copy of all communications received and
transmitted relating to this site, please find attached 38 such documents
(these will be attached to three consecutive emails). The Council is
applying two exceptions detailed in the Environmental Information
Regulations 2004, meaning that some information will not be disclosed.
These exceptions and the reasons for applying them are outlined below.

a. That disclosure would adversely affect the interests
of the person who provided that information where that person -

i. was not under, and could not have been put under,
any legal obligation to supply it to that or any other public authority;
and

ii. has not consented to its disclosure

(Environmental Information Regulations 2004, part 3, (5)(f))

These communications are from members of the public requesting information
about this site through the Council's website. These individuals are under
no obligation to make requests and have not consented to their requests
being made public. Publicising this information may be seen as a breach of
confidentiality in disclosing sensitive information on potential
investments, and it would not be in the public interest for such
information to be disclosed. Publication of this information may have an
adverse affect on the confidence of members of the public to use the
Council's website to request information. The public interest in not
disclosing this information is therefore seen to outweigh the public
interest in disclosing it.

In the attached communications, where a query from a member of the public
is necessary to aid the understanding of a Council officer's response, it
is included with all personal data of that person removed. This is the
basis of the second exception.

b. The information requested includes personal data of
which the applicant is not the data subject and would contravene data
protection principles.

(Environmental Information Regulations 2004, part 3,
(13))

Similarly to the reasoning given in point a. publication of personal data
(including names, email addresses, telephone numbers) may breach
confidentiality of the individuals providing it and could have an adverse
affect through any further communications enabled through the publication
of that personal data. Again, this may have an adverse affect on the
confidence of members of the public to use the Council's website to
request information. Therefore the public interest in not disclosing this
information is seen to outweigh the public interest in disclosing it.

Planning Policy documents:

Hounslow Council's Unitary Development Plan (2003, chapter 4)
[1]http://www.hounslow.gov.uk/index/environ...

The London Plan (2008, open environment chapter)
[2]http://www.london.gov.uk/thelondonplan/e...

Planning Policy Guidance (PPG2) 2: Green Belts
[3]http://www.communities.gov.uk/planningan...

We hope that this response satisfies your request. Should you not be
satisfied with this response, please contact
[4][email address]. In the event that you are still
not satisfied, please contact the Information Commissioner's Office
through their website ([5]https://www.ico.gov.uk/Global/contact_us...)
or by telephone on 08456 30 60 60.

Kind regards,

Strategic Planning Policy team

Environment Directorate

London Borough of Hounslow

* [6][email address]

8 [7]www.hounslow.gov.uk

show quoted sections

Link to this

From: Hounslow Local Development Framework
Hounslow Borough Council


Attachment Profitable plots query 230507.rtf
6K Download View as HTML

Attachment Concorde Village 010807.rtf
14K Download View as HTML

Attachment Concorde Village 240507.rtf
9K Download View as HTML

Attachment Concorde Village 240507 attachments saved separately.rtf
7K Download View as HTML

Attachment Concorde Village 311007.htm.html
20K Download

Attachment Concorde VillageProfitable Plots1 191007.htm.html
20K Download

Attachment Concorde VillageProfitable Plots2 191007.htm.html
20K Download

Attachment Concorde VillageProfitable Plots3 191007.htm.html
18K Download

Attachment Confirmation of Enquiry 291007.htm.html
12K Download

Attachment PROFITABLE PLOTS 010409.htm.html
25K Download

Attachment Profitable Plots 190907.htm.html
6K Download

Attachment Profitable Plots Concorde Village 310309.rtf
83K Download View as HTML

Attachment Profitable Plots Chertsey Rd1 051007.txt
4K Download View as HTML

Attachment Profitable Plots Chertsey Rd2 191007.txt
4K Download View as HTML


Dear Ms. Leahy,

Thank you for your request. Firstly, the statement that "Hounslow has set
a precedent as one of only 15 UK Local Authorities to approve development
on the Green Belt since 2002" is incorrect and does not appear to be based
upon factual evidence.

Hounslow's attitude to Green Belt land development is clearly set out in
its statutory development plan, made up of the Unitary Development Plan
(UDP, 2003) and the London Plan (2008). Policy ENV-N.1.2 of the UDP states
a general presumption against inappropriate development (this term is
explained in the policy criteria) within the Green Belt and states that it
will not permit such development, except where very special circumstances
can be demonstrated. This approach is consistent with the London Plan,
which outlines the intention for London's growth to take place within its
existing urban boundaries and without encroaching on open space. The
approach to development in the Green Belt set out Hounslow's development
plan reflects national Planning Policy Guidance (PPG 2) on Green Belts.
These documents are available online by following the weblinks at the end
of this email.

Relating to the attitude to development at the site at `Concorde Village',
the approach described above would be applied and an applicant would need
to present very special circumstances if development were to be allowed.
It should be noted that a planning application for this site has not been
submitted to the Council. Given that the Council has evidence that it can
meet its development needs (for both housing and commercial/ industrial
uses) for the foreseeable future and the housing targets set out in the
London Plan (which have been established on this basis) by developing
existing urban land that is not designated as Green Belt or open space, it
is very unlikely that planning permission would be given for development
on this site.

For information, the Council is in the process of producing a new
statutory development plan, the Local Development Framework, which is
gradually replacing the UDP. The main element of this will be the Core
Strategy, which will cover Green Belt designation and policies, and will
undergo a second phase of consultation (preferred options or preferred
strategy stage) early in 2010. The Core Strategy will be informed be a
review of the Green Belt boundary, which will identify and deal with any
anomalies in the Green Belt whilst ensuring the integrity and permanence
of the Green Belt is maintained, as outlined in the London Plan and PPG 2.
There is no expected change to the strategic approach to Green Belt set
out in the London Plan and PPG2 (although no reliance should be placed
upon this), and the review of Green Belt boundaries together with the
assessment of any proposals to build on the Green Belt will be made in
this context. We do not anticipate the need to make any exception to this
policy to accommodate the borough's expected growth.

In response to your request for a copy of all communications received and
transmitted relating to this site, please find attached 38 such documents
(these will be attached to two or three emails). The Council is applying
two exceptions detailed in the Environmental Information Regulations 2004,
meaning that some information will not be disclosed. These exceptions and
the reasons for applying them are outlined below.

a. That disclosure would adversely affect the interests
of the person who provided that information where that person -

i. was not under, and could not have been put under,
any legal obligation to supply it to that or any other public authority;
and

ii. has not consented to its disclosure

(Environmental Information Regulations 2004, part 3, (5)(f))

These communications are from members of the public requesting information
about this site through the Council's website. These individuals are under
no obligation to make requests and have not consented to their requests
being made public. Publicising this information may be seen as a breach of
confidentiality, and it would not be in the public interest for such
information to be disclosed. Publication of this information may have an
adverse affect on the confidence of members of the public to use the
Council's website to request information. The public interest in not
disclosing this information is therefore seen to outweigh the public
interest in disclosing it.

In the attached communications, where a query from a member of the public
is necessary to aid the understanding of a Council officer's response, it
is included with all personal data of that person removed. This is the
basis of the second exception.

b. The information requested includes personal data of
which the applicant is not the data subject and would contravene data
protection principles.

(Environmental Information Regulations 2004, part 3,
(13))

Similarly to the reasoning given in point a. publication of personal data
may breach confidentiality of the individuals providing it and could have
an adverse affect through any further communications enabled through the
publication of that personal data. Again, this may have an adverse affect
on the confidence of members of the public to use the Council's website to
request information. Therefore the public interest in not disclosing this
information is seen to outweigh the public interest in disclosing it.

Planning Policy documents:

Hounslow Council's Unitary Development Plan (2003, chapter 4)
[1]http://www.hounslow.gov.uk/index/environ...

The London Plan (2008, open environment chapter)
[2]http://www.london.gov.uk/thelondonplan/e...

Planning Policy Guidance (PPG2) 2: Green Belts
[3]http://www.communities.gov.uk/planningan...

We hope that this response satisfies your requests. Should you not
satisfied with this response, please contact
[4][email address]. In the event that you are still
not satisfied, please contact the Information Commissioner's Office
through their website ([5]https://www.ico.gov.uk/Global/contact_us...)
or by telephone on 08456 30 60 60.

Kind regards,

Strategic Planning Policy team

Environment Directorate

London Borough of Hounslow

* [6][email address]

8 [7]www.hounslow.gov.uk

show quoted sections

Link to this

From: Hounslow Local Development Framework
Hounslow Borough Council


Attachment Site map plan photo 230407.pdf
2.6M Download View as HTML

Attachment Confirmation of General Enquiry submission 120107.txt
3K Download View as HTML

Attachment Confirmation of General Enquiry submission 180107.txt
8K Download View as HTML

Attachment Green Belt Concorde Village 300309.htm.html
14K Download

Attachment Green Belt Enquiry Concorde Village 070409.htm.html
18K Download

Attachment Green Belt Profitable Plots PP 071107.htm.html
29K Download

Attachment PROFITABLE PLOTS 020409.htm.html
21K Download

Attachment Profitable Plots Concorde Village 300309.rtf
8K Download View as HTML

Attachment Profitable Plots Concorde Village 101007.rtf
11K Download View as HTML

Attachment Profitable Plots Chertsey R2 250507.txt
4K Download View as HTML

Attachment Profitable Plots Chertsey RD 230507.txt
4K Download View as HTML

Attachment Profitable Plots query 221007.rtf
14K Download View as HTML

Attachment Profitable Plots Rebuttal 010607.txt
6K Download View as HTML


Dear Ms. Leahy,

Thank you for your request. Firstly, the statement that "Hounslow has set
a precedent as one of only 15 UK Local Authorities to approve development
on the Green Belt since 2002" is incorrect and does not appear to be based
upon factual evidence.

Hounslow's attitude to Green Belt land development is clearly set out in
its statutory development plan, made up of the Unitary Development Plan
(UDP, 2003) and the London Plan (2008). Policy ENV-N.1.2 of the UDP states
a general presumption against inappropriate development (this term is
explained in the policy criteria) within the Green Belt and states that it
will not permit such development, except where very special circumstances
can be demonstrated. This approach is consistent with the London Plan,
which outlines the intention for London's growth to take place within its
existing urban boundaries and without encroaching on open space. The
approach to development in the Green Belt set out Hounslow's development
plan reflects national Planning Policy Guidance (PPG 2) on Green Belts.
These documents are available online by following the weblinks at the end
of this email.

Relating to the attitude to development at the site at `Concorde Village',
the approach described above would be applied and an applicant would need
to present very special circumstances if development were to be allowed.
It should be noted that a planning application for this site has not been
submitted to the Council. Given that the Council has evidence that it can
meet its development needs (for both housing and commercial/ industrial
uses) for the foreseeable future and the housing targets set out in the
London Plan (which have been established on this basis) by developing
existing urban land that is not designated as Green Belt or open space, it
is very unlikely that planning permission would be given for development
on this site.

For information, the Council is in the process of producing a new
statutory development plan, the Local Development Framework, which is
gradually replacing the UDP. The main element of this will be the Core
Strategy, which will cover Green Belt designation and policies, and will
undergo a second phase of consultation (preferred options or preferred
strategy stage) early in 2010. The Core Strategy will be informed be a
review of the Green Belt boundary, which will identify and deal with any
anomalies in the Green Belt whilst ensuring the integrity and permanence
of the Green Belt is maintained, as outlined in the London Plan and PPG 2.
There is no expected change to the strategic approach to Green Belt set
out in the London Plan and PPG2 (although no reliance should be placed
upon this), and the review of Green Belt boundaries together with the
assessment of any proposals to build on the Green Belt will be made in
this context. We do not anticipate the need to make any exception to this
policy to accommodate the borough's expected growth.

In response to your request for a copy of all communications received and
transmitted relating to this site, please find attached 38 such documents
(these will be attached to two or three emails). The Council is applying
two exceptions detailed in the Environmental Information Regulations 2004,
meaning that some information will not be disclosed. These exceptions and
the reasons for applying them are outlined below.

a. That disclosure would adversely affect the interests
of the person who provided that information where that person -

i. was not under, and could not have been put under,
any legal obligation to supply it to that or any other public authority;
and

ii. has not consented to its disclosure

(Environmental Information Regulations 2004, part 3, (5)(f))

These communications are from members of the public requesting information
about this site through the Council's website. These individuals are under
no obligation to make requests and have not consented to their requests
being made public. Publicising this information may be seen as a breach of
confidentiality, and it would not be in the public interest for such
information to be disclosed. Publication of this information may have an
adverse affect on the confidence of members of the public to use the
Council's website to request information. The public interest in not
disclosing this information is therefore seen to outweigh the public
interest in disclosing it.

In the attached communications, where a query from a member of the public
is necessary to aid the understanding of a Council officer's response, it
is included with all personal data of that person removed. This is the
basis of the second exception.

b. The information requested includes personal data of
which the applicant is not the data subject and would contravene data
protection principles.

(Environmental Information Regulations 2004, part 3,
(13))

Similarly to the reasoning given in point a. publication of personal data
may breach confidentiality of the individuals providing it and could have
an adverse affect through any further communications enabled through the
publication of that personal data. Again, this may have an adverse affect
on the confidence of members of the public to use the Council's website to
request information. Therefore the public interest in not disclosing this
information is seen to outweigh the public interest in disclosing it.

Planning Policy documents:

Hounslow Council's Unitary Development Plan (2003, chapter 4)
[1]http://www.hounslow.gov.uk/index/environ...

The London Plan (2008, open environment chapter)
[2]http://www.london.gov.uk/thelondonplan/e...

Planning Policy Guidance (PPG2) 2: Green Belts
[3]http://www.communities.gov.uk/planningan...

We hope that this response satisfies your requests. Should you not
satisfied with this response, please contact
[4][email address]. In the event that you are still
not satisfied, please contact the Information Commissioner's Office
through their website ([5]https://www.ico.gov.uk/Global/contact_us...)
or by telephone on 08456 30 60 60.

Kind regards,

Strategic Planning Policy team

Environment Directorate

London Borough of Hounslow

* [6][email address]

8 [7]www.hounslow.gov.uk

show quoted sections

Link to this

Denise L left an annotation ()

I am surprised and pleased at the detail of this response.

Note on the response by Hounslow that the 15 authorities on Green Belt is not true. This was my source of information which was a question raised in Parliament so unless i misunderstood this is correct.

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=...

Iain Wright (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Communities and Local Government; Hartlepool, Labour) | Hansard source

The following table sets out the location, local authority and development type of each of the 15 planning applications that have been called in and approved since 1 April 2002 which involve green belt development. Since the answer given to Mr. Pickles, 29 October 2008, Hansard, column 1144W, there has been one further such application and details of this are also set out in the table.

Hounslow was one of the 15 in the table

Link to this

Strategic Planning Policy left an annotation ()

There is no dispute about Hounslow Council being one of the 15 local authorities to grant permission. This decision was carefully considered (in light of very particular circumstances) by both Hounslow Council and the Planning Inspector, who in the end concurred with Hounslow's decision to allow the development.
Hounslow Council's report and decision provide more detail and can be found at http://democraticservices.hounslow.gov.u...

It is the statement (made by Denise Leahy on 2 April 09) that claims Hounslow Council has set a precedent by granting this permission which is incorrect and is not substantiated by the evidence referred to. To clarify, the evidence referred to (from the www.theyworkforyou.com website) shows a single approval was given within Hounslow since 2002, and does not indicate that a standard or pattern has been set. We are not aware of any evidence to show a precedent in this respect. Furthermore, the site (Bedfont Trading Estate) referred to at the www.theyworkforyou.com website is not connected to the Lower Feltham Lakes/ "Concorde Village" site.

In brief, and to provide a little more detail on the Bedfont Trading Estate approval, the Inspector concluded that the benefits of the proposed development would clearly outweigh the definitional harm to the Green Belt arising from inappropriate development, and the very limited other harm identified. Benefits include wide-ranging environmental improvements and significant improvements to visual amenity in this area of Green Belt. The Inspector also acknowledged that there would be no harm to openness, that some of the Green Belt purposes and many of its objectives would be enhanced (para 10.33, Inspectors Report). For Green Belt purposes and objectives please refer to Planning Policy Guidance 2 at http://www.communities.gov.uk/planningan...

Regards,
Strategic Planning Policy team
Environment Directorate
Hounslow Council

Link to this

Joe Piper left an annotation ()

Denise Leahy is right according to the dictionary

From Merriman Webster
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionar...
Precedent
1: an earlier occurrence of something similar
2 a: something done or said that may serve as an example or rule to authorise or justify a subsequent act of the same or an analogous kind <a verdict that had no precedent>
2 b: the convention established by such a precedent or by long practice
3: a person or thing that serves as a model

Hounslow appear to be using 2b. but 1. or 2a. is just as reasonable to suggest concern.

Since the Land Registration act of 2002 that created the Land Banking industry less than 5% of English authorities have approved conversion of Green Belt land to building land. Hounslow is one of those authorities that has.

The Feltham Lakes or Concorde Village London site mention in this FOI request was purchased in 2006 for 4 Million UKP
http://www.propertyscam.org.uk/htdocs/ho...
If the marketing in the above mentioned advert is to be believed the owners are looking for a sale price after planning approval of somewhere around 180M UKP in less than 3 years. (9000 plots x UKP8000 x 250%)

With these kind of profits available from converting Green Belt Land to building land there is a reasonable and justifiable concern that undue influence could be applied in process. It is good to see the Hounslow Planning Authority position clearly and publicly stated. It would be better if Hounslow were a little less grudging about revealing it.

From the attached correspondence Hounslow had decided not to make a statement on land banking or green belt speculation on their website. Other local authorities have done this effectively:-
http://www.sevenoaks.gov.uk/environment/...
Statements such as these do remove uncertainty for investors as well as local residents.

I also note there appears to be zero correspondence for the calendar year 2008 in the attached document set. There also appears to be no correspondence with Taylor Woodrow who are mentioned as potential purchasers of this site in emails.

Link to this

Joe Piper left an annotation ()

There is a piece on Profitable Plots / Profitable Group and how they make money from UK land plots and planning permission speculation here in the UK Guardian.

This particular site in Colchester has failed planning permission twice. I doubt this Concorde Village Hounslow thing is anything for local residents to be worried about apart from maybe wasting some of the local tax money but Asian investors who bought these plots might be a little concerned

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2009/...

http://theasiafile.blogspot.com/2009/06/...

Link to this

Steve F left an annotation ()

There are three news items related to concorde village or feltham lakes below. Links to full articles are included.

http://www.hounslowchronicle.co.uk/west-...

It is a story that links a former feltham gravel pit with investors in Brunei, Singapore and Canada and an audacious bid to buy Newcastle United. Ed Saunt investigates what is going on at lower Feltham Lakes.

TO A Far Eastern investor 'Concorde Village' might sound like the perfect business opportunity. Backers could pick up a plot just two miles from Heathrow for just £8,000 with the promise of a 250 per cent return within three years.

Singapore-based landowners Profitable Group said the Lower Feltham Lakes site was ripe for a housing project comprising 1,000 homes and a recent entry on its website boasts that development proposals have already been submitted.

However, following an investigation by the Chronicle into concerns from investors and neighbours of the site, Hounslow Council has confirmed no such application has been received, while Profitable's UK communications consultants, Chelgate, admitted this week that the claims were untrue.

A spokeswoman for Hounslow Council said: "The site does not have planning permission. We have been in contact with the planning consultants to reiterate that any proposal for redevelopment of this site for residential or mixed used purposes, under current policy, would not be supported by the Council. We have asked that this is relayed to any marketing company that the landowners may be using."
[continued]

http://www.hounslowchronicle.co.uk/west-...
Scam fears over homes feltham: profit promise to investors despite planning risk
Aug 13 2009 By Ed Saunt , Hounslow Chronicle
A PROPOSED 1,000-home development in Feltham is facing claims it is part of an international property scam.

Hounslow Council has said the project to build on Green Belt land at Lower Feltham Lakes is 'very unlikely' to receive planning permission, yet landowner the Profitable Group - which put in a [failed] bid to buy Newcastle United last month - has been luring backers with promises of returns of 250 per cent within three years when the housing is built.

The council has been inundated with queries from worried investors in Brunei, Singapore and Canada, who say they have been told planning permission will be granted imminently and fear they are in danger of losing their money.

However, in a response to concerns, Simon Hoets, of Hounslow Council's development control service, said the prospects for development were 'extremely poor', that no encouragement had been given to the landowner whatsoever and that 'there is a serious danger that certain opinions and facts are getting distorted by distance'.
[Continued]

http://www.hounslowchronicle.co.uk/west-...

A DEVELOPER is pressing ahead with the consultation for its scheme for the Lower Feltham Lakes site, despite Hounslow Council saying it is 'extremely unlikely' to go ahead.

On Monday DLP Planning unveiled changes to plans for the 122-acre site off Chertsey Road in response to residents' concerns.

But the land is in the Green Belt and Hounslow Council has said it will not allow it to be developed.

Concerns were raised in the Chronicle last week that the proposed plans might be the front for an 'international property scam'.

Local people have accused landowner Profitable Group of holding a phoney consultation, a claim DLP director Neil Osborn strongly denies.
[Continued]

Link to this

Francis Irving left an annotation ()

Forum thread which includes discussion of this request:

http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic...

Link to this

John Cross left an annotation ()

linked to from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_banking

#wikipedia

Link to this

Steve F left an annotation ()

There is an opinion on this site
http://boards.fool.co.uk/Message.asp?mid...

When UK land is collapsing in price how can these adverts still be running. The British always talk about "they" should do something about 419 scams in Nigeria. Who are the "they" in the UK that will stand up and say to Asians this is clearly a bad investment dont do it ?

Link to this

Pierre B left an annotation ()

A company called Syndications Canada Inc is offering Concorde Village in Canada here.

http://landsyndications.com/site_plannin...

The SCI advert looks the same as Profitable Group / Profitable Plots

They claim it is a
# High density residential area
# Comprised of 120 acres with 50 acres for housing
# Suitable for 1,000 houses
# In line with Government Planning Policy Guidlines/Strategies (PPG/PPS)

Presumably based on the statement from Hounslow Council above is this pretty much a complete lie?

Link to this

Joe Piper left an annotation ()

Profitable Group are now the only people who seem to think this site will be developed .There are a number of negative comments related to Profitable Group here:-

http://forums.hardwarezone.com.sg/showth...

The most common complaint is that Profitable Group are failing to pay investors although they do seem to pay some people after threat of court action.

The risk to the Feltham Greenbelt site would seem to be that it wont get maintained if the company does not continue operating.

Perhaps Hounslow Council could comment on what happens to the Concorde Village site if the current owners fail to maintain it.

Link to this

Joe Piper left an annotation ()

There is an article in the UK Daily Telegraph relating to this site .

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/property/prop...
Green Belt housing scheme promoted by footballers leaves investors in the red
Investors from the Far East have been left without a penny gain in four years after putting money into a “get rich quick” property scheme promoted by two former England football players.
While Profitable Group, the Singapore-based property company behind the scheme, has made at least £47 million from the deal, nothing has yet materialised at the site – not even a planning application to build a single house

More here
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/property/prop...

Link to this

Joe Piper left an annotation ()

Profitable Group are under investigation by the commercial affairs department of Singapore as reported in the Singapore press here.
http://www.todayonline.com/Hotnews/EDC10...

Local reports indicate that Profitable Group have closed all of their offices in Asia. It seems likely that they will be folding anytime soon. A concerned investors site has been set up here
http://profitable-group-victims.blogspot...

Based on the half life of land banking companies it is likely that they will start again under a new name with the same land for a shorter period of time.

Link to this

Things to do with this request

Anyone:
Hounslow Borough Council only:

Follow this request

There are 4 people following this request

Offensive? Unsuitable?

Requests for personal information and vexatious requests are not considered valid for FOI purposes (read more).

If you believe this request is not suitable, you can report it for attention by the site administrators

Report this request

Act on what you've learnt

Similar requests

More similar requests

Event history details

Are you the owner of any commercial copyright on this page?