The "have a look at this!" thread II

bouicca21

I was prepared to consider buying a chicken or two so that I could pretend to be a poultry farmer until I saw the floor plans. Seriously bad layout so I'll stay in London after all. I'm sure there's a farm labourer somewhere who wants a cinema room.

Davesnave

gettingtheresometime wrote: »

Don't fancy the bathroom arrangement thought I'd forget to lock both doors!

That's a 'Jack & Jill' type bathroom arrangement:

Jack goes in, Jill goes in.... and then they lock a door each. Easy!

Minkybob

Davesnave wrote: »

Here's a nice little agricultural worker's cottage, just the job after a hard day fettling groats or fossicking mangel-wurzels...

OK, it does need a little work, but the yeoman is probably skilled at turning ploughshares into swords....... to hang over the fake inglenook. Yeah, that sort of thing.

A few contradictions though, like no land.

Oh, hang-on, they'll be one of they 'executive' farmers, won't they? All computerised milking and robocows.

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-42389181.html

The Virtual tour is just great, spot the stock pillow arrangement footage.

cazmanian_minx

And if you scroll right to the bottom of the text, a nice little clause saying that if the agricultural occupancy restriction is ever lifted, the resulting uplift in the house's value goes to the current owners!

If at any time in the future there is a change in planning policy and permission is given for lifting of the agricultural restriction or for any other use which enhances the value then the difference in value between the present restricted use and the open market value bought about by the change in planning policy will be for the benefit of the current vendors and/or their successors. Such a change in value to be determined by an independent arbitrator agreed by both parties.

Surrey_EA

cazmanian_minx wrote: »

And if you scroll right to the bottom of the text, a nice little clause saying that if the agricultural occupancy restriction is ever lifted, the resulting uplift in the house's value goes to the current owners!

I would have expected there to be some sort of time constraint. Maybe 10-15 or even 20 years.

But

cazmanian_minx wrote: »

If at any time in the future

Apparently not!

moneyistooshorttomention

Surrey_EA wrote: »

I would have expected there to be some sort of time constraint. Maybe 10-15 or even 20 years.

But


Apparently not!

Visions of a new owner buying the house in 100 years time - and their solicitor (aka the intelligent robots that will be doing this by then) saying "There is a rather odd historical clause written down here back in the last century. Better take out an indemnity policy - in case they've got a great-grandchild that might come knocking on your door trying to get some of the house value out of you".:cool:

Amber_Sunshine

Plus the occupant of bedroom 3 will be either locked in or out if someone takes a long bath in their shared bathroom ...

Fuzzyness

cazmanian_minx wrote: »

And if you scroll right to the bottom of the text, a nice little clause saying that if the agricultural occupancy restriction is ever lifted, the resulting uplift in the house's value goes to the current owners!

If at any time in the future there is a change in planning policy and permission is given for lifting of the agricultural restriction or for any other use which enhances the value then the difference in value between the present restricted use and the open market value bought about by the change in planning policy will be for the benefit of the current vendors and/or their successors. Such a change in value to be determined by an independent arbitrator agreed by both parties.

thats a bit greedy. why would anyone ever bother going through the expense to get it lifted only to have to give all the benefit away.

moneyistooshorttomention

Fuzzyness wrote: »

thats a bit greedy. why would anyone ever bother going through the expense to get it lifted only to have to give all the benefit away.

Ah! Daylight dawns. Now I think I've got it - they've put that there not in order to grab for some more money for the house for themselves. It's been done to make sure that that restriction isn't ever lifted (ie because it wouldn't be worth anyone's while to lift it ever). Method in their madness....

gettingtheresometime

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

Ah! Daylight dawns. Now I think I've got it - they've put that there not in order to grab for some more money for the house for themselves. It's been done to make sure that that restriction isn't ever lifted (ie because it wouldn't be worth anyone's while to lift it ever). Method in their madness....

Ri can see why it wouldn't be worth anyone trying to lift but why try and prevent it in the first place.

As for the term in itself this isn't this a standard term for farmland etc?