House about to go on the market: Dealing with Footpath and Kitchen issues

Mojisola

New2Forum wrote: »

The annexe does have separate Council Tax (but not dating back to 2008). It also has its own electricity and telephone if relevant at all (Water supply is shared)

New2Forum wrote: »

Similar approach with the kitchen - to do nothing until a potential buyer is found and if there is an issue, to try and resolve either with indemnity insurance and/or removal of the cooker and calling it a utility room or something (already a washing machine in there).

Wouldn't it be a bit strange explaining that you pay a separate council tax on your 'utility room'?

moneyistooshorttomention

stator wrote: »

You might have trouble with the green route. Going around it would be longer than the diagonal red line, depending on the destination of the walker. You might find it easier to propose a shorter diversion that just goes around the building only as necessary.

Now I can see the photo, I agree with this comment.

I know I find it annoying (as a walker) to be expected to take a longer route A to B than necessary because someone has had the footpath diverted to somewhere that suits one household, rather than lots of walkers.

Might as well take the quickest/easiest option (ie one that wont involve you in a fight) and go for just having it veer around the house.

Mojisola

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

Might as well take the quickest/easiest option (ie one that wont involve you in a fight) and go for just having it veer around the house.

This ^

As no-one has ever used the footpath, to your knowledge, it won't be a problem having it skirting round the buildings.

Davesnave

Mojisola wrote: »

This ^

As no-one has ever used the footpath, to your knowledge, it won't be a problem having it skirting round the buildings.

And the building the left hand path would need to veer around looks like stables, so continuing it past the garden and on to its original route wouldn't result in much loss of privacy or much extra walking either.

stator

Mojisola wrote: »

This ^

As no-one has ever used the footpath, to your knowledge, it won't be a problem having it skirting round the buildings.

The original question is regarding selling the house.
If the OP intends to continue living in the house then ignoring the footpath is clearly the best option and hoping no-one ever notices it.
But selling is a different matter. Any buyer is likely to notice the footpath and it may put them off. The trouble with diverting the footpath is that it will bring it to the council's attention that the footpath is currently obstructed. Unfortunately there's no way of telling what the council's reaction would be. Will they be pragmatic and allow the diversion or will they play hard ball and start demanding demolition?

moneyistooshorttomention

I'd be willing to bet they would allow diversion - provided the route is immediately around the house.

In their position = I'd be proposing to my fellow Councillors that we all fancied a Sunday afternoon walk in that direction to check out the "lay of the land" for ourselves and then, all being well, come back and agree to a change to be on that "immediately around the house" basis.

Going the "long way around" (ie on from the bridle path) might result in a dust-up with them.

Best to get it sorted out before the house goes up for sale and then that's one of the two things sorted out.

BornAtTheRightTime

I have just witnessed two footpath re-routes in my village and it does not have to be a difficult or expensive process. One of these was because a house sale couldn't proceed further until it was resolved (the other wanted it moved 50mtrs further from his kitchen windows).

Firstly, the request to alter must be of benefit to the landowner. When you think about it, this legal requirement actually makes a lot of sense. Why else would you want to re-route the path and tie up your County Council's time? It really helps to remember this though, as if you do face opposition a lot will be based on people believing the footpath should continue to be as inconvenient to the landowner as it is currently, strange as it may seem.

Secondly, the proposed new route should not be substantially less convenient to users. Importantly, having to walk a greater distance is only considered SUBSTANTIALLY inconvenient if it is at least twice the original distance for a short footpath, and a good quarter mile or more for longer paths. if you're only talking about 3-4mins extra walking, it's not reasonable for walkers to claim this is significantly inconvenient.

However, re-routing a footpath from a field to along a road would likely be considered substantially inconvenient if it is a busy road with no pavements or a typical countryside (narrow, high-sided, poor sightlines) lane.

If the gradient of the new route is much higher than the original this would again fail the inconvenience test.

Finally, it should route the walkers back to the original endpoint or near it, in a safe manner.

There are other considerations but these are the main ones. If your green line turned the corner and continues from east to west inside the field by the boundary hedge I cannot think you would have any problems.

Timewise it can be agreed and the change implemented within 4-6 weeks. There is then a 6-month review period during which time any objections to the change are considered by the County Council - but if you have the Parish Council on board early on, those objections should be minimal.

moneyistooshorttomention

I've never come across any examples personally of someone deliberately wanting a footpath to be inconvenient to someone nearby.

Every time, its just been a case of wanting to maintain our footpath to walk on from A to B and perhaps wanting that particular route because its a particularly attractive one or an easier one or the like.

The only temper-raising I've seen (and that does happen) is when someone is obviously deliberately blocking a footpath/trying to say it isn't one when it is/etc.

Sometimes people even like it when you are using the footpath and its not unknown to be thanked for helping to keep it clear and having refreshments provided.

EDIT: BornAtThe RightTime (or anyone else ....). I'm interested to see those guidelines as to when a footpath can be re-routed, as I'm certainly aware of a footpath near me that got re-routed and I cant understand why...as it is substantially more inconvenient in its new route. The only explanation I can think of as to why that went through is to do with all the "wrong reasons" <wink £>

BornAtTheRightTime

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

I've never come across any examples personally of someone deliberately wanting a footpath to be inconvenient to someone nearby.

I have sat in a PC meeting and listened to some objectors and councillors state that they don't see why a footpath should be moved as "it has always been there", "I don't see why it should be moved just because the owner doesn't want it there" and "it's only for the owners' benefit, not the users". Fortunately, it really helped to have the following legislation projected onto the wall at the same time:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1980/66/section/119

moneyistooshorttomention

BornAtTheRightTime wrote: »

I have sat in a PC meeting and listened to some objectors and councillors state that they don't see why a footpath should be moved as "it has always been there", "I don't see why it should be moved just because the owner doesn't want it there" and "it's only for the owners' benefit, not the users". Fortunately, it really helped to have the following legislation projected onto the wall at the same time:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1980/66/section/119

I would interpret as "its there....so it stays there" and not "I actively want to hurt a house-owner/farm-owner by making them put up with it regardless. How awkward can I be to them just for the sake of it?". Certainly not a case of wanting to deliberately inconvenience someone.

Chances are the footpath was there first.

The vast majority of people who buy a property with a footpath running nearby know this is what they've done and have, in fact, paid a lower price for that property because of it.