Council owned ransom strip - 2nd house

helloall

I've been trying to negotiate with my LA, but it's at a stalemate now.

I'll explain the details below, and would be really grateful if any of you have any similar experience or views on the way forward.

I own a semi-detached house with a large side garden.
The vehicle access to the property is over a small piece of Common land owned by the council.
When I purchased the house, I paid for an easement to allow me to drive over their land.
I have now got full planning permission for a 4 bed detached house in the side garden.
The council are insisting that the easement was only for the existing house, and to grant permission for vehicle access for a 2nd house they want £40k to vary the deed of easement.

The important point of the existing easement states:
“as a single private residence but not for any other purpose whatsoever”

The whole paragraph states:

2. Full right and liberty (in common with the Council and all others having the like right) at all times hereafter by day or night to pass with or without vehicles to and from the Blue Land over and across so much of the Red Land as is coloured brown on the Plan ('the Brown Land') for all purposes connected with the use and enjoyment of the Blue Land as a single private residence but not for any other purpose whatsoever.
END

For clarity, the blue land is my property, the red land is council owned Common land, and the brown(red) land is the vehicle access location.

The council are pointing to the word "single" and insisting that it means the existing house. My argument is that it does not state existing, and if I chose to demolish the existing house and build
the new one, I still have permission to enter my "blue land" to access my single private residence - therefore, the agreement cannot be for the existing property.

I do not plan to demolish the existing house - I wish to sell it and simply let the new owners take out their own easement or licence with the council.

Sorry for the long post, but thought it best to try and make things clear. Thanks again for any comments.

Nobbie1967

The council are obliged to maximise the money they make from property disposals and grants of easement. Even if you could persuade the council to move the easement to the new house (unlikely as there is an existing house) then the old house would be devalued by the same amount as the council will ask for the new easement. I don't think there's a clever way out of this as the council's legal officers seem to have done their job properly.

Norman_Castle

When I purchased the house, I paid for an easement to allow me to drive over their land.

The council are insisting that the easement was only for the existing house, and to grant permission for vehicle access for a 2nd house they want £40k to vary the deed of easement!

How much was the original easement?.

helloall

Norman_Castle wrote: »

How much was the original easement?.

£625 in 2006

davidmcn

I'd be inclined to the view that the existing easement is fine, if all you're doing is switching the single private residence which is using it. But that will leave the existing house with no rights to use it. Is that what is suggested by the proposed development, or does it look like a shared driveway?

What does your solicitor think?

(and this isn't what everyone else calls a "ransom strip")

helloall

davidmcn wrote: »

I'd be inclined to the view that the existing easement is fine, if all you're doing is switching the single private residence which is using it. But that will leave the existing house with no rights to use it. Is that what is suggested by the proposed development, or does it look like a shared driveway?

What does your solicitor think?

(and this isn't what everyone else calls a "ransom strip")

Yes, my proposal is to build the new house and live in it as my single private residence, which I am arguing that I have permission to access due to my existing easement. The existing house would then have no permission, and my solicitor thinks it's up to the new purchaser to negotiate for their access rights, the same as I did in 2006 when I purchased the property.

Before my 2006 easement, their was a licence granted in 1996 for the previous owner, at an annual price of 1 peppercorn.

I paid £625 for vehicle access for my easement when purchasing the property in 2006.

The vehicle access width (brown land) is being widened by 600mm, but it will be shared by both properties, only being separated once over the Common and on the blue land.

theartfullodger

What did your "full planning permission" say, if anything, about access to the new house both during construction & after it was built?

helloall

theartfullodger wrote: »

What did your "full planning permission" say, if anything, about access to the new house both during construction & after it was built?

There was no condition in the decision notice, just this paragraph in the final notes:

The provision of the widened access across common land requires prior approval and any necessary wayleave and the Applicant is required to obtain this from Legal Services before commencing any work on the access.

Hoploz

This issue is outside of Planning law.

It's your choice. You pay, or you don't have the access. The easement is allocated for the one single house and is in the location which is appropriate to that single house. That's the end of it.

The council have decided that's the value of the access. How much will the new house be worth? I assume they have come up with this figure based on a predicted valuation of the house, including the uplift value the right gives to the plot.

In these days of austerity, cost cutting and reductions in public services, it is fair and right for the council to use whatever means that emerge to maximise revenue for local services. Why wouldn't they?

silvercar

helloall wrote: »

There was no condition in the decision notice, just this paragraph in the final notes:

The provision of the widened access across common land requires prior approval and any necessary wayleave and the Applicant is required to obtain this from Legal Services before commencing any work on the access.

That would suggest you can't build the wider access until you have sorted out the easements.

I can imagine the sale of the current property. With a statement that easement was obtained previously for £600 in 2006. Any prospective buyers will expect a similar price and the minute they hear of £40k they will drop out. If you intend selling the existing property you will need to sort easement first.

helloall

Nobbie1967 wrote: »

The council are obliged to maximise the money they make from property disposals and grants of easement. Even if you could persuade the council to move the easement to the new house (unlikely as there is an existing house) then the old house would be devalued by the same amount as the council will ask for the new easement. I don't think there's a clever way out of this as the council's legal officers seem to have done their job properly.

The council have quoted s123 of the local government act 1972 - best consideration reasonably obtainable. But the council have unreasonably calculated the increase in value by having pl.permission for a 2nd dwelling. They then are wanting 50% of the increased value, although case law (Stokes v Cambridge and more) is 1/3rd. There are also several other properties within half a mile with a similar situation - new house built in garden of old property but needing to drive over Common land to access the property. A freedom of information request revealed that they were not charged by the Council (houses 2-3 years old).
I feel the Council are unfairly targeting me, and should treat all residents equally.