Council owned ransom strip - 2nd house

davidmcn

helloall wrote: »

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 for. 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, so even with inflation, if they offered 2 peppercorns that would be a similar agreement as 1996 licence!

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.

Firstly, if you're widening the access then presumably you'll need to go back and negotiate that with the Council anyway, irrespectively of what you're using it for.

Secondly, if it is going to be used by both houses then I can see the council's point. Why don't you want to sort it out now and then sell the existing house with the benefit of the access? It's hardly going to be a selling point to tell purchasers that they don't have adequate access rights and they'll need to sort it out themselves. At the end of the day it will just come off the price you get for the house, possibly with a bit added because of the risk/hassle factor.

moneyistooshorttomention

helloall wrote: »

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.

But "2-3 years" ago is NOT 2016. All Councils seem to be experiencing year-on-year cuts and what could be afforded by them even 2 years ago (ie losing out on potential income) could well be something they cant afford to do just "2-3 years" later.

All round it sounds like the Council have done their homework back at the time they granted the easement and foresaw this situation happening. To me - they've cut you off at the pass and it's either "pay up or give up".

theartfullodger

helloall wrote: »

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......................

Yes, I do have views on the way forward: Pay their charge.

Davesnave

davidmcn wrote: »

Firstly, if you're widening the access then presumably you'll need to go back and negotiate that with the Council anyway, irrespectively of what you're using it for.

Secondly, if it is going to be used by both houses then I can see the council's point. Why don't you want to sort it out now and then sell the existing house with the benefit of the access? It's hardly going to be a selling point to tell purchasers that they don't have adequate access rights and they'll need to sort it out themselves. At the end of the day it will just come off the price you get for the house, possibly with a bit added because of the risk/hassle factor.

I'm glad you said this. I was struggling to see an advantage in loading the house that would be for sale with this millstone, so I thought I was missing something!

Davesnave

helloall wrote: »

I feel the Council are unfairly targeting me, and should treat all residents equally.

To abide by that principle would mean nothing could ever change, but I agree it's a hefty % of the uplift.

An over-zealous council might find they've priced themselves out of the market, which would result in nil benefit for anyone, especially as most local authorities are charged with finding more land for building.

I'd imagine playing the long game here, and through inactivity, perhaps convincing those concerned that further negotiation might be more rewarding all-round.

helloall

theartfullodger wrote: »

Yes, I do have views on the way forward: Pay their charge.

The council are governed by law to achieve 'best consideration reasonably obtainable' - they can't simply think of a number and demand it.

I have a formal RICS Red Book valuation report of the new house completed value, plot value, reduced value of existing house due to losing side garden etc.
Using these formal valuations and then applying case law of 1/3 of increase value, the amount is £15k. I would accept that.

I understand that council's are financially stretched, but don't accept that they can hold (some) people unreasonably to ransom.

jimbog

I would negotiate. Perhaps after having a chat with your local councillor over tea and cake first?

davidmcn

helloall wrote: »

The council are governed by law to achieve 'best consideration reasonably obtainable' - they can't simply think of a number and demand it.

They can, as long as they receive at least the best consideration reasonably obtainable - they're under no obligation to even contemplate selling you land or access rights.

davidmcn

jimbog wrote: »

I would negotiate. Perhaps after having a chat with your local councillor over tea and cake first?

Put the cake in a brown envelope, other it would have to go down in the register of members' interests...

helloall

jimbog wrote: »

I would negotiate. Perhaps after having a chat with your local councillor over tea and cake first?

LOL..or something stronger!

The problem is that the council are refusing to negotiate.

My solicitor is advising contacting the local ombudsman and seeking a judicial review - all sounds drawn out and stressful.