Dementia Home wanting to expand into semi detached neighbour

AdrianC

brindlebum wrote: »

It would reduce the value of our property, but it's their actions that would reduce it. Why should they pay me less for disrupting my life? Im not sure I understand your reasoning

My reasoning is simple. When you come to sell, there is a market value. That market value is the price the vendor is willing to sell for, and the buyer is willing to pay.

You seem to expect there to be two market values, depending on who's buying.

IOW, if it's worth £250k now, but only £200k with the home next door, would you really refuse any less than £300k from them? (All figures purely for illustrative purposes)

I mentioned it more against those accusing me of nimbyism

I don't think it's achieved your intention, tbh... The opposite, yes.

but I'll certainly contact our old neighbours (who we're still in touch with and only moved in September) as part of the planning objection.

Why? It has nothing to do with the ex-neighbours. Either there is a current issue with residents wandering - in which case, contact the CQC - or there is not.

Oh, and btw - potential loss of value is not a valid ground for planning objection. Nor is nuisance value. OTOH, supporting a successful business who are providing a social service and community asset is likely to get support from the planners.
http://planninglawblog.blogspot.co.uk/p/how-to-object.html

sparky130a

brindlebum wrote: »

We have been put into a situation with our house that we’re not quite sure what to do.

No you haven't, you bought in the full knowledge that this establishment existed. Whether they expand or not is pretty much irrelevant.

Bob_Bank_Spanker_2

Nobody will pay above market value - and as Adrian has said planners will not compensate based on potential loss of value. I totally appreciate it is difficult (this is your home after all!) but you need to be dispassionate about this. Perhaps an hour with a planning consultant would help - they are paid to be more measured on your behalf.

Ultimately you need to work out what you want. If this is your forever home, then that means fighting things. If it isn't, then you need to be looking at an orderly departure from this situation. Assuming it's the latter, in your shoes I would be getting together with the neighbour and inviting a without prejudice offer from the care home.

moneyistooshorttomention

brindlebum wrote: »

Thanks, some very pragmatic advice. We've spoken to our neighbours and I think the positive is they aren't in a rush to sell up and we've agreed that the best way forward is that we communicate together throughout the process so they don't end up playing us off against each other.

That was very much one of my first thoughts - ie that you and the neighbour need to guard against them playing the two of you off against each other.

I guess the obvious possible "wedge" this business could drive between the two of you is one of you being prepared to sell to them at, say, 120% of normal market value, whilst the other one of you was going to hold out for 200% of market value.

I would say that care home probably does want both your properties - but is going to keep schtum about wanting yours unless/until they get their hands on your neighbours one. At that point - they would start being open about it (ie because they'd figure you'd have that additional pressure on you to do what they want from being a house there on your own and with any disturbance being literally next door).

Personally - I'd say you and neighbour both need to agree together that there are only two options and you will both take the same one:

That being that you both turn round to the care home and say together (a joint visit in person I would think?) that they either buy both houses or neither. If they choose to buy both houses - then the price is, say, 200% of market value. Certainly - at the least 150% of market value.

At that point the care home might well say "No chance - we'll stay the same size then" and refuse to pay such a premium. There is a good chance that is what they will do - and then leave both of you alone to continue as now.

On the other hand - if they are prepared to pay that premium you and neighbour have decided on jointly - then you both sell to them at that premium price.

After all - neither of you would be selling by your own free choice/both of you have spent time and money on your houses on the basis that you are staying there for a good while longer yet and would need to recoup that money that would be wasted if it was a "forced" sale. From the care home pov - your 2 houses are their obvious expansion point. Without your 2 houses - they probably cant expand - or they will be the ones having to move.

I've certainly always maintained there are 2 prices for my house (be it last one or current one). First price is the market value and that is the one I charge if I've decided freely of myself to move. Second price is a (MUCH higher) premium price that I would demand if forced to move when I hadnt decided to do so myself (to allow for all that disruption/waste of my time/waste of my money).

brindlebum

AdrianC wrote: »

My reasoning is simple. When you come to sell, there is a market value. That market value is the price the vendor is willing to sell for, and the buyer is willing to pay.

You seem to expect there to be two market values, depending on who's buying.

IOW, if it's worth £250k now, but only £200k with the home next door, would you really refuse any less than £300k from them? (All figures purely for illustrative purposes)



I don't think it's achieved your intention, tbh... The opposite, yes.



Why? It has nothing to do with the ex-neighbours. Either there is a current issue with residents wandering - in which case, contact the CQC - or there is not.

Oh, and btw - potential loss of value is not a valid ground for planning objection. Nor is nuisance value. OTOH, supporting a successful business who are providing a social service and community asset is likely to get support from the planners.

I don't expect there to be two market values, but it's clearly not uncommon for developers to pay above market value for forcing people to sell their house. If they believe that they can get through their original proposal of annexing our house then they are less likely to offer us a higher value. If they think that our objection to the proposal will be upheld, then I'd imagine that they would offer us more. I'm here to ask whether anyone can offer advice on whether they think we have a valid objection. I'm genuinely not sure what point you're making on the valuation is.

I don't think that having dementia patients wandering around a garden is nimbyism when I have two young children. I mentioned it because people told me that the proposal would have no impact on my life; it clearly would for a number of reasons that I have mentioned, even if some of these aren't valid planning objections. I've no objections to the home - I was well aware of it when we moved here, I do object to it being joined directly to my house and for a major change of use to occur.

Thanks for advice on loss of value, although "nuisance" surely is made up of a number of other factors: ongoing noise, parking etc. so I'll aim to focus on these points. Appreciate the links - they'll certainly help me put the case together should it come to that.

brindlebum

sparky130a wrote: »

No you haven't, you bought in the full knowledge that this establishment existed. Whether they expand or not is pretty much irrelevant.

what a ridiculous thing to say

brindlebum

Bob_Bank_Spanker wrote: »

Nobody will pay above market value - and as Adrian has said planners will not compensate based on potential loss of value. I totally appreciate it is difficult (this is your home after all!) but you need to be dispassionate about this. Perhaps an hour with a planning consultant would help - they are paid to be more measured on your behalf.

Ultimately you need to work out what you want. If this is your forever home, then that means fighting things. If it isn't, then you need to be looking at an orderly departure from this situation. Assuming it's the latter, in your shoes I would be getting together with the neighbour and inviting a without prejudice offer from the care home.

Yeah, I think that is what we'll be aiming to do. However, why shouldn't they pay above value? My neighbours are certainly asking for that, although they have a much stronger hand to play obviously. The home are doing this purely as a business decision - this is a large five bedroom house they are buying - why should they make lots of money and I lose out in every way?

Gorecki

Through work I've visited over 30 dementia homes and completed 8hr night shifts in some.

They do fantastic work fulfilling a very real need for people society often wants to forget about.

Having said that I'd fight tooth and nail to avoid an adjoining wall with one.

A hall mark of residents living with dementia is not following typical routines.
Staff can try and guide people to go to sleep at night but (rightly) can do no more.
All units I've seen have residents awake, watching tv, socialising etc 24/7 and regardless will have to run a routine of hourly checks on all residents.

As above, some poor residents can continually activate call alarms throughout the night or call for help for hours on end.

The service will likely do night staff shift changeovers and resident breakfast rounds at 8pm and 8am including Sundays.

I think there's a very very big difference between living beside and adjoining a nursing home and I can completely understand the OPs reaction, it is not NIMBYism.

AdrianC

There is option C... That the care home decide to relocate instead.

If that happens, then you are looking at a large commercial property near you with C2 use. This covers any care home, including children's homes. It would also cover C1 use - hotels, boarding houses. It wouldn't be hard to see a change to C2a - secure residential, including half-way houses etc. Or C3/4 - multi-residential, including HMOs and supported housing.

Or change to a class B use, offices, or class A, shop/restaurant.

sparky130a

brindlebum wrote: »

what a ridiculous thing to say

Please do expand and qualify?