Overage on larger part of garden

benweston

MX5huggy said:

Currently the proposal stops you demolishing the existing property and building 2 on the existing plot. Your proposal removes this restriction, I think. You may consider it an impractical proposal but others may not. 

No, it doesn't. It only covers the bottom two thirds of the garden. It doesn't prohibit anything, it just requires a 30% uplift in value if planning is granted and building commences. We've no issue with the overage, we think it's entirely fair. But as it only covers the larger part of the garden, we'd like to split the title so there's no overage at all on the main house and smaller part of the garden. This keeps it cleaner and means the first charge on the house (the most valuable bit, obviously) could be with a mortgage lender in future.

K_S said:

@benweston Even with an overage clause, there are a handful of lenders (most building societies) who will consider lending subject to the exact wording of the clause.

These are the kinds of lenders who require a fair bit of legwork and chasing to get a response from so may not necessarily have been looked into by your broker if it's one of the volume broking ones. For valuation purposes, it will usually be valued at the lower amount without the land.

We've already had a few more specialist building societies look at the exact overage personally and they are not interested because of the length of it, regardless of what it actually covers.

benweston

Actually MX5huggy, I may have misinterpreted what you're saying. I think your point is that the house itself could be knocked down and two new properties built at the end on the Restricted Land. Practically, I'm not sure how this alters anything, split title or not – this could still be done with the current overage and the implications would be the same.

K_S

benweston said:

MX5huggy said:

Currently the proposal stops you demolishing the existing property and building 2 on the existing plot. Your proposal removes this restriction, I think. You may consider it an impractical proposal but others may not. 

No, it doesn't. It only covers the bottom two thirds of the garden. It doesn't prohibit anything, it just requires a 30% uplift in value if planning is granted and building commences. We've no issue with the overage, we think it's entirely fair. But as it only covers the larger part of the garden, we'd like to split the title so there's no overage at all on the main house and smaller part of the garden. This keeps it cleaner and means the first charge on the house (the most valuable bit, obviously) could be with a mortgage lender in future.

K_S said:

@benweston Even with an overage clause, there are a handful of lenders (most building societies) who will consider lending subject to the exact wording of the clause.

These are the kinds of lenders who require a fair bit of legwork and chasing to get a response from so may not necessarily have been looked into by your broker if it's one of the volume broking ones. For valuation purposes, it will usually be valued at the lower amount without the land.

We've already had a few more specialist building societies look at the exact overage personally and they are not interested because of the length of it, regardless of what it actually covers.

@benweston Very interesting. I've never come across an overage clause that there was absolutely no lender for so I guess this one is abnormal (as far as lender requirements go).

So you're probably on the right track if you can get the title split into two with the house+land free from this clause. Good luck!