Odd boundary help linden homes

Section62

lookstraightahead said:

I could be totally wrong here, but maybe that piece of land is being kept for some sort of utility if needed.

I think it is quite probable you are right - which is why I said....

Section62 said:

If the land retained isn't for access, and isn't just a silly error when they drew up the transfer plans, then the next likely reason they retained land was for some kind of utility purposes - e.g. a manhole or soakaway, or perhaps a location to site something like an electricity substation.

Have you checked the planning application drawings to see if anything was supposed to be going there?

Gavin83

lookstraightahead said:

Hi op

i have no idea if this is relevant, but there's a recent thread about a 5G mast being put on a piece of land that the council had agreed to maintain.

I could be totally wrong here, but maybe that piece of land is being kept for some sort of utility if needed.

I was planning on mentioning that thread too.

I doubt it's an accident they've retained that land and the fact they won't sell it to you re-enforces that point. There are a few reasons they may have retained this, although most of them can be dismissed based on what we've been told. A future access road is a potential reason but if you're saying there isn't enough room for a house then this seems slightly unlikely. So I agree with lookstraightahead and Section62, I'd say the most likely option is a future utility of some sort. If they were to sell it to someone like a 5G provider they'd likely make a decent amount of money.

OP, did you offer a certain amount to buy it for or did you not get that far?

wend33

Maybe retained as a visibility splay? 

Section62

wend33 said:

Maybe retained as a visibility splay? 

Visibility splays are usually sold with the property they are for - and developers now typically sell/pass responsibility for anything required for access road sightlines onto the adjacent property owner.

To have retained ownership and maintenance responsibility implies some kind of purpose for the land which precludes transfer of ownership to the OP.  Use for utilities is probably the most likely reason.  (or else just a mistake)