Landlocked property

Slinky

Have you met the owner of the adjoining land? Not sure I'd be wanting this person as my neighbour given what I've read.

We pulled out of a property purchase when the controlling behaviour of the vendor, who would also be our new neighbour, became apparent. Found somewhere else much better suited to our requirements, as one invariably will.

Change the things you cannot accept, accept the things you cannot change.

Section62

Statex2_2 said:

GDB2222 said:

Section62 said:

Nebulous2 said:

Do you need it all? How much of it would you need to secure an access route? 

The owner could sell you a portion and continue tilting at windmills for the rest of it. 

Not sure it is tilting at windmills.  If we are really going to be building 50 trillion new homes a year then scraps of land which might be considered 'grey' are likely candidates for at least some of them.  Rural councils are not going to meet their new homes targets by rigidly sticking to such trivialities as development envelopes.

As someone who has been involved in the planning process and trying to get development focussed in areas where transport and other facilities are good the likely direction of travel on planning policy is concerning.... but not quite as concerned as I would be owning a property with iffy access rights and a parcel of land next door which is potentially ripe for development of multiple new homes.

Two acres is possibly enough for 30 houses, and I think the OP is attracted to the house he is buying because it is quiet and in a backwater. Equally, I can see why the cousin doesn’t want to sell the land at agricultural prices, when it might conceivably be worth several million for development. 

Even formalising a right of way across the land might reduce its development potential. 

That is very true but it is very remote and no real bus service. There are 2 plots of land for sale in the village of similar size. Both unsold fpr over 9 months and both within the building envelope.

The lack of bus services makes little difference in rural areas - buyers will be expecting to use their cars rather than travelling anywhere by bus.

Have the other two plots got outline/full planning consent, and if so, what kind of density (dwellings/ha) is the consent for?  It could be the asking price is too high for the current consented development (if any).

The point I was getting at previously was that higher-density and larger developments within existing villages is not always popular, and although objections may not carry much weight, some councils may be unwilling to take the flack (which will ultimately show up in the ballot box) of imposing larger/denser developments on rural communities.  Although there are sound logical reasons for promoting development within existing communities (and this is what drives the development envelope principal) unfortunately logic often goes out of the window, and one way of squaring the circle is for planning authorities to switch to approving development on the basis of upsetting the fewest people... i.e. stick the new development where there isn't an existing community to get upset. New towns, Model Villages etc are one way of delivering a lot more homes.  There's no reason why this cannot be applied on a smaller scale by permitting development on 'remote' plots of land... and all the better if the existing use means the land is relatively cheap.

pinkshoes

Quite clearly the house owner wants to complete the sale before you talk to the cousin about the land as they know how awkward the cousin is. I'd hazard a guess the cousin wants to prevent the house sale due to some bitter feud!

I'd speak to the cousin again, and make them an offer for either an access strip of say 6 metres wide, or a second price for the entire field. Work out how much you think it is worth. Put a time limit on the offer perhaps. 

If they agree, then deduct this amount from the price you are offering for the house, or get the house owners to pay for the access land. If the cousin won't agree to sell then there is no more negotiation to be done and you need to walk away. 

FreeBear

pinkshoes said: If they agree, then deduct this amount from the price you are offering for the house, or get the house owners to pay for the access land. If the cousin won't agree to sell then there is no more negotiation to be done and you need to walk away. 

If you do get an agreement to sell an access strip, it needs to be legally binding. Otherwise, you could complete on the house and the cousin changes their mind half way through.

Yorkie1

You might also consider how much extra your legal cost might be for your solicitor to handle this extra purchase - and factor that into your figures 

saajan_12

Statex2_2 said:

When I spoke to the cousin she said there is no problem with the access as it was sorted out in 1960's. The legals say that it is not the case therefore who ever the land owner is has the upper hand and can change their mind at any time. 

If what you actually want is access to the house then this sounds like the only pertinent bit? The stuff about buying the the land, valuations, potential use etc is just creating extra issues. The neighbour is happy to give access, you're worried they will change their mind, so just formalise that.. either as an easement or as a 999 year agreement that they will allow access in return for £1 a year. 

Statex2_2

I am receiving pressure from the estate agent to proceed stating that the seller of the house will pull out if we don't. I have spoken to the owners of the land, they keep telling me how they want to keep it in case they get planning permission in the future but they will reluctantly sell it so that the cousin can sell his house. The price they want is extortionate and we will probably walk away. The house is worthless without legal access. 

Statex2_2

saajan_12 said:

Statex2_2 said:

When I spoke to the cousin she said there is no problem with the access as it was sorted out in 1960's. The legals say that it is not the case therefore who ever the land owner is has the upper hand and can change their mind at any time. 

If what you actually want is access to the house then this sounds like the only pertinent bit? The stuff about buying the the land, valuations, potential use etc is just creating extra issues. The neighbour is happy to give access, you're worried they will change their mind, so just formalise that.. either as an easement or as a 999 year agreement that they will allow access in return for £1 a year. 

That would be an excellent solution but the person that owns the land is not the sort of person to agree to that.

Section62

Statex2_2 said:

saajan_12 said:

Statex2_2 said:

When I spoke to the cousin she said there is no problem with the access as it was sorted out in 1960's. The legals say that it is not the case therefore who ever the land owner is has the upper hand and can change their mind at any time. 

If what you actually want is access to the house then this sounds like the only pertinent bit? The stuff about buying the the land, valuations, potential use etc is just creating extra issues. The neighbour is happy to give access, you're worried they will change their mind, so just formalise that.. either as an easement or as a 999 year agreement that they will allow access in return for £1 a year. 

That would be an excellent solution but the person that owns the land is not the sort of person to agree to that.

"Very wise" then?

The land has development potential - selling part of it, or encumbering the land with a right of access for a third party, would inevitably diminish the potential value of the land for development.  They would be foolish to let that go without some amount of financial compensation.

Really unfortunate for you, but everything you've said about this property just adds up to it being one to avoid, or else be willing to stump up the money to take it on the whole site as a possible development opportunity.

user1977

Statex2_2 said:

The price they want is extortionate and we will probably walk away. The house is worthless without legal access. 

So why only "probably", if you're not getting formal access rights and you're now in a position where you can't get indemnity insurance?