How much space does a lorry need to turn?

[Schoolmarm]

If they don't mind people with dogs walking through their horses.

Nearly all the places I have kept our horses, including here, have had footpaths.

 

[FamilyWiggs]

Joce - I'm hugely excited for you and your land purchase. It's a good piece of land from what I can see and strategically important for you.

The requirement to fence quickly will depend upon your use of the land, the ownership and usage of parcels M, P & O. Notwithstanding what your deeds may say, they are only really enforceable if the owners of those plots wished to do so. You and they may find that you have planned uses that do not require stock fencing to be a priority - say you all wanted to turn them into butterfly meadows.

If you ever need any advice, just let me know. We've learned most of the rookie lessons with our land that there are to learn! If Chris wants to get fit (really really fit) then fencing is the very best exercise there is. I've done acres of it by hand. However, there is a skill to it - therefore my advice is not to fence the bit you will see most, first. You'll rue your wonky posts and less-than-taut wire every day until you re-do it!

Most important lesson is to get to know and make friends with owners of plots M, P & O asap.

Enjoy your land - they've stopped making any more of it you know!

 

[FamilyWiggs]

If they don't mind people with dogs walking through their horses.

Nearly all the places I have kept our horses, including here, have had footpaths.

Me too (not the horses though). We rarely have any problems at all - indeed can't think of one.

Mind you, there's dogs and there's dogs. Chiuhuahauhauhuas and other hamster dogs are one thing, then there's alsatians, timberwolves and rottweilers... :roll:

 

[Tom]

Fair enough, 'marm. I, personally, wouldn't buy or rent land with a footpath anywhere near the boundary (well, unless you count a road, of course). I suppose I'm very lucky here and I'm very grateful, too Most of my land is away from the road and any rights of way.

 

[JoceAndChris]

Graham, there's nothing we've been sent that's any different to the basic information available on the sellers' website.

Link?

I might remove this later, but for the purposes of this rather important discussion:

http://www.vantageland.co.uk/pdf/pm_grantham.pdf

It is L.

@ Robin and Carole - soothing music ... I know this is the right thing to do. And thanks for being such wonderful listening ears too( but no way to DIY fencing! - unless he really is out of work, which I doubt) xx

 

[Tom]

Joce, you could remove the link and give to people by request, dependant on whether you 'know' them or not. Just a thought

 

[skier-hughes]

So how do you know you need to fence it within 3 months?
If that is all there is in writing, you can fence it whenever you like, with whatever you like.
My stock proof fencing was just as an example, they might have said you need to build a 6' wall :wink:

 

[Moo]

Another useful function of fencing is to mark the boundaries.

 

[JoceAndChris]

Yes, exactly. It's a good thing.

Solicitor rang yesterday and said we'd need to fence it all within three months and did we want to go ahead?

Graham, I'm sure all the legalities will be covered in writing eventually.

But thanks for your concern.

 

[Flyfisher]

Don't forget that all contracts are negotiable. If someone sends you a contract with a long list of terms and conditions, you are not obliged to agree to them. If there's anything you can't live with, just cross it out. If there is a condition that you wish to add, just add it. If there is a condition that you don't understand, re-write or amend it so it is crystal clear. Thus, a condition to erect a "stock-proof fence" could be amended to specify the exact type of fence you intend to erect. This would avoid a possible argument later.

Of course, all such negotiations are best done verbally at first so that by the time things process to contracts there are no surprises. But it's not uncommon to have various discussions and reach an 'agreement in principle' only to find a long list of detailed terms and conditions included in the contract (often at the behest of lawyers). The golden rule is never to sign up to something you're not happy with, or at least that you're not prepared to accept.

Just to comment on the fencing and sheep thing. If the new owner of land has contracted to erect a stock-proof fence within three months but fails to do so then the seller, who may wish to run their sheep on their side of the unfenced land, could sue for damages. Such damages might include the cost of erecting a fence themselves or the cost of transporting the sheep to alternative grazing, or any other actual costs arising out of the buyer failing to meet their contractural conditions. But I don't think the seller could simply release their sheep into an unfenced field and then claim any damages for lost sheep etc, because such damages would be as a result of negligence on the part of the sheep owner, because they would have known the field was not properly fenced.

 

[Schoolmarm]

Fab advice re the contract!! That is what would happen in a house purchase isn't it?

My best advice though is going to be, get fencing contractors in. 8) Get the best price first.

We have done lots and lots here. The easiest bits were where we could get to with the long reach post knocker on the tractor. The worst bits were the absolutely cliff edge stuff next to the stream. I did this part with a farmer friend and we had the worst arguments during this part. :lol:


We had to climb up and down carrying all the stuff before even starting.

 

[skier-hughes]

Yes, exactly. It's a good thing.

Solicitor rang yesterday and said we'd need to fence it all within three months and did we want to go ahead?

Graham, I'm sure all the legalities will be covered in writing eventually.

But thanks for your concern.

Legal pack? Where? Exchange is today, completion next week.

Plenty of time then if exchange of contracts is today and you have no idea what is in the contract :roll:

 

[JoceAndChris]

Well, it's been postponed until Monday, and the seller is going mad... The contract came today - it was sat on the mat all the time I was typing this!

I'm not surprised at most of it - but there's one part - we have to agree to never oppose any building on the surrounding fields that Vantage Land are selling.

I phoned the solicitor immediately and she said there was no way out of it.

 

[FamilyWiggs]

That's a fairly standard term I'm afraid Jose.

Although quite how they would enforce I don't know.

 

[Gareth Hughes]

Put BC in for listing now. Future development affecting the setting of a Heritage Asset, etc etc.

Caveat Emptor, of course, but I hope nobody who's buying the other plots thinks they have the remotest chance of building on it...

and nothing in the contract stopping everyone else on here opposing development, is there?

 

[Tom]

Put BC in for listing now. Future development affecting the setting of a Heritage Asset, etc etc.

Caveat Emptor, of course, but I hope nobody who's buying the other plots thinks they have the remotest chance of building on it...

and nothing in the contract stopping everyone else on here opposing development, is there?

Applying for a listing would take a long time, though, wouldn't it? I always thought, from what I'd read on here, that it was a very protracted and difficult thing to achieve.

The sellers' website does seem to have some strong evidence for building on green field sites, too.

And, would people on this forum really have any clout regarding development?

 

[Gareth Hughes]

The sellers' website does seem to have some strong evidence for building on green field sites, too.

Followed, much further down the page, by

"The land is designated as Open Countryside and any development would be subject to the appropriate planning permission"

It's not a site that has been identified as having any potential for development in the "Grantham for Growth" programme so the agent's attempt to draw parallels with sites that have been so identified - all of which are far less visually sensitive in terms of the town as a whole, and more accessible - and the generalist waffle about the need for affordable housing and so on, is just that - waffle, intended to inflate purchasers' hopes (and neighbours' fears) and get them digging deeper into their wallets.

Some interesting reading on the general subject here (though I have no doubt that the vendors in this case are an entirely reputable company and would never make exaggerated claims or miss-sell land :? )
http://www.propertyscam.org.uk/htdocs/fivemyths.htm

and here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2009/aug/23/property-land-bankers-investments

Applying for a listing would take a long time, though, wouldn't it? I always thought, from what I'd read on here, that it was a very protracted and difficult thing to achieve.

Shouldn't take more than a year, which is a shorter timescale than getting any development proposal off the ground

And, would people on this forum really have any clout regarding development?

Any legitimate representation would have to be properly taken into account in determining any future planning application.

 

[JoceAndChris]

Gareth - thank you so much. That is very helpful, and very reassuring. I'll do as you suggest, even though I risk being denied my little extension of the lean- to - - all the people I've spoken to who have purchased, or who have been interested in purchasing, have a hope to build, even though it seems nonsense and pure manipulation by the seller.

Chris is wondering out loud if, given the scenario that Sam puts in an application for his housing estate, we could just sell the field to a friend and oppose like mad. Then buy it back.

There is a strong local pressure group against development, that I was heavily involved with.

 

[Flyfisher]

I'm not surprised at most of it - but there's one part - we have to agree to never oppose any building on the surrounding fields that Vantage Land are selling.

I phoned the solicitor immediately and she said there was no way out of it.

Well, that's not strictly true. I suspect the solicitor means it's a non-negotiable condition of the sale, but you could just as equally instruct your solicitor that you won't accept that condition, in which case you have a stand off that might result in the sale not proceeding because mutual agreement cannot be reached.

I realise that's not what you want so you will probably have to compromise. But it's an important point to remember that although a seller can apply whatever conditions they like (as long as they are not 'unfair' - a whole different kettle of fish!), the buyer cannot be forced to accept them. That's what negotiation is all about.

It might be worth asking your solicitor how enforceable the condition would actually be in practice and, if you break the condition, what the penalty might be.

 

[Flyfisher]

Chris is wondering out loud if, given the scenario that Sam puts in an application for his housing estate, we could just sell the field to a friend and oppose like mad. Then buy it back.

The condition is likely to be registered as a covenant on the land, which would thus be inherited by the next owner. You'd need to be very sure of a friend, or very careful about the contract terms, to sell them a piece of land just so you could oppose a development, which if unsuccessful would probably make it quite likely that 'your' piece of land could also be built upon, in which case it could be worth a great deal of money to your friend! Something like a 25-year legal option to buy-back the land at the original selling price should protect your position.