How much space does a lorry need to turn?

[Tom]

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.

As would a claw-back of a given percentage of any profit from development. 80% would be quite persuasive :lol:

 

[Tom]

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.

Oh well, in that case, you can put my name on the list of objectors, Joce

 

[worms]

The condition is likely to be registered as a covenant on the land, which would thus be inherited by the next owner.

Is that still the case in England? In Scotland most such conditions no longer transfer on sale, unless the person who put the covenant into the deeds still has some interest in the site, by owning adjacent property (Title Conditions (Scotland) Act 2003). I thought we had come into line with the rest of UK on this and possibly for EU/Human Rights reasons?

 

[JoceAndChris]

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.

Your kind advice here implies there will be communication, and time. There have been scant amounts of either! I realise, this morning, after we've just exchanged that this is another manipulative strategy of the seller- not to show you the terms until the 11th hour, and then to ring and ring trying to force you to transfer the money immediately, reminding you the agreement on our offer was only if it could all go through in two weeks, with the threat that the deal will be off if you delay, and you'll lose the deposit. I can't remember, ever, disliking a transaction as much as this one.

 

[Pford75]

Joce - I spoke with my father who is a conveyancing solicitor this morning. He said that he would never agree a timetable to exchange contracts without seeing at least a draft contract and that he would always request the draft contract at least 7 working days in advance of exchange from the vendors solicitors. This is precisely to prevent the situation you have experienced.

Not a lot you can do about it, except refuse to be bullied. The reality is that it is still a buyers market...but obviously I can understand that you are keen to secure this piece of land. However, with these things, if you are not prepared to walk away, then you have to accept the terms they are offering.

Also - it is highly unlikely that any vendor could withhold a deposit unless they could demonstrate that the terms of the sale (ie. the contract) were articulated at the time of the deposit being accepted. Unless, you handed over a deposit with a 100% guarantee you would purchase....whatever the circumstances, contract etc. which would have been slightly foolhardy

 

[JoceAndChris]

Thank you. Your father sounds thorough and cautious. Our solicitor turned out to be a giddy young girl, no help at all, leaving everything to the last second, then calling and saying " the terms aren't very good, the land isn't much use, are you sure you want it? " That's no help! I suppose, given the position of this piece, the seller knew we were desperate for it.

It's reassuring to know they couldn't really have stolen our deposit.

 

[Tom]

But Joce says they've exchanged this morning. That forms a legally binding contract, doesn't it?

 

[JoceAndChris]

Yes, I'm not worried about it now - the seller has our money - completion next Wed. I'm sure it will all be fine, just the last-minute terms and the pestering phone calls for money that weren't nice.

The terms, by the way, are that the sellers have a right of access, they have the right to dig our bit up for electricity and water and gas, they will take 25% uplift value, we must never object to any residential development on land they have sold, they can turn round and ask for a contribution to a road, they point out the road up here is owned by no one and access could be a future problem as a result, we have to put in a Chromer D Loop 7 bar field gate, and round post and wire stock proof fence - not very pretty.

 

[Tom]

You might want to read this.... http://www.fool.co.uk/Property/guides/Solicitors-Exchange-And-Completion.aspx

"Until the exchange of contracts, the two parties are totally free to change their minds and to pull out of the deal -- but the moment contracts have been exchanged and you've handed over your deposit, both sides are legally required to proceed. If you don't, you risk being sued for breach of contract and you could lose your deposit."

 

[Tom]

Yes, I'm not worried about it now - the seller has our money - completion next Wed. I'm sure it will all be fine, just the last-minute terms and the pestering phone calls for money that weren't nice.

The terms, by the way, are that the sellers have a right of access, they have the right to dig our bit up for electricity and water and gas, they will take 25% uplift value, we must never object to any residential development on land they have sold, they can turn round and ask for a contribution to a road, they point out the road up here is owned by no one and access could be a future problem as a result, we have to put in a Chromer D Loop 7 bar field gate, and round post and wire stock proof fence - not very pretty.

Bl**dy Hell....I've just read this again :shock:

 

[vicky whitworth]

Jose, I feel for you. This all sounds a nightmare. I know you have now exchanged so my questions are purely out of self-interest living in a rural area where issues around land ownership abound.

Does it specify what the penalty for you would be if you were to object to development at a later date? Presumably the seller would have to sue you for breach of contract? But if he had then sold on the land to someone else, they couldn't sue you for breach of contract as your contract isn't with them but with the original seller?

It seems an unreasonable requirement to prevent someone ever objecting. Would it be enforceable? if it's a covenant i think it is possible to have unreasonable covenants removed.

Did your local council give a view on whether development would be permitted on the land? I thought councils were required to give some sort of indicator to prospective buyers. When we bought here there was a small orchard nearby that I thought looked 'ripe for development' and wanted to check whether permission might be ever given. The council gave me a letter to say that development would not be permitted (which was reassuring).

I wish you all the best with it and hope you will soon be able to enjoy your new land. Vicky

 

[JoceAndChris]

Thanks for your good wishes Vicky. I think the mustn't object bit passes on to whoever buys the land - basically - we mustn't complain about any land that's ever passed through Vantage Land's hands. What the punishment is - I've no idea. A fine? A prison sentence? The latter seems unlikely. I think I'd need a good solicitor to guide me through that whole scenario.

The Senior Planning Officer has told me that in the foreseeable future no development will be likely. And there's nothing in the contract about aiding the complaining of others so I see no reason why I shouldn't keep a weekly eye on the planning applications and raise any concerns with the local pressure group I mentioned earlier.

I've come back from the exchange to a map detailing the dimensions! :lol: better late than never.

So, it's 90 metres and 48 cm long, by 152 metres and 12 cm wide.

Can anyone help with the sum I need to do, to check that really is 3 acres?

 

[skier-hughes]

Looks like 3.4 acres
http://www.metric-conversions.org/area/square-meters-to-acres.htm

 

[LadyArowana]

Thanks for your good wishes Vicky. I think the mustn't object bit passes on to whoever buys the land - basically - we mustn't complain about any land that's ever passed through Vantage Land's hands. What the punishment is - I've no idea. A fine? A prison sentence? The latter seems unlikely. I think I'd need a good solicitor to guide me through that whole scenario.

The Senior Planning Officer has told me that in the foreseeable future no development will be likely. And there's nothing in the contract about aiding the complaining of others so I see no reason why I shouldn't keep a weekly eye on the planning applications and raise any concerns with the local pressure group I mentioned earlier.

I've come back from the exchange to a map detailing the dimensions! :lol: better late than never.

So, it's 90 metres and 48 cm long, by 152 metres and 12 cm wide.

Can anyone help with the sum I need to do, to check that really is 3 acres?

90.48 X 152.12 = 13, 763.8176 conversion factor 0.00024710538147 gives 3.40 ( and a little bit ) So assuming that the online conversion factor is right and my logic is right you are getting .4 extra. I hope someone else drops in and checks!

 

[LadyArowana]

Looks like I was cross posting with S-H, we seem to agree though

 

[Flyfisher]

Yes, but S-H only gave a rough answer, yours was far more accurate Milady. :wink:

 

[JoceAndChris]

Fab. Thank you. It seems the seller's maths is even worse than mine.

 

[Moo]

Joce - away from the subject of how to safeguard your land, and on to more positive things like what to do with it, there's an interesting article in today's Telegraph about people who are planting woodlands. They all seem to have relatively small amounts of space available (your 3 acres seems fairly typical) and are getting a great deal of help from the Woodland Trust.
I've tried to find the article on their website but have failed dismally, so you'll have to make do with the link they give to the Woodland Trust: http://www.woodlandtrust.org.uk/en/more-trees-more-good/Pages/campaign.aspx

According to the article, "The Woodland Trust at the moment is encouraging as many people as it can to plant trees through its campaign, MOREwoods. It assesses applications for help, sends specialist advisers to visit and discuss design and species, and may supply the trees or help with funding. Smallholdings and sites of about a couple of acres qualify...... There are ... tax breaks."

 

[JoceAndChris]

Thanks Moo. I believe the Woodland Trust have the HQ here - how convenient! It's a lovely idea, and we have discussed some sort of charitable/conservationist use of the land, as well as leaning towards wanting it to be decorative. As you will remember, it's just a spit from the drawing room window, so whatever we do will have a very great impact on our daily view, and we'd need to think about light-blocking as well (the area where the garden table is sitting looks scruffy because we cleared 7 trees from there this year in order to let more light in)

Though, being mercenary for a moment, if Chris loses his job, and we have to sell BC, all the estate agents said a horsey paddock and a stable would put 50k on the price, (more than twice as much as we paid for this piece) whereas a wood probably wouldn't. :? All very tricky.