Hanslow

Can someone explain to me in plain English (preferably without typos and grammar mistakes ) what the following means?

A house I've seen that looks interesting has some land with it and is sold with the above clause. Before registering any interest in it, I'd like to know what we might be getting ourselves into

Thank you oh knowledgable Scoobynet oracles

jjones

if you build house(s) on the land, within 21 years of buying, you will pay 50% over what you have already paid for the property.??

i.e. you buy house for 100K, 10 years time you build a bungalow on the land and flog it for 75k. you would then owe 50% of 100k to the person you are buying the house off.

scoobynutta555

Says to me that the seller of the land are ensuring they share in any windfall if the site eventually gets planning permission for housing or other developments in the next 21 years.At 50% I'd assume that half of the profits are kicked back to them if there was a sale etc. Ask the estate agent.

STRICTLY NOT AN EXPERT IN ANYWAY, JUST A NON INFORMED OPINION :d

OllyK

May just be me, but I am seeing potential barge poles here.

I suppose it is fine if you have no plans to build in the next 21 years, but if it is a covenant against the deeds it could put off future buyers.

Hanslow

Well we'd be looking at it (hopefully) being a home to settle in for a long time. The land is a separate paddock which we would be happy not building on as it's separate to the house and gardens and the house is big enough for the two of us (and future family expansions which are NOT planned!). Maybe in 21 years time we might be interested in extending, or turning it into a grass cart track but not at the present time.

Is the 50% based on the value of the house, the cost of what is being built on the land or the value of what is built on the land when sold?

I know I should ask the estate agent, but want ammo and knowledge before even contacting them

My thoughts are that as the house is in a village, it might be a clause to help stop new buildings being built on the land, i.e. it's there to put people off using the land and it being built on to make a quick buck and spoil the village ambience by plonking a new estate in it.

OllyK

I don't think ANY of that would be an issue anyway, it is on about "dwellings" i.e. other properties that people can live in, not extending the existing property or making use of the land for non residential use.

No idea - you need to speak to an Estate Agent (call them up without giving away too many details of yourself)


I doubt it. The village may have a "design statement" that will indicate how much building they are prepared to accept through the planning part of the parish council and what style the building must be and so on but that's about it.

It sounds to me like the current owner is trying to hedge their bets, rather than them have to do the work of getting planning permissions and such like (or maybe they tried an failed) they want an option back in to the potential profit tied up in the land if you try to do anything with it in the next 21 years. All a bit nasty if you ask me. They are not prepared to take the reduction in sale value of the property by just keeping the land out of the sale, but havinf sold it to you they are dictating what you can do. Bit like being sold a car and bein told if you ever race it and win money, the person wants a cut of the winnings, even though you are paying full market value for the car.

That is of course unless the land is being sold with the property for a song.

Hanslow

If you look at the value of the property, houses are going for that without the extra land. The land is only about an acre in size (so it says), although what that means in real world terms I have no idea.

Personally, as it is at the back of the house, we'd be quite happy to keep it undeveloped so that it provides us with grassland at the back rather than houses.

Thanks for the input all, particularly OllyK. As I have no idea about building/land regs, I just want(ed) to know whether it was even worth going to look round the house, which on paper looks nice, if the clause was something that would stitch us up.

If what has been said is true, which I'll take on board the fact that I really need to speak to the estate agent to confirm, then it shouldn't give us any cause for concern.

OllyK

OK - so you would get the land for a song. As a guide, 1 Acre = .4047 hectare, current regs are 30 houses per hectare if I recall. Looks like the current owner may not have been able to get planning permission and thinks it may be possible in the future and wants to get a cut.

I suspect you don't have too much to worry about then - just make sure you get your solicitor to read that bit carefully before you get too far down the line with buying it.

Neither do I Just interpreting it as I see it.

Definately do that before you commit to anything!! I don't want to get sued for giving crap advice

Dunk

iTrader: (1)

What is the registered use of the land, agricultural or residential ?

D

Hanslow

Don't know what registered use of land is...it's just referred to as a Paddock, so there may be some agreement for allowing grazing of horses (??) on, which to be honest, we would be quite happy to allow to continue.

Geez, I'm talking like we live there....we've not even looked at it yet

Just double checked the details, and it mentions that the paddock has stabling hence the horse assumption.

OllyK

http://www.landreg.gov.uk/ and a credit card should tell you more about the land. Think it is about £8 or something for access to the deeds online.

Trouble is, most of the deeds will be even more legal gobbledegook

OllyK

Oops - you want here and it's £2

Hanslow

No, I want it where it's free Ta, will have a look later.

Buzzer

Its a standard covenent on the property to deter developers. Its possible that dwellings (independant) can be erected on the site. My secretary in work is going through the same process. Her neighbour wants his friend to buy the property and then they're gonna build a house in between the two properties. She doesn't want that to happen to the property so she's put a covenant on it, that if anyone builds on it she gets 50% of the revenue it generates.

I would imagine that these peeps would like the house to go to someone who wants it for a home and not a business venture. There is however nothing stopping you extending onto the property so really unless you wanted to build a seperate dwelling theres not a problem

OllyK

Nice - for £4 you can now get the map showing the land as well as all the text blurb!

Buzzer

Just to add, the reason my Secretary is bothered about what happens is that she is moving close by and still has a great many friends on that estate / locality.

She said she owes it to the neighbours to maintain, as Olly puts it "the ambience" of the estate. Her mates wont be very happy if she sells it to a developer. However shes not totally stupid. If a developer did get the land then she would be up for 50% of the revenue generated. Shrewd move if you ask me. Personally i would have no hesitation in going ahead with it........................ and after 21 years you could apply for planning, try and get it passed, if successful you would become Baron Hanslow and dictate a premium rate for the land

Hanslow

Looks like we might go out for a drive to scope out the area tonight

Thanks again for your input. I'll try and get the missus' to cough up the £4 (it's too much for me ) if we want to pursue it.

Hanslow

Baron Hanslow....now I like the sound of that

Get orf my land you peasants

Buzzer

You do realise that if anyone who lives on that land wishes to get married, you have to give your consent and you are well within your rights to slip the bride to be a raspberry rippler as payment for allowing them to marry

Well it worked in Braveheart