Unauthorised right of way and land development
Discussion
Reminds me of a friend of mine who was approached by a developer who owned a large inaccessible patch of land that backed onto my friends house.
The guy who owned the ransom strip was being greedy and basically a total dick, so the developer offered to buy my friends house for cash for a little less than mr ransom strip wanted...which was still above market value for my friends house.
He agreed, signed, and moved out quickly, it was bulldozed a couple of weeks later to create an access road, the houses were built, and matey was left with a nice patch of worthless ransom strip.
There are also 12 other (or however many bordering neighbours there are if its not an accurate drawing) who could sell potential access to this - even if just a narrow strip on one edge of their property....
The guy who owned the ransom strip was being greedy and basically a total dick, so the developer offered to buy my friends house for cash for a little less than mr ransom strip wanted...which was still above market value for my friends house.
He agreed, signed, and moved out quickly, it was bulldozed a couple of weeks later to create an access road, the houses were built, and matey was left with a nice patch of worthless ransom strip.
NGRhodes said:
Is there a risk that an access point to D is made through A, bypassing the need to for B to D ?
That would be my aim if I was the owner of A & D too.... I'd be seeing if I could somehow merge/incorporate into A which has the existing right of access..There are also 12 other (or however many bordering neighbours there are if its not an accurate drawing) who could sell potential access to this - even if just a narrow strip on one edge of their property....
Edited by GCH on Monday 24th February 23:39
GCH said:
Reminds me of a friend of mine who was approached by a developer who owned a large inaccessible patch of land that backed onto my friends house.
The guy who owned the ransom strip was being greedy and basically a total dick, so the developer offered to buy my friends house for cash for a little less than mr ransom strip wanted...which was still above market value for my friends house.
He agreed, signed, and moved out quickly, it was bulldozed a couple of weeks later to create an access road, the houses were built, and matey was left with a nice patch of worthless ransom strip.
Doesn't bulldozing a dwelling require planning permission, on the basis it is reducing housing stock that the local authority needs to maintain to meet their growth targets?The guy who owned the ransom strip was being greedy and basically a total dick, so the developer offered to buy my friends house for cash for a little less than mr ransom strip wanted...which was still above market value for my friends house.
He agreed, signed, and moved out quickly, it was bulldozed a couple of weeks later to create an access road, the houses were built, and matey was left with a nice patch of worthless ransom strip.
RSTurboPaul said:
Doesn't bulldozing a dwelling require planning permission, on the basis it is reducing housing stock that the local authority needs to maintain to meet their growth targets?
No idea...wasn't my house/deal/horse.I do know that it was an established developer and a fairly large piece of land, and something like 18 houses were built on it, so the loss of one house was fairly minor in the grander scheme. The site of the former house is now the start of a proper road, with streetlamps, pavements and a name.
Just thinking here...
Dad owns the access to D Dad & has experience of building and developing.
Neighbours own D, we think neighbours have bought D to make money from either directly or with kids by proxy.
Make it attractive for them to work with dad not against him.
Plot D as is is worth £25k as it has no access.
Plot D with access and planning is maybe worth £300k.
Get access they have to "buy out" dad say £75k.
Meaning at most they will make £200k
If dad redevelops their site with them, both parties make £500k, from dads £500k he buys one of the completed units.
Dad owns the access to D Dad & has experience of building and developing.
Neighbours own D, we think neighbours have bought D to make money from either directly or with kids by proxy.
Make it attractive for them to work with dad not against him.
Plot D as is is worth £25k as it has no access.
Plot D with access and planning is maybe worth £300k.
Get access they have to "buy out" dad say £75k.
Meaning at most they will make £200k
If dad redevelops their site with them, both parties make £500k, from dads £500k he buys one of the completed units.
Thanks for continued comments and ideas.
Regarding comments about Dad being awkward / PIA / not being reasonable etc, you couldn’t be further from the truth, yes I would say that as I’m biased but he was genuinely expecting to pay market value for D if / when he found out who owned it. And if you’re extrapolating from my car ownership history to figure out what he’s like in real life, we’re diametrically opposed, he’s run his last two Peugeots for over 400,000 miles, has had hare-brained schemes to grow his own biodiesel (quickly moved onto beer) and his latest ‘mission’ is to get me to make a custom ROM for an old Samsung S4 so he can use an even older hand-me-down Sonos from one of my sisters! He’s not quite Steptoe but he does hate to see things go to waste. That said, he did once have a nice car, a Sierra XR4x4i, he swapped that in the early 90’s for where he currently lives, a beautiful small holding on the continent with several acres of land, an orchard, small lake (ok, super-sized duck pond) a microbrewery and a modern, eco-friendly barn conversion that he’s painstakingly restored and extended over a period of 20+ years.
I admit I have probably used a bad choice of terminology with ransom strips, neither pieces of land that I’ve mentioned are ransom strips in the truest form, they are private drives with full services, they were a necessity to develop the sites in the first place so it’s not like Dad has bought them explicitly with the sole purpose of extracting value from land he doesn’t own yet. That said he was savvy enough to retain ownership of them should a future opportunity arise. And in that case, time really is immaterial, Dad would be quite happy for them to pass through the family, he does not need D nor is the development of D contingent on his possible return to the UK.
Some will see irony in this but I actually live along a traditional ‘ransom strip’, it runs along the front of my house and next door, at its widest point its about 6 foot but then literally converges to a single point at the other end. It has no impact to my house but I believe it did impose a planning condition on next door which meant that they couldn’t create vehicular access to the front of their property, they had to use the designated private drive which is the only legal means of access across it. This had quite a detrimental impact to the design of that plot, it’s the largest house of the five built on the development but it also has virtually no privacy from the rear due to the drive way passing through the back garden to access the double garage, which is facing 180 degrees to what you’d usually expect.
The previous owner of D, I wrote earlier in the thread that she is the biggest loser in this saga, with minimal effort she could have found out who owned the access to her land, she even has a friend in common with one of my sisters who still lives about three miles away! Again I’ll come back to the Land Registry, they claimed D wasn’t registered so set Dad off on an 18 month epic going back to somewhere in the late 1800’s when huge swathes of the area were owned by the church which meant many trips over to the UK to examine parish records to build up a complete chain of ownership. If the Land Registry had told him that it was owned by someone who lived five minutes around the corner all this would be academic and I dare say he’d have broken ground by now and be somewhere on the way to roof plate.
As for other access, practically you cannot do anything with A to grant vehicular access to D. All of the other dwellings around the boundary are 60’s style bungalows where the drive ways between them are barely wide enough for a modern car, let alone wide enough to create a viable alternate route into D. The only sensible option would be to purchase one, level the plot, put in your own services, combine with D and redevelop whole site.
And finally, once Dad knew that A had bought D, his approach has always been to suggest potential collaboration. But it’s not Dad who has damaged someone else’s property (removing wall, fence and trees that they didn’t own) lied (about when they the gates had been put up) been deceitful (cleared site after they knew they had no right of way) or made unreasonable demands (demanding full access before willing to engage in any conversation about the future of the plot) Hence the whole point of the thread: what would you do, to the folks who do have a practical / professional perspective on this subject and not one built up from an individual moral perspective as to what’s right, wrong or how one should live their life…
I know, I’m jesting, this is PH after all so thanks for the good and the bad!
Regarding comments about Dad being awkward / PIA / not being reasonable etc, you couldn’t be further from the truth, yes I would say that as I’m biased but he was genuinely expecting to pay market value for D if / when he found out who owned it. And if you’re extrapolating from my car ownership history to figure out what he’s like in real life, we’re diametrically opposed, he’s run his last two Peugeots for over 400,000 miles, has had hare-brained schemes to grow his own biodiesel (quickly moved onto beer) and his latest ‘mission’ is to get me to make a custom ROM for an old Samsung S4 so he can use an even older hand-me-down Sonos from one of my sisters! He’s not quite Steptoe but he does hate to see things go to waste. That said, he did once have a nice car, a Sierra XR4x4i, he swapped that in the early 90’s for where he currently lives, a beautiful small holding on the continent with several acres of land, an orchard, small lake (ok, super-sized duck pond) a microbrewery and a modern, eco-friendly barn conversion that he’s painstakingly restored and extended over a period of 20+ years.
I admit I have probably used a bad choice of terminology with ransom strips, neither pieces of land that I’ve mentioned are ransom strips in the truest form, they are private drives with full services, they were a necessity to develop the sites in the first place so it’s not like Dad has bought them explicitly with the sole purpose of extracting value from land he doesn’t own yet. That said he was savvy enough to retain ownership of them should a future opportunity arise. And in that case, time really is immaterial, Dad would be quite happy for them to pass through the family, he does not need D nor is the development of D contingent on his possible return to the UK.
Some will see irony in this but I actually live along a traditional ‘ransom strip’, it runs along the front of my house and next door, at its widest point its about 6 foot but then literally converges to a single point at the other end. It has no impact to my house but I believe it did impose a planning condition on next door which meant that they couldn’t create vehicular access to the front of their property, they had to use the designated private drive which is the only legal means of access across it. This had quite a detrimental impact to the design of that plot, it’s the largest house of the five built on the development but it also has virtually no privacy from the rear due to the drive way passing through the back garden to access the double garage, which is facing 180 degrees to what you’d usually expect.
The previous owner of D, I wrote earlier in the thread that she is the biggest loser in this saga, with minimal effort she could have found out who owned the access to her land, she even has a friend in common with one of my sisters who still lives about three miles away! Again I’ll come back to the Land Registry, they claimed D wasn’t registered so set Dad off on an 18 month epic going back to somewhere in the late 1800’s when huge swathes of the area were owned by the church which meant many trips over to the UK to examine parish records to build up a complete chain of ownership. If the Land Registry had told him that it was owned by someone who lived five minutes around the corner all this would be academic and I dare say he’d have broken ground by now and be somewhere on the way to roof plate.
As for other access, practically you cannot do anything with A to grant vehicular access to D. All of the other dwellings around the boundary are 60’s style bungalows where the drive ways between them are barely wide enough for a modern car, let alone wide enough to create a viable alternate route into D. The only sensible option would be to purchase one, level the plot, put in your own services, combine with D and redevelop whole site.
And finally, once Dad knew that A had bought D, his approach has always been to suggest potential collaboration. But it’s not Dad who has damaged someone else’s property (removing wall, fence and trees that they didn’t own) lied (about when they the gates had been put up) been deceitful (cleared site after they knew they had no right of way) or made unreasonable demands (demanding full access before willing to engage in any conversation about the future of the plot) Hence the whole point of the thread: what would you do, to the folks who do have a practical / professional perspective on this subject and not one built up from an individual moral perspective as to what’s right, wrong or how one should live their life…
I know, I’m jesting, this is PH after all so thanks for the good and the bad!
DoubleD said:
Its still all coming across from you that he is just pissed off at missing the sale.
yes missed out on the whole point of having the land in first place, now it is pretty much worthless. Now it will become bitter, and I'm sure there is easement already. You see these news stories where people spend 100ks to fight something that should just be sorted and moved on.
DoubleD said:
Its still all coming across from you that he is just pissed off at missing the sale.
Well if that's your interpretation then so be it, nothing I can say will change that.He's disappointed to have missed out on the opportunity by such a narrow margin, who wouldn't be? But its genuinely not the financial aspect. He is very philosophical about this kind of thing, what will be will be etc. I guess this is where his patience comes from.
The opener though, ''what would your approach be if your end goal was getting a piece of D? '', is that philosophical or not.
Now realising he missed out on a massive opportunity and clutching at straws.
Really need to step back and assess this rationally, he was basically beaten to the punch, and maybe pride is hurting.
Now realising he missed out on a massive opportunity and clutching at straws.
Really need to step back and assess this rationally, he was basically beaten to the punch, and maybe pride is hurting.
Edited by Thesprucegoose on Tuesday 25th February 18:55
CSLchappie said:
DoubleD said:
Its still all coming across from you that he is just pissed off at missing the sale.
Well if that's your interpretation then so be it, nothing I can say will change that.He's disappointed to have missed out on the opportunity by such a narrow margin
Well I put my professional opinion forward on page 2. It doesn't matter what the owners of A do to your dad's fence etc, they will not be able to fund and/or sell any properties on D until the access issue is resolved.
On the basis that the right of access across B/C is watertight (as in it only relates to A) then with the exception of buying one of the bungalows with access to D, A are snookered.
A solicitor's letter to the owner of Plot A simply stating that you own B/C, that they have no right to take down your fence etc, they don't have a right of access over your land to D but nevertheless you are happy to discuss a JV/buying D/selling B&C to move this forward reasonably.
This is a classic example of people thinking they're property experts because they've watched some TV/spoke with some bloke down the pub. Regardless of the actions of A, the legals will catch up with them. It's just a question of how far they are prepared spend money before they come to their senses. Sadly from my own experience of dealing with many, many similar circumstances, this takes a long time and the owners end up coming out of it very badly.
As an aside, should A go for planning on D and use B/C for access, they are obliged to notify your father as a landowner prior to submitting any application (if it's in the redline application boundary). If they don't, then you can challenge any Decision. Likewise, even if they do, you simply write to the LPA and point out that you own the access to the site and that they don't have a right of access over it.
On the basis that the right of access across B/C is watertight (as in it only relates to A) then with the exception of buying one of the bungalows with access to D, A are snookered.
A solicitor's letter to the owner of Plot A simply stating that you own B/C, that they have no right to take down your fence etc, they don't have a right of access over your land to D but nevertheless you are happy to discuss a JV/buying D/selling B&C to move this forward reasonably.
This is a classic example of people thinking they're property experts because they've watched some TV/spoke with some bloke down the pub. Regardless of the actions of A, the legals will catch up with them. It's just a question of how far they are prepared spend money before they come to their senses. Sadly from my own experience of dealing with many, many similar circumstances, this takes a long time and the owners end up coming out of it very badly.
As an aside, should A go for planning on D and use B/C for access, they are obliged to notify your father as a landowner prior to submitting any application (if it's in the redline application boundary). If they don't, then you can challenge any Decision. Likewise, even if they do, you simply write to the LPA and point out that you own the access to the site and that they don't have a right of access over it.
CSLchappie said:
But it’s not Dad who has damaged someone else’s property (removing wall, fence and trees that they didn’t own) lied (about when they the gates had been put up) been deceitful (cleared site after they knew they had no right of way) or made unreasonable demands (demanding full access before willing to engage in any conversation about the future of the plot)
I would be sending them a solicitors letter demanding them to reinstate the wall, fence and trees they demolished.A can just sit on D now. That’s probably not what they want to do, but they’re faced with the owner of B/C ransoming the access.
In simple terms that’s what it is. B/C is no practical use as just a means to get to D, so ultimately it’s just a stand-off now. The value of B/C gets inflated by the need for it to provide access, the owners of A/D will think it’s worth less than what he probably wants. Who blinks first?
Given OP’s father dishes out parcels of land that are just sat on for 30 plus years then this sounds like it’ll be another one.
Seems a strange way to spend one’s twilight years.
In simple terms that’s what it is. B/C is no practical use as just a means to get to D, so ultimately it’s just a stand-off now. The value of B/C gets inflated by the need for it to provide access, the owners of A/D will think it’s worth less than what he probably wants. Who blinks first?
Given OP’s father dishes out parcels of land that are just sat on for 30 plus years then this sounds like it’ll be another one.
Seems a strange way to spend one’s twilight years.
bigmowley said:
Durzel said:
I'm a bit perplexed as to the logic in hanging on to plots of land for decades, and passing them on to your kids, when the supposed objective is to build on/opposite it. 30+ years is a long damn time to wait to achieve that aim.
On the contrary it’s what every decent developer will do. Land banks have a deep intrinsic value and form a great part of an investment portfolio. You only need one or two of them to come good and the entire portfolio can have an investment return that would make a hedge fund manager weep. They also tend to grow steadily in value even without the big wins. 
ker who holds the land, but it's bad for everyone else. It's just creating an artificial restriction in supply in order to create inflation. The owner isn't adding any value, they're just contributing to an artificial inflation in land prices, and hence are wkers.It should be beneath anyone's dignity to get involved in this sort of thing. Ditto owning pieces of "ransom land" ... the clue is in the name. Ransom is extortion. Just coz you can do it legally doesn't mean you should do it. People who do should be ashamed of themselves.
- holierthanthou #thinkofthechildren
ATG said:
It works for the wker who holds the land, but it's bad for everyone else. It's just creating an artificial restriction in supply in order to create inflation. The owner isn't adding any value, they're just contributing to an artificial inflation in land prices, and hence are wkers.
A bit harsh. Dad on this occasion had every intention of developing D. ker who holds the land, but it's bad for everyone else. It's just creating an artificial restriction in supply in order to create inflation. The owner isn't adding any value, they're just contributing to an artificial inflation in land prices, and hence are wkers.Leylandeye said:
ATG said:
It works for the wker who holds the land, but it's bad for everyone else. It's just creating an artificial restriction in supply in order to create inflation. The owner isn't adding any value, they're just contributing to an artificial inflation in land prices, and hence are wkers.
A bit harsh. Dad on this occasion had every intention of developing D. ker who holds the land, but it's bad for everyone else. It's just creating an artificial restriction in supply in order to create inflation. The owner isn't adding any value, they're just contributing to an artificial inflation in land prices, and hence are wkers.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff