Unauthorised right of way and land development
Discussion
Leylandeye said:
ATG said:
It works for the w
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.
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.Also what's the family of A being involved got to do with anything like it's a negative, no worse than his old man giving him another ransom strip to sit on for 30 plus years.
The way I see it is that there are two pieces of land which individually are not really worth very much.
The value is in combining the two together.
Regardless of the motives of the parties the true potential value of the land will not be realised by either party unless they cooperate.
So if I were the OP I would set out current legal position to the neighbours and then let them know that you are willing to negotiate and then leave them to it.
They may get planning on it but they will not be able to sell any houses on the land without legally binding access rights.
The value is in combining the two together.
Regardless of the motives of the parties the true potential value of the land will not be realised by either party unless they cooperate.
So if I were the OP I would set out current legal position to the neighbours and then let them know that you are willing to negotiate and then leave them to it.
They may get planning on it but they will not be able to sell any houses on the land without legally binding access rights.
I think the best approach is to try to buy D, you know what's been sunk into this, you offer an easy profit to fix the problem and take the ongoing risk.
The owners sound wet behind the ears and likely to bite when they realise what they've got themselves into.
Question for me really is how aggressive you go before negotiating to hammer the message home that they don't have an easy way to more money, other than selling to
The owners sound wet behind the ears and likely to bite when they realise what they've got themselves into.
Question for me really is how aggressive you go before negotiating to hammer the message home that they don't have an easy way to more money, other than selling to
ben5575 said:
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.
Apologies for missing your initial comments, thank you for taking the time to add considered feedback. Hopefully something will be worked out in the coming months.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.
Fluid said:
Unless I've missed something here, why did he retain A and B when he sold C?
He retained B and C when he sold A, for a future development on D when he could acquire it, though it sounds like there wasn’t any particular drive to do so until recently, by which time it was too late.Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff