Developers could be fined for not developing sites with permission says Govt Minister

“Housing minister Gavin Barwell told MPs that the government is considering publishing league table on the performance of developers showing how many homes they are building.

This would enable councils – and activist investors – to hold the major developers to account and end claims of landbanking.

Barwell discussed the idea during evidence to the Commons communities and local government committee on the recent housing White paper and plans to speed up housebuilding.

The minister revealed the idea of fining developers for not turning sites into homes had been ruled out.

But league tables – including their record of turning sites into developments – “should be a determination” that allows councils assess the record of developer in building out permissions.

“There is a balance to be had. If it was too draconian, the effect would be chilling,” he said.

The minister accepted developers needed to have land in reserve to be able to start sites as a development finishes. But he wants to reduce the time taken from purchase to build by the main private developers which is currently five years.

He also questioned if developers were too risk averse with sites. On a site with the potential of 1,000 homes only around 70 would be built in order protect the company’s financial position.

Barwell said: “The main way that we reduce landbanking is to speed up the planning system. But my real concern is once you start.”

Other plans include a major review of how taxes on developments are decided.

His department and the Treasury are looking at a nationally set charge that would be locally collected locally spent by councils.

Barwell revealed a review of the Community Infrastructure Levy and Section 106 agreements will be included in the autumn Budget.

“It’s something we need to address,” Barwell said. “There is a lot of dissatisfaction with how the current system works. But what we don’t want to lose is the localism element of how money is spent.”

There was good news for local authority planning departments which have been hit by staff cuts caused by austerity cuts.

Barwell said the government was looking at enabling councils to increase planning fees to cover the whole cost of running their teams. Where some councils had major regeneration projects, they would not only be able to raise more money from applicants but his department would look at targeted intervention where some LAs need support.

“I’m clearly on the side of getting more money spent on those planning departments. Local authority planning departments are under-resourced,” he said.

The biggest controversy in the White Paper had been over the future of green belt land. …”

http://www.24housing.co.uk/news/league-tables-for-housing-developers-warns-barwell/

Parish queries flood risk terminology

“TWO South West MPs have called to rid the flooding terminology “one in 100 years” for fears it is misleading.

Rebecca Pow, and Neil Parish, MP for Tiverton and Honiton and chairman for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) Committee, spoke during a House of Commons debate on Defra spending.

MP Neil Parish said that flood prevention work is “fragmented” and warned of the threats posed by very high levels of rainfall in a short period of time.

MP Parish said his committee had examined the term “one in 100 years flood”.

He said: “One of the problems is that if you have been flooded now and you are in a one in a 100 years risk, if you’re not careful people are inclined to think for another 99 years they’ll be safe from floods.

“Of course that is not the case – it’s very much the case if you’re in a high flood risk area you remain in that high flood risk area either until better defences are created or there is resilience measures put in place.

“But you’ll probably always remain in a pretty high risk area.”

Rebecca Pow, said: “Communication is very important in the case of flooding.

“One of the things that came out of that select committee report was perhaps we shouldn’t use this terminology any more – calling things a one in 100 years flooding incident.

“We should have a different way of warning people about how serious floods are without these years attached to them, as it’s misleading.”

Mr Parish said Ms Pow was “absolutely right”.”

http://www.somersetcountygazette.co.uk/news/15121299.display/

Put not your trust in auditors!

“PricewaterhouseCoopers, the accountancy firm that has overseen the counting of the Oscars ballots for 83 years, has apologised for the most spectacular blunder in the history of the starry ceremony – when the award for best film was mistakenly presented to La La Land instead of the actual winner Moonlight. …

… PwC, one of the best-known accountancy firms in the world, has supervised counting the ballots, and the announcements, for the majority of Academy Awards. Its employees wait in the wings during the ceremony, passing the results to the presenters. The humiliating failure of a system that was supposed to be foolproof, checked and counterchecked repeatedly, could not have been more public – watched by Hollywood stars and millions of people across the world on television. …”

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2017/feb/27/pricewaterhousecoopers-issues-sincere-apology-for-oscars-blunder

Exmouth seafront: reserved matters planning application WILL result in full planning permission

“Residents attending a meeting about East Devon District Council’s (EDDC) reserved matters application for the seafront said members did not debate relevant planning points.

They called for the vote to support the plan be declared invalid. Residents also said Councillor Lynne Elson should apologise to district councillor Megan Armstrong for interrupting her.

An EDDC spokesperson said: “EDDC’s monitoring officer has considered this letter of complaint, but, in a case such as this, neither he nor the council are in a position to interfere with the legitimate decision-making of Exmouth Town Council.”

The spokesperson said concern about the decision would be a legal matter for the courts, and added that even if a councillor had been found in breach of the code of conduct, this would not legally affect the decision.

They added that the monitoring officer had heard a recording of the meeting and ruled there was nothing ‘untoward’ in the exchange between Cllr Elson and Cllr Armstrong.

The spokesperson added that although the application would produce a ‘valid and implementable’ planning permission, only the district council could carry out the development if approved.

However, EDDC has confirmed it only intends to realign the road and carry out the car park works. Therefore, any developers would have to apply for permission for the watersports centre and remainder of the site.

In response, Ron Metcalfe, one of the complainants, said: “We thank EDDC for finally confirming that if the reserved matters application is approved it will result in a valid and implementable planning permission to build.

“The basis of our complaint was an EDDC and town councillor repeatedly claimed this was not the case.

“We remain concerned that the town council decision was made based on misleading and inaccurate information and lack of relevant discussion.”

http://www.exmouthjournal.co.uk/news/complaint_against_exmouth_town_council_vote_dismissed_1_4903311

Speeding on the A3052 gets Stuart Hughes suddenly excited and now a councillor in Newton Abbott suddenly finds potholes interesting.

There wouldn’t be a DCC election coming up would there?

http://www.devonlive.com/newton-abbot-s-worst-road-will-finally-have-its-potholes-fixed/story-30165680-detail/story.html

Exmouth: grab your Warren View sports ground before it goes for development

If no suitable tenants are found EDDC could use that as an excuse to sell it. Maybe consider village green status asap too?

http://www.devonlive.com/sports-clubs-wanted-to-take-over-lease-of-exmouth-sports-ground/story-30166070-detail/story.html

Seaton Heights up for auction at £2.5 – £3 million next month

20 March 2017, lot 141

“Arguably the single most important, anticipated and iconic holiday village, hotel & spa development opportunity in the South West of England enjoying a lofty position overlooking Lyme Bay and the Jurassic Coast (a World Heritage Site) benefitting from planning consent for 38 semi-detached ‘deck homes’, a 12 bedroom hotel and associated facilities.

Mother Nature has been very kind to the site with its near perfect topography, outlook and orientation while on the ‘man-made’ front there could hardly be a better proximity to the local and regional road network. With Lyme Regis, Charmouth and West Bay to the east and Beer, Branscombe and Sidmouth to the west, the property could hardly be more centrally located on the highly prized and popular stretch of coastline that spans West Dorset and East Devon.

Simple development, as per the current approval in the form of a holiday home sales/lettings and hotel operation, may be on the minds of some but the potential for multi-week disposals and future service charge and ground rent opportunities will be not far from the radar of many.

Finally, there may be opportunities to increase the number of holiday homes and hotel rooms by virtue of the relatively generous use of space thus far, subject to all necessary consents being obtainable. Interested applicants are advised to make their own enquiries with the ‘East Team’ at the Local Planning Authority, the East Devon District Council: Tel: 01395 517475. Website: eastdevon.gov.uk.

Site Measurements

The whole site extends to 2.7 hectares (5.13 acres).

Planning

Planning Permission has been granted by East Devon District Council, under ref: 14/0677/MFUL dated 5 May 2015, for the construction of two storey 12 bedroom hotel; 38 units of holiday accommodation; central amenities building for restaurant/leisure club and associated parking and access, subject to conditions.

A copy of the Planning Consent and proposed plans are available via the Local Planning Authority’s website.

Freehold with Vacant Possession”

http://www.cliveemson.co.uk/properties/192/141/

5 year land supply test case in Supreme Court

http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=30149%3Athe-nppf-heads-to-the-supreme-court&catid=63&Itemid=31

Lincolnshire can’t vote on unitary authority on same day as elections – instead must shell out extra £1 million

“The Leader of Lincolnshire County Council, Cllr Martin Hill, has accepted that its proposal for a poll of residents on the creation of a unitary authority for the area cannot go ahead after some districts refused to be involved.

Earlier this month it was revealed that the districts had received legal advice from Timothy Straker QC of 4-5 Gray’s Inn Square suggesting that any attempt by the county council to combine their elections with such a referendum would be unlawful.

According to the City of Lincoln Council, Straker’s opinion said the plans were “contrary to the Election Rules and fraught with danger of litigation.”
Lincoln argued that this meant, in effect, “the referendum would need to be held completely separately or on a different day, incurring costs to Lincolnshire taxpayers of around £1m”.

Cllr Hill, Leader of the county council, had sought to argue that holding a poll on 4 May, when many residents would already be going out to vote in county council elections, would have kept administrative costs to a minimum and encouraged a high turnout.

“Unfortunately, it won’t now be possible to hold a poll on 4 May, which is deeply disappointing,” he said.

“For various reasons, some of the county’s seven district councils – the bodies responsible for conducting the elections – are not prepared to co-operate. Although I don’t personally agree with their legal and other objections, the county council can’t require them to help with the holding of a poll.”

At a meeting of Lincolnshire County Council last week councillors voted to seek the views of residents on the principle of moving to a unitary system of local government.

After receipt of the legal advice earlier this month, Cllr Ric Metcalfe, Leader of City of Lincoln, said (on 17 February): “If the county council had consulted on this proposal [for a poll on local government reorganisation] with any of the district councils prior to their announcement, we could have raised our concerns then. Sadly, they did not.”

He added: “I and my district colleagues are in favour of a collective debate on the future of local government in Lincolnshire, but to hold a referendum at such an early stage in discussions is ludicrous, especially at such massive cost.”

Describing the proposal for a unitary council for the whole of Lincolnshire as “ridiculous”, Cllr Metcalfe said: “We are one of the largest counties in the UK and contain a diverse range of areas with significantly differing challenges and needs….

“A county unitary would be too remote a tier of government – district councils are best placed to deliver services that meet the needs of all their residents and businesses and we want to protect these services. This will not happen under a county unitary.”

http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=30216%3Acounty-plan-for-poll-on-unitary-scuppered-after-districts-refuse-to-co-operate&catid=59&Itemid=27

Claire Wright to kick off talks at new Ottery Library

“Have you ever wondered how an Independent with just a few friends but lacking a party machine, finance and experienced professionals can win more than 13,000 votes in a General Election?

If so, come to the new Ottery St Mary library on 16th March to hear Claire Wright discuss her campaign. As a member of the team, Philip Algar will offer a few thoughts and discuss the challenge of writing the book about the campaign, West Hill or Westminster?

The meeting starts at 7.00 and tickets are free.

Contact the library on 01404 813838 or
email ottery.library@librariesunlimited.org.uk”

Greater Exeter Strategic Plan consultation – only one public meeting to discuss implications for East Devon

NOTE THAT, UNLIKE THE EMAIL TO EDDC COUNCILLORS (see earlier post) WE ARE NOT BEING ASKED IF WE WANT TO PUT FORWARD SECRET LAND HOLDINGS – THOUGH NO DOUBT THE TAXMAN WOULD BE VERY INTERESTED IF YOU DID!

THE BIGGEST PLANNING ISSUE TO HIT EAST DEVON SINCE THE LOCAL PLAN AND YOU MUST TREK TO HONITON ON 8 MARCH IF YOU WANT TO HAVE YOUR SAY. THAT’S IT – ONE MEETING IN ONE PLACE.

DO YOU RECALL BEING ASKED IF YOU WANTED TO BE PART OF GREATER EXETER? OWL NEITHER!

“Greater Exeter Strategic Plan Consultation: Issues

The local authorities of East Devon, Exeter, Mid Devon and Teignbridge in partnership with Devon County Council are working together to prepare a Greater Exeter Strategic Plan (GESP). This formal statutory document will provide the overall spatial strategy and level of housing and employment land to be provided up to 2040. Please visit http://www.gesp.org.uk for more information.

Engagement with stakeholders and communities will be critical to the success of the Plan. At this first stage, the authorities are consulting on an initial ‘issues document’ which, after setting out some background information, looks to explain the scope and content of the plan as well as describing the key issues facing the Greater Exeter area. This early stage of consultation is designed to stimulate debate and the local planning authorities are seeking your views on the scope and content of the plan as well as the key issues facing your area.

A number of other associated documents are also being consulted on:

Draft Sustainability Appraisal Scoping Report:

· The Draft Sustainability Appraisal Scoping Report is the first stage of work in undertaking the Sustainability Appraisal (SA) and Strategic Environment Assessment (SEA) for the plan. This process is used to assess the sustainability of the plan content as it develops.

Statement of Community Involvement:

· The joint Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) sets out the approach for consultation in the GESP. The SCI sets out the way in which we will be engaging with communities and other interested parties throughout the process.

The consultation will run from 27 February 2017 until 10 April 2017. To view the consultation material and to make your comments please visit http://www.gesp.org.uk/consultations/issues/.

Alternatively, paper copies of the consultation document are available to view at your local library and Council Office.

A series of exhibitions are being held during the consultation period in the following locations:

Honiton: Mackarness Hall, High Street, EX14 1PG – Wednesday 8 March 2017, 2pm-8pm

Tiverton: Mid Devon District Council Office, Phoenix House, Phoenix Lane, EX16 6PP – Wednesday 15 March 2017, 2-8pm
Exeter: The Guildhall, High Street, EX4 3EB – Thursday 16 March 2017, 2-8pm
Newton Abbot: Old Forde House, Brunel Road, TQ12 4XX – Thursday 23 March 2017, 2- 8pm

A ‘call for sites’ has also been arranged to run alongside the consultation. This is a technical exercise which allows interested parties to submit potential sites for development to the Local Authorities. The sites are then assessed to consider whether they are suitable for possible inclusion in the plan. Further information is http://gesp.org.uk/call-for-sites/.

If you need further information please visit the website, email GESP@devon.gov.uk or contact your Local Council using the phone numbers below:

East Devon: 01395 571533
Exeter: 01392 265615
Mid Devon: 01884 234221
Teignbridge: 01626 215735

As there are four Councils contacting their stakeholders for the consultation and call for sites, you may receive duplicate letters/emails. Please accept my apologies if this is the case.”

EDDC Councillors – tell us about your secret acres – so we can put them in our next plans says senior officer!

Extract from an unclassified (i.e. not confidential) email sent out to all councillors by Ed Freeman, Service Lead – Planning Strategy and Development Management, East Devon District Council on the lead-in to the “Greater Exeter Strategic Plan” consultation:

“… The consultation paper is attached for you to get an advanced preview and we would welcome your comments by 10th April. Alongside this will be a call for sites to land owners and developers for housing and employment land across the area which can then be considered for allocation to meet the needs of the area for homes and jobs in the future.

So if you are secretly sat on a few acres of land and would like to put it forward for development now is the time to tell us! …”

Yes, you read that right.

Let us know about any secret land holdings you are sitting on.

NOT so we can report you to the Monitoring Officer for not listing them on your declarations of interest – but so that we can do our best to help you to get them developed.

Owl, for once, hootless!

“Elderly waiting up to a year for home care”

Remember this when we are told next week which of our community hospitals are being closed.

“More than 4,000 of the country’s most frail and elderly pensioners are languishing on hidden waiting lists for home care, with some recorded waits of a year or longer.

Details of the waiting lists, provided to The Sunday Times by more than 100 councils, reveal a postcode lottery in which some pensioners assessed as needing council-funded care may wait for months for help, while in other parts of the country there are no waiting lists at all. …”

Sunday Times (paywall)

Man who ran for Police and Crime Commissioner convicted of electoral fraud

From the blog of Dr Mark Pack – who is assiduously following the cases of electoral fraud from the 2015 elections:

“Last year I covered the odd case of a man facing trial on electoral fraud charges who managed to get the trial delayed… because he was running for Police and Crime Commissioner.

When I published that earlier post, he commented on this site, saying, “with complaints about the investigating Policeman, the behaviour of the Judge, the incompetence of the Court, and the fact that the CPS have only circumstantial evidence, it is most unlikely that this case will ever go to trial”.

Well, the trial has now happened and Steve Uncles of the English Democrats found guilty:

“A disgraced far-right activist is facing jail for cheating the election system by submitting fraudulent nomination forms.

English Democrats regional leader Steven Uncles dreamt up fictitious names such as Anna Cleves and Rachelle Stevens – referred to by a judge as “the lady from S Club 7”.

The 52-year-old local politician, who has since resigned but remained an official in high office, was convicted of seven charges of using a false instrument with intent and two of causing or permitting a false statement to be included in a nomination form…

The case faced several delays caused by Uncles applying for adjournments – one being because he ran for the post of Police Commissioner in May last year.

He failed to appear on the first day of his trial on February 8 and was arrested on a warrant outside the court when he turned up the next day. He has denied breaching his bail. [Kent Online]

http://www.markpack.org.uk/148525/steve-uncles-english-democrats/

Got a bit of green space? Greater Exeter would LOVE to build on it

https://www.gesp.org.uk/consultations/call-for-sites/

and a (pointless) “consultation” document here:

https://www.gesp.org.uk/consultations/issues/

Since, as usual, all done and dusted.

Big expansion to Newton Abbott already moving on, same with the Teignbridge side of Exeter at Alphington and at Cranbrook – and all the partner councils happy to allow development anywhere and everywhere else. Unless you are in Exeter, in which case all housing will probably be student housing.

The East Devon Local Plan was supposed to cover us till 2030. This one goes from now to 2040.

Local Plans for 4 councils (ours taking nearly a decade to pass) all to be ripped up as no longer worth the paper they were (eventually) written on.

And, whilst all this is going on, EDDC’s main preoccupation is spend millions of pounds of our money to relocate to a site that could be redundant before they ever set foot in it.

Lancashire devolution killed off due to lack of support – why not Devon and Somerset?

Surely, with the bid for a “Golden Triangle LEP” coupled with Somerset-centric funding and LEP business interests, we are in much worse disarray than (one county) Lancashire?

“Lancashire councils have been ordered by the government to rewrite their devolution plans.

The Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) said the plans were “redundant” after two of the county’s 15 councils withdrew support.
The leader of Fylde Borough Council leader said on Wednesday the deal was not good enough and it was pulling out.

Devolution would mean Lancashire making its own decisions on transport, housing and parts of education.

Lancashire’s 15 local authorities, with the exception of Wyre, backed an original bid to take powers from Westminster last November.

A DCLG spokesperson said: “Councils in Lancashire have been told they will have to resubmit an application for devolution, if Fylde withdraws its support for a Combined Authority.

“An application which was submitted last year was being considered by government, but that becomes redundant if Fylde pulls out – which it looks set to do.”
i
The decision to withdraw will have to be formally rubber-stamped by Fylde Council in the coming weeks.”

How did our (unelected, unrepresentative) LEP come to power and why?

Bumped from comment to post:

“I think that the clue is in the failure to seek involvement of either the broader business community or the public.

The signal failure is made most obvious by the admission, “private sector participation on the Board needs to be broader than just development related companies and needs to ensure representation from the wider local business community as has been successfully achieved in Exeter and Heart of Devon Economic Partnership and the Exeter and the East Devon business forums.”

The “post truth” (do we mean lie?) is that Heart of Devon and East Devon Business Forum were even more unrepresentative, representing only the individuals who elected themselves to be representatives. To put no finer point on it, nobody asked me if I approved these individuals to do anything at all.

The principal economic interests (see official statistics bodies) for Devon are tourism and agriculture. Always, were, always will. So yes, there may be other routes to market and other markets.

But you are a damn fool to ignore your principal strengths and capitalize on them.

But even with the agricultural economic disaster of Brexit staring the agricultural lobby in the face there is no move to lobby parliament. What we are presented with is a mantra that we will make the location healthy and thus we don’t need the NHS or care in the community or local hospitals, but must concentrate on building houses that are only economic if the developer’s clever accountants say so, and return nothing to the community.

I assume that the builders have got those clever computer models that figure out what is the economic point at which you maximise profit for bothering to build a house as opposed to land-banking it. If they don’t then the shareholders MUST be looking for a new board of directors (Bovis?). For that is the nub of the problem.

Commercial businesses are constrained to make profits for the benefit of the remuneration of the directors (first, if you please) and then shareholders, but not the employees because they are below the salt. There is nothing in their Memorandum and Articles about social justice and social responsibility – trust me, it is not there; and damn all about social housing.

So that is the real problem. Bodies are being created that are private sector beneficial, but they are being paid for out of public sector funds. So the tax payer is enriching, without any recourse, bodies that they did not authorise, to distribute public money – the council tax – for the benefit of self-elected groups who appear to have no responsibility to report to the public, or to be open to prosecution if they fail to behave with the probity one expects of those who administer public moneys.

Can we do anything about it.

Damn all? Maybe go to parliament to get local authorities to be able to do their own developments instead of being compelled to offer their own developments for right to purchase.

Frankly speaking, I find it unacceptable that the mantra that market forces must prevail on all accounts over any sector. Why should my taxes be used to give profits to people just because their house was built for social housing instead of for profit? Why don’t I get my money back?

There is a nostrum that says health is simply an economic matter – it you do not have the money you cannot afford to be healthy. Indeed, in all social matters, it is imperative that, through the public sector, we test if the private sector actually offer value for money or not. And we can only do this by having the ability to mount public sector developments (whether building hospitals or housing developments) that allow us to test value for money.

Value for money is not about how much profit a company can make out of running a train service (or failing to?) but about how much does it cost the tax payer to commission that service and what return does the taxpayer get?

If we look at the banking sector and the 2007 disaster – paid for by the tax payer – and still being paid for by the tax payer when we own RBS. What is your government doing for you? So far the tax payer is deeply exposed to RBS. And none of that means the tax payer sees a return themselves. Nothing in the hustings develops agriculture or tourism. So we are entitled to conclude that the blandishments of the LEP are mere frippery and bring no improvement to the region’s economics or development of travel and tourism.

For if you insist on economic measures for the region, first you have to define them, if they do not resonate with the Office of National Statistics (trust me – those folks have more serious statistics) then you have a serious credibility problem.

And therein hangs the tail. Agriculture and tourism is what we do – but the (irrelevant?) use cases being presented are what we don’t do.

Now the guys pushing for new developments are being told if they do not hit the ‘hot buttons’ of development they do not get funding, so we can only be certain that farmers and B&B providers are going to lose out because they are ‘yesterday’s market’ even though they are where the true market of Devon is.

Jurassic eat your heart out?’

“Beware the Rentcharge “Scam” – and it’s perfectly legal”

From the blog of Clutton Cox, Bristol.

Owl cannot verify this legal information but, if it is correct, it has important implications for many Cranbrook residents so they may wish to check this out urgently:

“The arcane world of Rentcharges has moved on significantly – and not in a good way.

We have updated this post a few times since my appearance on Radio 4’s “You and Yours” a couple of years ago to discuss Rentcharges.

At the beginning of last year, we were able to confirm what we thought was the end to a particularly vindictive abuse of process in how arrears were recovered.

Annoyingly, on appeal, the law has been returned to its previous anachronistic form.

If you are the owner of a property with a Rentcharge (or Chief Rent depending on which area you live) you need to read on to avoid your being an unwitting part of a particularly nasty Conveyancing Nightmare.

More on that later, but first some background.

What is a Rentcharge?

Rentcharges (technically Rentscharge but let’s not be too pedantic, we’re friends after all) originated in the early part of the last century and were a means for builders to develop land without paying a premium to the owner of the Land.

Landowners would sell land to Developers at a reduced capital sum or for no money at all in return for an income from the owners of the new houses and their subsequent owners.

The person entitled to the Rentcharge is known as the Rentowner.

Rentcharges normally range between £2 and £10 per annum with the most expensive at around £12.60.

Rentcharges originated in the early part of the last century and were a means for builders to develop land without paying a premium to the owner of the Land

Rentcharges in Bristol, Chief Rents in Manchester

A Rentcharge is a peculiarity of Conveyancing in Bristol and surrounding towns and villages. They can also crop up in other areas of England such as Bath and Sunderland.

In Manchester such payments are known as Chief Rents.

Estate Agents, in our neck of the woods, often use the term “freehold and free” in their property particulars and brochures. In this context “freehold and free” refers to a freehold house which is not subject to the payment of a Rentcharge.

The 1977 Rentcharges Act abolished the creation of all new Rentcharges, subject to a few exceptions, for example, small developments with shared facilities such as a pumping station or shared accessways.

The shelf-life for existing Rentcharges was capped at 60 years so that all relevant Rentcharges would expire in 2037.

The 1977 Act, for those who could not wait that long, by design or choice, permitted existing freehold owners, to buy out (or redeem as it is technically known) the Rentcharges attached to their property.

A Rentcharge should not be confused with a Ground Rent which only relates to Leasehold properties, especially, although not exclusively, to flats. You do not have an automatic right to buy your Ground Rent.

How Much Does It Cost To Redeem a Rentcharge?

If you know the identity of the Rentowner you can apply to the Department for Communities and Local Government to redeem the Rentcharge.

The cost of redeeming the Rentcharge will be about 16 times the yearly payment.

We had an enquiry from a client who had received a letter from an Estate Agent acting for a Rentowner and was asked would he like to purchase the Rentcharge for £750

We were asked whether £750 was a good deal or not.

The Rentcharge in question amounted to £2.64 per annum.

The cost to redeem under the 1977 Rentcharge Act would be about 16 times the yearly payment, approximately, £43.

We said it was not a good deal and advised him to contact the Department for Communities and Local Government

If you know the identity of the Rentowner you can apply to the Department for Communities and Local Government to redeem the Rentcharge.

The address to write to or download the application form online is:

Rentcharges Unit:

Department for Communities and Local Government, Ground Floor, Rosebrae Court, Woodside Ferry Approach, Birkenhead, Merseyside, CH41 6DU.

Are There Any Problems with Rentcharges When Selling Your Property

Many homeowners have been paying the yearly rentcharge although many may have forgotten to pay, not been asked to pay or not known who to pay.

As Conveyancing Solicitors, we often have to deal with problems where there is no evidence of payment of the Rentcharge on the sale of a property.

Conveyancing Solicitors in Bristol normally agree on an apportionment from the sale price of 6 years (the limitation period for a debt) Rentcharge payments roughly between £15 and £75.

No big deal then?

The Rentcharge “Scam”?

Many conveyancing deeds which include a rentcharge state that such rent will be payable annually “whether formally demanded or not”.

Rentowners, including a growing number of Investment Companies, have used non-payment as a trigger to impose draconian penalties on unsuspecting homeowners.

Here is what happened to one of our conveyancing clients in Bristol.

The Facts:

Our client owned a house in Bristol subject to a Rentcharge. He received a Rentcharge demand purporting to be from the new Rentowner.

Our client had been paying his Rentcharge annually ever since he bought the property to another person. Naturally, he asked for proof of ownership before paying to someone else. Proof, he was told, would only be provided if a £60 administration fee was paid. Not, unsurprisingly, he refused.

But, here’s the rub: the company went ahead with imposing a Statutory Lease on the property rather than pursuing its debt through the Courts.

The company used the little-known Section 121 (4) of the Law of Property Act 1925 ( the LPA) to create a Lease as security for payment of its Rentcharge.

The sum total of the Rentcharge debt that the company, Morgoed Estates Limited (Morgoed), could have legitimately claimed through the Courts was only £16.50

Morgoed used the LPA to create a Lease on his property as security for debt of the £16.50 unpaid Rentcharge.

When our client discovered a Lease had been created on his property, he offered the £16.50 offered in full payment of the outstanding debt.

The company refused this offer.

A Sledgehammer Lease to Crack a Rentcharge Nut

What Morgoed did was perfectly legal, but hardly proportionate.

In 1925 the annual sums payable as Rentcharges were not insignificant.

The ability to create a Lease therefore as security for payment would not have been that controversial.

But the power to impose a Statutory Lease remains from the 1925 Act and was not abolished by the 1977 Act.

Fast forward to the present day and inflation has eroded any financial impact for Rentowners. But the power to impose a Statutory Lease remains from the 1925 Act and was not abolished by the 1977 Act.

The 1925 Act also permits the Rentowner to claim its fees for creating the Lease and a payment for the removal of the Lease as well.

Unfortunately, there is no requirement in the Act for the fees charged to be reasonable.

The fees could easily run into thousands of pounds if the Rentowner so chooses.

Our client took Morgoed to Court to remove the Lease from the title to his property.

And, he at least, had his day in Court.

A Short-Lived Victory

The Court was having none of it and decided in favour of our client.Act

The Court decided that

“The lease …is not registrable at HM Land Registry as a lease because it is a mortgage (within sections 3(5) and 4 (5) of the Land Registration Act 2002) and can only be protected on the register by a notice.”

The company could not ask for any additional monies over and above the outstanding Rentcharge debt.

The judge did not temper his opinion when he stated:

By the Applicants (Morgoed) unreasonable conduct in these proceedings and in persisting in charging unreasonable sums as a condition for redeeming the Rentcharge I see no reason why the standard order for costs (against Morgoed) should not follow the failure of the application.”

Morgoed’s ruse of creating a Lease had been rumbled.

The Land Registry removed the restriction on our clients title and he was able to sell his property without the Statutory Lease.

But, unfortunately, for other homeowners that changed once again on an Appeal in July 2016.

The Appeal Decision

Viewers look away now, as they say on TV, as you may find scenes of an unpleasant nature.

The Court reversed the earlier decision and held that:

“It is clear from s 121 of the LPA that the right to grant a lease arises once there is 40 days of arrears, provided that the rentcharge remains in existence and even if payment was not demanded.

That right is unaffected even if the Appellants have provided no information about their entitlement to the rentcharge, even if they have sent demands to the wrong address, and even if they have refused arrears after the grant of the lease.”

It is difficult to see how the appeal could have gone any better for Morgoed. You can read the full decision here.

The judge although recognizing how the result was not appropriate said that Parliament should have reformed the remedies available in the 1977 Act and abolished the right to the Statutory Lease.

To be fair to the lawmakers, such abuses were not prevalent, if at all, at the time.

8 Tips To Avoid the Rentcharge “Scam” Happening To You.

The Rentcharge “scam” is very real one and legal!

There are a few things you can do to minimize your risk of being caught in the “scam”

1. First, check your deeds to see if your property could be subject to a Rentcharge. If you are unsure check with your Conveyancing Solicitor or the Land Registry.

2. Make sure you pay your Rentcharge on time whether demanded or not and ask for a receipt.

3. Set up a Standing Order if possible to avoid overlooking payment of the Rentcharge.

4. If you were paying a Rentcharge but it has not been demanded check with your neighbours to see if they have any information.

5. If you receive a new demand for a Rentcharge ask for documentary proof from the purported new Rentowner and ensure your request by mail is “Signed for”

6. Be prepared to pay an Administration fee for proof (however unpalatable) to avoid paying hundreds of pounds later if a Statutory Lease is registered against your property.

7. If your Rentowner is Morgoed or other “investment companies” make sure you never miss a payment not even when you were not prompted to pay. Companies like Morgoed exist to make money out of unsuspecting homeowners with Rentcharge liabilities from dubious administration fees and/or payment defaults.

8. Best of all, redeem your Rentcharge through the Department for Communities and Local Government as it will save potential hassle and additional cost later on when you sell your house.

Don’t fall into the Rentcharge Trap and turn the non-payment of a few pounds into a Conveyancing Nightmare.”

http://www.cluttoncox.co.uk/site/blog/conveyancingblog/rentcharge_trap_cost_thousands_bristol.html

EDDC “tourism champion” sets out her stall – adverts on walks website and posters at railway stations

East Devon District Council’s cultural tourism opportunities
Councillor Jenny Brown, Tourism Champion, spoke to the Forum about cultural tourism opportunities in East Devon.

The South West Coast Path Association was leading the way in marketing walking holidays for overseas visitors, encouraging year round visits and in turn helping rural and coastal tourism businesses in the region to benefit from the popularity of walking on the South West Coast Path. Suggested itineraries had been produced for 3, 5 and 7 day walking holidays. There were a number of ways that local businesses could benefit from this, including becoming a business member of the Association and having the tourism business listed alongside some of the walks on the website, which all link to the nearby places to eat, sleep, drink and do.

Councillor Brown also outlined the East Devon line partnership with South West trains, which involved displaying advertising boards at stations. Train stations could act as great shop windows. This initiative was 50/50 match funded, with councils providing the design materials and the station providing the frame. For example the station at Axminster could have a poster advertising Seaton Jurassic, Seaton Tram, Seaton Wetlands, Axminster and Seaton Town Councils and EDDC. The importance of co-ordinating bus and train times was discussed.

On behalf of the Forum the Chairman thanked Cllr Brown for her presentation.”

http://eastdevon.gov.uk/media/2002435/minutes-010217.pdf