Things that piss you off that shouldn't

[StefanAVFC]

1 minute ago, Stevo985 said:

This sounds like an almost unsolveable issue to be honest.

I'm not sure the fair solution is to only pay for the bit of the road your plot is touching though. Unless that's the only part of the road you'll ever use? You need to drive on more of the road than that. The owner of plot 18 will have to drive over everyone else's bit of road to get to his house. But the guy in plot 1 only has to use his tiny part of the road.

Really it should all be paid by the guy who owns the land imo. In this country I'm not sure you'd get planning permission for all of those houses if the access wasn't part of the plans. in fact I'm almost certain you wouldn't.

Yeah that was one thing that was raised.

But it's also a factor that **** us even more. Almost everyone will use our little bit, and we subsidize the arsehole who lives in the massive house in 51.

FWIW we're not stomping our feet and saying we won't pay more, but paying over 3x more is an absolute joke. Especially considering it's the 'richer' people in the neighbourhood, who are more likely to be able to afford to pay more, who are trying to save money at our expense.

[brommy]

1 hour ago, StefanAVFC said:

In 31 years I've never felt any need to get involved in neighbourhood drama, I've never even told anyone off for poor parking, but it's come to the crushing end recently and I'm fuming tbh.

We live on a new estate, but it's completely privately owned. The owner of the entire plot of land divided different pieces of it himself.

First he divided some bigger pieces of it and sold it to his mates, family etc, and then they built their houses on it. Included in that is the President of our city (around 190000 people so fairly influential)

After that he divided another 30% or so into terraced houses which he funded himself, and sold. He's finished and sold about 80% of these and the rest are still a work in progress.

The remaining land is divided and either sold and built on, sold and empty or unsold.

Here's the plan of it:

The bigger ones on the right are his mates/family and the houses on the left are the terraces he funded. We live at plot 31.

Now, the drama.

As the land is completely privately owned, we don't have a road. I mean, we do, but it's just dirt. If we want a road, we have to pay for it ourselves. The yellow is the road. 

This topic has been going on for a while; the issue is we don't have a shared forum for everyone to discuss. There have been 3/4 meetings where about 40% of the neighbourhood showed up, and there's a FB group with about 40 people in it.

2 meetings ago, probably in June, we were discussing the financing of the road. 3 options emerged. Split the cost based on the 'ownership' of the road in everyone's acts, split the cost based on how the road 'touches' each person's land, and the option suggested by the owner of plot 47 (laughed down at the meeting by most) split the cost evenly in 'neighbourly solidarity'. Nothing was decided and the topic rolled on.

This week there was another meeting discussing the final costs from the contractor, and at the top of table, 4 blokes, owners of the biggest plots, plus the overall owner, who have decided the best option is to split the cost evenly. Why? Because if it's done 'fairly', they're out of pocket for anywhere between £10000-£15000. One owner of 4 plots has categorically stated if it's done 'fairly' he won't contribute. Due to his ownership, he'd owe about £20000 towards it.

Split evenly, the cost would be about £3200 quid. Based on our ownership of the road in our deed, our actual cost should be £930 quid. If anyone doesn't agree to the funding, then the road doesn't happen. People (who 'fairly' owe a lot less) raising concerns that paying more isn't really fair are being publicly accused of delaying the road, whereas the bigger land owners who will refuse based on the 'fair' distribution who refuse are not.

Us, the people in plots 32 and 33 are essentially being shafted, having to cough up 3x more for this than we should, on the whim of people with big plots of land/houses for what? In the name of solidarity? Where's our solidarity here? Why do we need to subsidise their decisions?

Another element here, the people in the terraces on the left 'fairly' would need to pay about £2200, so about a grand less than the even split. For them, because they bought a house directly from him, he said he'll give them the extra grand back. So if we do a vote across the neighbourhood, they're essentially bought.

 

That's very underhand, especially by undemocratically stating if the one option isn't unanimously agreed the naysayers are blocking progress.

As the primary purpose of the road is to unable unhindered access to one's property, another fair option to consider maybe to measure the shortest distance by road from the access to the estate (start of the proposed new road) to each property and add the distances together with each plot (the land owner should pay for each plot currently unbuilt) then paying for the proportion they use. I mean why should plot 1 pay the same as plot 52 when plot 1 uses a few metres and plot 52 uses a few hundred metres?

Edited October 4, 2023 by brommy

[blandy]

1 hour ago, StefanAVFC said:

Split evenly, the cost would be about £3200 quid. Based on our ownership of the road in our deed, our actual cost should be £930 quid.

How so?  From your map, it broadly looks like each row of houses uses about the same length of yellow road to access their home. The big houses on the right obviously don’t use the left and centre yellow legs and the central house don’t use the left or right legs and so on. Yes the houses at the bottom use more yellow road than those at the top, but otherwise it’s all roughly equal if split into rows.

My thinking would be either the landowner (assuming it’s just one person) pays for it all, then charges a road usage and maintenance fee every year, or the house owners just split the cost evenly between them. But I don’t live there and I’m also an idiot 

[Anthony]

Another (possibly already resolved) point - if everyone pays, does everyone have access to all of it? I'd suggest that once it's done, anyone can eg park anywhere. None of that 'I have the right to park in front of my house bollocks'

[OutByEaster?]

Can you do this in chunks - so that a part of the road gets built and paid for by the people that will use that part of the road - so that the branch for the terraces is paid for by the terraces and the road along the top extended to the corner of 33 funded by the people from 30-33?

 

[StefanAVFC]

11 minutes ago, blandy said:

How so?  From your map, it broadly looks like each row of houses uses about the same length of yellow road to access their home. The big houses on the right obviously don’t use the left and centre yellow legs and the central house don’t use the left or right legs and so on. Yes the houses at the bottom use more yellow road than those at the top, but otherwise it’s all roughly equal if split into rows.

My thinking would be either the landowner (assuming it’s just one person) pays for it all, then charges a road usage and maintenance fee every year, or the house owners just split the cost evenly between them. But I don’t live there and I’m also an idiot 

Because it's private land, everyone has a % ownership of the land that the road is on. It's not based on usage.

We have, for example, 1/17 of one bit of road and 1/132 of another bit. 

The calculations were done by someone neutral based on what's publicly written in everyone's deed.

[blandy]

4 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

Because it's private land, everyone has a % ownership of the land that the road is on. It's not based on usage.

We have, for example, 1/17 of one bit of road and 1/132 of another bit. 

The calculations were done by someone neutral based on what's publicly written in everyone's deed.

Ta. So if the person in the closest house to the entrance said, ok. I’ll pay for a road just to my house (plot 1) they’d pay a bit. Then the person in house 2 says I’ll pay for an extension to my house… and so on then ok the big houses would pay a bit more, but really, when you factor in the non-recurring costs of doing it all in one go, it’s just noise. The costs for the steam roller to turn up and for the tarmac mixer to turn up and for the digger to turn up and the architect/planner and the admin and stuff - those costs can only be divided fairly as equal to each house. The cost of the tarmac and hardcore for each house’s bit of land are kind of only a part of the picture of the overall costs. I’d maybe be a bit miffed at paying the same as the bloke in the big house, but then again if I was the blokes in the big houses I might be tempted just to build a road for my row of houses and leave the rest out of it. Harmony comes at a price, I guess.

[Davkaus]

Who's responsible for the upkeep of this road? Every individual on "their" bit of the road?

I'd be pretty annoyed if I live in the #1 plot (assuming it gets a house at some point) constantly having to repair potholes cause by the other 50 odd houses that need to use my bit of road while I drive on nobody else's.

 

[blandy]

Or maybe that last bit is the solution- the big houses pay for their road to be built, then each other row pays for their bits to be built later?

[OutByEaster?]

When you pay for this road, will you own any of it, or will it ultimately be owned by the landowner?

 

 

[Chindie]

I would assume in those situations either a) most properly, the owner and developer of the land pays for the access road and eats that cost as part of their development, or b) the cost is split between all residents equally as all have use and benefit of it and it's a project that has to be complete for it to be worthwhile doing at all. And then the ongoing upkeep is a cluster **** for another day.

This is basically an anarcho-libertarian conundrum made real. They gave intellectual arguements over roads in world were taxes don't exist all the time.

[StefanAVFC]

3 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

Who's responsible for the upkeep of this road? Every individual on "their" bit of the road?

I'd be pretty annoyed if I live in the #1 plot (assuming it gets a house at some point) constantly having to repair potholes cause by the other 50 odd houses that need to use my bit of road while I drive on nobody else's.

 

Once we pay for it and it's done, it's handed over to the city to maintain.

3 minutes ago, blandy said:

Or maybe that last bit is the solution- the big houses pay for their road to be built, then each other row pays for their bits to be built later?

Not possible, or at least no willingness. We all put together and pay, or no road.

 

6 minutes ago, blandy said:

Ta. So if the person in the closest house to the entrance said, ok. I’ll pay for a road just to my house (plot 1) they’d pay a bit. Then the person in house 2 says I’ll pay for an extension to my house… and so on then ok the big houses would pay a bit more, but really, when you factor in the non-recurring costs of doing it all in one go, it’s just noise. The costs for the steam roller to turn up and for the tarmac mixer to turn up and for the digger to turn up and the architect/planner and the admin and stuff - those costs can only be divided fairly as equal to each house. The cost of the tarmac and hardcore for each house’s bit of land are kind of only a part of the picture of the overall costs. I’d maybe be a bit miffed at paying the same as the bloke in the big house, but then again if I was the blokes in the big houses I might be tempted just to build a road for my row of houses and leave the rest out of it. Harmony comes at a price, I guess.

We want to contribute, and even overpay and we understand the need for harmony, but essentially, based on ownership of the land, for us to overpay by 3 grand and for some rich bloke at the top of the hill to underpay by 5 grand is absolutely not on IMO.

[StefanAVFC]

3 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

When you pay for this road, will you own any of it, or will it ultimately be owned by the landowner?

 

 

The city takes the ownership from us, and absorbs the maintenance fees.

Or at least that's what I thought, my wife just told me that the city don't want to take it on.

No idea then

[Rugeley Villa]

Been working local on a private job, 6 of us. It’s one of my mates birthday so they all went to the pub once the roof was finished about half hour or so again. They’ll have a couple of hours in there then come back to town and carry on. I got my wife to pick me up because couldn’t be arsed sitting in a pub watching others get half pissed. Pisses me off that I cannot drink normal, I really wanted to go in there and throw a few down me, but I know what comes with all that. Anyway I’m back home with a big bar of Aldi Wholenut and a coffee.

[mjmooney]

5 minutes ago, Rugeley Villa said:

Been working local on a private job, 6 of us. It’s one of my mates birthday so they all went to the pub once the roof was finished about half hour or so again. They’ll have a couple of hours in there then come back to town and carry on. I got my wife to pick me up because couldn’t be arsed sitting in a pub watching others get half pissed. Pisses me off that I cannot drink normal, I really wanted to go in there and throw a few down me, but I know what comes with all that. Anyway I’m back home with a big bar of Aldi Wholenut and a coffee.

Good man. 

[Genie]

@StefanAVFC do I remember correctly you saying your father in law was building your house? Is he involved in this somehow?

Personally I would never get involved in such a development whereby the cost of the road wasn’t already sorted. Who knows what other nasties could happen, what if the local electricity box blows out, is there an argument about who pays the fee to get the engineer out? 

As Stevo mentioned, I can’t believe the local council approved the development without roads being part of the plan. What about the drainage from the roads? The lighting? The signage? There’s lots more to it than a truck of tarmac.

The stuff of nightmares. 

Edited October 4, 2023 by Genie

[Rugeley Villa]

41 minutes ago, mjmooney said:

Good man. 

Gets me down at times but more to life than having a drink, and hopefully one day I might be able to do it right and enjoy it. Out with dogs now so head has rebalanced itself .

[Genie]

Just now, Rugeley Villa said:

Gets me down at times but more to life than having a drink, and hopefully one day I might be able to do it right and enjoy it. Out with dogs now so head has rebalanced itself .

Reality is you probably won’t. You should work on the basis that you’re not a drinker anymore. Millions of others have managed it. 

[StefanAVFC]

9 minutes ago, Genie said:

@StefanAVFC do I remember correctly you saying your father in law was building your house? Is he involved in this somehow?

Personally I would never get involved in such a development whereby the cost of the road wasn’t already sorted. Who knows what other nasties could happen, what if the local electricity box blows out, is there an argument about who pays the fee to get the engineer out? 

As Stevo mentioned, I can’t believe the local council approved the development without roads being part of the plan. What about the drainage from the roads? The lighting? The signage? There’s lots more to it than a truck of tarmac.

The stuff of nightmares. 

One word, Poland

My wife's dad bought the lot we have. When he bought it, it was 1 plot, and now it's 3 with 3 houses. He's not really involved, he knows the overall land owner but they're just on good terms.

[Genie]

1 minute ago, StefanAVFC said:

One word, Poland

My wife's dad bought the lot we have. When he bought it, it was 1 plot, and now it's 3 with 3 houses. He's not really involved, he knows the overall land owner but they're just on good terms.

I’d sell the house and move to somewhere with established rules. The development looks like a disaster waiting to happen. Like those brits abroad programmes where their house gets repossessed or knocked down because they are missing a bit of paper or insurance they didn’t know about.