Killer Bunny Posted June 25, 2015 Share Posted June 25, 2015 This I loooove. Bought for tuppence and wants to sell to a retiring Londoner for £900,000 but can't because has to sell to a local. BRILLIANT! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exiled Canadian Posted June 25, 2015 Share Posted June 25, 2015 I'm guessing he bought it cheap because of the restriction...... He's not trapped....he could cut the price! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spyguy Posted June 25, 2015 Share Posted June 25, 2015 http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-33553757.html Description: Filter House was converted from an Edwardian water pump house in 2000 by a reputable local builder. The property retains inherent character and blends this with modern fittings and well designed and proportioned accommodation expected from a house of this stature. Having part Lakeland stone walls with slate detailing and feature archways to the exterior under a pitched slated roof. http://www.lakedistrict.gov.uk/swiftlg/apas/run/WPHAPPDETAIL.DisplayUrl?theApnID=7/2014/5610&backURL=%3Ca%20href=wphappcriteria.display%3ESearch%20Criteria%3C/a%3E%20%3E%20%3Ca%20href=%27wphappsearchres.displayResultsURL?ResultID=945005%26StartIndex=31%26SortOrder=apnkey%20desc%26DispResultsAs=WPHAPPSEARCHRES%26BackURL=%3Ca%20href=wphappcriteria.display%3ESearch%20Criteria%3C/a%3E%27%3ESearch%20Results%3C/a%3E Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thecrashingisles Posted June 25, 2015 Share Posted June 25, 2015 This one in the same place is up for £2.27m. http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-31551792.html Was bought for £950k in 2004 - http://www.zoopla.co.uk/property/tree-tops/storrs-park/bowness-on-windermere/windermere/la23-3ly/12668980 Presumably they're also hoping to benefit from lifting the same restriction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattyboy1973 Posted June 25, 2015 Share Posted June 25, 2015 “The applicant has struggled to sell the dwelling; he has become a prisoner so it is causing hardship.” Somewhere between what he is asking for it now and a fiver there is a local who would be willing and able to buy that property. Time to start cutting the price until you find out where! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agentimmo Posted June 25, 2015 Share Posted June 25, 2015 Somewhere between what he is asking for it now and a fiver there is a local who would be willing and able to buy that property. Time to start cutting the price until you find out where! Nail on head. These idiots need a sharp wake-up call. Let the market roll Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheCountOfNowhere Posted June 25, 2015 Share Posted June 25, 2015 "A home-owner who claims he has become a “prisoner” because of difficulties selling his £900,000 " I know how he can make this easier..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Killer Bunny Posted June 25, 2015 Author Share Posted June 25, 2015 (edited) It's my human right to buy cheaply due to National Park laws and sell to a Londoner overriding the National Park laws. Edited June 25, 2015 by Killer Bunny Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billybong Posted June 25, 2015 Share Posted June 25, 2015 (edited) It sounds as if the occupancy restriction has been worded so that the house could be owned by a non-local but let to a local. Not that that is much help as a local could probably only afford a small rent so it's not a business proposition. The FT being the FT would of course publish the owner's perspective rather than the locals trapped in their parents' houses etc because of prices being so crazy. Edited June 25, 2015 by billybong Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StainlessSteelCat Posted June 25, 2015 Share Posted June 25, 2015 While I agree the restriction is an ass - presumably the property was bought on that understanding. It will sell - but perhaps not for 900K. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Si1 Posted June 25, 2015 Share Posted June 25, 2015 While I agree the restriction is an ass - presumably the property was bought on that understanding. It will sell - but perhaps not for 900K. The restriction must be part and parcel of the national park restrictions, that preserve the physical and human landscape and its beauty, which help make it so desirable for Londoners to overpay for houses in the first place You can't have one without the other. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Killer Bunny Posted June 25, 2015 Author Share Posted June 25, 2015 I'm all for Natioanl PArk restrictions. Call me crazy but I'd rather my great great grand kids don;t grow up in a concrete world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Limon Posted June 25, 2015 Share Posted June 25, 2015 I'm all for Natioanl PArk restrictions. Call me crazy but I'd rather my great great grand kids don;t grow up in a concrete world. Restrictions on building in national parks are one (absolutely fine) thing, but restrictions on who can own property there based on ancestry seem rather less reasonable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Si1 Posted June 25, 2015 Share Posted June 25, 2015 (edited) Restrictions on building in national parks are one (absolutely fine) thing, but restrictions on who can own property there based on ancestry seem rather less reasonable. I understand the reasoning behind it is to preserve the local way of life which in turn preserves the historical landscape which is based on human use of the land, in this country anyway. Many of the fells in the lake district were, prior to human farming, thick in forrest, its special landscape depends on the community that resides there. Edited June 25, 2015 by Si1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bambam Posted June 25, 2015 Share Posted June 25, 2015 The restrictions are hardly that strict: "A person employed, about to be employed or last employed in Cumbria; or A person who has, for the period of 3 years immediately preceding his occupation, had his only or principle residence in Cumbria. " And the restrictions were ONLY imposed because he wanted to convert it. I.e., the planning permission to turn it into a £900k monstrosity was based on that condition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrtickle Posted June 25, 2015 Share Posted June 25, 2015 I like the last sentence the most A Lake District National Park spokesman said similar challenges had been made in the past, all unsuccessfully. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Si1 Posted June 25, 2015 Share Posted June 25, 2015 I like the last sentence the most Was his name Edward, and is he married to Tubbs? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.