Pretty wild case here. Buy some land that by law must be allowed to be developed upon, then raise the selling price to $3 million when the city is forced to buy it back from you when they refuse a building permit. I think it's time to start looking at obscure plots of land in London.

Or seek out a by-the-hour Heinkel rental place.

I'm sure somewhere Herman Goering is really getting a kick out of some of these replies...

1. Bang!
2. ???
3. Profit

Wouldn't bet on it, subby.

The current market value of the land, as a public open space, was independently set at £15,000, but Greenweb's legal team invoked an obscure clause in the Land Compensation Act 1961 which gives automatic planning permission for the rebuilding of houses destroyed by German bombs.

That meant the value of the land suddenly shot up to £1.6m, even though the council would never allow it to be developed.

So, basically the council destroyed all but £15,000 of the land's £1.6m value for housing development by simply declaring that it could no longer be used for its former purpose? And has to pay because there is a law saying that they specifically cannot do that in this case?

I don't feel sorry for them. They could simply let the houses be built. Declare the land of someone else whose house burns down a public park. Since it wasn't blown up in the war, evidently they can legally do that.

What you say??

My townhouse in Kentucky was hit by Luftwaffe bombs, I swear! Pay me!

SwiftFox got it right.

It's not that they are having to pay far beyond the value of the land, it's that they are valuing the land at a use far below it's best use.

However, it seems to me that too much time has elapsed. Why is the claim only being brought now? It seems to me the city has squatter's rights to the land by now.

SwiftFox: I don't feel sorry for them

yeah the article's leaving something out. For that price they would probably sooner let the land be developed than buy it, given an option.

Loren: SwiftFox got it right.

It's not that they are having to pay far beyond the value of the land, it's that they are valuing the land at a use far below it's best use.

However, it seems to me that too much time has elapsed. Why is the claim only being brought now? It seems to me the city has squatter's rights to the land by now.

The land was always in private hands even though it was part of a public park (Or at least according to the article). So its more of the city's fault for not buying it sooner.

'When the London Borough of Wandsworth refused planning permission to build on the site'...

All of this could have been avoided had the council allowed them to build. Would normally be another case of jumped up council nazis cock-blocking a perfectly good building opportunity, except that another bunch of jumped up lawyers invoked another irrelevant law and bit them in the ass. Fark all of them, although it's nice to see the council getting pushed around for once.

You know who else paid way too much for real estate?

I don't feel sorry for either the council, or the taxpayers here. Give the owner of the land a permit, so that they can put it to use for what it was used for.. building homes. It is only the intransigence of that village council that is causing it. The owner of the land didn't "jack up the price". That is the value of the land were they able to put houses on it. This is a cause of retarded government getting what is coming to it.

Wow, weird parallels to what's happening in Half Moon Bay, California. They flooded a few acres of a developer's property decades ago. With current federal/california laws, it's now protected wetlands, and can't be developed. The most recent court ruling affirms that the town is responsible for destroying the worth of the land, so they owe the owner ~30 million american pesos. If the California Senate doesn't pass a special law for this single situation (and have it signed by Arnold) the town budget is fuxxored.

OK, maybe that's only a parallel if the town council are the nazis and the water is bombs. nm.

Councillor Maurice Heaster, Wandsworth's cabinet member for corporate resources, said: "This case really does prove the old saying that sometimes the law is an ass.

Hahaha.

Wow, i came here to edumicate some people and found you guys have a better grasp of market value and land rights than the article writer did.

/good jorb.

It sounds like 'councils' in the UK are used to getting their way. Little Napoleons who don't give a second thought to weakening the property rights of others and see tax revenue shaken down from those who actually work as their divine right have finally gotten a dose of karma.

It's like David and Goliath, except this time David won!

You British have an obligation to fight confiscatory taxation. Social engineering by busybody neo-fascists with their own agendas is the cause of most of your rates. It is unnatural for petrol to consist of 25% product and 75% tax. You should fight this when given an opportunity, directly when you can, or indirectly when you shake down the government in this interesting real estate loophole.

Full Disclosure - I'm from Texas and one of my distant ancestors went to Rome at the kings behest to petition the pope to cancel the Magna Carta.

Imminent domain that sucker, pay them some chump change and turn it into a parking spot.

Charge them back property taxes on £1.6 million land.

Change the law and tell them to piss up a rope.


Learn from your Americano brethren in the ways of governmental waffle-stomping someone's ass into tears.

The land was essentially appropriated for a public purpose when it was added to the park. The council could have bought it for the 30K instead of the private buyers, but instead thought they could have it for free by denying the private buyers the right to build on it. The hell with them. They had their chance to handle it the right way but thought they could get away with screwing the owners.

jjorsett: The land was essentially appropriated for a public purpose when it was added to the park. The council could have bought it for the 30K instead of the private buyers, but instead thought they could have it for free by denying the private buyers the right to build on it. The hell with them. They had their chance to handle it the right way but thought they could get away with screwing the owners.

Precisely. F em.

I don't know about Britain but that sounds like the going rate for a piece of land around NYC.

With 2 minutes of searching, here's .37 acres for $2.25M in New Jersey.

Erm, repeal the law?

I'm sure they will... now. There is probably some kind of ethical conflict in allowing the government to change laws in their benefit anytime there is a legal conflict they might fall on the wrong side of.

Smeh. How is this not entirely the council's fault? Ignorance of the law is no excuse (although sometimes it'd be a nice cop-out "sorry officer this is a 60 zone?!"), and the council were the ones who denied the development permits.

Cue facepalm pics...

Wardrobe_Malfunction: I don't know about Britain but that sounds like the going rate for a piece of land around NYC.

I think that this is the location in question, so yes, it's easily worth £1.6m that close to central London.

RTFA made me change my mind, they LET him buy it knowing he wanted to build houses, then they denied him the use of the land so he was stuck with an out of pocket expense (mortgaged to his arse??) so he found a way to get his money back AND screw with the idiots in charge of the city

ssrat: they LET him buy it knowing he wanted to build houses

Local councils do not have any say over private property transactions.

Greenweb bought the land knowing that unconditional common access had been allowed for 50+ years. In that circumstance planning permission will almost never be given. Their actions were entirely within the law, but they're hardly the wronged party in a classic ransom strip deal.

This is a law that should have been stricken from the statute books decades ago.

FarkinNortherner: This is a law that should have been stricken from the statute books decades ago.

I don't agree. There's a simple rule about planning permission - you can build something the same as what's already there. It's why sometimes people buy derelict homes. Not for the home, but the land and the planning permission.

When the council first thought they could just take someone's private property and make it their own, they should have bought it from the owner and formalised that.

farkeruk: I don't agree. There's a simple rule about planning permission - you can build something the same as what's already there.

Even if that were true, which it isn't, what was already there in this case was an area that has had uncontested public access for decades.

It's why sometimes people buy derelict homes. Not for the home, but the land and the planning permission.

Anyone doing that without prior permission accepts the gamble that it may not be granted.

When the council first thought they could just take someone's private property and make it their own, they should have bought it from the owner and formalised that.

I agree, but, again, the landowner has had at least 47 years to remedy their land being out of use.

For nearly 30 years it has been formalised in law that title can be extinguished by 12 years of adverse possession, common law having suggested that as a reasonable period for centuries prior to the 1980 Act, yet a loophole in planning laws enables adverse possession to be nullified because a house once stood on the spot even if nobody has made any effort to assert their property rights in 63 years. Left unchallenged, that opens up a potential minefield of vexatious planning applications.

keloyd: You British have an obligation to fight confiscatory taxation. Social engineering by busybody neo-fascists with their own agendas is the cause of most of your rates. It is unnatural for petrol to consist of 25% product and 75% tax. You should fight this when given an opportunity, directly when you can, or indirectly when you shake down the government in this interesting real estate loophole.

Full Disclosure - I'm from Texas and one of my distant ancestors went to Rome at the kings behest to petition the pope to cancel the Magna Carta.


How did you find that out about your ancestor ?

And as soon as I'm done with these waffles, I shall discuss my evil plan!

Some have harsh words for this man of renown
But some think our attitude should be one of gratitude
Like the real estate developers in Old London Town
Who owe their large settlements to Wernher von Braun

Many apologies to Tom Lehrer to abusing his song, but I couldn't resist.

Mmmmm...
Luftwaffles...
It's the Final Solution for breakfast!!!!