Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Thanks again all - some very useful contributions.


I am reassured that this process can work - as in the case of Indiana's neighbour, and another reader who PM-ed me.


I believe that the bit of garden I would be interested in would not be considered suitable for building on, which I think means that the land values quoted by e.g. Huguenot would be much too high. For one thing there is no access (it is mid terrace and there is no rear alleyway). For another, I can't see anyone being given planning permission to build up to the back fence - which in any case would, I believe, add a greater additional volume to the property than is permitted.


I suppose the point about land/property values is the incremental additional value of garden, and I don't feel qualified to answer that (any estate agents / surveyors reading this?). My sense is that gardens can be too small, which can detract from the attractiveness of a property, and perhaps in some cases too big and unwieldy, but it may not be much of a science. Neither applies in my case.


The amount of the garden I would be interested to buy would also leave a perfectly useable garden for the current owners - just a smaller one than is the case today, perhaps 70%. The houses behind mine have bigger gardens than my side of the road - I guess I am basically hoping to reverse the ratio in my case, so nothing too drastic.


Assuming that my neighbour might be interested to sell, that would seem to leave a finger in the air judgement about how much I want the extra space, and how much they need some extra cash...

This thread really interests me as I'm on the other side of the fence so to speak.


gm99 - The garden that you'd like to purchase sounds exactly like mine (hell, it could actually be mine I guess!).


When moving to East Dulwich we specifically wanted a garden because we hadn't had any outside space in our previous flats around London. I had rose-tinted ideas of sunbathing in the back garden surrounded by neat little flower beds and then enjoying bbqs with friends on summer evenings.


However the reality is that, because of our jobs, we have no time at all to dedicate to maintenance, and even less time to actually use the garden. In fact the only time we ever go out there is to retrieve balls out of the overgrown grass for the neighbours children.


It's the cause of much stress for me because I feel as though every time the neighbours see me they must be thinking 'there goes the girl with the awful jungle garden' and I feel like dragging them inside and saying 'But look my home is lovely!'

We just don't have the time to maintain it. I've contemplated getting a gardener in once a month just to trim it back but as we don't have time to use the garden either then it does seem like this money could be put to better use.


I guess my point is that I would *love* to hand the garden over to someone else just so that I don't have to deal with it anymore - so there are definitely people out there who would consider this.

Hi shell_8, if your neighbours aren't interested then maybe someone would be interested in using it as a plot for growing vegetables and fruit. Perhaps even flowers for your lovely home. A few groups on the forum spring to mind: Dulwich Vegan and Veggie Society, Dulwich Going Greener and East Dulwich Orchard collective. Access would be an issue but if an acceptable arrangement could be made then it could be a win/win situation. Alec

It might be possible to just rent it verbally by the month, this would mean no fees to any other person, providing you did not move fences just made a gate that could be closed and you should still retain your own bounderies.

The charge to rent this should be no more than renting an allotment, less than ?100 per ann.

I once rented two acres for two pound a week, for my ducks, geese and goat but thats a few years ago.

Hi Alec - Unfortunately I rent so my hands are tied. I had a similar idea myself and approached our landlord about it (I thought it could be viable as we have a long term rental agreement, have been great tenants and it's in their best interests to make sure it's maintained) but was told that no, it would breach our tenancy agreement :-( Seems such a shame as it's just green space going to waste. Shell x

This exchange reminded me of something I saw Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall promoting on one of his programmes recently: http://www.landshare.net/


It's basically a brokerage service: if you have a plot you would be happy for someone to cultivate - or if you are interested in growing fruit and vegetables but don't have the space - then you can register online. There seems to be a distinct lack of plots in this corner of London.


Shell - I wonder if the issue with your landlord is the potential for a contract/rent? If you were happy for someone to use your garden for free and without any contractual obligation would that make a difference?

  • 1 year later...

Dear Sir & Ma,


We are direct provider of Fresh Cut BG SBLC BD CD and MTN which are specifically for lease, our bank instrument can be engage in PPP Trading, Discounting, signature project(s) such as Aviation, Agriculture, Petroleum, Telecommunication, construction of Dams, Bridges, Real Estate and all kind of projects. We do not have any broker chain in our offer or get involved in chauffer driven offers. We deliver with time and precision as set forth in the agreement. Our terms and Conditions are reasonable, below is our instrument description.


DESCRIPTION OF INSTRUMENTS:

1. Instrument: Bank Guarantee (BG/SBLC) (Appendix A)

2. Total Face Value: Eur 5M MIN and Eur 10B MAX (Ten


Billion USD).

3. Issuing Bank: HSBC Bank London, Credit Suisse and


Deutsche Bank Frankfurt.

4. Age: One Year, One Month

5. Leasing Price: 6% of Face Value plus 2% commission fees to


brokers.

6. Delivery: Bank to Bank swift.

7. Payment: MT-103 or MT760

8. Hard Copy: Bonded Courier within 7 banking days.


We are RWA ready to close leasing with any interested client in few banking days, if interested do not hesitate to contact us via email: [email protected]



Thank you,


Jamie Hamilton Schram

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • I went to France recently and in the city I visited there were large billboards on the main streets urging people to stop their dogs from messing on the streets and in a little park a sign said something to the effect that this park was built for your enjoyment not as a dumping ground for dog mess. There were also big signs about not fly tipping. I wonder if councils are too worried about offending dog owners by making a fuss about this major problem. I was a dog owner for many years, got free bags from the council and there were even bins around then.
    • I was also woken by this. It happened in two bursts, which felt even more anti social.
    • Surprised at how many people take the 'oooh it's great it got approved, something is better than nothing' view. This is exactly Southwark council's approach, pandering to greedy developers for the absolute bare minimum of social and affordable housing. It's exactly why, under their leadership, only a fraction of social and affordable housing has been built in the borough - weirdly Mccash chose to highlight their own failures in his 'near unprecedented' (yet unbiased 😆) submission. All the objectors i have met support redevelopment, to benefit those in need of homes and the community - not change it forever. The council could and should be bolder, demand twice the social and affordable housing in these schemes, and not concede to 8 storeys of unneeded student bedsits. If it is a question of viability, publically disclose the business plan to prove how impossible it might be to turn a profit. Once the thing is built these sites can never be used for social or affordable housing. The council blows every opportunity, every time. Its pathetic. Developers admitted the scale was, in this instance, not required for viability. The student movements data seemed completely made up. The claim that 'students are taking up private rentals' was backed up with no data. There is empty student housing on denmark hill, needs to be fixed up but it's there already built. The council allows developers years to build cosy relationships with planners such that the final decision is a formality - substantiated objections are dismissed with wooly words and BS. Key meetings and consultations are scheduled deliberately to garner minimal engagement or objection. Local councillors, who we fund, ignore their constituents concerns. Those councillors that dare waiver in the predetermination are slapped down. Not very democratic. They've removed management and accountability by having no nomination agreement with any of the 'many london universities needing accommodation' - these direct lets MAKE MORE MONEY. A privately run firm will supposedly ensure everyone that those living there is actually a student and adheres to any conduct guidelines. There's no separation to residents - especially to ones on their own development. Could go on... We'll see how many of the 53 social/affordable units that we're all so happy to have approved actually get built. 
    • I am looking for 1 unit which is working for £50 cash. Thank you
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...