Hi JohnH,
The point about the farmer was supposed to show how having a long and legal tradition can be no guarantee to future tolerance from the rulers.
This is the case with our lot who did what we do for centuries, but now find it increasingly difficult to comply with "the Law".
Hundreds of stopping places have been commandeered, taken over; had their use changed; been built upon; been turned into various sorts of park; had signs erected; grass mown by councils at taxpayers' expense,
all
in the name of someone ( who presumably does alright by the change) but at the detriment of folk who find
they can no longer go about their business as before.
To others:
The curtilage idea can be overcome by the Law, IF they so wish. They pick and choose. Rich, established landowners are rarely challenged. Others may not be so fortunate. The "funny handshake" works wonders here. Either you're in or you're out.
The small parcels idea can be a legal nightmare - even from your point of view. The legal profession ( as heinous as their close cousins the politicians and bankers) don't come cheap. They are as slow as fk to do anything constructive.
In the meantime the Law can bring in any amount of prohibitive injunctions etc, that are said ( by them) to be binding within weeks.
All that conveyancing and land tax stuff kicks in eventually, and, to cover years of costly bureaucratic waste and inaction, you can bet your bottom dollar that They'll come up with some retrospective money-grabbing scheme. In their view, money should only roll one way, ie into their coffers.
Let us not forget that these lads, who often joined the council with the hope of getting a cushy number with a fat pension after a relatively short period of chair-polishing, are now facing a huge black hole in their accounts.
The Recession and bad investment in the Iceland Banks have left them in a dire predicament: they have, somehow, to fund all these pensions.
As Mr Micawber knew, when the balance sheet doesn't balance, the result is debt. Hence, they scrabble around for new sources of income.
The British people - a significant proportion of them - showed M. Thatcher that they were not going to pay a Poll Tax, even though this, in theory, may well have been the "fairest" way of gathering tax.
Thus, the authorities, who have already pushed councuil tax rates to the bearable limit, are caught btween a rock and a hard place.
In desperation they turn to "Planning" and "the Environment" ( great buzzword for the young and naive with their ten "O" levels and no experience). These will be milked for all they're worth. Law after law after law.
Tax after tax after tax.
Personally, I believe their plans are unsustainable. At the end of the day, those who can hold onto land by force will be the ultimate winners. Bits of paper won't come into it in the final analysis.
If i were the opening poster, I would most surely go ahead with purchase ( prices are still too high, but will undoubtedly start to creep upwards shortly). Get the ownership first, then battle away afterwards.
'Tis no good expecting neighbours/authorities not to notice just bc you keep your head down. There are hundreds of folk flat out on "desk studies", googling maps and poring over aerial photographs, doing nothing but searching for signs and loopholes. Their sole purpose is to capitalise on anything they spot that looks potentially lucrative to THEM.
Also, rural folk ain't mugs, just bc they talk funny. They know what's going on five miles away, even if you can't spot them, they have you covered. At ten miles, the dogs start barking!
All the very best!
sean rua.
