Property with vendor clause... Deal breaker?

[Zeeky]

Viewed a beautiful property yesterday. Lovely big old house (not listed - bonus!) with huge gardens all around the house. In the property details there is a note at the bottom stating the following:

"the conveyance of the property will contain a clause reserving to the vendors 30% of any uplifted development value should the garden be developed for houses within the next 25yrs".

Is this the vendors just trying to be greedy? Could it cause problems should we wish to sell the property within 25yrs? We're unlikely to want to sell any of the garden but DH says that's not the point & he says no way would we buy it with that clause left in.

Anyone come across this kind of thing before?

[SecretSquirrell]

Yes, we had on the property we bought, same thing exactly.

We told the vendor we wouldn't buy with the clause, so he removed it!

[Thromdimbulator]

I've heard of this before, but wonder what on earth makes anyone agree to it.
Very greedy. Vendor wants to have their cake and eat it. They should either sell it, or keep it. End of. (imo!).

[Gonzo33]

I'd insist on the vendors removing it, and if they wouldn't I'd walk away. Why should they get benefit of property that they hold sold possibly 24 years down the line. It's extremely cheeky if you ask me.

[clam]

Isn't this just to prevent property developers buying up old houses and making a killing? Wouldn't a developer normally pay more than a residential owner????? (might be making that up though!)
Still not sure it's right though. Once you sell "your" house, at the market value, what the subsequent owner does with it is not really your business, surely?

[LemonDifficult]

No, it's not greedy. It's a claw-back clause and 'compensates' the vendor for not having pumped the property for all it was worth, which a property developer might be inclined to do.

There are a few reasons for this. The vendor might want a quick sale, rather than trying for additional planning permission which would take time. Or the vendor may have other interests in the area that mean he might wish to discourage additional housing.

If it's a deal breaker then walk away. But if you like the house as is then there isn't a problem. On the otherhand, if you are planning to develop and maximise your financial position from the property then you can hardly blame the person before you for approaching it in the same way.

Either way, it's not unusual.