Salis**** Road, Hertfordshire REPAID

All good and well researched points.

However, my understanding is that discharging conditions do not come with the uncertainty that planning approval itself does. They are concrete steps to follow that must be completed.
If they have increased the footprint in a way that can't be tacked on like an extension (so hedging their bets as the build progresses) and if they are already building to that new plan and if the new planning application is rejected I _still_ can't see them ultimately being forced to take it down although admittedly I haven't looked at the plans in detail.
Realistically, when push comes to shove, how many new buildings are actually demolished? I don't know the answer to that but I think it is limited to a few high profile cases? In this case, the appeal or the retrospective application would ultimately be approve IMO (and not having seen the plans but assuming not hugely bigger as otherwise mclondon would have said with greater certainty that the footprint had increased).

michaelc Whilst agreeing with the points you make, if an apparent "lets chance it" strategy is being employed with regard to planning, it raises the question as to what other short-cuts are being employed either on this project or others that are in progress.  And whether the sum of the short cuts increases either the risk of default, or the risk of loss on default.

Not to mention the moral aspect ... do I really want to lend to a borrower who has apparently so little regard for the neighbours that he demolished the old property before seeking approval for the method statement on how that demolition would be accomplished.

The very reason I exited the Alps in Suffolk

T1 renewal now up for tomorrow. My attention was drawn to this:

"This was the first tranche of an overall facility of £396,000. All funds have now been drawn down on the facility and based on the increase in this loan we have increased the facility to £419,500"

That's all well and good for the 1st tranche holders who have the chance to opt out of the renewal, but what about T2,T3,T4 holders who have now had borrowing extended beyond the original facility without any say in the matter?

I don't recall seeing this before, and it's most unwelcome - is this setting a precedent? Does this mean FS can/will now extend other loans facilities simply by renewing tranches?

I particularly like that their idea of landscaping is to tarmac all remaining land.

This is about the worst  house I have ever seen and really does not fit into the local area  - it is dreadful and talk about being smacked with the ugly stick!

It looks to me as if both units are for sale and they look overpriced to me by about £50K - £300K is the agents asking price which does not constitute a valuation in my book.

If this one nets £500K that is 84% LTV - I guess the borrower has 6 months to sell it before he hits problems?

I really don't like to see increased borrowing and renewals

Smutty! 

is this legal - really don't like this - as I see it investors invested in this at one LTV and then FS kindly increase the total debt without any discussion whatsoever. If this one defaults (50-50 if you ask me) then they take a bigger hit than if this renewal had not taken place?