Can local council remove restrictive covenant?

planning_officer

johnno15 wrote: »

in the area where I own a house , all the properties have s restrictive covenant s on them , stating that they are for family use only , but in recent years these property are being bought and turned in to multi students lets , is there any thing I can do to stop this

Is this a restrictive covenant or a restrictive condition on a previous planning permission? They are very different.

Firstly though, how many students are occupying these houses? If it is more than 7 per house, then (irrespective of any restrictive planning condition or convenant) they need planning permission to change the use from a dwelling to a 'house in multiple occupation' (HMO). If it is less than 7, and the residents are all living as one family would (i.e. sharing living areas, bathrooms, etc) then they would still be classed as a dwelling, and planning permission would not be required. Also, if it is less than 7 and the students do not have shared living areas, bathrooms etc, then they would also be classed as a HMO, and planning permission would be required.

planning_officer

manclass wrote: »

This is what is states on the planning notice

Variation of condition: Vary condition 7 (permitted development restrictions) of planning permission 13/05/0958P to remove plot 28 from the condition.

Having looked at the application, it seems that 56 houses were granted planning permission in Feb 2006 and Condition 7 was attached to the decision notice, which removes permitted development rights for Plots 28, 29, 40 and 41 in respect of Class A, B, C and E development (those relate to extensions, alterations to roofs and outbuildings). Therefore, those four houses cannot undertake any alterations or erect any outbuildings without first obtaining planning permission (whereas the other 52 houses have their full permitted development rights intact).

Plot 28 obviously wish to erect an outbuilding (according to a letter recently scanned on the file for the 2006 permission, they want to erect a greenhouse and a 'small shed', although the application form for the current application says this was already erected in June 2009). Therefore, they need planning permission to erect/retain the structure(s).

If the application is granted, it just means that this house will have its permitted development rights restored, so they can erect a small extension, outbuilding etc, subject to the criteria contained in the permitted development legislation.

I see that some of the neighbours have mentioned the erection of a boundary fence too, but they haven't applied for permission for that - so that's irrelevant to the current application (if it needs permission).

manclass_2

Well the meeting was tonight, and although there was a bit of confusion at the start (they initially passed before realising there were objections) quite a few residents turned up to object.

The fence is on a separate application that they bundled in to the same hearing and the fence was passed but they have adjourned the decision regarding the covenant/variation, for a month as they want to go out themselves and see how close the houses are to the bungalows and assess any detrimental impact and meet again in a month. Weirdly they kept referring to it as a covenant too which means my mum still doesn't understand that it is just a variation and not a restrictive covenant

I think the main reason the residents are objecting is because the plans were changed for the original development and no-one was told (they only pasted public notices the opposite side of town), so this time they pretty much all turned up to object, plus co-signing 2 different letters of objection. Shame they didn't get the chance the first time round as I believe it would have made a real difference to the plans regarding them being amended.

Thank you very much for your help and advice on this matter, even if it does go through at least we finally were able to understand it all and had opportunity to express concerns etc