What does this restrictive covenant mean?

poorlittlefish

The house I'm buying has plans with various coloured bits of land marked on it. One particular part of land, shaded blue, is where the conservatory has been built, but in the Charges Register section of the title deeds it says of this area:

"...no building structure or works shall at any time hereafter be erected constructed placed or laid on or in the Conveyed Land or any part or parts thereof and no renewal or enlargement of or alteration to any building structure or works for the time being on or in the Conveyed Land shall at any time be carried out unless the design or layout of such building structure or works or of any renewal or enlargement thereof or any alteration or addition thereto and the method of erecting constructing placing laying renewing enlarging altering or adding to such building structure or works employ proper techniques and materials not entailing excessive cost for minimising damage caused by subsidence." (emphasis mine)

In a covering letter, my solicitor has stated that nothing can be built or laid on the blue shaded area on the plans, but I read it as saying that nothing can be built unless the techniques and materials used are of decent quality and able to minimise damage from subsidence.

As a conservatory and decking are already built on the area in question, I feel it's important to know that this is OK because I don't want anyone knocking on the door, telling me the whole lot has to come down.

If the solicitor is right in saying that nothing should be built or laid on the area then what happens about the conservatory? He mentioned something about an indemnity, but seemed irritated that I'd even raised the question.

Yorkie1

My initial view was with you, but then I read it again.

There appear to be two parts to the document:

1. absolute prohibition on new construction

"...no building structure or works shall at any time hereafter be erected constructed placed or laid on or in the Conveyed Land or any part or parts thereof

2. any extension / alteration etc of any buildings in existence at the time the restriction was placed, must be in accordance with the bits you've placed in italics

no renewal or enlargement of or alteration to any building structure or works for the time being on or in the Conveyed Land shall at any time be carried out unless the design or layout of such building structure or works or of any renewal or enlargement thereof or any alteration or addition thereto and the method of erecting constructing placing laying renewing enlarging altering or adding to such building structure or works employ proper techniques and materials not entailing excessive cost for minimising damage caused by subsidence.

I'd think that the conservatory would count as enlargement rather than new work, but ask your solicitor.

Edit: Just seen G_M's post. I agree. Had re-read the first bit and then forgot about the second bit. Sorry.

G_M

No.
The condition applies to both parts.

"unless the design or layout of such building structure or works or of any renewal or enlargement thereof or any alteration or addition thereto "
part one OR part two .... employ proper techniques .....

So anything newly built, OR added, must avoid causing subsidence. I doubt the conservatory/decking could cause subsidence and if it might it would show by now.

So there is nothing wrong with the conservatory.

CapJ

Well first you need to clarify the legal position. I would have thought your solicitor could do that. If you can read the covenant better than him you need a new one!

But if the legal position is grey - perhaps insurance would be available?

Yorkie1

G_M wrote: »

No.
The condition applies to both parts.

"unless the design or layout of such building structure or works or of any renewal or enlargement thereof or any alteration or addition thereto "
part one OR part two .... employ proper techniques .....

So anything newly built, OR added, must avoid causing subsidence. I doubt the conservatory/decking could cause subsidence and if it might it would show by now.

So there is nothing wrong with the conservatory.

Edited my post to agree with the main interpretation. But may I query one bit G_M - the bit I've highlighed in bold above.

The covenant states "for minimising damage caused by subsidence".

Could that not mean the techniques must ensure that there is minimised impact to the new build / alteration if subsidence occurs - rather than must minimise the causation of subsidence?

G_M

Yorkie1 wrote: »

Edited my post to agree with the main interpretation. But may I query one bit G_M - the bit I've highlighed in bold above.

The covenant states "for minimising damage caused by subsidence".

Could that not mean the techniques must ensure that there is minimised impact to the new build / alteration if subsidence occurs - rather than must minimise the causation of subsidence?

Yes. Fair point.

I guess only an architect/surveyor could say what this means in real terms of appropriate construction techniques - but even then I suspect different professional would have differing opinions meaning only a court case could decide....

Yorkie1

Indeed ...

timmyt

Yorkie1 wrote: »

My initial view was with you, but then I read it again.

There appear to be two parts to the document:

1. absolute prohibition on new construction


2. any extension / alteration etc of any buildings in existence at the time the restriction was placed, must be in accordance with the bits you've placed in italics


I'd think that the conservatory would count as enlargement rather than new work, but ask your solicitor.

Edit: Just seen G_M's post. I agree. Had re-read the first bit and then forgot about the second bit. Sorry.

delete my first response here

chrisconner

I have been getting harassed by my neighbour since i bought my property. old couple in their 80's and their son who is 50+.


First of all when i built my outbuilding in the garden for gym and storage, the neighbours started complaining to local

authority about noise, when they are all registered deaf, and the outbuilding was about 40 metres away from their property,

then they complained that someone was actually living in it. I had built the outbuilding under certificate of lawfulness,

the council turned around and said i needed the planninng permission for it as it was too big. i went through so many

appeals and permissions, and last march i got the permission to halve the size, which i did and complied with all the

conditions as for the landscaping.

Now till yesterday I thought this matter was over and finished. I was going to build a side extension but thought i would

leave it as i do not want to go through another saga of troubles, and depression. but yesterday i recieved a letter from

irvin mitchell solicitors that my neighbour will be taking me to the court unless i paid them settlement for building two

houses where in the deed covenant you cannot do so.

This is so shocking, first of all i havent built another house, and its so unbelievable that some people take joy out of

doing all this to hassle you.

I assume they are referring to the outbuilding which is being used for storage of my kids toys and our holiday suitcases,

and extra freezer. I am so frightened by this letter as its their words that i have built another house, but how can it be

called a house when there is no kitchen, toilet/shower, no running water.

I spoke to my conveyancing solicitor, he looked at the letter said i don't think you have anything to be worried about. But

I fear from these neighbours how they twisted the local authority last time and i had to demolish half of this building and

now this.

If it went to the court wont the judge look at the facts that its not a house, and in the planning permission it says

clearly that i couldn't use it for habitable purposes, and it should only be used incidental to the main house. Which it is

as its only being used as storage.

I know from google that the first letter are called "frighteners" but should i be worried.

PLEASE HELP GUYS AS WHAT CAN I DO TO HELP MY CASE AND SHOULD I BE WORRIED AS I LOST 10KG LAST TIME I WENT THROUGH THIS AND

NEARLY LOST MY JOB. AND IF THIS IS OVER WHAT CAN I DO AS THEY ARE ALWAYS LOOKING TO PICK A FIGHT AND I KNOW THIS LETTER IS

JUST PURE GREED THAT THEY JUST LOOKING TO SCARE ME THAT I WILL PAY THEM SOMETHING BUT I RATHER DEMOLISH THE BUILDING AS I

CAN PAY £10 A MONTH IN STORAGE PLACES TO KEEP THE STUFF THERE THEN GIVE THESES SCUMS A PENNY

The covanent reads " not more than one house shall be erected on any plot unless by previous agreement with the estate

company"

Their solicitor is calling the shed a house, which has no shower toilet, kitchen, gas and heating.

The planning permission i got is for a storage building, and one of the condition is that its not to be

used as a living accomodation and the fact is its just a storage building.

I am also getting a surveyour to come a write a report that its not a house to help my cause.

Please tell me what else can i do I am going mad, and my kids and wife are sufferying the most seeing me like this.

Yorkie1

Chris, as you have now started a new thread with your post, I suggest that you delete your post on this existing thread so as a) not to hijack someone else's existing thread, and b) to prevent two sets of answers running to you in parallel.