Restrictive covenant - want to build a house in my garden!

ellives

lincroft1710 wrote: »

Does successor mean successor as in descendant or more likely, successor as in the subsequent owner of the house to which the land your now stands on, originally belonged?

FYI, the RC in itself is not a barrier to obtaining planning permission.

Interesting - had assumed it meant family successor! The address (in 1953) of the guy selling the plot is similar to but not the same as the roads that surrounds my property, but maybe the names have changed a little?

In which case, the property will possibly still have the benefit of the RC, which presumably they will know? The plot thickens....

moneyistooshorttomention

ellives wrote: »

To be quite honest, it is the first house that feels like a home, and due to financial circumstances, I saw this as a way of staying put, with a happy family......It wasn't on my mind when I bought it tbh, but, I'm guessing that it wasn't spelt out to me sufficiently at the time and so it never registered - but that's my fault?

If it was anywhere at all in anything you got told at the time (be it verbally and/or in writing) then errrrm........yep.

As for the planning permission thing....this has come up numerous times on this sub-forum (ie that people are able, for some strange reason, to obtain planning permission even on land they don't own). It sounded to me like someone else could get planning permission if they chose on my land and the fact that they wouldn't be able to do anything about implementing it seems to be irrelevant (ie so I wouldn't have to ask them what flowers they wanted at their funeral......).

ellives

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

If it was anywhere at all in anything you got told at the time (be it verbally and/or in writing) then errrrm........yep.

...absolutely, I get that.

moneyistooshorttomention

Re "successor", I have always assumed that that means exactly that...ie anyone who gets my place after me (be they relative or stranger).

If I refer to my successor on this place, I mean "whoever will own it next". That's my understanding of the legal position.

One of my neighbours here is rather In Charge and I tend to regard myself as "her successor" come her "promotion to other realms" so to say in that respect and we're not related.

ellives

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

Re "successor", I have always assumed that that means exactly that...ie anyone who gets my place after me (be they relative or stranger).

If I refer to my successor on this place, I mean "whoever will own it next". That's my understanding of the legal position.

One of my neighbours here is rather In Charge and I tend to regard myself as "her successor" come her "promotion to other realms" so to say in that respect and we're not related.

Well from your footnote you are clearly treading a path with the occasional obstacle (!), and it would be naïve to think that it would be any different for me...will update soon and in the meantime I will try not to feel too gloomy...

AnnieO1234

Successor is successor in title meaning future owners.

The chances are if you are on an estate the covenant will be on every house built at that time. It may even relate to the land being gifted and imposing minimum sizings for gardens etc.

Granny annexes are probably the way you need to go... Do a quick google and you'll see why xxx

ellives

AnnieO1234 wrote: »

Successor is successor in title meaning future owners.

The chances are if you are on an estate the covenant will be on every house built at that time. It may even relate to the land being gifted and imposing minimum sizings for gardens etc.

Granny annexes are probably the way you need to go... Do a quick google and you'll see why xxx

Not in an estate per se but do have houses around me. FYI, interested in building a detached property, nothing to do with existing building.

Davesnave

bigadaj wrote: »

Interesting definition of fighting the good fight, it's normally termed garden grabbing isn't it?

Interesting that infill is almost universally seen as evil, hence the slightly perjorative term 'garden grabbing,' even when there are circumstances when it might arguably be regarded as less damaging than alternatives.

Take our village for example. Every house used to have 5 or 6 (or more!) people living in it, but nowadays, with nuclear families etc, that averages out at about 2.5 people.

So, the village is shrinking. Not enough kids to keep the school going, not enough patrons for two pubs etc. The village store sits on a knife edge.

Many of the houses here have the odd acre of land around them, but for reasons too complex to go into, these aren't often built on. Instead, we now have a plan to build a new estate of around 70 houses on what's currently agricultural land.

You pays your money and you takes your choice, but there's need for more housing in many places, and brown field sites aren't going to exist everywhere.

chris_m

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

As for the planning permission thing....this has come up numerous times on this sub-forum (ie that people are able, for some strange reason, to obtain planning permission even on land they don't own). It sounded to me like someone else could get planning permission if they chose on my land and the fact that they wouldn't be able to do anything about implementing it seems to be irrelevant

Not that strange - if someone's considering buying some land upon which to build it means that they can get an idea of whether or not they would get planning permission before forking out on buying the land, or approaching the current owner with an offer, hopefully one they couldn't afford to refuse.

Far better than buying it and then finding that a) they can't get permission, and b) the value's just plummeted because neither would anyone they tried to sell it to be able to get planning permission either.

AnnieO1234

A granny annexe doesn't have to be attached as far as I am aware.

Xxx