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

Prothet_of_Doom

The last house I bought had 4 restrictive coventents in place.

1) No caravan's on commercial vehicles in front of house. (Ignored by 3/26 neighbours)
2) No Commercial Vehicles in front of house. (Ignored by 15/26 neighbours
3) No extentions and external modifications for 15 years from build. (Long gone, all houses are now different in some way)
4) No Livestock, chickens and rabbits. (Ignored by anyone with kids of a certain age.)

Prothet_of_Doom

Davesnave wrote: »

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.

My parents have just applied for planning to build 3 smallish houses on a third of their land. If they don't get it, they are going to rent it out for pigs, to a local farmer, and see how the objectors like that. (It has no RC's) :rotfl:

chris_m

Prothet_of_Doom wrote: »

The last house I bought had 4 restrictive coventents in place.
4) No Livestock, chickens and rabbits. (Ignored by anyone with kids of a certain age.)

I suspect the rabbits part is more aimed at people who would keep rabbits for food, as opposed to kids' pets.

moneyistooshorttomention

Prothet_of_Doom wrote: »

The last house I bought had 4 restrictive coventents in place.

1) No caravan's on commercial vehicles in front of house. (Ignored by 3/26 neighbours)
2) No Commercial Vehicles in front of house. (Ignored by 15/26 neighbours
3) No extentions and external modifications for 15 years from build. (Long gone, all houses are now different in some way)
4) No Livestock, chickens and rabbits. (Ignored by anyone with kids of a certain age.)

Quite possibly....but if anyone "pushes it" or is disliked, then a neighbour might well lodge a complaint.

I recall a public sector flat I rented where dogs weren't allowed for instance. I took the same view as others there did...which was to turn a blind eye to the various dogs people owned there.

BUT if I had heard any barking or stepped in any dogs mess....the blind eye would have opened pretty rapidly and Complaints Would Have Been Made.

That's the thing....and I would imagine is, by and large, how things work out. People will be "flexible" PROVIDED they aren't being put out by the rule-breaking. A neighbour living next to a nice garden WILL be put out if someone decides to plonk a building there instead and nose will go straight out of joint and Rules Will Be Enforced to stop it.

ellives

A quick update in case anyone is interested!

So, the solicitor suggested that I could do a bit of detective work myself starting by getting onto the online land registry site and downloading(at £3 a go) the register of title for the properties adjoining mine.

His logic was that IF they were the beneficiaries of the RC on my property then it would be detailed here.

All done and 11 properties later, no mention of the conveyance associated with my property - nothing (that I, as a layman) can see.

Clearly I have to get them to the solicitor to investigate further, but perhaps all is not lost after all?

Of course, the RC still exists, but he seemed to think it maybe a lot easier if it is not a benefit to a direct neighbour.....