Building on a boundary line?

Baxter100

The vendor on the covenant are listed as "(1) Birnbeck (Sixth) Co-Ownership Housing Society Limited (Vendors)".

Googling that name brings up an old copy of the London Gazette (from 1981!) showing that they went under, and their registration with whatever body there was at the time was cancelled. So who would now be the interested party? We are hoping that solicitors can find this out. :eek:

Baxter100

Also... why would a housing association sell land to the council, and then insist that it never be built upon?

Land_Registry

Baxter100 - I know the thread did not start by focusing on the 'covenant' but don't forget your other thread and the replies which explained how a covenant can be imposed, run with the land even after it is sold on and how the benefit may not simply remain with the party who imposed it if the land they then owned has been sold on etc

Baxter100

Hi LRr,

Thanks for your response - I had actually missed your lengthy reply on that thread, apologies.

I am afraid I still don't fully understand though.

The covenant was imposed on the Land by the previous land owner (Birnbeck). Birnbeck appear to have now gone bust.... so who would now be the beneficiary? And how is it ultimately decided whether or not the covenant stays with the land or is removed? Would we as local residents get any say in this?

AdrianC

Baxter100 wrote: »

The covenant was imposed on the Land by the previous land owner (Birnbeck). Birnbeck appear to have now gone bust.... so who would now be the beneficiary?

Whoever took the assets of the business on. You'd need to find the receivers or administrators of the business to identify who that was.

And how is it ultimately decided whether or not the covenant stays with the land or is removed?

It stays until it's removed.

Would we as local residents get any say in this?

Not afaiu.

It is incredibly unlikely that anybody will ever come forward to enforce the covenant, which in practice means it's only so many useless words. BUT if ever there's a planning application, it might be something that you could wave in opposition. Whether it would make a difference or not, though, is debatable. You'd be far better targetting any opposition at the scheme itself.

The best way to prevent somebody ever building on the land is, of course, to own it yourself.

Baxter100

AdrianC wrote: »

Whoever took the assets of the business on. You'd need to find the receivers or administrators of the business to identify who that was.



It stays until it's removed.



Not afaiu.

It is incredibly unlikely that anybody will ever come forward to enforce the covenant, which in practice means it's only so many useless words. BUT if ever there's a planning application, it might be something that you could wave in opposition. Whether it would make a difference or not, though, is debatable. You'd be far better targetting any opposition at the scheme itself.

The best way to prevent somebody ever building on the land is, of course, to own it yourself.

Thanks Adrian.

We are just not sure what to do! Everyone we have spoken to (Council, solicitors, local architects, parents etc) has said that the land is very unlikely to be built upon, but as long as that small chance remains, we don't know if it's too much of a risk. Apart from this issue the house is absolutely perfect!

It's not even the general thought of a development that bothers us (the city we live needs more housing), but the fact that the house is built right up to the boundary line, we think could cause problems in the future.

Someone suggested that if we buy we should put a fence up asap so we can claim a section of the land after 10 years, but neither of us are particularly good rule breakers. :A

Land_Registry

Baxter100 wrote: »

Hi LRr,

Thanks for your response - I had actually missed your lengthy reply on that thread, apologies.

I am afraid I still don't fully understand though.

The covenant was imposed on the Land by the previous land owner (Birnbeck). Birnbeck appear to have now gone bust.... so who would now be the beneficiary? And how is it ultimately decided whether or not the covenant stays with the land or is removed? Would we as local residents get any say in this?

If Birnbeck still own the land with the benefit of the covenant then they remain the beneficiary. If they have sold off the land they owned at that time then the benefit may well have passed to any new owners.

Invariably it is the beneficiary who has the power to 'remove' it and that is usually undertaken by way of a deed between the beneficiary and the owner of the land who is restricted by the covenant.

The Council could not on their own simply remove the covenant unless they went down the route of demonstrating how it was no longer applicable/appropriate although this is rare simply because of the process/costs involved

If you do an online search around the release of restrictive covenants you will find a number of conveyancers/solicitors who explain the issues involved in basic terms on their firm's websites.

Over time of course, and as AdrianC implies, such covenants may become less of an issue depending on the circumstances simply because identifying the benefiting land and it's owner(s) gets harder unless made clear at the time the covenant was imposed.

Local residents or anyone not directly involved in my experience have no say re the release of such covenants or indeed how they are imposed. They can of course influence the parties involved and/or simply bring the existence of the covenants to their attention.

The planning process is quite separate from the registration one and again in my experience the local planning authority would take little or no interest in the covenant as they are dealing with the size, shape and materials being used for any building and not whether you can or cannot do it as a covenant exists - imposing the covenant is down to the beneficiary and would be a quite separate matter.