Garden use restrictions... Can I extend??

moneyistooshorttomention

davidmcn wrote: »

If they had wanted to prohibit (or restrict) extending the house, they'd have inserted a clause saying so. I would interpret it as a restriction on the use you make of the open land around the house.

I would disagree. That way of trying to "twist things round" could mean a patch of land literally one square foot in size could be (mis)interpreted as being a garden.

When they said "garden" they meant "garden". As simple as that - ie ALL the garden to stay as garden.

It's quite straightforward - if a potential purchaser of this house wants to do anything with the garden (any part of the garden) other than keep it as a garden the covenant stops them.

If OP wants an extension - then this isnt the house for him.

I could buy it and not bother myself - as I would intend to keep the garden as garden.

I'm puzzled as to why anyone would want to buy a house in a first place with the intention right at the outset to add an extension personally. In that case - a bigger house is required in the first place. Probably necessary to "shift down a level" (ie buy a 4 bedroom terrace house, rather than a 2 bedroom semi for instance).

Davesnave

To be perfectly frank, money, I think davidmcn is much closer to being a solicitor than you are. Covenants aren't 'twisted around,' they're interpreted, and very often their original purpose is irrelevant: e.g. the builder who included them, for their own benefit, is long gone.

As to why people buy houses with extension potential, I can think of a few reasons off the top of my head:

• to make a profit
• to obtain a suitably-sized house in a specific setting
• to realise the potential of a small property on a large site
• to house a dependent

As I'm frequently pointing out, because the demand for homes is so intense, it makes sense to use part of garden plots to increase the housing stock, rather than virgin land.

antrobus

robH wrote: »

... I asked my solicitor, and her answer was basically "maybe", as in "it could possibly prevent an extension", but I got the sense that she'd never really considered it before I mentioned it! (I think I need better legal advice...)
...

I doubt you would get a different answer from another solicitor. Restrictive covenants are tricky, particularly if you can't identify the beneficiary, they are not always valid (despite being on the title record) and the Land Tribunal can get rid of them.


'Maybe' is actually a good answer. Any solicitor who gave you a definitive answer either way would possibly be a plonker.

dirty_magic

If the neighbours have them it probably won't be an issue. There were covenants on our house saying that you can't extend to the front and you can't keep caravans or trailers on the drive.

Most houses have extended to the front because the 3rd bedroom is tiny and the living room is small, and there are a fair few with caravans. They were built so long ago that the builder doesn't trade any more, no one is going to enforce it.

Dan-Dan

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

I would disagree. That way of trying to "twist things round" could mean a patch of land literally one square foot in size could be (mis)interpreted as being a garden.

When they said "garden" they meant "garden". As simple as that - ie ALL the garden to stay as garden.

It's quite straightforward - if a potential purchaser of this house wants to do anything with the garden (any part of the garden) other than keep it as a garden the covenant stops them.

If OP wants an extension - then this isnt the house for him.

I could buy it and not bother myself - as I would intend to keep the garden as garden.

I'm puzzled as to why anyone would want to buy a house in a first place with the intention right at the outset to add an extension personally. In that case - a bigger house is required in the first place. Probably necessary to "shift down a level" (ie buy a 4 bedroom terrace house, rather than a 2 bedroom semi for instance).

Wow, Money, that really isnt helpful to the OP, literally making it up as you go along!

Davesnave

antrobus wrote: »

I doubt you would get a different answer from another solicitor. Restrictive covenants are tricky, particularly if you can't identify the beneficiary, they are not always valid (despite being on the title record) and the Land Tribunal can get rid of them.


'Maybe' is actually a good answer. Any solicitor who gave you a definitive answer either way would possibly be a plonker.

'Maybe' is an answer which doesn't consider the possibility that others - i.e. the extended neighbours - have come across this already and done some spade work.

The solicitor could not know about those extensions without some input from the OP, however.

Land_Registry

robH wrote: »

Also, I have no definitive way of knowing who benefits from the covenant. The plot was developed as part of an estate in the 50s which has long since sold all plots.

This question often arises with restrictive covenants and has been covered in other MSE threads

In your case it reads as if the covenants were imposed in the conveyance/transfer by the original developer to the first private owner of the house/plot

As such the benefit is likely to be for the other house/plots and they are likely to have the same restrictive covenants in play for the benefit of their other house/plots. If the developer held onto any land as part of that original estate they too may have the benefit.

The benefit runs with the land and not with the named developer/owner and that is why they are seen as binding with each subsequent change of ownership.

As others have posted the benefiting parties are not always aware of the covenants and may not understand them from a legal perspective; they may have built their extensions and paid no notice if they were aware; or they may have got advice and gone ahead regardless - the solicitor's advice of maybe is therefore probably the correct one although I would perhaps have expected them to offer a wider explanation of what they mean, how legally binding and enforceable they are etc

The Land tribunal, as antrobus posts, can get rid of restrictive covenants but such releases are fairly rare and in my experience would not apply to this type of covenant. They tend to deal with obsolete or impractical covenants and don't remove others on the basis that they have been breached by others for example. Our online blog explains more re the release of restrictive covenants but in this example I don't think that is a route you would be looking to go down although your solicitor should advise.