Restrictive covenant - shed

adonis10

So now my solicitor tells me that we aren't allowed a shed in the garden (there is one already there). Apparently the 'owner' (different to the property owner) could ask for it to be removed. So, what i assume is that we don't own the land as well as the property. Perhaps we are also not allowed to cut down the tree under a similar covenant.

Any advice on this is welcomed.

HouseBuyer77

If this a leasehold property?

We can't say if there would be a restriction on tree cutting as we can't read the lease. What does your solicitor say?

Beware that council issued tree protection orders could prevent you from cutting them down anyway.

adonis10

HouseBuyer77 wrote: »

If this a leasehold property?

We can't say if there would be a restriction on tree cutting as we can't read the lease. What does your solicitor say?

Beware that council issued tree protection orders could prevent you from cutting them down anyway.

Freehold. Or so I thought. Who on earth owns the land then? Why the hell would someone put a covenant on a shed being built in a massive garden, what on earth does it have to do with them?! Sounds like a case of old land barons just throwing their weight around because they are so rich and bored with their lives they can dictate to others.

She only just informed us so will have to wait until Monday for a reply.

Checked the covenants and nothing about the tree.

Do the tree protection orders cover specific types of tree or could it apply to specific trees in specific houses, or both?

moneyistooshorttomention

I am wondering what the age is of that shed you say is there already.

Thinking it might be the case that anything that has been there x years without complaint may be entitled to stay there (or a pretty like for like replacement shed)??

Personally - I'd take the view that its entirely expected and reasonable to have a shed in a garden and something that obviously pretty much any owner would do and do what I wanted in that respect (as the previous owner obviously did). My worst case analysis would be someone managing to enforce that covenant on me - but "Oh well - its not as if sheds cost that much" and maybe you could sell it on to reduce losses.

Put like that....

Typhoon2000

An indemnity policy for £200000 is only about £50, should someone in the future demand you take it down. Restrictive covenants are typically on Freeholds where a land owner in ages gone but sold land for housing but put a restriction such as no commercial premises can be built, no farm animals, no sheds, no playing of musical instruments after 9pm etc...). The risk of anyone being around with the mind to enforce it is remote, hence insurance costs little.


I am in the process of buying a house and there is a restriction that only detached houses can be build on the road and they must have a minimum specified frontage.

Hoploz

A restrictive covenant is different to a lease. If it is freehold, covenants may have been put in place over the years by previous owners, restricting what you can do on the land. These can sometimes be ancient covenants, eg a house I looked at was not permitted to have a fairground on its garden, or more recent, eg when people are not allowed to build extensions without gaining permission from the Transferor (or successors in title)

I have various covenants on my land - not allowed to put any structure visible from the road, not allowed to hold public tea parties, and I have a bizarre covenant from 1981 which permits the owner who owns the land adjacent to come on to my land with beaters to scare birds off my land so he can shoot them on his land. My neighbour has been here forever said this hasn't happened in 30 years.

Once you read it it's probably nothing that will in practice be enforced, but the seller will need to provide an indemnity policy if he is aware any covenants have been breached. If the shed has been there a while I wouldn't worry about it being enforced.

phoebe1989seb

Our last-but-one house had a similar restrictive covenant regarding virtually anything - whether permanent or temporary - being erected within the curtilage of the building.

It was a weird one, as the house itself dated from Tudor times, but was dismantled in the 1930s and moved to a completely different part of the county where it was rebuilt.

The restrictive covenant dated from the 30s which was when a property developer attempted to build a *model village* (not a miniature one, lol!) complete with village green etc. He began selling off plots either vacant or with cottages erected and levied this covenant restricting the building of extensions, sheds, outbuildings and siting of caravans in the grounds. Unfortunately WW2 came along and building stopped. In the end the estate wasn't completed till the 1950s/60s.

When we bought in 2007 virtually every house - some of which dated to the 1930s, but some later as they had been erected in the gardens of larger houses with big plots - had one of the above.

Ours had a conservatory and a shed and in fact had once had a swimming pool which was probably not allowed either, but this had long been filled in. Moreover, two sections of our garden had been sold off in the 1990s and new homes built - this in itself was against the wording of our covenant!

Our solicitor explained that the descendents of the guy that originally owned the land were highly unlikely to come after all those residents that had flouted the restrictive covenant over the years and as we were cash buyers with no lender to satisfy we went ahead.

We sold in 2011 and our buyers - who were obtaining a mortgage - never made any mention of it......

As hoploz says, an indemnity policy is probably the way forward!

glasgowdan

Have your neighbours got sheds? Putn one up, whatever.

Hoploz

P.s. unlike planning laws, there are actually no grounds for a covenant to no longer be enforceable after any long period of time. They remain on the land unless it is agreed with the beneficiary to remove them. If you can find the beneficiary, that is!

sheramber

One of the council areas I stayed in had a tree preservation order on 'all trees' in the area.

You needed permission to trim them of cut them down.

adonis10

Reassuring comments, thanks.

A shed already exists so will be left there if in good condition, if not I shall erect a new one.