Advice please! - new build easement issues

marksoton

venna wrote: »

This is a north facing garden, shallow and wide:approx. 15m wide and 6m deep guessing from plan scale; smaller to east as garage takes up ~2 m depth. The protected strip runs from north-west corner to the east approx. 10 m and is approx. 3-4m deep. So the unrestricted area is a strip of patio running along north/back elevation of house and a small, sloped square behind the garage.


While the sewer is only 450mm wide the easement/protected strip above has to be bigger to protect sewer from roots. It covers approx. 1/3 of the garden but that 1/3 is the majority of the useable and visible space which gets any sunshine.


I can't upload the plans (tried but failed plus don't want developer to have an issue with us 'publishing' them). The sewer runs from other houses (15 yr old development) to the north. It used to run straight down though where our plot now stands. So as it enters the north of the garden they put in a 90 turn to the west, and then ~8m later a 90 degree turn to the south to route it around this plot/house. The turns on the plan are just covered by big filled circles. The disused sewer still runs under the house (pile foundations).


Just had more contact from developer. They still don't understand the covenant regarding plants and don't see the issue with planting but will change it if we insist. Plus they have had a survey done to answer our questions about the sewer!!!!! This suggests to me they don't have any info on how they built it?!?!


Aaaargh!

Right, first off are there manholes at the bend locations?

UU ( Who i presume are the sewer owner given your location) will have no problem with you planting anything above the sewer.

venna

Yes, its UU and there is definitely a manhole at first bend, second bend obscured by rubble but assured there is one there too.

marksoton

venna wrote: »

Yes, its UU and there is definitely a manhole at first bend, second bend obscured by rubble but assured there is one there too.

Good news. That generally indicates it's not a complete cowboy job.

I find it hard to believe UU are insisting on this easement. And given the depth of cover plant roots certainly aren't a problem.

Personally i'd either ignore the covenant or get it removed. Preferably the latter.

venna

The sewer, before it gets to the garden, runs under loads of huge trees so it is a rather ridiculous.
How would be get the covenant removed? We pushed the developers to amend it (as they insist shallow rooted shrubs are fine) but they said they can't.

marksoton

venna wrote: »

The sewer, before it gets to the garden, runs under loads of huge trees so it is a rather ridiculous.
How would be get the covenant removed? We pushed the developers to amend it (as they insist shallow rooted shrubs are fine) but they said they can't.

They're talking rollocks. It's them imposing it not UU.

See below link for UU's build over policy should you decide to add a conservatory etc....

http://www.unitedutilities.com/build-over-agreement.aspx

venna

marksoton wrote: »

They're talking rollocks. It's them imposing it not UU.

See below link for UU's build over policy should you decide to add a conservatory etc....

http://www.unitedutilities.com/build-over-agreement.aspx

Thank you for the link. Have just been speaking to UU and the covenants do appear to be dictated by them. But at least they are willing to provide advice on what we can do on the land (solicitor to solicitor) which is more helpful than developer.


Developers are playing hardball (no idea why I continue to avoid naming them) so think we need to view to view rented houses this weekend.

marksoton

venna wrote: »

Thank you for the link. Have just been speaking to UU and the covenants do appear to be dictated by them. But at least they are willing to provide advice on what we can do on the land (solicitor to solicitor) which is more helpful than developer.


Developers are playing hardball (no idea why I continue to avoid naming them) so think we need to view to view rented houses this weekend.

Oh rollocks, whoever you spoke to doesn't have a clue. They only have limited powers under the WIA.

You really need to get some perspective and not allow this to put you off the property.

venna

marksoton wrote: »

Oh rollocks, whoever you spoke to doesn't have a clue. They only have limited powers under the WIA.

WIA? What is that?

venna

OK ... Water Industry Act 1991 ... did not expect to be reading that today

BJV

Have to say it is a matter of price for me plain and simple. If this is your forever home do you really want the hassle of having it hanging over your head. If the price they have given you off the house means that you can forget the play house etc then go for it. If however you are concerned take some time and talk to your solicitor. TBH while there are lots and lots of genuine people on the forum I would not necessarily take the advice given by an poster over what ever your solicitor says.

Rented is not so bad and it is better to rent and then when you have 100 % made up your mind either way go for it or look else where than to spend gosh knows how much on a house you may live to regret.