Covenants Explained

mcampster

This is a bit of a long shot, but I don't suppose anyone would have an opinion on what the following covenants, particularly 2 (a).

THE SCHEDULE

1. Not for so long as the Transferors personally shall own the Transferors retained land

(a) To erect dig or install or cause there to be erected dug or installed any swimming pool on the land hereby transferred

and

(b) Not to alter or extend enlarge heighten or reconstruct any building erected on the land hereby transferred without the previous consent of the Transferors such consent not to be unreasonably withheld PROVIDED THAT any such alteration enlargement or reconstruction does not infringe the building lines stipulation hereinafter contained does not have any windows doors or any other openings or light whatsoever overlooking or facing the Transferors retained land on the west side so as to acquire any rights of light or air or any other right in respect thereof over the Transferors' retained land and that any balcony shall be enclosed at its western side with a wall or screen of opaque or obscured glass extending to the full width of the balcony and to roof eaves height

2. Not at any time hereafter

(a) To erect or cause or allow there to be erected on the land hereby transferred any building except one single private and detached dwelling house with necessary outbuildings for use in connection therewith the plans drawings and elevations thereof to have been previously approved in writing by the Transferors which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld PROVIDED as stated in paragraph 1 (b) hereof and PROVIDED ALSO that the Transferees and their successors in title shall be entitled to erect and maintain on the land hereby transferred a garden shed and greenhouse behind the building line without the necessity of obtaining the Transferors consent or approval of plans drawings and elevations

I've been told that I can ignore 1 (a) and (b) since the original owners no longer own the neighbouring land. But covenant 2 is still enforceable due to "Not at any time hereafter". But we have no idea what 2 (a) is stipulating, especially since it seems to refer back to 1 (b) which is quite restrictive.

Do you think we can or cannot extend our property without our neightbours permission?

We will of course seak professional advise if we go ahead, but having an idea before shelling out thousands of pounds would be very very useful.

MyOnlyPost

I don't speak legalese but I think it's saying you cannot erect a building on the land without first obtaining the permission of the transferor or their successor, except for a garden shed or greenhouse.

I would imagine the original document was protecting a vested interest, e.g. someone owned the land and built a small estate, lived their themselves and didn't want anyone building anymore houses not in keeping with the existing ones?

bouicca21

You do need a lawyer - but I read it as you can't erect another house, if you extend the existing one it can't infringe the building lines or overlook the transferor's land (presumably a neighbouring plot) either by means of windows or a balcony.

mcampster

bouicca21 wrote: »

You do need a lawyer - but I read it as you can't erect another house, if you extend the existing one it can't infringe the building lines or overlook the transferor's land (presumably a neighbouring plot) either by means of windows or a balcony.

This is what I want to hear :-)

But the way it references 1(b) "as stated in paragraph 1 (b) hereof" which worries me. If in any way this is saying 1(b) is valid, then I cannot see we are able to do anything.

bouicca21

I think it's 1b from the word PROVIDED. But get a lawyer !

mcampster

MyOnlyPost wrote: »

I don't speak legalese but I think it's saying you cannot erect a building on the land without first obtaining the permission of the transferor or their successor, except for a garden shed or greenhouse.

I would imagine the original document was protecting a vested interest, e.g. someone owned the land and built a small estate, lived their themselves and didn't want anyone building anymore houses not in keeping with the existing ones?

The original covenant was protecting some land from being built on, and then 30 years ago this schedule was drawn up to modify it, allowing them to build a bungalow on it, a shed and a greenhouse.

The owners from when this schedule was drawn up are long gone, and we want to know if we can extend either backwards or upwards.

mcampster

bouicca21 wrote: »

I think it's 1b from the word PROVIDED. But get a lawyer !

We very much will, we are just at the stage of making an offer on this property and these covenants have been given to us by the estate agent. We don't really want to shell out £1000 for legal advise on a property that we (a) don't get our offer accepted or (b) we cannot do what we want to do.

The way you have explained it makes total sense, and encourages us we can extend and build behind the line. As such, we will offer on it, and at that point we will have to start paying for some professional legal advise.

Really appreciate the responses, thank you.

G_M

you can't extend "building lines stipulation hereinafter contained does not have any windows doors or any other openings or light whatsoever overlooking or facing the Transferors retained land on the west side" without the transferrors permission.

But they've gone........

booksurr

mcampster wrote: »

The original covenant was protecting some land from being built on, and then 30 years ago this schedule was drawn up to modify it, allowing them to build a bungalow on it, a shed and a greenhouse.

The owners from when this schedule was drawn up are long gone, and we want to know if we can extend either backwards or upwards.

so the original owner (transferor) not unsurprisingly did not want his new next door neighbour to impact on his own garden by having windows and doors overlooking it if the house as built was altered by further extension. 1B does not say an extension cannot be built at all, it merely places restrictions on what the extension does in terms of windows and doors.

your presumption that 1b is now superseded because the transferor is long gone is not necessarily the case. Covenants may pass on ("successor in title") when owners change - you would need to check if it has with your solicitor as the extract you paste here does not cover that. But either way, 1B does not stop you extending per se and 2A is simply "normal" stuff preventing the owner sub dividing the plot and building another property in their garden. 2B is also the normal clause on new build developments allowing what it says: a (so implicitly: one) shed and (one) greenhouse. No one will give a monkeys about 2B nowadays

mcampster

booksurr wrote: »

your presumption that 1b is now superseded because the transferor is long gone is not necessarily the case. Covenants may pass on ("successor in title") when owners change - you would need to check if it has with your solicitor as the extract you paste here does not cover that. But either way, 1B does not stop you extending per se and 2A is simply "normal" stuff preventing the owner sub dividing the plot and building another property in their garden. 2B is also the normal clause on new build developments allowing what it says: a (so implicitly: one) shed and (one) greenhouse. No one will give a monkeys about 2B nowadays

The schedule does say at the top, 'for the benefit of the land' which would imply the covenant as a whole, does pass on.

BUT,

I was under the impreession that the wording ...

1. "Not for so long as the Transferors personally shall own the Transferors retained land"

- meant that clause 1 did not pass on

and

2. "Not at any time hereafter"

- meant that this part of the covenant, clause 2, did.

davidmcn

mcampster wrote: »

I was under the impreession that the wording ...

1. "Not for so long as the Transferors personally shall own the Transferors retained land"

- meant that clause 1 did not pass on

and

2. "Not at any time hereafter"

- meant that this part of the covenant, clause 2, did.

That's my interpretation too (subject to clause 2 having incorporated the proviso within Clause 1).