Restrictive covenants from 1930

chappers

shaunhouse wrote: »

Yes agreed, i've actually emailed building control already to check this.

they won't be interested it's planning and they most likely won't respond to a random e-mail.
Depending on the wording of the covenant the originators heirs may be able to enforce.
The most likely way around this is to take out some indemnity via your solicitor.

Mutton_Geoff

I had a BTL flat that was built in the 1980s on land that picked up a covenant 100 years ago that alcohol should not be brought onto or consumed there (early anti rave covenant or for religious reasons I don't know). In any case although it might be unenforceable, I still had to insure against anyone coming out of the woodwork to enforce it and therefore make the place tricky to let or sell.

G_M

It was a mr and Mrs so I would imagine they are no longer alive...

shaunhouse wrote: »

In all seriousness though, lets say I go against these covenants and build a conservatory and move the garage beyond the builidng line.

What could possibly happen as a result?

Mr & Mrs' children could make you knock it down.

shaunhouse

G_M wrote: »

Mr & Mrs' children could make you knock it down.

This is what I was wanting to know, so i build a conservatory and take out indemnity against any action??

G_M

shaunhouse wrote: »

This is what I was wanting to know, so i build a conservatory and take out indemnity against any action??

That is an option.

But bear in mind that the policy will not prevent their kids from forcing you to knock it down. It will however cover the costs involved.

moneyistooshorttomention

societys_child wrote: »

Could be spooky though, if whoever wrote the covenants comes back to enforce them :eek:

I would imagine a present-day neighbour could enforce them though.

There's a neighbouring property to me with very old covenant on it (that I've found in their Register entry) and duly decided (as a present-day beneficiary of it) that it might need to be enforced if anyone ever thinks of re-developing that property and I'd be checking whether amelioration of proposed plans was necessary if it came to it.

bowlhead99

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

I would imagine a present-day neighbour could enforce them though.

There's a neighbouring property to me with very old covenant on it (that I've found in their Register entry) and duly decided (as a present-day beneficiary of it) that it might need to be enforced if anyone ever thinks of re-developing that property and I'd be checking whether amelioration of proposed plans was necessary if it came to it.

If you are a 'beneficiary' of the covenant but not named in it, just passively 'benefitting' from the fact that they don't do something silly with their house to make the neighbourhood ugly or get in your way a bit - then you don't have any real power to make it be enforced, even if you decide that 'it might need to be enforced'.

If there is a planning application you can object, whether there is a covenant or not. If the people want to do something that breaches the covenant you would be reliant on the party whose job it is to give a damn about the covenant, to enforce it.

For example the houses on my part of my 1930s estate have comments on not building in front of the existing forward line etc, probably quite standard, but also some restrictions on having a certain type of fence or whatever (which was important to the developer when building his nice little community in the 1930s) but I have absolutely no idea if there is a successor company or individual or estate beneficiary to that 1920s/1930s entity who gives a damn what happens to it now - people have done all sorts of things with their driveways and front and back gardens in last 80 years.

shaunhouse

bowlhead99 wrote: »

If you are a 'beneficiary' of the covenant but not named in it, just passively 'benefitting' from the fact that they don't do something silly with their house to make the neighbourhood ugly or get in your way a bit - then you don't have any real power to make it be enforced, even if you decide that 'it might need to be enforced'.

If there is a planning application you can object, whether there is a covenant or not. If the people want to do something that breaches the covenant you would be reliant on the party whose job it is to give a damn about the covenant, to enforce it.

For example the houses on my part of my 1930s estate have comments on not building in front of the existing forward line etc, probably quite standard, but also some restrictions on having a certain type of fence or whatever (which was important to the developer when building his nice little community in the 1930s) but I have absolutely no idea if there is a successor company or individual or estate beneficiary to that 1920s/1930s entity who gives a damn what happens to it now - people have done all sorts of things with their driveways and front and back gardens in last 80 years.

Yes it all seems abit strange, I intend to keep the house in keeping with the 1930's style, nothing that would spoil this anyway.

The conservatory doesn't require planning permission and there are no building restrictions on the side of the house I wish to have the conservatory but there is a covenant that states nothing other than: dog houses, sheds, greenhouses or summerhouses may be erected on the land.

00ec25

in my village there are many properties (mine included) with a 1910 covenant prohibiting the sale of alcohol from the premises. The landowner at the time being a temperance member who is long dead but the covenants are so well known you can be sure someone would try to enforce them if anyone was foolish enough to open up as a pub!

chappers

planning law would override that.
Passive interest in an ancient covenant which no longer has a defined beneficiary would be absorbed into planning law, as far as development is involved.