We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.

This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.

PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING: Hello Forumites! In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non-MoneySaving matters are not permitted per the Forum rules. While we understand that mentioning house prices may sometimes be relevant to a user's specific MoneySaving situation, we ask that you please avoid veering into broad, general debates about the market, the economy and politics, as these can unfortunately lead to abusive or hateful behaviour. Threads that are found to have derailed into wider discussions may be removed. Users who repeatedly disregard this may have their Forum account banned. Please also avoid posting personally identifiable information, including links to your own online property listing which may reveal your address. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!

Restrictive covenants from 1930

13»

Comments

  • chappers wrote: »
    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.

    So lets say I go ahead with the conservatory, no planning is required for that...
  • chappers
    chappers Posts: 2,988 Forumite
    override was probably the wrong word to use in the example I was referring to, what I meant was that objection via an ancient covenant would have no effect, the decision would be based upon the planning law at the time. The enforcement of the covenant could still be an issue if there was still a valid beneficiary.

    The same applies to you, there is always a very small risk of enforcement. Get a quote for indemnity and the cost of that policy will give you an indication as to how likely enforcement is.
    If you are sure that everything complies with planning, I would guess the chances are minimal.
    Freehold or leasehold
  • chappers wrote: »
    override was probably the wrong word to use in the example I was referring to, what I meant was that objection via an ancient covenant would have no effect, the decision would be based upon the planning law at the time. The enforcement of the covenant could still be an issue if there was still a valid beneficiary.

    The same applies to you, there is always a very small risk of enforcement. Get a quote for indemnity and the cost of that policy will give you an indication as to how likely enforcement is.
    If you are sure that everything complies with planning, I would guess the chances are minimal.
    Freehold or leasehold

    Thanks for the info.

    I've been and met with the solicitor he says Conservatory is no problem. The building line however needs to be kept to and breaching this would be abit risky so i'm going to stick with that. 1 out of 2 isn't bad :j
  • ProDave
    ProDave Posts: 3,785 Forumite
    Seventh Anniversary 1,000 Posts Name Dropper Combo Breaker
    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?
    I built a large extension to a 1930's semi, almost doubling it's size. Unknown to me I broke a covenant doing so. Nobody ever complained or tried to enforce the covenant. It only came to light when I sold the house and the buyers solicitor spotted it. It was resolved by paying about £200 for an indemnity policy.
  • Exemplar
    Exemplar Posts: 1,610 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Name Dropper
    BBH123 wrote: »
    My 1930 covenants said I wasn't allowed to sell to anyone of 'ill repute ' . My solucitor felt that in those days it was likely to be a lady of the night.

    He dealt with it and it wasn't an issue . My buyer were a couple in their 70's so unlikely to be ' a lady of the night '

    Think Wayne Rooney may disagree..
    'Just because its on the internet don't believe it 100%'. Abraham Lincoln.

    I have opinions, you have opinions. All of our opinions are valid whether they are based on fact or feeling. Respect other peoples opinions, stop forcing your opinions on other people and the world will be a happier place.
  • chappers
    chappers Posts: 2,988 Forumite
    shaunhouse wrote: »
    Thanks for the info.

    I've been and met with the solicitor he says Conservatory is no problem. The building line however needs to be kept to and breaching this would be abit risky so i'm going to stick with that. 1 out of 2 isn't bad :j
    You said the covenant said you could only build to one side and at the back and there was a restrictive line. Did that line cover the other side and the front.
    Building forward of the front of the property is again a planning issue anyway and would be dealt with as per my previous comment. If granted by the planners, then the risk of the covenant being enforced would have to be taken into consideration, but again from the age of the covenant it seems that the risk of enforcement would be small and could be covered by indemnity.
  • chappers wrote: »
    You said the covenant said you could only build to one side and at the back and there was a restrictive line. Did that line cover the other side and the front.
    Building forward of the front of the property is again a planning issue anyway and would be dealt with as per my previous comment. If granted by the planners, then the risk of the covenant being enforced would have to be taken into consideration, but again from the age of the covenant it seems that the risk of enforcement would be small and could be covered by indemnity.

    Building forward of the building line was the garage, which isn't a big deal i'll just have to keep it behind the line.

    The conservatory wouldnt be forward of the building line so no breach and no planning permission required.
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 352.1K Banking & Borrowing
  • 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 454.2K Spending & Discounts
  • 245.1K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 600.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 177.5K Life & Family
  • 258.9K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
  • 37.6K Read-Only Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.