Buying house with restrictive covenant "a single dwelling house"

loveka

We are in the process of buying a house which is made up of a 2 bedroom cottage, a one bedroom annex(currently used as a holiday let) and an unconverted attached barn. It is in a tourist area of Cornwall.

Our solicitor pointed out that on the deeds it says there is a restrictive covenant relating to the planning permission to create the annex. The planning permission states the annex can only be used as a granny annex. This permission was granted 1976.

We contacted Cornwall council who said we could apply for change of use planning permission. As the area is full of holiday cottages.

Yesterday the solicitor found the original conveyance from 1967. The restrictive covenant on the conveyance states that the property must be used as a single dwelling house. It also says there can be no alterations without the vendors permission. The vendor died in 1996.

We were planning on renting out both the cottage and the annex for around 3 years, then after that period we were going to convert the barn and live in that. We would then rent out the cottage.

It seems this old covenant will stop this. Our solicitor mentioned getting an insurance policy against the covenant being enforced at some time in the future.

I am just looking for some advice from anyone with any experience of this type of thing.

I am worried that after spending so much money so far on surveys and solicitors that we won't be able to buy the house. If so,this will be the third house in a year that has fallen through for us. First one proved to be unmortgageable,second one the people we were buying from pulled out on the day of exchange. Thanks.

00ec25

why haven't you asked your solicitor for proper legal advice?

enforcement of covenants is a gamble since you have no idea who, if anyone, has inherited the right to enforce it given it presumably originally resided with the 1967 vendor who is now dead.

You also have little idea of what a 1967 vendor would consider a single dwelling to mean. They may not have been afraid of holiday lets, they may have been afraid of demolition and replacement with 2 dwellings that ruined their view?

martindow

I suppose the risk relates to how the covenant is written and whether it is enforceable by the heirs of the vendor who has died.

It might be worth posting the exact wording, changing any names or addresses, etc. to keep it anonymous, to get others opinions. But ultimately you need to follow your solicitor's advice or get a second professional opinion.

ProDave

Well if the named person that can enforce the covenant has passed away I would not worry.

As your solicitor advises pay for an indemnity policy. That would really only be necessary if the covenant is worded to pass to a successor. But since nobody has tried to enforce the covenant from the time the annex was built, it is unlikely anyone will even if they could.

loveka

Yes, to be clear, I have had legal advice. I just wanted to hear from others who had had a similar experience. Also, the solicitor doesn't know how future planning, converting the barn, would be seen.

loveka

And there is no mention of successors at all. The conveyance refers just to ' the vendor' His son is alive, still living in the same area.

The covenants say ' to be used only as a private dwelling house'. It doesn't say single.

ProDave

loveka wrote: »

And there is no mention of successors at all. The conveyance refers just to ' the vendor' His son is alive, still living in the same area.

The covenants say ' to be used only as a private dwelling house's. It doesn't say single.

Does it say House (singular) or House's (plural) That is an important difference.

Davesnave

Pedant alert: "house's" isn't plural. It means "belonging to the house."

ThePants999

I literally would not give this a second thought. Planning permission is one thing, and you should sort that. But there's more chance of the house falling down than anyone enforcing that old covenant.

ThePants999

Davesnave wrote: »

Pedant alert: "house's" isn't plural. It means "belonging to the house."

Or "house is"

G_M

ThePants999 wrote: »

I literally would not give this a second thought. Planning permission is one thing, and you should sort that. But there's more chance of the house falling down than anyone enforcing that old covenant.

Maybe you wouldn't - but I would and the OP should too.

In fact Planning Permission is less of a problem. Enforcement is time-limited, whereas a covenant is not.

The risk of enforcement is uncertain. Yes, in a huge majority of cases relating to 'ancient' covenants, enforcement is extremely rare. But if the OP's plans for the property (or should that be "the OPs plan's"?) directly contravene a covenant then it would be foolhardy not to "give this a second thought".

And OP should also bear in mind that indemnity insurance would not protect against the results of enforcement (eg forced removal of a building or conversion). It would simply compensate for the associated costs.