Restrictive covenant - help

FTB_2017

Hello

We’re currently buying our first home.

It is a nice three bed on a corner plot. Currently the house has low walls around much of the boundary, with the area right at the rear of the house enclosed by wall/trellis which runs to the garage. The space between this wall/trellis is open until the lower boundary wall. This effectively means the entire front and side garden is open for people see into.

We’re fine with the front and some of the side being open, but we ideally want to enclose the rear garden a bit better by either building a larger boundary wall (not all the way around the side of the property but instead just to say level with the back of the house) or hedging.

We’ve got the search results back and I notice the following restrictive covenant is in place:

“(c) No building or other erections except boundary walls or fences not exceeding four feet six inches in height shall at any time hereafter be erected on the property hereby conveyed nearer to the said road than the front walls of the said dwellinghouse and that the intervening space between the said walls and the said road shall at all times hereafter be left open and unbuilt upon and kept in a neat and tidy condition as garden or ornamental ground”

The covenant was written in 1961, between the farther of the current seller (he lived the house and passed away) and the now dissolved developer company (a small local one from what I can find online).

I’ve asked the solicitor who doesn’t sound too sure and I’ll speak to again next week, but I was wondering if anyone had any thoughts on the wording.

The questions I have are:

1) It references the “front walls” of the house – would that in all probability mean the two walls facing the roads (as we’re on a corner plot) or just the common-sense front wall at the actual front of the property? This distinction clearly matters a lot as if it’s just the common-sense front wall then it’s just restricting much of the front garden. I’m guessing it could mean the entire side, however, if it means both walls.

2) If it does mean both walls, I’m wondering if putting up hedging would breach the covenant? I’m not sure a hedge would be considered “building or other erections”, but would it breach “the intervening space between the said walls and the said road shall at all times hereafter be left open and unbuilt upon”? The “left open” could mean nothing restricting the view into the garden?

I know no one is probably going to know for sure and the wording is up to debate. I just thought I’d see if anyone had any thoughts before I speak to the solicitor again next week.

Thanks

bouicca21

I'm lost - a diagram would help.

moneyistooshorttomention

My personal feeling is that a hedge, for instance, wouldnt constitute a "building or other erection". I would interpret that phrase as "made by people".

So - I would go ahead and probably put in an instant hedge in your position. By coincidence - I've just been googling re that and found one firm, for instance, that sounds like they would provide a hedge that was 3' high straight off.

www.perriehale.co.uk/shop/treehedging-packs

There's probably others - so I'm quoting that one as I've just this second been checking it out.

antrobus

FTB_2017 wrote: »

We’ve got the search results back and I notice the following restrictive covenant is in place:

“(c) No building or other erections except boundary walls or fences not exceeding four feet six inches in height shall at any time hereafter be erected on the property hereby conveyed nearer to the said road than the front walls of the said dwellinghouse and that the intervening space between the said walls and the said road shall at all times hereafter be left open and unbuilt upon and kept in a neat and tidy condition as garden or ornamental ground”

You can't build anything in the front garden.

FTB_2017 wrote: »

...
The covenant was written in 1961, between the farther of the current seller (he lived the house and passed away) and the now dissolved developer company (a small local one from what I can find online).

So there is no one left to enforce the covenant.

G_M

Use the 'search' function.

There are countless threads on the forum on this exact topic, including one ongoing in the last few days. The advice by different people varies slightly, but is repeated time & again on each thread.

FTB_2017

G_M wrote: »

Use the 'search' function.

There are countless threads on the forum on this exact topic, including one ongoing in the last few days. The advice by different people varies slightly, but is repeated time & again on each thread.

I have looked at previous threads.

I'm asking for peoples thoughts on the specific wording used. I'm yet to find a thread that uses the same sort of wording.

FTB_2017

antrobus wrote: »

You can't build anything in the front garden.

At a minimum it seems to be the case, as I'd imagine is quite normal.

But note how it says "walls" - I'm wondering if that applies to the side of the property too which also fronts a road with it being located on a corner plot.

I've downloaded the neighbors register plan and it is exactly the same, except it it states "wall" instead of "walls", so I'm guessing that is the intention.

antrobus wrote: »

So there is no one left to enforce the covenant.

I thought anyone with a beneficial interest, such as a neighbor, can enforce it?

FTB_2017

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

My personal feeling is that a hedge, for instance, wouldnt constitute a "building or other erection". I would interpret that phrase as "made by people".

So - I would go ahead and probably put in an instant hedge in your position. By coincidence - I've just been googling re that and found one firm, for instance, that sounds like they would provide a hedge that was 3' high straight off.

There's probably others - so I'm quoting that one as I've just this second been checking it out.

Thanks, yes I'd think a hedge wouldn't fall into that.

I'm still unsure on the "left open" part though!

chappers

FTB_2017 wrote: »

I thought anyone with a beneficial interest, such as a neighbor, can enforce it?

The only person with a beneficial interest is the person whom the covenant is in favour of and their successors if mentioned in the covenant. A neighbour doesn't have a beneficial interest.
If the covenant is in favour of a company that no longer exists then there is no one to enforce it anymore.

moneyistooshorttomention

chappers wrote: »

The only person with a beneficial interest is the person whom the covenant is in favour of and their successors if mentioned in the covenant. A neighbour doesn't have a beneficial interest.
If the covenant is in favour of a company that no longer exists then there is no one to enforce it anymore.

Personally - I'd check that out with a solicitor - as my suspicion would be that anyone affected could enforce it (and that would include neighbours). Though, personally, I wouldnt worry too much if I could spot the neighbours getting up to all sorts themselves...

You'd need to see for sure.

Davesnave

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

Personally - I'd check that out with a solicitor - as my suspicion would be that anyone affected could enforce it (and that would include neighbours.....

Simple question: How?

Next simple question: Why?

I'd look at the group of houses involved and judge how much of the open plan layout from 1961 was still being adhered-to. That would give a pretty good indication of what the situation is.

On my Dad's old open-plan cul de sac, built around 1984, things were very different by 1994. By 2004 the original open layout was unrecognisable!

Anyway, I'd be on the solicitors tail if I was paying them good money and not getting a straight answer to my questions.