Consent of the original developer

pip10

“You must not carry out any additions or alterations to the Property without first obtaining written consent of the original Developer. This consent is required over and above any requisite planning permission or building regulations approval from the local authority.The Property must be used for residential”

Hi, We are FTB close to buying a new property (an ex council house) and are concerned with the above statement in information from the solicitors.

Can anyone put our minds at ease that this won’t be an issue? We are planning to remove a wall from the toilet to bathroom, and a wall from the living room to the kitchen. Plus in the future possibly an extension , or conservatory. Are these likely to be a problem?

In obtaining permission from the original developer, would a fee be involved?

Thanks in advance.

davidmcn

You'd be best to ask your solicitor, given what you've quoted is (I presume) their paraphrasing of what the condition actually says. I presume if it's an ex-council house then by "original developer" they mean the council rather than another party. Your proposed works all sound like "additions or alterations" anyway.

pip10

Thanks David. Yes have put in email to solicitor, waiting to see what comes back..

SmashedAvacado

"New" property being new to you or new build?
"ex council" so presumably new to you only?
This covenant is probably not enforceable

pip10

Sorry just new to us, built 1950s (I think)

SmashedAvacado wrote: »

"New" property being new to you or new build?
"ex council" so presumably new to you only?
This covenant is probably not enforceable

SmashedAvacado

Almost certainly this covenant is unenforceable. The "original developer" is almost certainly not going to have an interest capable of protecting via an RC.

davidmcn

SmashedAvacado wrote: »

Almost certainly this covenant is unenforceable. The "original developer" is almost certainly not going to have an interest capable of protecting via an RC.

I wouldn't so sure about that. Assuming "original developer" is misleading shorthand for "the council", the covenant would have been put in place at the time they sold - which could be relatively recently. And they're likely to still own neighbouring properties. Though I doubt in practice they'll have a difficulty with works which comply with statutory requirements.

SG27

pip10 wrote: »

Sorry just new to us, built 1950s (I think)

Ignore it. Do what you want with the standard conditions. The only thing that may happen is you may need a (worthless) indemnity policy when you come to sell to safitisfy any potential future mortgage company.

Even if the original developer still exists the chance of them coming back to enforce such a covenant is zero.

Unless it is as Davidmcm reply above, in that case it may be different...

davidmcn

SG27 wrote: »

Unless it is as Davidmcn reply above, in that case it may be different...

The vast majority of council housing would have been built by the council, with no need for them to impose covenants on themselves - those all (usually) arrive when they sell the property. Would be somewhat unusual for a private developer to have built properties in the 1950s and then sold to the council. I think what the OP has quoted is from their solicitors' cut-and-paste title report.

SmashedAvacado

Even if the council own the balance of the properties, i cannot see how such a covenant could benefit the council. Additionally, if this does vest in the council, they are unlikely to know about it or have the resources to deal with it. I would ignore it if this was me - as for a covenant to be enforceable its not so much that you can identify who the beneficiary might be but there needs to be a benefit of having the covenant to that beneficiary. Here, i cannot see how this will impact them if otherwise such alterations would be permissible as a matter of planning law.

Section106

SmashedAvacado wrote: »

Almost certainly this covenant is unenforceable. The "original developer" is almost certainly not going to have an interest capable of protecting via an RC.

I think it would be unwise to make such definitive statements without knowing a lot more about the details of the covenant(s). Covenants put in place or required by a Local Authority should be treated with more caution than those put in by a developer who has long since moved on to new developments.

SmashedAvacado wrote: »

Even if the council own the balance of the properties, i cannot see how such a covenant could benefit the council.

Council houses were rarely built as single dwellings in the midst of private development, so it is very likely that some of the surrounding houses were - and perhaps still are - owned by the council. Furthermore, council housing is very rarely in the form of detached dwellings, so there is a chance the house the OP is considering is physically attached to one owned by the council.

Therefore any alterations, either outside (having an effect on amenity), or internal (perhaps having a structural implication), could have an impact on the surrounding properties and would almost certainly mean the council has a benefit from having such a covenant in place.

Imagine the value of a covenant which allows you to veto (absolutely) your neighbour's application to build a wacking great extension on the back of their house....

In a more esoteric sense, the council has in interest in the quality and appearance of the neighbourhood as a whole, and may see it as a policy objective to maintain the appearance of the development in a uniform state or, for example, to prohibit people from converting front gardens into car parking.

Additionally, if this does vest in the council, they are unlikely to know about it or have the resources to deal with it.

I think that would be an unwise assumption. As davidmcn notes, the covenants were often put in place at the time of RTB rather than construction - so this is not necessarily a historic artifact. We are also talking about a council property/legal department which is likely to be staffed with people who have been responsible for placing a great many covenants on properties. When you've regularly dealt with covenants, one of the first questions you ask yourself about any property is "does it have any covenants on it?".

And despite 'Austerity' council departments still have vastly more resources to deal with things like this than the typical developer of a 1950's estate.

I would ignore it if this was me - as for a covenant to be enforceable its not so much that you can identify who the beneficiary might be but there needs to be a benefit of having the covenant to that beneficiary. Here, i cannot see how this will impact them if otherwise such alterations would be permissible as a matter of planning law.

I think it unwise to advise people to 'ignore' the existence of covenants on a property they are considering buying.

Turning the question on its head, what benefit does the OP gain by doing so? The seller is trying to offload a property which is potentially burdened with a covenant restricting the very thing the OP wants to do (alterations and additions). The OP has little to lose by treating the covenant as enforceable and asking the seller to either agree to a lower sale price, or to provide any relevant indemnity.

Councils have only modest control of building works through planning law - the controls are via a framework of planning policy, and decisions they make have to be lawful and justified on planning grounds. If an extension were otherwise permissible under Permitted Development there is little the council could do to stop their own neighbouring property being adversely affected by that.

As I said, imagine the value of a covenant which allows you to veto (absolutely) your neighbour's application to build a wacking great extension on the back of their house....