Buying house - Restrictive Covenant on 1965 build

BMilo1

Good morning everyone
I just want to get some opinions on some things my solicitor has picked up on. Myself and my partner are currently purchasing and 3 bed semi-detached house in Sussex which was built in 1965 by Taylor Woodrow (now known as Taylor Wimpey), the property has had a rear extension and porch built (I believe these were built around the 90s/early 00s). There is also a driveway leading up to the garage. Our solicitor has highlighted the following restrictions in the deeds:
- "Not at any time to put or place or allow to be put or placed upon the plot or any part thereof any other erection or means of enclosure whatsoever. The word 'erection' in this clause being deemed to extend to and include additional fences hedges gates and walls of any kind whatsoever,"
- "To maintain the area between the main front or side wall of any dwelling and the road or roads to which the plot abuts as a garden forecourt and not to place thereon any erection"
- "Not to park or permit to be parked any vehicle upon any part of the plot except inside the garage or carport"
The garage itself isn't large enough for modern cars so the current owners of the house use the driveway for parking which is fair enough! The other houses on the estate have almost all had extensions and have driveways which people park their cars on and I highly doubt they gained consent from the developer. My partner's parents live on the same estate and their deeds are identical to this house and have never gained consent for extensions/parking on the drive. Our solicitor is saying that the sellers should gain consent for the extensions and parking on the driveway from Taylor Wimpey rather than taking out an indemnity policy to cover this, would anyone know why this would be? Gaining consent could cost the sellers a fair amount and there's always the risk of Taylor Wimpey being difficult and rejecting it! Surely an indemnity policy would cover these issues? 
Has anyone ever heard of developers enforcing these things which were put in place nearly 60 years ago?

Many thanks in advance

davidmcn

BMilo1 said:

Our solicitor is saying that the sellers should gain consent for the extensions and parking on the driveway from Taylor Wimpey rather than taking out an indemnity policy to cover this, would anyone know why this would be?

No. Have you asked them to explain?

BMilo1

davidmcn said:

BMilo1 said:

Our solicitor is saying that the sellers should gain consent for the extensions and parking on the driveway from Taylor Wimpey rather than taking out an indemnity policy to cover this, would anyone know why this would be?

No. Have you asked them to explain?

Yes, just waiting for a reply - they're not the quickest to respond!

davidmcn

In practice, I very much doubt it's worthwhile doing anything about it - nobody's going to suddenly notice and kick up a fuss about something which has been there for decades.

BMilo1

davidmcn said:

In practice, I very much doubt it's worthwhile doing anything about it - nobody's going to suddenly notice and kick up a fuss about something which has been there for decades.

That's what we were thinking. I think most modern new builds have worse restrictive covenants than these which I would worry about but because the house was built a long time ago I can't see that this would ever come to anything.