Buying freehold from council but with restrictive covenants

AdrianC

princeofpounds said:

rq9292 said:

I wonder if anybody has had the same experience as me and whether it is common that buying the freehold doesn't entail any extra freedom.

We are all just tenants of the Crown anyway... even 'free'holders only have tenure.

Legal technicalities aside.... Whether it is covenants, planning permission, building regs, compulsory purchase, utility access rights etc. etc. the State controls what we do with our own land to a vast extent. 

I don't think we would know freedom if it hit us in the face. 

If you really want to live somewhere without an effective government, I hear the weather's lovely in Libya, Somalia, and Afghanistan.

user1977

rq9292 said:

user1977 said:

I presume these aren't actually the covenants, but just a general summary of the sort of things they would put in the deed - and the last one means anything specific to the property in question (if for example there are communal parts in the estate which need to be mentioned).

In general though it's pretty normal for freehold properties to have covenants of some sort, especially if it's been bought from the council. The notion that "freehold" means "no conditions apply" is a popular misconception.

I am not looking to build an extension or to change the outside of the property therefore I am puzzled why the council should feel as though it is important to monitor whether somebody installs a downstairs toilet, moves a doorway or opens up a room when they already have a building control team for that. Why duplicate this work? The cynical side of me says the fees keep a department of the council in a job but I would like to think there is another reason why they want to keep and apparently enforce such a wide ranging covenant in the agreement.

But if you understood it in the context of a 912 year lease (which is basically nearasdamnit freehold anyway), why not understand it for a freehold?

rq9292

user1977 said:

But if you understood it in the context of a 912 year lease (which is basically nearasdamnit freehold anyway), why not understand it for a freehold?

I was under the impression the covenant was in place and apparently still enforced because they owned the land.