Restrictive Covenants: building a garage

Scottish_Dorset

We are in the process of buying a 5 year old semi-detached house in the country, part of a very small development: 2 semi-detached, 1 detached.  I'm just reading through the land transfer document and have found under the restrictive covenants something about building.  We intend to build a low garage in the garden, the neighbours also intend to build a double garage (they have a larger plot) and the detached house comes with a garage.  We also wanted to build a covered but open sided veranda out the back over the double patio windows.  However I am concerned about the covenant, can we never build/alter/improve/extend our house?  Is this just a standard covenant?  I've checked with local planning and what we have in mind is acceptable.   Can anyone advise please.

Many thanks

"Not to build nor alter any building or other construction on the Property (save a garden shed of single storey construction) otherwise than in accordance with plans approved by the Proprietor for the time being of the Retained Land"

user1977

Would be interested to see a multi-storey garden shed!

Pretty standard sort of restriction. Yes, you can build, as long as your plans are approved by the beneficiary of the covenant (is that the developer, or is this a restriction by whoever sold to them?). Whether they'll notice, or care enough to quibble about it, is a different question

Scottish_Dorset

Thanks.  It's the developer.  He built them to sell but overpriced them so rented out for 5 years.  Now all three have been sold.  Only he can enforce the covenant right?  Would we need something like a letter from him?

[Deleted User]

In truth, if the Developer has not further commercial interest in the site then he is unlikely to be concerned. That said, I was in the same situation recently on a new build that had a number of Restrictive Covenants and we wanted to install PV Solar panels. I decided that the safest thing to do was to ask permission. The obvious risk of doing this is that the Developer says ‘no’.

AdrianC

Scottish_Dorset said:

Thanks.  It's the developer.  He built them to sell but overpriced them so rented out for 5 years.  Now all three have been sold.  Only he can enforce the covenant right?

Correct. For which he may well wish to be paid a fee.

Would we need something like a letter from him?

Something like that.

Or... You could just ignore it and hope he never notices/doesn't care.

Given that he's sold all the few properties there, this is by far and away the most likely scenario.

martindow

Dolor said:

 The obvious risk of doing this is that the Developer says ‘no’.

Or yes in return for a large sum of money ...

What does 'Proprietor for the time being' as quoted earlier mean legally?  Now that the houses have been sold could this mean that this has passed to the new owners?

Scottish_Dorset

martindow said:

Dolor said:

 The obvious risk of doing this is that the Developer says ‘no’.

Or yes in return for a large sum of money ...

What does 'Proprietor for the time being' as quoted earlier mean legally?  Now that the houses have been sold could this mean that this has passed to the new owners?

That's an interesting point.  Would be good to find that out.  Thanks.

Section62

martindow said:

Or yes in return for a large sum of money ...

What does 'Proprietor for the time being' as quoted earlier mean legally?  Now that the houses have been sold could this mean that this has passed to the new owners?

" of the Retained Land " would tend to imply the developer (or others) will continue to own part of the development (ransom strip/access road/community area/SUDS ?) after the dwellings have been sold.

If so, they may have more interest in enforcing the covenants - especially if a healthy admin fee is being charged - than might otherwise be expected.

"Retained land" should be defined somewhere in the paperwork.

Scottish_Dorset

Section62 said:

martindow said:

Or yes in return for a large sum of money ...

What does 'Proprietor for the time being' as quoted earlier mean legally?  Now that the houses have been sold could this mean that this has passed to the new owners?

" of the Retained Land " would tend to imply the developer (or others) will continue to own part of the development (ransom strip/access road/community area/SUDS ?) after the dwellings have been sold.

If so, they may have more interest in enforcing the covenants - especially if a healthy admin fee is being charged - than might otherwise be expected.

"Retained land" should be defined somewhere in the paperwork.

Thank you.  I've looked further into it, the retained land is the shared access between the three properties and a field entrance.  The developer has retained this.