Property with restrictive covenants

jperson23

I'm in the process of buying and it's been moving along quite quickly. I was sent various docs for exchange (mortgage deed, contract, etc). I knew there were other docs I should be seeing first such as fixtures list, what they're leaving, property info, etc. 

Asked my solicitor about it and they said it was all due same day from seller.

Anyway, they sent it all through and their report highlights a restrictive covenant on the title deed for 3-phase 50 cycles, 132,000 volt power lines running buried through the garden and side driveway. It was formally between towers and buried during the estate development. The deed also stipulates no building within 12ft of the cables which basically means the house can't have any form of extension, conservatory, or side garage. I deal with wayleaves with my job so was instantly disappointed. 

I'm a bit annoyed I'm only just finding out about it. Could've easily signed the contract without realizing. I feel like the sellers solicitors held it back to the last minute because the docs are dated from 5 weeks ago.

So the question is firstly would these lines present any kind of EMF radiation health risk? Is there government guidance on this at all?

And this surely devalues the house. I'm thinking I either ask for a reduction or pull out. But what is reasonable? Are there other issues I don't know about like higher insurance, future salebility, etc. It's thrown a bit of a curveball!

Slithery

jperson23 said:

I'm a bit annoyed I'm only just finding out about it. Could've easily signed the contract without realizing.

Signing the contract means nothing, it's only when you exchange that things become binding.

I've signed purchase contracts months before the transaction has completed before.

ss2020jd

jperson23 said:

I'm in the process of buying and it's been moving along quite quickly. I was sent various docs for exchange (mortgage deed, contract, etc). I knew there were other docs I should be seeing first such as fixtures list, what they're leaving, property info, etc. 

Asked my solicitor about it and they said it was all due same day from seller.

Anyway, they sent it all through and their report highlights a restrictive covenant on the title deed for 3-phase 50 cycles, 132,000 volt power lines running buried through the garden and side driveway. It was formally between towers and buried during the estate development. The deed also stipulates no building within 12ft of the cables which basically means the house can't have any form of extension, conservatory, or side garage. I deal with wayleaves with my job so was instantly disappointed. 

I'm a bit annoyed I'm only just finding out about it. Could've easily signed the contract without realizing. I feel like the sellers solicitors held it back to the last minute because the docs are dated from 5 weeks ago.

So the question is firstly would these lines present any kind of EMF radiation health risk? Is there government guidance on this at all?

And this surely devalues the house. I'm thinking I either ask for a reduction or pull out. But what is reasonable? Are there other issues I don't know about like higher insurance, future salebility, etc. It's thrown a bit of a curveball!

These links may be helpful: 

https://www.powerwatch.org.uk/elf/powerlines.asp

https://www.emfs.info/sources/underground/

What has your solicitor advised about this? Usually they comment on or report to you about potential issues, recommending further investigation where appropriate.

aoleks

The cables themselves are not an issue, they are burried deep enough not to cause problems. A house that can’t be extended though, that’s a different issue that will lower its value.

UnderOffer

But if you want to extend, which you can’t, surely the lower price doesn’t really help you. I’d look for a more suitable property. 

user1977

jperson23 said:

And this surely devalues the house. I'm thinking I either ask for a reduction or pull out. But what is reasonable?

Ask your surveyor about how it affects their valuation. It does prevent building on the cable route, but there will be other constraints on building an extension anyway, so depends on site layout, local prices etc.

Are there other issues I don't know about like higher insurance, future salebility, etc.

Not really, other than the building restriction. It has nothing to do with insurance. No health issues other than for the tinfoil hat brigade. There's a massive underground cable round the corner from me, but going down the middle of the road. Never heard anybody make adverse comment about it.

RS2OOO

Check this out @jperson23,

Exactly the situation I'm in - Except the house I'm buying has already built over the cables in spite of the covenant:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6300794/buying-house-that-has-breached-restrictive-covenenants-and-easements/p1

And to add, I received another email from my Conveyancer today having complained they'd not actually answered my questions. They still didn't answer the questions but stated  "....from a legal point of view I am satisfied we can continue by way of the indemnity insurance..."

ReadingTim

jperson23 said:

And this surely devalues the house. I'm thinking I either ask for a reduction or pull out. But what is reasonable? Are there other issues I don't know about like higher insurance, future salebility, etc. It's thrown a bit of a curveball!

What's "reasonable" is whatever figure you and the seller agree is reasonable - there is no magic formula or 3rd party process which will make the vendor roll over with the words "It's a fair cop guv, you've got me banged to rights...." So, you negotiate, and you either reach an agreed amount, or realise you'll never agree and walk away.  An agreed amount is by definition reasonable, as both parties have agreed to it!  

RS2OOO

Further so, it may not "devalue" the house at all for some prospective buyers.

The attraction for the house I'm buying was its significantly larger driveway and garden than any other house in the close. A detached double garage on the drive (that no other house in the street has) plus remaining space for multiple vehicles.

Obviously we now know the extra space is down to the fact substation cables run around the plot.

Ignoring the fact they've already built over the cables, this extra space is still of value. I know this because if that space wasn't there we'd not have viewed the house in the first place.

Section62

RS2OOO said:

Exactly the situation I'm in - Except the house I'm buying has already built over the cables in spite of the covenant:

There's also a difference that unless your substation is a very large one, the cables are likely to be either 11kV or 33kV.

The OP's 132kV cables represent a much higher risk level, so are likely to be subject to proactive routine (periodic) monitoring by the regional distribution network operator, so building work will be noticed (and stopped) sooner than it would for lower voltage lines.

The local planning authority are also likely to have the cables flagged as a constraint within their system, with any applications for the site triggering automatic consultation with the cable owners.

jperson23

RS2OOO said:

Check this out @jperson23,

Exactly the situation I'm in - Except the house I'm buying has already built over the cables in spite of the covenant:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6300794/buying-house-that-has-breached-restrictive-covenenants-and-easements/p1

And to add, I received another email from my Conveyancer today having complained they'd not actually answered my questions. They still didn't answer the questions but stated  "....from a legal point of view I am satisfied we can continue by way of the indemnity insurance..."

my issue is that I was considering building a workshop to the side of the house. My initial thought after finding out about the covenant was that maybe I could just put a big cabin there instead rather than something more permanent with footings. But then I'd effectively be standing over HV lines for long periods and that surely can't be good. The electrical field is cancelled out by the ground but magnetic travels through anything.

These quotes from the link ss202jd provided
"significant doubling in leukaemia rates associated with exposure to ELF magnetic fields of over 0.4 µT and 0.3 µT respectively"
and
"In 2007, the UK Health Protection Agency produced a paper showing that 43% of homes with magnetic fields of over 0.4 µT are associated with overground or underground circuits of 132 kV and above."

I think I'll just back out of the sale, not worth the risk and would rather a brick workshop.

Regarding your solicitor, I find they will never give an opinion. They just state the facts. Sure, legally it's fine to buy indemnity insurance. But that doesn't remedy anything. And I think it only covers loss of value rather than paying for loads of building work. Might be wrong. From memory I think once the works are a few years old it's rare for the council to demand anything.