Restrictive covenant advice on ex-council house?

aoleks

Section62 said:

aoleks said:

this kind of restrictive covenants are pretty much standard on ex-la houses, I would bet almost the entire ex-la stock has them in one form or another. the clue is in the final sentence, which usually means you can apply for that particular restriction to be lifted by the council.

how does it work?

imagine a restrictive covenant that doesn't allow you to make structural alternations (e.g. open up structural wall between living room and kitchen). you would have to submit a planning permission application with the council even though this would not normally be required for such work (another good example is an extension that falls under permitted development) and if the planning permission is fine with it (they will be), the legal department is happy to remove the restriction for a fee AND for that specific purpose.

No.

It has absolutely nothing to do with planning permission. Consent in relation to a covenant restriction does not come under The Town and Country Planning Act.

The consent will be given by either the housing, legal, or sometimes property services department - in many cases by return of email, often with no fee payable.

aoleks said:

you will be allowed to extend or build a driveway, but you will have some additional costs (hundreds of pounds) that you would not normally have. not the end of the world and a phone call to your local council would confirm this.

"Will" in both cases in that paragraph should be read as 'may'.  There's no guarantee consent will be given, and consent for parking is often refused to avoid either concreting over front gardens, or road safety risks.  Costs charged by local authorities vary, and if dealt with by a simple email then it is quite possible no charge will be made.

aoleks said:

also have a look at other properties nearby, I can guarantee they have driveways, extensions, sheds, painted walls, fences, internal alterations etc. ...

Quite likely, but without knowing if they have the same covenant and/or have consent, what the neighbours have done doesn't help the OP very much.

No, restrictive covenants don't have anything to do with planning, but from my experience, councils don't randomly decide whether to waive the restrictions or not. They make you apply for planning permission and if your application gets approved, they allow you to have the restriction removed by their legal department. It means you are paying for a planning application when you wouldn't normally need one, but hey...

Costs vary indeed, but I haven't heard of a restrictive covenant to be removed free of charge by email, it involves the drafting of legal documentation, after all.

When I said neighbours, I meant houses that are part of the same development. For example, a row of terraced houses or your "mirror" house in the case of a semi detached. Those will have exactly the same restrictions. The point I'm trying to make is that if you see ex-la houses that are clearly part of the same development with extensions/alterations/driveways, the council is not difficult and is willing to grant permission. The issue of road safety risks exists regardless of restrictive covenants, many people with a "clean" freehold that can't get a dropped kerb.

In essence, restrictive covenants doesn't mean you can't make alterations, there's just a process you have to go through.

greenhill

I very much doubt that everyone who has ever bought an ex LA house asks the council every time they want to do something to the house they own.
Especially if it's one of the thousands of ex LA houses built in the middle of last century.

Section62

aoleks said:

No, restrictive covenants don't have anything to do with planning, but from my experience, councils don't randomly decide whether to waive the restrictions or not. They make you apply for planning permission and if your application gets approved, they allow you to have the restriction removed by their legal department. It means you are paying for a planning application when you wouldn't normally need one, but hey...

Again, no.  Planning consents and covenants on ex-LA property have no relationship.  It would be unlawful for a local planning authority to "make" someone apply for planning consent where planning law does not require them to do so.  If that has ever happened to you or someone you know then you/they should make a complaint to the authority and ask for your/their money back.

What they might say - in cases where planning consent is also required - is to apply for planning consent first, then ask for consent under the covenant after the planning process has been completed.  This would be to ensure the planning decision was unfettered and not prejudiced by the covenant consent.

aoleks said:

Costs vary indeed, but I haven't heard of a restrictive covenant to be removed free of charge by email, it involves the drafting of legal documentation, after all.

"Drafting of legal documentation" is not always required - an email saying e.g. "Yes you can put up a second shed" would be sufficient.  You may not have heard of this, but it happens frequently.

aoleks said:

When I said neighbours, I meant houses that are part of the same development. For example, a row of terraced houses or your "mirror" house in the case of a semi detached. Those will have exactly the same restrictions. The point I'm trying to make is that if you see ex-la houses that are clearly part of the same development with extensions/alterations/driveways, the council is not difficult and is willing to grant permission. The issue of road safety risks exists regardless of restrictive covenants, many people with a "clean" freehold that can't get a dropped kerb.

No, not necessarily.  The covenants that apply to an individual ex-LA property will be those the council wished to apply at the time the property was first sold, not to match covenants applying to similar properties on the estate.

The wording of covenants across an estate can vary quite widely, there's no reason why one half of a semi can't have very different covenants to the other half.

You also cannot tell by looking around an estate whether the council is "difficult" or not.  What you see could be the result of different covenants, differing levels of compliance with the covenants, and differing willingness to give consent (varying over time).  The fact consent was given for an extension/garden room for one property last month doesn't mean another property owner will get consent next month.

aoleks said:

In essence, restrictive covenants doesn't mean you can't make alterations, there's just a process you have to go through.

Yes, but if consent isn't given then you can't, without being in breach.

aoleks

No disrespect, but most of what you say is theory. Yes, most of the things you say are possible.

Likely? Not so much.

Section62

aoleks said:

No disrespect, but most of what you say is theory. Yes, most of the things you say are possible.

Likely? Not so much.

What I say is based on being directly involved in the drafting of covenants for properties being sold off by local authorities, and being involved in cases of deciding whether or not consent should be given.

What I've said about covenants and the planning consent process is based on having a reasonable knowledge of planning law, which is fact, rather than "theory".

I haven't expressed a view on the likelihood of the OP getting consent, because my experience tells me that can't be predicted without knowing a lot more about the situation.  The result can vary from day to day depending on whose desk the request lands on.

That said, what have you based your "Not so much" assessment on?  What causes you to be so confident about it?

dimsvecovs

Thanks everyone for reply. Well yes ex-council house means I can't build anything without consent.
Do you guys think a below covenant also will require me to get permission to replace a back door on the back of the garage, this door is very old wooden door which is already falling apart and I was going to replace it with the same style door but UPVC:
"Not to alter or permit to be altered the external plan elevation or appearance of the dwelling house and outbuildings thereto erected on the Property or any wall erection or building on the property or sub-divide or take down or make any external addition or alteration to the same or any part thereof except for the purpose of being immediately rebuilt and reinstated in accordance with plans and specifications to be submitted to and approved by the Transferor as landowners is previously obtained"

Also it seems like either the current owner or previous owners replaced a front door on the house, I found out about it only because I can see an older photos of the house on google maps.
The seller didn't mention anything about replacing the front door.
Does replacing the front door could be a breach of the covenants and should I request an Indemnity Insurance from the seller  because of this?

Thank you very much.

Section62

dimsvecovs said:

Thanks everyone for reply. Well yes ex-council house means I can't build anything without consent.
Do you guys think a below covenant also will require me to get permission to replace a back door on the back of the garage, this door is very old wooden door which is already falling apart and I was going to replace it with the same style door but UPVC:
"Not to alter or permit to be altered the external plan elevation or appearance of the dwelling house and outbuildings thereto erected on the Property or any wall erection or building on the property or sub-divide or take down or make any external addition or alteration to the same or any part thereof except for the purpose of being immediately rebuilt and reinstated in accordance with plans and specifications to be submitted to and approved by the Transferor as landowners is previously obtained"

Also it seems like either the current owner or previous owners replaced a front door on the house, I found out about it only because I can see an older photos of the house on google maps.
The seller didn't mention anything about replacing the front door.
Does replacing the front door could be a breach of the covenants and should I request an Indemnity Insurance from the seller  because of this?

Thank you very much.

Technically yes, I think you would need consent, unless the replacement is like for like.  However, the significance of the change is so small that I wouldn't expect the council to do anything if you don't have consent.  A situation like this is an example where a council may give consent by email with no fee payable if they were asked - it is trivial enough not to be worth doing anything else.

What might be more important is whether or not there is a FENSA certificate/building regs for the front door.

TBagpuss

No one other than your council can say for sure, but I think it is very unlikely that they would have any issue with a door being replaced with a different door.
There might be a issue if you making significant changes to the over all appearance - for instance replacing a 'normal' door with double sized French Windows, or something of that kind. 

While every council will be different, I think it is also a bit like covenant on new builds where it is more likely that they will take an interest if the neigbouring properties are still council owned and therefore your actions may affect the council's property or tenants , but obviously this is not guaranteed and different councils may have very different approaches.

If you are using a local solicitor then they may be able to give you an indication of how the council has approached things in the past, although of course that's no guarantee of how they may do so in future. 

Mine doesn't seem to worry. 

I, like most of my neighbours, have a garden shed, which is technically not allowed without consent. My predecessors tarmacked over the front garden, I have removed the tarmac, re-turfed it and put a fence up. My neighbours on one side have a large carport, conservatory,  and  garage. On the other side they have a wall separating the driveway and the back garden, and have 2 garden sheds and a summer house.
We've all replaced the wire fences with ore solid ones.

To the best of ny knowledge no one has ever consulted the council about any of it. 

If I were planning to do anything more substantial I would requests consent, just for peace of mind 

dimsvecovs

Section62 said:

Technically yes, I think you would need consent, unless the replacement is like for like.  However, the significance of the change is so small that I wouldn't expect the council to do anything if you don't have consent.  A situation like this is an example where a council may give consent by email with no fee payable if they were asked - it is trivial enough not to be worth doing anything else.

What might be more important is whether or not there is a FENSA certificate/building regs for the front door.

Thanks, after a quick search I believe FENSA certificate is not require for the front door since its got less than 50% glass on it (just a small glass strip). But I believe my solicitor still need to request a certificate showing the work was done by a registered installer and comply with building regulations? Am I correct here?
In case seller won't be able to produce such certificate I believe seller must purchase a Indemnity Insurance?

FreeBear

dimsvecovs said:

Section62 said:

Technically yes, I think you would need consent, unless the replacement is like for like.  However, the significance of the change is so small that I wouldn't expect the council to do anything if you don't have consent.  A situation like this is an example where a council may give consent by email with no fee payable if they were asked - it is trivial enough not to be worth doing anything else.

What might be more important is whether or not there is a FENSA certificate/building regs for the front door.

Thanks, after a quick search I believe FENSA certificate is not require for the front door since its got less than 50% glass on it (just a small glass strip). But I believe my solicitor still need to request a certificate showing the work was done by a registered installer and comply with building regulations? Am I correct here?

Replacing just a door does not require FENSA certificates or Building regs sign-off. Replacing a front door and frame does, regardless of how much glass it contains.

The garage will be classed as at outbuilding, so no BR or FENSA certificates would be required.