Restrictive covenant on house built 40 years ago

Section62

Woolsery said:

I don't know if youre right or wrong, Section 62, but it seems to me that if such vagueness about enforceability is possible, it leaves members of the public in a position of uncertainty, which as I've already pointed out, isn't the best situation.

I'm not sure it is vagueness.  It (like much of the law) is about reasonableness.  There are so many variables when it comes to something like keeping hens that it would be near impossible to have a simple yes/no answer which was fair to everybody.

Uncertainty exists in almost everything we do.  Not knowing whether or not you can keep hens on the balcony of your flat probably comes fairly well near the bottom of most people's worries.  If keeping hens is really important to you, you'd ask your solicitor as part of the conveyancing process.  The same principle applies to all the other things typically included in covenants - it is difficult to understand how some people miss some of the more obvious ones like "thou shalt not alter, extend or build without permission".

Although to be fair, the hive mind of the internet telling people "nobody ever enforces covenants, you can totally ignore them" doesn't help improve general understanding of the risks people take when they willingly sign a legal agreement that constrains their freedom to do what they like with the property they are purchasing.

Woolsery

Section62 said:

Woolsery said:

I don't know if youre right or wrong, Section 62, but it seems to me that if such vagueness about enforceability is possible, it leaves members of the public in a position of uncertainty, which as I've already pointed out, isn't the best situation.

I'm not sure it is vagueness.  It (like much of the law) is about reasonableness. 

 Well, the Statute law, applicable nearly everywhere, suggests it's reasonable. Noise from cockerels may not be, but that's covered. Nothing deemed a 'nuisance' by a court is reasonable. Similarly, wishing to do odd things on the balconies of high rise blocks etc will be covered in other ways.

Section62

Woolsery said:

Section62 said:

Woolsery said:

I don't know if youre right or wrong, Section 62, but it seems to me that if such vagueness about enforceability is possible, it leaves members of the public in a position of uncertainty, which as I've already pointed out, isn't the best situation.

I'm not sure it is vagueness.  It (like much of the law) is about reasonableness. 

Well, the Statute law, applicable nearly everywhere, suggests it's reasonable.

I think it is arguable that legislation passed in 1950 - when food rationing was a 'thing' and keeping hens and rabbits meant a supply of eggs and game meat - is more likely to fail the test of "still relevant today" than the average covenant.  Particularly in light of the growing epidemic of avian influenza (largely unreported by the media) which (IMO) may soon result in a ban on keeping poultry in close proximity to people.  Back garden poultry keeping is going to be difficult to sustain if things get worse.

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/avian-influenza-bird-flu

Woolsery said:

Noise from cockerels may not be, but that's covered. Nothing deemed a 'nuisance' by a court is reasonable.

I don't know the case law, but I don't think S12 is applicable to cockerels at all.  ('Hens' refers to females of the species, unless the provisions of one of the Interpretation Acts applies here?)

Woolsery said:

Similarly, wishing to do odd things on the balconies of high rise blocks etc will be covered in other ways.

But much easier to restrict the keeping of hens (or other livestock) by covenant.

Attempting to return to the thread topic - planning law restricts the kinds of sheds that people can put up in their back gardens.  That is just one such "other way".  However, from a developer point of view, a covenant is a neater and simpler way of retaining control over changes people may wish to make to a property they buy