Restrictive covenant

Statex2_2

Wonder if  anyone has any knowledge of restrictive covenants? I have a really tricky situation. I am considering the purchase of a property which also owns the bordering 2 acre wood. The usual no sheds , no caravans rule applies in the covenant dated 1926. I wanted to buy it with my son who would live in the house  and we would live in a "Norwegian Log Homes " log home which is classed as a caravan under the act. No problem with planning as not a permanent building and for the use of a relative.

The covenant states no shed , house on wheels etc., on the land attached to the house and only a summer house allowed on the 2 acre wood, which it has. The beneficiary is not clearly mentioned. If the covenant is breached on the woodland no one would see it anyway. 

The house covenant states that it is for the benefit of the owner of the wood, which you would own anyway.  Could this have been a larger wood split into several plots. There are 20 houses in the road next to the house and would they all be beneficiaries.The wood is at the rear of the house and 6 other houses. There are no foot paths crossing the wood.

Any one have any thoughts. 

user1977

I think you'll need to tell us exactly what it says about the benefitted property. If you own all of the benefitted property then I would expect the covenant is irrelevant. 

Section62

Statex2_2 said:

No problem with planning as not a permanent building and for the use of a relative.

Have you checked this with the local planning authority?  Whether or not the development is permanent or not isn't usually relevant (a common planning misconception), and who is using it generally isn't a planning matter.

If you'd be relying on a permitted development right then bear in mind these aren't universal.  If the right is for the house, then it applies to the house and the land within the curtilage of the house, not to neighbouring land owned by the same person.  It is quite likely the council will regard the woodland as outside the curtilage of the dwelling.

Councils are generally fairly keen to take enforcement action against people attempting to create a new dwelling in circumstances like this.  It is a well known 'trick' to site a caravan on a piece of land, make it a bit more permanent, then try to get planning to convert it into a house/mansion. Expect someone from the council to visit sooner rather than later, and a letter following soon afterwards.

Statex2_2 said:

...The beneficiary is not clearly mentioned. If the covenant is breached on the woodland no one would see it anyway.

The house covenant states that it is for the benefit of the owner of the wood, which you would own anyway.....

You'll need to do further research on the past land ownerhsip to try and identify who the beneficiary of the covenant on the woodland is.  It may be one of the large landowners in the area.

You'd be surprised what people see.  The ease of access to detailed aerial photography makes it very easy to spot development that people imagine is completely hidden from the council.  If you take steps to conceal the development then the council's ability to enforce is extended beyond the normal time limits.  And if one of the neighbours doesn't like the idea of a 'caravan' in the woods they don't need to be able to see it to report it to the council.

propertyrental

Statex2_2 said:

Wonder if  anyone has any knowledge of restrictive covenants? I have a really tricky situation. I am considering the purchase of a property which also owns the bordering 2 acre wood.
Property cannot own property. Do you mean the two properties (house and wood) are owed by the same person. Are they both registered at LR? Separately? Is the seller selling both?
The usual no sheds , no caravans rule applies in the covenant dated 1926. Covenant where? House? Woods? I wanted to buy it - it or them? with my son who would live in the house  and we would live in a "Norwegian Log Homes " log home which is classed as a caravan under the act. No problem with planning as not a permanent building and for the use of a relative.Where would the Log Home be?

The covenant states no shed , house on wheels etc., on the land attached to the house and only a summer house allowed on the 2 acre wood, which it has. The beneficiary is not clearly mentioned. If the covenant is breached on the woodland no one would see it anyway. 
Have you seen /read the original document (a Conveyance? Deed?) dated 1926? Who are the parties to that document?

The house covenant states that it is for the benefit of the owner of the wood, which you would own anyway.  Ah so you are buying both? Could this have been a larger wood split into several plots. Possible There are 20 houses in the road next to the house and would they all be beneficiaries. Possible The wood is at the rear of the house and 6 other houses. There are no foot paths crossing the wood.

Have you looked at the Titles of the other 6 houses....?

diystarter7

Sorry, slightly different who enforces any covenant?
We had a 1930's property with 18 foot dtrip of land to the side and the covenant states, "no separate dwelling to built on side"

We sold that one over 20 years ago but always wondered. Thanks

Section62

diystarter7 said:

Sorry, slightly different who enforces any covenant?
We had a 1930's property with 18 foot dtrip of land to the side and the covenant states, "no separate dwelling to built on side"

We sold that one over 20 years ago but always wondered. Thanks

Perhaps it would be better if you started your own thread rather than sidetracking the OP's?  The answer in your case is likely to be different to the OP's case.

ProDave

I think the OP has bigger issues.

While you can site a "caravan" in the garden of a dwelling within permitted development rules for use incidental to the dwelling, there are two big issues.

Firstly I doubt the woodland is classed as the garden of the house, so regardless of the covenant, I suspect the council will have something to say about a "caravan" in the woods.

Secondly incidental to the dwelling means it shares some facilities with the house.  So are you not going to have a kitchen in your "caravan in the woods" and come to the main house for meals, or are you not going to have a toilet and come to the house to use that?  It cannot be fully self contained and still be classed as "incidental usege to the house"

Statex2_2

user1977 said:

I think you'll need to tell us exactly what it says about the benefitted property. If you own all of the benefitted property then I would expect the covenant is irrelevant. 

The woodland and the house were originally 3 separate plots and there have been several owners of the 3 plots over the years. Each has to transfer the land with the covenants. The wording is so confusing and cotradictory I will sort out the wording and post in the forum.

Statex2_2

I have done some research of the area and  house no 1 in the road has sited a caravan/log cabin with kitchen and bathroom for the use of their children. The council said no planning permission required and issued a Lawful Use Certificate.

A house at the rear of the one I am considering has permission for a cabin/ holiday let to replace caravan in the garden.

The woodland was changed 5 years ago from agricultural land to private amenity land via planning application.

I read an article from a lawyer which stated that for neighbours to make a claim under a covenant, they must be squeeky clean and not have breached any covenant themselves.. Every house in the road has broken the covenants. No12a has 8 trees with TPO's he wanted to build a double garage. Therefore he applied and was granted permission to build around 1 tree. I could not believe it the tree is in the centre of his garage with the crown poking out of the garage roof.

The definition of a caravan under the act is that it is  possible to transport it on wheels or on the back of a lorry in 2 pieces picked up by a crane etc. The mobile home does not have to have wheels.

The original wording states no caravans or homes on wheels. It does not state mobile home or cabin that is transportable. Could that be argued in court?

Statex2_2

The wording of the covenant for the land plot 3 states that a dwelling house can be built but also states no caravans homes on wheels, sheds or chicken houses. Except a summer house or similar structure . What is the legal definition of a summer house. The original transfer of land plot 1 states no building in front of the building line. Land plot 2 which in front of the plot that the house is on states no more that 2 houses but also states no sheds buildings, greenhouses, chicken houses. I believe that the land has been sold off over the years and the covenants are all jumbled together and contradictory. I was looking at another house with land in Essex and the wording of the covenants on caravans homes on wheels was verry similar also sold around 1926. Were these covenants standard practice at that time.?

anselld

You stated the cabin is classed as a caravan.  You cannot really argue it is a caravan for planning purposes but not a caravan for covenant purposes.