Restrictive covenant

Section62

Statex2_2 said:

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.

You'll almost certainly need to get explicit planning consent.  The woodland is being treated as a separate entity for planning purposes and as 'private amenity land' it won't share the permitted development rights of the dwelling.

A lawful development certificate can be issued where a development has existed without planning consent - is that the case with No1?  I.e. that they installed a self-contained caravan/log cabin, waited a while, and then applied for a LDC?  Also bear in mind if the caravan/log cabin is within the curtilage of the dwelling then the circumstances are different to placing one on a separate plot of land with a different planning use classification.

Statex2_2 said:

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?

The way I read the situation, it is unlikely to be your neighbours who take action in respect of the covenant on the woodland - it would be the as yet unidentified individual or organisation that previously owned the woodland.

I also don't think that lawyerly advice is necessarily correct.  In matters like this there is usually some test of reasonableness or degrees.  Needing to be "squeeky clean" to be able to enforce a covenant would be manifestly unfair if, say, your 'offence' is to occasionally work from home, whereas the neighbour you are complaining about is refusing to replace the boundary fence the covenant requires them to provide and maintain. (IANAL)

If you and the neighbours get into court arguing over the meaning of "caravan" then you've both lost already.  The legal costs will be disproportionate to the issue - but I think you'd have difficulty arguing that a "caravan" is not a "caravan" in any event.

user1977

Section62 said:

Statex2_2 said:

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 also don't think that lawyerly advice is necessarily correct.  In matters like this there is usually some test of reasonableness or degrees.  Needing to be "squeeky clean" to be able to enforce a covenant would be manifestly unfair if, say, your 'offence' is to occasionally work from home, whereas the neighbour you are complaining about is refusing to replace the boundary fence the covenant requires them to provide and maintain. (IANAL)

Indeed, I suspect at most all that was meant (though it would help if people link to the articles they're interpreting...) was the risk of neighbours retaliating if accusations start being thrown around about breaches of covenants. Or perhaps that you're not going to succeed with a claim that your neighbour has lowered the tone of the neighbourhood if everybody else has done the same thing. But there's no strict legal reason why the benefited proprietor needs to be "squeaky clean".

propertyrental

You still have not quoted the covenant.

Nor have you identified or quoted its origins (which could clarify beneficiaries).

You say it used to be 3 plots, and there are 6 other  similar properties - their titles also need reviewing.

There are potentially many beneficiaries as yet unidentfied.

Whether they would enforce is a moot point but the starting point is to be sure of who could.

Planning is a separate potential bridge to cross.

Statex2_2

Section62 said:

Statex2_2 said:

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.

You'll almost certainly need to get explicit planning consent.  The woodland is being treated as a separate entity for planning purposes and as 'private amenity land' it won't share the permitted development rights of the dwelling.

A lawful development certificate can be issued where a development has existed without planning consent - is that the case with No1?  I.e. that they installed a self-contained caravan/log cabin, waited a while, and then applied for a LDC?  Also bear in mind if the caravan/log cabin is within the curtilage of the dwelling then the circumstances are different to placing one on a separate plot of land with a different planning use classification.

Statex2_2 said:

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?

The way I read the situation, it is unlikely to be your neighbours who take action in respect of the covenant on the woodland - it would be the as yet unidentified individual or organisation that previously owned the woodland.

I also don't think that lawyerly advice is necessarily correct.  In matters like this there is usually some test of reasonableness or degrees.  Needing to be "squeeky clean" to be able to enforce a covenant would be manifestly unfair if, say, your 'offence' is to occasionally work from home, whereas the neighbour you are complaining about is refusing to replace the boundary fence the covenant requires them to provide and maintain. (IANAL)

If you and the neighbours get into court arguing over the meaning of "caravan" then you've both lost already.  The legal costs will be disproportionate to the issue - but I think you'd have difficulty arguing that a "caravan" is not a "caravan" in any event.

No1 applied for planning permission but was advised by the council that planning permission was not required and then the council issued a lawful development certificate.4 months after they advised him he did not require planning permission planning application.

The person who originally owner is probably dead or 120 years old.  The land as far as I am aware was sold and devided seveal times, therefore not clear which plot of land the original covenant refers to as all it states is the plot coloured yellow or Lodge Plantation as the beneficiary and the only reference to Lodge Plantation on modern maps is the woodland attached to the house that is for sale no other land.

With regard to being squeeky clean the neighbour is the one who has a listed tree in the centre of his garage and has also almost filled his plot with buildings.

Statex2_2

propertyrental said:

You still have not quoted the covenant.

Nor have you identified or quoted its origins (which could clarify beneficiaries).

You say it used to be 3 plots, and there are 6 other  similar properties - their titles also need reviewing.

There are potentially many beneficiaries as yet unidentfied.

Whether they would enforce is a moot point but the starting point is to be sure of who could.

Planning is a separate potential bridge to cross.

The beneficiary of the covenant on the three plots is not listed in any of the covenants. The covenant states that the covenant is for the mutual benefit of all plot holders. Also mentioned is that the original seller is not under any obligation to take action for any breaches of the covenants and he has the right to sell other plots without covenants.

The woodland covenant states that it is the beneficiary of land  to the south west and  also to the south east. The covenant for the plot the house is built on states it is the beneficiary of land to the south east.

There is no mention who is the beneficiary of the covenants on the woodland or the plots the house is on. There is a mention that any house built on the land has to be 25 feet from Camp Lane. Camp Lane is half a mile away therefore plots have been sub divided and sold off several times over the years.

Section62

Statex2_2 said:

No1 applied for planning permission but was advised by the council that planning permission was not required and then the council issued a lawful development certificate.4 months after they advised him he did not require planning permission planning application.

Again, the planning situation with No1 is almost certainly different to the situation you are consisdering.  The fact one person got a planning consent (or a LDC) doesn't mean the same will automatically apply to you. The woodland will not have the same permitted development rights.

Statex2_2 said:

The person who originally owner is probably dead or 120 years old.  The land as far as I am aware was sold and devided seveal times, therefore not clear which plot of land the original covenant refers to as all it states is the plot coloured yellow or Lodge Plantation as the beneficiary and the only reference to Lodge Plantation on modern maps is the woodland attached to the house that is for sale no other land.

The name "Lodge Plantation" could suggest it was previously part of a (large) country estate. Is there anything like that in the area?

Statex2_2 said:

With regard to being squeeky clean the neighbour is the one who has a listed tree in the centre of his garage and has also almost filled his plot with buildings.

Are any of those buildings built on "private amenity land"?

Statex2_2

Section62 said:

Statex2_2 said:

No1 applied for planning permission but was advised by the council that planning permission was not required and then the council issued a lawful development certificate.4 months after they advised him he did not require planning permission planning application.

Again, the planning situation with No1 is almost certainly different to the situation you are consisdering.  The fact one person got a planning consent (or a LDC) doesn't mean the same will automatically apply to you. The woodland will not have the same permitted development rights.

Statex2_2 said:

The person who originally owner is probably dead or 120 years old.  The land as far as I am aware was sold and devided seveal times, therefore not clear which plot of land the original covenant refers to as all it states is the plot coloured yellow or Lodge Plantation as the beneficiary and the only reference to Lodge Plantation on modern maps is the woodland attached to the house that is for sale no other land.

The name "Lodge Plantation" could suggest it was previously part of a (large) country estate. Is there anything like that in the area?

Statex2_2 said:

With regard to being squeeky clean the neighbour is the one who has a listed tree in the centre of his garage and has also almost filled his plot with buildings.

Are any of those buildings built on "private amenity land"?

Most of the land in that area was part of a large country estate, there is a large woodland in the area that is owned by the National Trust. Other plots seem to have been sold off and devided and sub devided.

With regard to the private  amenity land (the woodland)  the neighbours buildings are not on that land. The original covenant states that a summerhouse is allowed to be built on the land. Which was been built before it was changed to private amenity land in 1996.

Section62

Statex2_2 said:

Most of the land in that area was part of a large country estate, there is a large woodland in the area that is owned by the National Trust. Other plots seem to have been sold off and devided and sub devided.

If the area is important enough that NT are involved locally then I would expect development on 'your' piece of woodland not to go unnoticed by the authorities.  I'd also expect the estate to be the beneficiary of the original covenant, that was quite common - the people in the big house still wanted some degree of control over the land they had to sell.

Statex2_2 said:

With regard to the private  amenity land (the woodland)  the neighbours buildings are not on that land. The original covenant states that a summerhouse is allowed to be built on the land. Which was been built before it was changed to private amenity land in 1996.

No, what I meant was whether the land the neighbour had built on had the same "private amenity land" status as the woodland you are looking at.  If not, then what they have or haven't done is irrelevant in planning terms. If their land is the garden of their residential dwelling then they potentially would have permitted development rights.  "Private amenity land" doesn't have the same development rights and full PP would be required to develop the land.  "Develop" would include siting a residential 'caravan' on the land for the purpose of making it your home.

Statex2_2

The neighbours land was not private amenity land . Only the woodland was changed to  PAL pn 1995 by a previous owner of the house that is for sale with the land. I agree about the caravan but in my case it would be incidental to the main house.

Statex2_2

I have done some research and discovered that all the land in that area is designted an area of outstanding natural beauty.
I  phoned the local planning department and was advised to check on the planning portal and in an AONB any outbuilding has to be within 20 metres of any wall of the main building if over 10 sq mtrs. The planner also  advised that if the siting of the caravan and dimentions met the criteria in the planning portal, only a CLD is required if not full planning is required, The person from planning said that the caravan would come under the heading of an outbuilding on the planning portal as it was incidental to the main house.

I have done some more digging and found out that the neighbour  was a director of a property develpment company, therefore he knows  the score.