Restrictive covenant

Statex2_2

The planning permission for the summerhouse stated that it was in the grounds of no12. but actually in the woodland 29 metres from the house.  That was when the land was changed to private emenity land.

Does private amenity land have the same status as a garden? The land is not then agricultural or forest land.

One more fact that I have discovered is that when the land was originally sold, the covenants state that the land is not to be used for any purpose except  as a market garden no other trade or business is allowed. No 46 has a builders yard.

Section62

Statex2_2 said:

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.

Exactly, the neighbour (probably) had PD rights to do what they did because they were constructing outbuildings within the curtilage of their residential property (a garden).  Your case would be different because the development would be on land outside the boundary of the residential garden.

Statex2_2 said:

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 think there has been some miscommunication there, or the planner didn't fully understand that you wanted to put the caravan in the woodland.  The caravan wouldn't be incidental to the main house because it won't be located within the curtilage of the main house.  This is a fundamental principal of GPDO.

Statex2_2 said:

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.

Not necessarily.  Property developers typically use architects or planning consultants to deal with planning for them. The may know the basics, but when it comes to complicated topics like GPDO I've met only a few developers who had a good understanding of the rules.  Most of what they do doesn't involve permitted development.  What they do tend to have is enough confidence dealing with planning departments to feel they can get away with breaking the rules... having money also helps boost that confidence that if they get it wrong they can buy their way out of the situation (e.g. by paying expensive planning lawyers to get consent, or demolishing and rebuilding)

Statex2_2 said:

Does private amenity land have the same status as a garden? The land is not then agricultural or forest land.

No - that was the crux of the issue I've been talking about throughout the thread. Private amenity land is not part of the garden, does not have the same planning status, and doesn't have the same permitted development rights.  For planning purposes it has to be treated as a separate landholding, even if you own both plots.

If the 1995 consent had changed the land from woodland/agricultural to residential garden then you wouldn't have a problem with siting a caravan on it for purposes incidental to the main house.  But for some reason - probably because 'garden' wouldn't have been allowed - the application was for private amenity land.

Statex2_2 said:

One more fact that I have discovered is that when the land was originally sold, the covenants state that the land is not to be used for any purpose except  as a market garden no other trade or business is allowed. No 46 has a builders yard.

Does it allow the land to be used for residential purposes? Or is it for market garden only?

Statex2_2

Does it allow the land to be used for residential purposes? Or is it for market garden only?



The covenants state Residential 1 house only. No business to be run from the property except that of a market garden.

The covenant  for the woodland states  No building shall be placed upon the land except 1 dwelling house.but that does not exclude the building of a summerhouse or similar structure.

I was advised by the estate agent that a recent offer was made by a perspective purchaser of 70k over the asking price.He wanted to resell the house and keep the woodland and build a new house on it. but planning advised him his plans would be rejected. They also said he would eventually get permission but it would take a long time.The adjoining land on both sides of the woodland is about 2 acres each sides and they each have an ultra modern monstrosity of  a house, loved by architects, build on the plots. The estate agent said that if a house was built on the woodland plot it would sell for in excess of £1m, The present seller/owner paid £35k for the land five years ago. That was under valued,

The agent also said that he could sell the land separately for a large sum but the present owner wants to sell the house and land together.

Woolsery

Statex2_2 said:

I was advised by the estate agent that a recent offer was made by a perspective purchaser of 70k over the asking price.He wanted to resell the house and keep the woodland and build a new house on it. but planning advised him his plans would be rejected. They also said he would eventually get permission but it would take a long time.The adjoining land on both sides of the woodland is about 2 acres each sides and they each have an ultra modern monstrosity of  a house, loved by architects, build on the plots. The estate agent said that if a house was built on the woodland plot it would sell for in excess of £1m, The present seller/owner paid £35k for the land five years ago. That was under valued,

The agent also said that he could sell the land separately for a large sum but the present owner wants to sell the house and land together.

Treat everything an estate agent tells you with great caution, especially one who isn't working for you.

Statex2_2

I agree, not the most honest of professions and like secondhand car dealers economical with the truth

Statex2_2

Problem solved now , we were gazumped. A cash buyer who offered a non refundable deposit of 60k. Another dirty trick by unethical estate agents.

anselld

Statex2_2 said:

Problem solved now , we were gazumped. A cash buyer who offered a non refundable deposit of 60k. Another dirty trick by unethical estate agents.

You can't blame the estate agent for that.  They are obliged (ethically and legally) to pass on offers to the vendor.

jimbog

Statex2_2 said:

Problem solved now , we were gazumped. A cash buyer who offered a non refundable deposit of 60k. Another dirty trick by unethical estate agents.

Doesn't make sense. A prospective buyer handing over 60K deposit for a purchase that they'll not be able to get back if it falls through?

propertyrental

jimbog said:

Statex2_2 said:

Problem solved now , we were gazumped. A cash buyer who offered a non refundable deposit of 60k. Another dirty trick by unethical estate agents.

Doesn't make sense. A prospective buyer handing over 60K deposit for a purchase that they'll not be able to get back if it falls through?

£60K sounds like an Exchange deposit- which would indeed be non-refundable.

Statex2_2

propertyrental said:

jimbog said:

Statex2_2 said:

Problem solved now , we were gazumped. A cash buyer who offered a non refundable deposit of 60k. Another dirty trick by unethical estate agents.

Doesn't make sense. A prospective buyer handing over 60K deposit for a purchase that they'll not be able to get back if it falls through?

£60K sounds like an Exchange deposit- which would indeed be non-refundable.

I agree, I believe he is a developer who will resell the house and build on the land/woodland. The estate agent advised the vendor to accept that perticular offer because he is a cash buyer, she told me that. My offer was genuine but if he wants a quick sale obviously that is the best offer. 60k is a lot to lose if the deal falls through.