freeholder

LongoBongo

With the OP unwilling to give details of size or wording of the lease, either an 8x6 or 6x4 shed would normally be usual and appropriate for modest domestic garden, if just being used as a garden shed. If there’s something specified in the lease I’d expect it to be one of those 2 sizes.

From the description given (leisure/entertainment and a home gym) it suggests they’ve got a couple of chalet style structures that are used night and day. However cordial relations might seem with neighbours, it wouldn’t be much of a surprise if there had been a complaint.

DE_612183

LongoBongo said:

With the OP unwilling to give details of size or wording of the lease, either an 8x6 or 6x4 shed would normally be usual and appropriate for modest domestic garden, if just being used as a garden shed. If there’s something specified in the lease I’d expect it to be one of those 2 sizes.

From the description given (leisure/entertainment and a home gym) it suggests they’ve got a couple of chalet style structures that are used night and day. However cordial relations might seem with neighbours, it wouldn’t be much of a surprise if there had been a complaint.

Also would suggest that there must be some sort of power supply as well - which is not the norm for a "garden shed" - I assume they are ground floor flat as running electrics from an upstairs flat might be dodgy!

Herzlos

Are they actually sheds or are they outbuildings? It sounds like you've essentially got at least 2 summerhouses, one used as a bar and one as a gym.

Do they look like sheds from outside? Are they used later in the evenings when you'd expect gardens to be quiet?
How many structures are there in total?

a few feet in each direction could be significant. If you're only allowed a normal sized shed, say 8'x6', a few feet in each direction could double the footprint (12'x8').

Skiddaw1

user1977 said:

Swingers' club. Must be.

Have to say, that was my immediate thought too. Sorry, OP, if we're completely off the mark....

propertyrental

All this speculation about the sheds is irrelevant. All that matters is

1) the exact wording in the lease regarding sheds (OP does not seem to have a copy of the lease so.....)

2) the exact size of the sheds, and whether larger or smaller than 1) above

3) whether the freeholder has discretion (again, refer to 1) above) and if so whether he wishes to use that discretion (it appears not)

4) whether the freeholder is willing to vary the terms of the lease (unlikely) and if so whether he is able to (other leases are probably affected)

jrawle

propertyrental said:

All this speculation about the sheds is irrelevant. All that matters is

[...]

True, but it may explain why a neighbour has complained to the freeholder. If it were just a small garden shed to store a lawnmower, probably no-one would be bothered. What the OP has described sounds like two outbuildings used for activities that may disturb the neighbours: noise in the evenings, etc. Plus they are probably taller and more substantial than a traditional shed (I hit my head on the doorway of mine if I'm not careful; these outbuildings are presumably as tall as a standard building) plus the fencing also sounds unneighbourly. Whoever has complained probably wouldn't have said anything if it were a genuine shed; they are only complaining because the activities that these outbuildings are used for are disturbing them, and this is by far the easiest route to getting something done (rather than having to go the council about noise - good luck with that).

Section62

jrawle said:

propertyrental said:

All this speculation about the sheds is irrelevant. All that matters is

[...]

True, but it may explain why a neighbour has complained to the freeholder. If it were just a small garden shed to store a lawnmower, probably no-one would be bothered. What the OP has described sounds like two outbuildings used for activities that may disturb the neighbours: noise in the evenings, etc. Plus they are probably taller and more substantial than a traditional shed (I hit my head on the doorway of mine if I'm not careful; these outbuildings are presumably as tall as a standard building) plus the fencing also sounds unneighbourly. Whoever has complained probably wouldn't have said anything if it were a genuine shed; they are only complaining because the activities that these outbuildings are used for are disturbing them, and this is by far the easiest route to getting something done (rather than having to go the council about noise - good luck with that).

What is a "genuine shed"?  There's nothing in law about what you do with a shed (which is an "outbuilding") save for wanting to turn it into a habitable building or run a business from it.  A shed is still a shed if you fit it out with a crystal chandelier and shagpile carpet, or whatever takes anyone's fancy.

Why someone complained (assuming anyone has) is now irrelevant.  The freeholder knows about the issue and doesn't seem inclined to take a flexible approach.  The OP agreeing to not play loud music, or not wearing a mankini (or whatever) when exercising, is unlikely to make any difference to the outcome now the breach of the lease is known by the freeholder.

bobster2

propertyrental said:

All this speculation about the sheds is irrelevant. All that matters is

I would say it's relevant because people breach clauses in leases and restrictive covenants all the time. It's very common.

These breaches only become an issue when someone decides they want to do something about the breach.

For this to happen the breach needs to be sufficiently obvious to get noticed - and someone needs to feel strongly about it for one reason or another.

propertyrental

Yes people breach leases all the time. Sometimes there are no consequences, sometimes there are. In this case, there are consequences.

It matters not a jot who, if anyone, complained to the freeholder.

Nor what % of the garden the sheds cover.

Nor what the sheds are used for.

Nor whether it is two sheds, or a tall shed, or... anything else.

The bottom line is that the shed breaches the lease (we are told, though OP still has not confirmed the lease), the freeholder knows (how is irrelevant) and the freeholder has complained.