Buying a house from the Church of England

Greenboots

I am currently trying to buy a house that is being sold by the Church of England, there are some very unusual clauses in the title deeds and I wanted to see if anyone has purchased a property from them and if they had the same included as they state it is their normal standard clauses always included.

Land contamination, they want to be indemnified for any land contamination, my solicitor advises that they have never seen a clause such as this in a domestic sale, not even new builds built on brown field, the church solicitor states this clause is always included.

Property additions alterations, the property is grade two listed so governed by listed building consent, however they want approval on all changes by their surveyor. 

The local council and environment agency have both confirmed that there is no known contamination.

if you have purchased a property from the church and are willing to share if you had these clauses and were you able to have them removed I would appreciate the information.

thank you

Mark_d

Re. land contamination - I think this can be dealt with via indemnity insurance.

I don't understand why they want to approve all property changes.  Is this a leasehold property?

YBR

I have no experience of buying a church property, but is the property close to a church graveyard or similar? Sadly, that's the kind of "land contamination" that springs to mind in that context. (I do know exhuming old graves and reburying remains properly, with respect, can be very expensive).

If it is close to a church, particularly if it's a picturesque one popular for weddings, that might explain their desire to control changes to the property, but also generally people can be very attached to "their" church, vicarage, rectory or whatever, even (sometimes especially) those who only go at Christmas if you're lucky!

eddddy

Greenboots said:

Land contamination, they want to be indemnified for any land contamination, my solicitor advises that they have never seen a clause such as this in a domestic sale, not even new builds built on brown field, the church solicitor states this clause is always included.

As above, some/many of the properties that the church sells might be near graveyards. And burials can cause groundwater contamination.

(Without wanting to sound too gruesome, decomposing bodies can cause bacteria growth and release 'fluids' etc. Plus some old embalming fluids could have contained mercury etc. And some coffins might contain lead etc.)

So maybe the church just add that clause as standard to all contracts, even when the property isn't near a graveyard.

Greenboots

The property is not near a church or graveyard so there is no problem with anything in that regard, however your thoughts maybe why they state the clauses are standard with any property title deeds the church sells and they need to revise for property they sell that is not near to a church or graveyard. I appreciate your posts as it has given me a different perspective to continue the negotiations for the removal of the clauses. Thank you 

Greenboots

The property is being sold as freehold and the covenant requiring the church surveyors having the right to permit or not any alterations is being rejected, again the church states it’s a standard clause. My solicitor has said that it will impact on future value and sale, and is not acceptable, particularly as they will charge anything between £300 to £500 per review, 

user1977

What sort of property is it? If there seems no particular risk of contamination then indemnifying the sellers seems a non-point - in practice buyers don't rely on being able to find and sue the sellers years down the line.

Is the church retaining neighbouring property? That might explain the control over alterations (though I agree it's unusual and likely to put off future buyers/lenders).

Section62

Greenboots said:

The property is not near a church or graveyard so there is no problem with anything in that regard, however your thoughts maybe why they state the clauses are standard with any property title deeds the church sells and they need to revise for property they sell that is not near to a church or graveyard. I appreciate your posts as it has given me a different perspective to continue the negotiations for the removal of the clauses. Thank you 

The absence of visible graves/gravestones doesn't mean the land has never been used for burials.  It would take extensive (and expensive) research to rule out the possibility, so it is understandable the church would want to use an indemnity to cover themselves instead.

In terms of alterations, listing of buildings only goes so far, you can get listed building consent from the local planning authority and some are only too willing to give consent for changes which fundamentally alter the building.  If the building is listed it means there is something about it in terms of age or character, and if that is important to the church then it is also understandable they would want a say on alterations, rather than just relying on the local council to do the right thing (because often they don't).

Owning a listed building comes with a whole load of additional responsibilities and complications.  I'm not sure if your solicitor has explained these to you, but if you aren't happy with what the church are asking for then you might want to discuss with your solicitor whether owning this listed building is right for you, and the plans you have.... although it isn't clear your solicitor can provide such advice, so you might need specialist help.

Greenboots

The property is surrounded by farm land which has never been used for anything else, as per local knowledge and searches. So definitely not used for burials as far as historic documentation goes back. However the church have a currently unapproved planning application submitted in 2020 for land near by other side of a brook to be turned into building land for 200+ houses. The other oddity is they wish to retain ownership of land below 1m underneath the property and the air space 3m above therefore if I bought it and there was contamination they would under the current contract own the land beneath 1m over which I would have no responsibility as it would not belong to me, this is another issue being raised as it is not normal to sell as freehold with such a retention of ownership. I believe they are protecting all points of access for services to the land they are trying to get permission to build the 200+ houses on. All of the above my solicitor is advising/ reviewing and currently scanning Rightmove for plan b, thanks for all your comments really appreciate as different perspectives always bring clarity eventually.