One for the property legal gurus out there.
Discussion
We are in the process of moving & would like to put up a small (2m x 2.5m) extension to house an en-suite, it would be on the front of the property.
The property "covenants" say building to the front isn't allowed but they also say the builder can override/change this & that the builder (still trading) should in all cases approve building changes beforehand.
Obviously I am trying to get an appointment to meet with them beforehand to discuss this before we put any money into the plans etc.
But there are several houses in the road that have actually gone ahead without doing this as planning permission does not routinely refer to any covenants or original buildings anyway. So the precedant has been set (with the local planning dept) for building where it shouldn't be allowed by the covenant.
My question is, if I were to just go ahead, apply for planning and (assuming it were granted) go ahead with the work, would there ever be any come back further down the line due to NOT adhering to the covenant?
The property "covenants" say building to the front isn't allowed but they also say the builder can override/change this & that the builder (still trading) should in all cases approve building changes beforehand.
Obviously I am trying to get an appointment to meet with them beforehand to discuss this before we put any money into the plans etc.
But there are several houses in the road that have actually gone ahead without doing this as planning permission does not routinely refer to any covenants or original buildings anyway. So the precedant has been set (with the local planning dept) for building where it shouldn't be allowed by the covenant.
My question is, if I were to just go ahead, apply for planning and (assuming it were granted) go ahead with the work, would there ever be any come back further down the line due to NOT adhering to the covenant?
smokey mow said:
Potentially yes.
Planning will only consider your application against the planning requirements (statute). The covenant is a civil matter and enforced by the beneficiary and not the local authority.
You are kind of saying what I would expect WRT planning hence how others have managed it.Planning will only consider your application against the planning requirements (statute). The covenant is a civil matter and enforced by the beneficiary and not the local authority.
Hence why I want to get them on-side before going ahead.
To add another (length of a piece of string) question, if I did go ahead without prior approval from the builder & they decided further down the line to take civil action, what form might this take?
“ It would normally be a civil claim for breach of covenant. They could potentially seek an injunction to reverse the work or claim damages, but whether they’d actually pursue it depends on the specific covenant, whether they still have the legal right to enforce it, and whether it’s worth the time and cost”
As the builder is still trading, perhaps best to just ask them? Most covenants are basically to keep the development looking nice until they are all sold..
My house was built in 1970 & it along with most houses in the road have had work done, against the numerous and often daft covenants.
If we sell, the next buyer can buy a very cheap insurance to cover it. As it is so cheap, that would infer that it is very unlikely to be used! So a box ticking / money spinner .
As the builder is still trading, perhaps best to just ask them? Most covenants are basically to keep the development looking nice until they are all sold..
My house was built in 1970 & it along with most houses in the road have had work done, against the numerous and often daft covenants.
If we sell, the next buyer can buy a very cheap insurance to cover it. As it is so cheap, that would infer that it is very unlikely to be used! So a box ticking / money spinner .
I’m pretty sure the covenant holder would need to be able to demonstrate a loss due to your breach for a successful action. Given others have already done the same and nothing has happened I’d just crack on.
A new infill house got built opposite me and they ignored covenants as well as planning. They were supposed to build a bike shed with charging which they didn’t do. The planning clause is actually showing as refused on the council site but I’d put money on nothing ever happening. It’s been like that for a year with people living in it despite the planning saying occupation is not allowed until all their clauses are completed.
A new infill house got built opposite me and they ignored covenants as well as planning. They were supposed to build a bike shed with charging which they didn’t do. The planning clause is actually showing as refused on the council site but I’d put money on nothing ever happening. It’s been like that for a year with people living in it despite the planning saying occupation is not allowed until all their clauses are completed.
The originator of the covenant may not be the only beneficiary?
If the covenant is there to stop you building some eyesore extension, everyone else in the road also benefits.
In this case they may have diluted that by building their own eyesore extensions.
A covenant on one plot can be contractual for the agreement between the developer and the buyer of another plot.
Sometimes it's there to prevent 'over development'.
AIUI, it can get messy and expensive.
There are specialist lawyers for this.
You could tell the vendor you'll only buy if he gets the covenant removed or settled or whatever?
If the covenant is there to stop you building some eyesore extension, everyone else in the road also benefits.
In this case they may have diluted that by building their own eyesore extensions.
A covenant on one plot can be contractual for the agreement between the developer and the buyer of another plot.
Sometimes it's there to prevent 'over development'.
AIUI, it can get messy and expensive.
There are specialist lawyers for this.
You could tell the vendor you'll only buy if he gets the covenant removed or settled or whatever?
E-bmw said:
Sheepshanks said:
E-bmw said:
But there are several houses in the road that have actually gone ahead without doing this ....
How do you know they didn't get approval from the builder?When you sell, you can’t get covenant insurance if the developer knows about the work etc. Which they would have guessed as you asked?!
E-bmw said:
To add another (length of a piece of string) question, if I did go ahead without prior approval from the builder & they decided further down the line to take civil action, what form might this take?
Assuming the builder actually took legal action (which has many variable to it) he would ask for a mandatory injunction to compel you to demolish the extension and restore the property the state it was in prior to the work. Failure to abide by an injunction is enforced by contempt of court, which would be initiated by the builder. Penalties if in contempt range from fines to a period of time in prison.
v8notbrave said:
Simply for the cost Vs benefit is such a small extension worth it? Can u be more ambitious, once they're doing footings, walls etc the incremental cost of say an extra metre isn't huge
Yes it is, we don't NEED the extra space, we are downsizing, this just gives us an extra bathroom in the shape of an en-suite if anyone but us is there, which is all we want.Gassing Station | Homes, Gardens and DIY | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff