What does this covenant mean, in practice?

[StuckInARug]

We've just received the report from our solicitors on a house we're in the process of buying. There is a covenant which states:

"The Purchaser shall not be entitled to any right of light or air which
would in any manner diminish or interfere with the free and
unrestricted user of any adjoining property now or formerly belonging
to the Vendors either for building or any other purpose"

I will ask my solicitor to clarify what this could mean, but in the meanwhile has anyone come across this? Is this a problem?

Just to explain, the house is one of two pairs of semi-detached victorian houses, built by the same builder (they all look exactly the same).

Sounds like you're not allowed to build any extentions?

you don’t have the right to claim that an adjacent building is interfering with your light or breeze. So if they put up a giant building in an adjacent lot you can’t object on those grounds.

It is saying you don’t have a right to light over the neighbours property, so they could block the light passing over their property and through your windows. That could be by having tall trees which block the light.

Thanks all. I am guessing this will refer to the 4 houses then, as they will all have been built by this "Vendor". None of them have extensions but it seems like it woulnd't impact on us potentially extending - on the contrary, it sounds like it would mean neighbours wouldn't be able to object to us extending (if they also have the same covenant attached to their properties)?? (not that we would want to do anything to upset neighbours of course! If we were to extend it would be just a couple of metres are it's quite a big house already)

just to add this covenant is from the 1960s when the property was first registered. I think it was built in 1900.

You could still object to a neighbour's extension during the usual planning process. You cannot however take legal action against neighbours such as an injunction to stop the building work, on the grounds of loss of light or air. Your common law rights to light and air over the neighbouring properties have been removed by that covenant.

My house has this. It is apparently more common when there was still land available around your plot when yours was built. Mine was the one of the first to be built so the adjoining plots were clearly to be sold. The clause saw that the owner in the 1930s couldn’t object to houses being built on neighbouring plots.

Only the person who registered the covenant can enforce it, if your property is Victorian I can conclusively say that person is dead. Don't worry

I don’t think that’s true, @motogirl , otherwise the growth in indemnities would never have happened.
It is unlikely that the descendants of the covenant holder is coming back to enforce it though.

@NewHouseNewMe I suspect our situation is similar, the original deeds show the land at the back of the garden used to be the garden for a row of houses, however since then it’s been turned into a small road and more houses (I imagine this was done decades ago as the houses look a bit dated). I think we won’t worry too much about this then, as the whole land seems to have been built on already! Main concern would be next door neighbour selling the end of their garden for development…

Right to Light has a very specific legal meaning. It is totally separate from hte planning system.

I think you could still object to any planning applications on neighbouring properties on the accepted planning grounds, including loss of amenity due to overshadowing etc

We've got exactly this covenant on some land bundled with the house we're buying (it's a big part of the garden that is listed as a separate title), were worried this is going to be an issue with the mortgage lender Nat west at the completion stage - presumably they would see the titles. Does anyone have experience of this?