Pls help with wording on the Register - difficult to understand: Schedule of restrictive covenants

[cheeseislifeyes]

Any conveyancing solicitors around? We have the Register for the property we want to purchase but confused about the wording below for some of the points. What I'm trying to figure out is: Does it say anywhere that we CAN'T build into the garden e.g. a kitchen extension or annexe, because that's something we really want to do? I just can't understand the wording - thank you for your help:

The following are details of the stipulations contained in the Conveyance dated 1 August 1909 referred to in the Charges Register - The following is all that was in it:

1. That his lot shall not be used for any purpose other than garden ground meadow or orchard until built upon nor shall any act deed or thing be done on the said lot or in or upon any building thereon which may be or grow to be an annoyance nuisance damage or disturbance to the Vendor or the owner or tenant of any adjoining land

   2. That any house or other buildings to be in future erected on his lot
    shall be built in accordance with plans specifications and elevations
    to be first submitted to the Vendors Surveyor for the time being for
    approval both with regard to the stipulated value and the intended
    construction materials and exterior appearance. For a certificate of
    such approval the Surveyor shall be entitled to charge a fee of One
    guinea in the case of each house or other building and until such
    certificate has been obtained building shall not commence.

3. That no building other than a fence or wall shall be erected on his
   lot between the building line shown on the plan and the road or roads
   to which the lot has a frontage.

4. That no brickmaking shall be carried on nor shall any sand stone
   gravel clay or soil be removed from any plot except what may be
   necessary for excavating the foundation of any building which may be
   erected thereon or in levelling the site for a garden nor shall any
   right of way be granted or permitted across any plot.

5. That his lot shall not be used for any purpose other than garden
   ground meadow land plant nursery or orchard until built upon nor shall
   any act deed or thing be done on the said lot or in or upon any
   building thereon which may be or grow to be an annoyance nuisance
   damage or disturbance to the Vendor or the owner or tenant of any
   adjoining land

13.That not more than one detached or one semi-detached house shall be
erected on one lot and that any such house shall not be of less value
than four hundred pounds if detached or three hundred and fifty pounds
if semi-detached and every house shall be built facing the road and
shall be set back twenty feet at least therefrom"

We are really concerned about this 😅

p.s. I'm speaking to my solicitor about it, but she is away for a week and I am so so anxious about the above affecting me wanting to add a kitchen extension and annexe .

thanks for reading my thread!

It looks like it doesn't downright prohibit building into the garden, but there are some conditions that must be met-

Clause 2- suggests that any future building, including houses or other buildings, must be approved by the vendor’s surveyor in terms of plans, which means that if you want to build an extension, you would need to submit your plans to the surveyor for approval. In reality, I have no idea how this would work!

Clause 3- specifies that no building, other than a fence or wall, can be erected between the building line shown on the plan and the roads to which the lot has frontage. If your extension is planned within this restricted area, it would not be allowed. However, if the extension is behind the building line (so towards the garden and not towards the road), this clause won't apply I don't think.

Clause 5- this just suggests that once your property is built upon, extensions or changes are permissible as long as they don’t create a nuisance. Again, not sure how you would define this in reality!

I am sure that some conditions can be removed because they are no longer relevant? I don't know this for certain but am sure I heard this somewhere, sorry not to be of much help

That sounds OK. You can't build at the front of the house but a rear or side extension sounds acceptable.

As the sale in question was over 100 years ago I don't think clause 2 could be remotely enforced.

These covenants aren’t restricting the size of your house so an extension would be part of the house, I’d argue. They are not a separate building but an extension of the building already there. They do not restrict an extension. It’s up to your lawyer to confirm tho.

Thanks all for your responses!
I did some reading on Solicitor Google and seems that these types of clauses are common, and unlikely to be enforced. they are mainly about getting permission to do them from the "vendor" and their successors. But as @Ellmau pointed out, it was 100+ years ago so possibly nothing to worry about as no one around to ask permission from.

I will have to check with my real solicitor but I might be able to get indemnity insurance.

would getting indemnity insurance for something like this devalue my house and/or put off future buyers?

They are from 1921, you can get insurance against them if your worried and any beneficiaries would be to evidence it to then win the argument against you to remove anything not allowed. Very low risk imo.

*Would need to evidence it ....

Basically if someone wants to take action against you they need to prove they are aggrieved, and prove you've materially breached the covenant.

Worst case insurance maybe £2-300.

I work in residential real estate. Honestly wouldn't worry and I'm sure your solicitor will reiterate that.

Don’t trust what anyone except a fully qualified solicitor tells you here. Not a conveyancing outfit, not a load of internet opiners, etc etc etc. It sounds like this is very standard (now) boilerplate text from a century ago in which case it’s probably an anachronism, but get a pro to cover that one off.

there are some mad and very out of keeping covenants out there. —99% sure this will be fine— but to read them you’d think they were basically precluding Any normal, reasonable renovations or expansions.

I had a covenant a bit like this on a previous house OP - it explicitly stated we weren’t allowed to change the external appearance of the house and we wanted to do an extension. We sought advice (as our solicitor wasn’t very helpful) and were told that basically, so long as the work meets current planning permission/permitted development, we were fine. But as others have said, do check with your solicitor.

I love bonkers restrictive covenants on old properties. My current home bars me from having a fairground in the garden (chance would be a fine thing - small terraced house) or selling alcohol from the front room, and the house I’m buying stipulates I may only hang out washing on certain days of the week.

Yes, you could theoretically be sued. But only by the person who holds the benefit of the restrictive covenant.

If you read the covenant it should indicate who that person or company is, or it may even be a class of people, for example your neighbours.

If the Covenant says that this is for the benefit of the original developer then they likely aren't going to be around any more to complain.

However, if the Covenant is for the benefit of your neighbours then watch out, they can still enforce them.

Here is an example from an insurance company:

https://isis-icon.co.uk/home/casestudy/2

Stunted growth

We were approached to provide a Restrictive Covenant indemnity for a property owner who wished to add a second storey to their bungalow. The property, in Sidmouth, Devon, was subject to restrictive covenants dating back to 1923 and 1957, the benefits of which were held by their neighbours. The covenants related to building lines and building height, and as the owner intended to breach these covenants, cover was required.

After considering the details, it was our opinion that the covenants relating to building height had already been breached previously. We therefore agreed to offer cover for the property owner on a pre-planning basis and the policy was issued with a limit of indemnity of £850,000.

During the consultation period, when the planning application was open for comments, two of their neighbours decided to enforce the covenants, and so the insured notified us of a claim against the policy.

Thwarted

Our claims team initially attempted to negotiate with the two benefiting neighbours, but neither was willing to release or vary the terms of the covenants. Our team then considered applying to the Lands Tribunal to have the covenants amended, but the opinion was that the likelihood of a successful application was slim at best. So, with the proposed works unable to proceed, and no other avenues to explore to rectify the situation, the only course of action left was to indemnify the policyholder for the loss.

Payout

Despite being unable to extend the property as planned, thanks to their Restrictive Covenant policy being taken out on a pre-planning basis, they were able to recoup their losses. In total, the insured was compensated with £38,498 which covered the loss in value of the property due to the covenants being enforceable, as well as other associated abortive costs and fees.