166 thoughts on “Restrictive covenants on property”
I own an equestrian property and one covenant listed by the seller was only to use the property for equestrian , agricultural or a
single domestic residence. It was purchased with planning permission for a small house with an equestrian tie, which we subsequently built, however, a building on the property looks to be eligible for a class Q conversion. Is there any way I can do this?
Planning law and legal rights and restrictions in relation to property do not normally have much of a
bearing on each other.
We would really need to consider what is proposed in much more detail before we could advise as to
whether or not a restrictive covenant would “bite” on those proposals.
Hi – I have a freehold property but a restriction that I can’t have a hedge or fence around the front of my property , whilst you can’t advise on single cases, is this something that is common and how would I get it removed? If I was successful in removing it, I’ve read it can take up to 2 years? Is that correct?
“Removing” restrictive covenants isn’t really what happens. They are normally declared obsolete or
varied.
We’re not sure whether or not it is fair to say that it is a common restrictive covenant, but it isn’t
unusual. The extent to which a restrictive covenant no longer serves a purpose, and therefore might be
obsolete, depends on what the restrictive covenant was created to protect in the first place. It would
not be unusual for a developer of an estate to want to ensure that all of their properties had a certain
look or character, but the extent to which such a restriction would serve any further purpose by the
time the developer has sold the last property is questionable. It really is all about thinking about who
benefits from the restriction and why.
As for the time it takes to address a restrictive covenant, this isn’t really something that has a set time
limit. There are ways to address the risk involved ranging from an agreement with the beneficiary of the
restriction, insurance (sometimes) to applications to the Tribunal. A Tribunal application does take time
but there is not a “fixed” or “standard” time limit.
We currently own a property. The deeds we have date back to 1960 and contain outdated terms and conditions. In the Conveyance it states no new dwellings to be built on any plots on the estate aswell as many other restrictions we have looked up the estate owners and company and both are not active company’s is there any advise you can give to help get something in writing as we’d like to submit drawings to council for a new dwelling
Many Thanks
Whilst it is always worth considering whether or not the beneficiary of a restrictive covenant would
enforce it, it is not always “safe” to assume that it will not.
Restrictive covenants can become outdated and obsolete. However, the question as to the extent to
which it can be argued that it no longer applies depends on the purpose for which it was registered in
the first instance. For very old restrictive covenants, where there has been a substantial change in the
nature of the area in question, this point is often nebulous and regularly debated and argued about. In
short, if the restriction is no longer required to protect that which it was initially intended, it may be
obsolete. It his is often not a simple question to answer.
Anyone can apply to the council for planning permission. This isn’t in itself relevant to the enforceability
of any restrictive covenant. Just because the council implements planning policy in a particular way
does not change the legal position when it comes to the property or land in question.
When you sell a property, do you have to disclose its problems? For the most part, no, but there is one important exception. Mark Taylor explains latent title defects, what the courts have decided, and why disclosing early is usually the cheaper path.
Members of Cunningtons Solicitors’ Wills & Probate and Litigation teams are coming to Manningtree Library for a free advice pop-up this September, and everyone is welcome to drop in. Between 10:30am and 1:00pm on Friday 11th September Katrina Sharman, Jane Adams and Sean Kirk will be on hand at Manningtree Library to offer free initial […]
Brighton has always been London's favourite escape. But since Covid made hybrid working the norm, the move has started to stick in a way it never quite did before. Our Brighton solicitors look at the property market, the commute reality, the Silicon Beach tech community, and why so many Brighton buyers end up in Worthing a few years later.
I own an equestrian property and one covenant listed by the seller was only to use the property for equestrian , agricultural or a
single domestic residence. It was purchased with planning permission for a small house with an equestrian tie, which we subsequently built, however, a building on the property looks to be eligible for a class Q conversion. Is there any way I can do this?
Thank you for your comment.
Planning law and legal rights and restrictions in relation to property do not normally have much of a
bearing on each other.
We would really need to consider what is proposed in much more detail before we could advise as to
whether or not a restrictive covenant would “bite” on those proposals.
Hi – I have a freehold property but a restriction that I can’t have a hedge or fence around the front of my property , whilst you can’t advise on single cases, is this something that is common and how would I get it removed? If I was successful in removing it, I’ve read it can take up to 2 years? Is that correct?
Thank you for your comment.
“Removing” restrictive covenants isn’t really what happens. They are normally declared obsolete or
varied.
We’re not sure whether or not it is fair to say that it is a common restrictive covenant, but it isn’t
unusual. The extent to which a restrictive covenant no longer serves a purpose, and therefore might be
obsolete, depends on what the restrictive covenant was created to protect in the first place. It would
not be unusual for a developer of an estate to want to ensure that all of their properties had a certain
look or character, but the extent to which such a restriction would serve any further purpose by the
time the developer has sold the last property is questionable. It really is all about thinking about who
benefits from the restriction and why.
As for the time it takes to address a restrictive covenant, this isn’t really something that has a set time
limit. There are ways to address the risk involved ranging from an agreement with the beneficiary of the
restriction, insurance (sometimes) to applications to the Tribunal. A Tribunal application does take time
but there is not a “fixed” or “standard” time limit.
We currently own a property. The deeds we have date back to 1960 and contain outdated terms and conditions. In the Conveyance it states no new dwellings to be built on any plots on the estate aswell as many other restrictions we have looked up the estate owners and company and both are not active company’s is there any advise you can give to help get something in writing as we’d like to submit drawings to council for a new dwelling
Many Thanks
Thank you for your comment.
Whilst it is always worth considering whether or not the beneficiary of a restrictive covenant would
enforce it, it is not always “safe” to assume that it will not.
Restrictive covenants can become outdated and obsolete. However, the question as to the extent to
which it can be argued that it no longer applies depends on the purpose for which it was registered in
the first instance. For very old restrictive covenants, where there has been a substantial change in the
nature of the area in question, this point is often nebulous and regularly debated and argued about. In
short, if the restriction is no longer required to protect that which it was initially intended, it may be
obsolete. It his is often not a simple question to answer.
Anyone can apply to the council for planning permission. This isn’t in itself relevant to the enforceability
of any restrictive covenant. Just because the council implements planning policy in a particular way
does not change the legal position when it comes to the property or land in question.