Covenant - Rebuild Qn

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • pilman
    replied
    Offering a purely personal opinion I would ignore the wording used in the 1928 covenant if the planning authority grant planning permission.

    The chances that there is an identified parcel of land with the benefit of such a covenant and a land-owner who would be able to claim a breach of covenant when the original house has been allowed to become derelict does not seem likely.

    Methods of construction that were not in the contemplation of a person selling land in 1928 would suggest that such a covenant is obsolete in 2021.

    The most efficient Eco homes designed in 2021 do not use bricks or stone, or roof tiles, but rely on well insulated timber framed buildings to achieve the required level of efficiency.

    Leave a comment:


  • nukecad
    replied
    Originally posted by Petmgn View Post
    I'm buying a property that is derelict and will be demolish and rebuild.
    .
    .
    All that could be rebuilt is a single story (from a two) with a roof but this would be a big loss in value.
    So the purchase price that you pay should reflect what you will be able to build.

    And surely whatever that is it can't be any 'loss of value' over a derlict property?
    Just less than you were hoping you could get for a 2 storey build. (Which it seems you can't build anyway so couldn't realise anyway).

    But moving on from that:
    The question then becomes: does "roofed with slates or tiles" preclude a flat roof so that you could get 2 storeys?

    That's a question that usually comes up in insurance claims, where the insurance is trying to avoid paying out.

    If you want to risk the point being argued in court then I don't see why you couldn't cover a flat roof with slates or tiles, as long as it is designed to take the weight.
    It may be a legal nicety, but there's nothing in that clause that say it needs to be a pent roof, just that it should be roofed with slate or tiles.

    TBH such clauses are usually more about the visual appearance of the roof from street level.
    But insurers often (try to) use it as a get-out clause by claiming it's a fireproofing issue; so you may have problems getting insurance.
    Or at least insurance that will actually pay out if the worst should happen.

    Leave a comment:


  • Petmgn
    started a topic Covenant - Rebuild Qn

    Covenant - Rebuild Qn

    Hello

    I'm buying a property that is derelict and will be demolish and rebuild. The rebuild will need to be a flat roof (its in a flood plane area and environment agency want it built up - which makes it high - the planning will only accept it if it is a flat roof). The covenant on the title register says:

    (c) All buildings should be built of bricks or stone and roofed with
    slates or tiles only temporary buildings tents huts and caravans must
    not be placed or allowed to remain on any plot


    This was written in 1928 and made between the vendor and then purchaser. Maybe the spirit of this covenant meant that they wanted a good construction water tight house. Im worried the fact it says tiles/slates and Ill be having a flat roof. Is there an issue here? Is it enforceable and if so by who? Could I get an indemnity insurance and would it protect me from some one enforcing me to pull down the new building and rebuild? All that could be rebuilt is a single story (from a two) with a roof but this would be a big loss in value.

    Thanks

Latest Activity

Collapse

Working...
X