Register Deeds & Planning Permission

[stb654]

Hi all,
Would a stipulation in a property's register of title (deeds) prevent permission being granted if the application breached that particular stipulation? Or can planning permission circumvent these restrictions if granted?

E.g. I'm wondering if it would be possible to build a garage close to a road in the front garden, in the case where the deeds (which might as well be written in Latin) say this....

"Not to erect or permit or suffer to be erected on the land hereby conveyed within Twenty Five feet of the road leading from [Town 1] or [Town 2] anything whatsoever except a wall or fence not exceeding Four feet six inches in height."

Luckily, the proposed garage is in fact likely be further than 25 feet away, but just wondering if this wasn't the case, would it be possible to get permission?

Thanks in advance.

 

[frutbunn]

They have nothing to do with each other.

 

[Nakajo]

You are referring to restrictive covenants. They are entirely separate from Planning. The local planning authority only considers matters relating to planning. So, even if the LPA were to grant permission (and no there's no reason why they wouldn't), you would still not be allowed to breach the covenant. You would be breaking the law (whatever is the relevant clause Law of Property Act 1925)

 

[^woody^]

you would still not be allowed to breach the covenant. You would be breaking the law (whatever is the relevant clause Law of Property Act 1925)

No, covenants need a beneficiary to be valid and enforceable, and no laws are broken in the criminal sense as they are effectively contract clauses so are County Court matters ... Civil Law.

So in the OPs case, who is around to enforce the covenant?

 

[Nakajo]

Actions giving rise to civil liability are still 'illegal'/'unlawful' and, in that sense 'break the law', regardless of criminality (although I was being a little melodramatic). Why would we assume that there's no beneficiary? Lots of developers come a cropper on such assumptions (Bartlett Close, et al.)

 

[^woody^]

Why would we assume that there's no beneficiary?

Because lots of things are imposed/inferred into deeds and over time they become irrelevant and the benefits/beneficiary fade away.

Apart from the drama, it is important to differentiate between "breaking the law" and not conforming to a contractual obligation (even if that obligation is enforced via the courts).