Restrictive Covenants retrospective application

[JP_]

My local planners do make comments, e.g. party wall may apply, drainage agreements may be needed etc.
but I guess that is probably standard. Maybe some should say "covenants might apply".
But that doesn't help if somebody is building on PD.

 

[Doppleganger]

Planners are only concerned with planning law and have no remit over any other permissions or requirements of the householder/applicant. This means they can't let anything but planning law determine their decision.

I full accept what you are saying, woody, but in the case of ex-council houses, is the covenant between the council and the house owner?
Therefore if the permission of the council is sought, surely it is immaterial which department of that council receives, and grants permission? They are considered as representatives of the council.
I can't think of any suitable analogy.
I suppose if say, social services give a decision on a situation, which is then acted upon, and the situation develops over a period of years without problem, could say the education department (assuming education and social services are the same council) overrule in retrospect the earlier decision, causing a backtracking of any development over the years, which was acted upon in the good faith of the earlier social services decision?
I would argue that is unreasonable. Surely it is incumbent on the council to act jointly, not for one department to act unilaterally, potentially endangering any future action by another department

I accept we are exploring a hypothetical scenario.

 

[^woody^]

surely it is immaterial which department of that council receives, and grants permission?

Planners as a Local Planning Authority implement national planning policy at the local level.

Housing officers as the Local Housing Authority implement national Housing legislation under their remit as social housing provider and enforcer.

You need to remember that a council is not some sort of corporate entity following a single objective, but a collection of different departments each operating under specific and unrelated statutory and local legislation, that most often do not overlap - and cannot overlap.

 

[Notch7]

that most often do not overlap

it is perfectly possible to obtain planning consent for a something that could never comply with building regulations

 

[RosaL]

Thanks for all your comments.

Woody, what you have said about councils and their departments is very helpful. But until you explained it, I would’ve been thinking in the same way as Doppleganger ie that if some special kind of permission from the council was needed, then the council planning people would say so, or at least advise the person to look into it. But maybe council planning officers don't even know about the existence of restrictive covenants on former council houses.

Jonbey, yes it does say it on the deeds, that’s where I finally read it after seeing the newspaper article. I’ve no recollection of being made aware of it by the solicitor when we bought the house, but that was many many years ago.

I don’t think I understand about indemnity insurance. Suppose I do nothing now, and then when I sell it, the buyer’s solicitor draws attention to the Restrictive Covenant, and also that the extension is in breach of it: wouldn’t I then have to tell the council anyway? What does the indemnity insurance do?

 

[blup]

It's your call but I would have thought the sensible thing to do is ask for retrospective approval from the council now. Its almost inconceivable they will refuse given the other similar extensions you mention in the area and the fact that planning permission was obtained. You then avoid losing a sale in the future when circumstances might have changed. If in doubt take legal advice!

Blup

 

[Doppleganger]

It's your call but I would have thought the sensible thing to do is ask for retrospective approval from the council now. Its almost inconceivable they will refuse given the other similar extensions you mention in the area and the fact that planning permission was obtained. You then avoid losing a sale in the future when circumstances might have changed. If in doubt take legal advice!

Blup

In this instance PP was not required.
But whether PP was required for the other neighbouring properties and was granted..........

 

[blup]

P.D. is a deemed grant of planning permission which actually strengthens the OP's case.

Blup

 

[RosaL]

PD?

 

[JP_]

Permitted Development - i.e. you already have permission to do certain things, like loft conversions, small extension, build outbuildings.
https://www.planningportal.co.uk/info/200187/your_responsibilities/37/planning_permission/2

 

[RosaL]

oh yeah - permitted development

 

[RosaL]

I've realised that I want some impossible solutions: a definitive answer from the very people that I can't ask; &/or a change in the law so that in cases where both neighbouring properties of a former council house, are also privately owned, these particular restrictive covenants are automatically lifted! Wouldn’t that be good – save the council the hassle too. However, since that is in my dreams (literally – I’m having sleepless nights over it) and the problem has refused to go away desite my efforts to ignore it, I’m going to look into indemnity insurance, and probably also get legal advice. Thank you to all who took the time to post in response to my question. Rosa