Buildings with a covenant

[Ribble]

I really fail to understand where you are coming from. If a farmer wants to live out the rest of his years in his farmhouse, but sell off his land, as he is no longer fit enough to tend it, surely he should be within his rights to put a clause in along the lines of a covenant for no music festivals or building of sewage works etc.

I really fail to understand where you are coming from, if a farmer wants to have his cake and eat it, he can draw up a lease that expires with the parties involved.

That way future generations dont have to consult a lawyer about the current situation of the treeline or any other agreements between people long gone.

 

[br jones]

Either sell the ground or not ,covernants are for people who want their cake and ......

 

[Exfarmer]

Another vestige of feudalism that needs to go in the bin or be properly contracted for separately from the land rights.

Along with paying for the parish church roof to be repaired, and any other remnant of medieval nonsense that belongs in the dark ages.

While we're at it, we should probably get rid of all the other special rights that William the barsteward dished out to his mates.

you have conflated three completely different arguments.
but the point of the covenant issue, is that no body purchasing land, will be unaware of the liabilities that the land carries, unless their solicitor is incompetent.
when I bought land with a no ploughing clause, my solicitor did warn me that there was a remote danger that this covenant could be enforced, but we took the view that this was very remote, as no doubt have those who purchased it from me.
A church roof covenant is something completely different, and if some good person in the 17th c was selling land and thought it was going to ensure his soul went to heaven via this root fair play to him and more fool anyone purchasing in the 20th./21st century. ignoring the risk of the parson turning up with a very big quote in his hand after the p***** have just nicked the lead off his roof.
You get what you pay for.
How you undo the works off William the conqueror is a long way beyond me, remember most of our titles in some way go back to his time. Perhaps we should all repurchase our lands from the inheritors of the Earls of Wessex, Northumbria etc. and they probably stole it from predecessors

 

[chaffcutter]

Our solicitor told me recently that virtually no land changes hands around here now without a covenant giving a share of any uplift in value except as agricultural to the seller for up to 80 years

 

[betweenthelines]

No it isn't fair to "sell" something and insist that it is not used for a particular purpose.

The definition of a sale is the seller gives up any rights over it in exchange for a certain amount of money.

If they want to restrict the use of something, they can lease it for 999 years and be honest that it is, in fact not free of any restrictions, and not a freehold.

But if the seller puts a covenant on the property, that should be reflected in the price.

 

[Exfarmer]

But if the seller puts a covenant on the property, that should be reflected in the price.

Exactly
it is no different to the poor fools, who buy a plot of land thinking they can get planning to put a house up on it. All land has some restrictions on it, which dictate the price paid, be it covenant , uplift clause, mineral rights, green belt etc.

 

[Bongodog]

No it isn't fair to "sell" something and insist that it is not used for a particular purpose.

The definition of a sale is the seller gives up any rights over it in exchange for a certain amount of money.

If they want to restrict the use of something, they can lease it for 999 years and be honest that it is, in fact not free of any restrictions, and not a freehold.

As mentioned before, leased land/property comes with far fewer rights than land with a covenant. Take the example of the OP, they have use of land that has a covenant preventing the barns from being used for livestock, but there are seemingly no other restrictions as their landlord owns the freehold. If this were leasehold land the leessee would potentially need permission from the freeholder for far more things.
You also mention "honesty" There is no dishonesty with a covenant, it is there on the deeds for all to see. In my experience the only times I have ever seen problems with a covenant has been down to solicitors not explaining them to purchasers.
A friend purchased a house from the next door neighbour that came with a covenant preventing commercial use and also stating that any extensions to the house required the approval of the beneficiary of the covenants approval. Their solicitor who was notoriously slapdash told them that they needn't worry about it as it was unenforceable. They duly applied for planning permission for an extension. Next thing was a letter from the neighbour mentioning his covenant. I put my friend in contact with my sister who was in the legal field and had once worked with the afformentioned slapdash solicitor. She explained that her former colleague was a pillock and they needed to speak nicely with the neighbour. They then had to reach a compromise with the neighbour which was to reduce the roof pitch on the extension so he didn't lose the light in his garden.

Why would a seller want to bother with a lease ? that would be personal to the initial seller, a covenant is there to protect the amenity of the adjacent property no matter who owns it.
Wouldn't we all want a covenant over neighbouring properties if we had a chance ? I certainly would, my family have owned where I am now for 60 years and a covenant over development on neighbouring land would have been very useful on at least 5 occasions.

 

[chipchap]

The fact is, covenant or not, if the householder is getting nuisance smell from your livestock you will have a problem if the council get involved.

 

[Courier]

Is it really worth all the fuss over 8 pigs.

But it’s actually 8 sows (Or 7 sows and a boar) and their progeny - So 200 plus throughout the year with probably a maximum of 80 or 90 at any one time ....

 

[betweenthelines]

Irrespective of covenants, the neighbours will kick up a stink (see what I did there?) if the OP suddenly starts keeping pigs in a "building" where there haven't been pigs before.

 

[Kidds]

Irrespective of covenants, the neighbours will kick up a stick (see what I did there?) if the OP suddenly starts keeping pigs in a "building" where there haven't been pigs before.

Spelled stink wrong?

 

[Dry Rot]

Every year I get people asking me to pay them money, just because I live where I do. It's not fair.

I think it's to do with some old lady who lives in London. They say she is the Queen and they call it council tax. All because one of her ancestors shot someone in the eye with a bow and arrow. I paid for this land when I bought the place. Surely that's fraud?

 

[Sid]

Block of land my parents inherited that had a covenant in reference to sale and consumption of alcohol.

They took out a policy to cover any claims.
Was less than £100