- Location
- South Shropshire
The straw is worth more than the pigs!
Buildings with a covenant
- Thread starter Missymoo
- Start date
serf
Member
- Location
- warwickshire
If you want to keep pigs and your not permitted to there , you will have to run the tenancy out and get some land where permitted.
betweenthelines
Member
- Location
- southwest
I'd say a lot depends on the terms of your tenancy
It may just be for grazing with no mention of the buildings. Or it could well be that the tenancy refers to "land and barns"
not "land and livestock buildings"
Barns (as you refer to them) are for fodder storage, not livestock.
Putting livestock in barns on a relatively small plot of land may well raise complaints/questions about change of use.
It may just be for grazing with no mention of the buildings. Or it could well be that the tenancy refers to "land and barns"
not "land and livestock buildings"
Barns (as you refer to them) are for fodder storage, not livestock.
Putting livestock in barns on a relatively small plot of land may well raise complaints/questions about change of use.
Courier
Member
- Location
- M62 - M1 - M18 triangle
True, but straw is needed even with outdoor pigs and you will need it eventually so let it be your shelter in the meantime...
- Location
- Bedfordshire
Have you asked angry email son for a copy of the covenant?
There would be no record at the land registry if the present landlord has not bothered to have the land transferred into his name when he inherited it. This all sounds a little dodgy if you have someone renting out land that they have no formal title to. Not sure about land, but if you try and rent out a house the agent demands proof of title before they will act for you.
It sounds as if a farm house has been separated from the adjacent yard and land, and the new owner of the house thinks they have a covenant restricting use of the barns. If there is nothing on the house deeds and the land you rent is unregistered meaning there has been no alteration to the deeds in the best part of 20 years it is highly unlikely that any covenant is in place.
The problem you have is that you are caught in the middle, you want the land, but if you press the point about restriction of use with the landlord the chances of getting the land after your initial FBT will be zero.
Also you mention that the barn isn't cattle proof, but is ok for pigs. Pigs can wreck almost anything given a chance
It's ridiculous that the courts haven't ruled this kind of thing unlawful. Deeds have conditions attached forever, long after the original parties are dead and the land has been sold however many times. Some houses still say what the occupier can't do from 400 years ago.
The law already has a mechanism for retaining some control while realising most of the asset value - a long lease. Why they allow a sale to have any conditions enforced after the price is paid is beyond me.
The law already has a mechanism for retaining some control while realising most of the asset value - a long lease. Why they allow a sale to have any conditions enforced after the price is paid is beyond me.
Jam Tomorrow
Member
- Location
- Hardy Country
If they’re laying done the law and throwing the Ten Commandments at you .......what you really need.....wait for it ......is the ark of the covenants.
- Location
- Bedfordshire
Is it really worth all the fuss over 8 pigs.
Really can't see the problem with a covenant, anyone who buys land or a property with a covenant attached should decide if the covenant will restrict their use/enjoyment of the property and if it does should then decide if the price is worth paying.
if you are subject to a long standing covenanrt and wish to do something that it prevents, the simple answer is to approach the landowner who benefits from it and ask for the price to remove it.
A long lease is a very different beast, you own land with a covenant, but never own land on a lease. There are things you can do with the former that are not possible with the latter. It might well affect your ability to build and your ability to raise funds on the back of its value.
betweenthelines
Member
- Location
- southwest
Covenant are little different that planning restrictions. If you don't like them, don't get involved.
Exfarmer
Member
- Location
- Bury St Edmunds
You do need legal advice.
Covenants are generally very specific as to who can do what, but far more importantly, who forbid what.
They forbid things causing damage from the beneficiary of the covenant. But to enforce it, they need to prove damage caused to themselves.
So firstly is the complainant the beneficiary of the covenant?
Second what damage is he suffering from you breaking it?
So I farmed some land, with a covenant forbidding ploughing, this to preserve their view of grazing stock on a grass field.
However the beneficiary and his heirs had done two things firstly planted a tree shelter belt then moved to the other side of the country, hence my solicitors advice was to ignore it.
You can buy insurance policies in case of these sort of things.
Covenants are generally very specific as to who can do what, but far more importantly, who forbid what.
They forbid things causing damage from the beneficiary of the covenant. But to enforce it, they need to prove damage caused to themselves.
So firstly is the complainant the beneficiary of the covenant?
Second what damage is he suffering from you breaking it?
So I farmed some land, with a covenant forbidding ploughing, this to preserve their view of grazing stock on a grass field.
However the beneficiary and his heirs had done two things firstly planted a tree shelter belt then moved to the other side of the country, hence my solicitors advice was to ignore it.
You can buy insurance policies in case of these sort of things.
The problem is that by allowing conditions to be put on the future use of something "sold", it's not really a sale, it's some sort of a lease, or something else and a fraud has been committed.
This is what those people who bought 'freehold' (plus annual community charges) on a housing estate have found out, that they really bought a lease without any of the protections in law for leaseholders.
In the case of covenants, it's effectively a perpetual lease. The landlord sets the terms of tenants use, and the rent is paid forever, in one payment up front.
Exfarmer
Member
- Location
- Bury St Edmunds
Covenants are not that onerous, and in reality only work while the person who imposed it is still alive. Surely it is perfectly fair, to sell a piece of ground and insist that it is not used for a particular purpose while you remain next door.. they can benefit direct descendants, but many like the old brewing covenants are not worth the paper they are written on.
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.
Nearly
Member
- Location
- North of York
Go on then Ribble, what's your opinion on mineral rights and sporting rights being retained?
How far is the barn from the house? I wouldn’t want their stink next to my house either.....
Exfarmer
Member
- Location
- Bury St Edmunds
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.
We had exactly that situation where the landowner many years before had put a clause in so he could look out across grass fields and stock, but his successors had placed a small shelterbelt in the way, negating any possible future power to the covenant
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 land ties that belong 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.
Last edited: