|
Issues Affecting Brickhill
Planning Applications
Useful Links
Bedford Liberal Democrats
Save our hospital
Covenants on
Properties
| |
Covenants on Properties in Brickhill
Council must be open on the 'Buyer Beware'
approach to covenants
Bedford Borough Council has not identified a single case
of a breach of restrictive covenants in over twelve months, with
residents left to pursue their own costly private legal action if they
wish to see a breach of covenant enforced. Liberal Democrats believe
that the news will come as a shock to many residents, due to a common
perception that people are protected by restrictive covenants, for
example on the use of a house as a commercial premises or for storing
large commercial vehicles.
The Lib Dems are demanding that the council is open and honest with
residents and makes clear the policy on breaches of covenant. They are
also questioning the fairness of the council’s policy of maximising
income from charges paid by homeowners to relax or remove restrictive
covenants on their property which it has no intention of ever enforcing
itself.
Liberal Democrat Councillor for Brickhill Ward Charles Royden will ask
the Borough Council’s Executive at its meeting on Wednesday to make
clear to residents that where restrictive covenants are concerned, it is
a case of ‘buyer beware.’ Commenting, Councillor Royden said “Many local
residents will be staggered to discover that the council has no policy
of enforcing breaches of covenant. Not one case has been pursued by the
council in over twelve months. In effect, this approach means that if a
resident wakes up one morning and finds that a taxi firm has started
operating from the house next door in breach of a covenant which states
that the premises are not to be used for business purposes, that
resident is on their own. Residents must take their own costly legal
action, but for many people this is simply not a viable option.’
“I have asked if the council will take a more pro-active approach to
enforcing clear breaches of covenant that harm the quality of life for
local communities. It has refused to do so, and I am therefore calling
on it to make clear to residents that covenants offer no protection
unless they are prepared to launch their own expensive legal
proceedings. Such a move by the council is necessary in order to stop
people living under false hope, and to avoid residents getting a nasty
shock if they ever have the misfortune to find neighbours in breach of
covenants. Homeowners are informed of covenants on properties when they
purchase them, and if they are under the false impression that the
council will step in if neighbours are in breach of them then that is a
dangerous situation.’
“The council’s ‘hands off’ approach to covenants also calls into
question its policy of seeking to maximise its income from homeowners
who wish to have covenants relaxed or removed. In practice, this means
that it seeks to raise as much money as possible from homeowners for the
relaxation or removal of covenants which it has no intention of ever
enforcing itself.’
Councillor Royden believes that residents may also be shocked to know
that the council cannot take restrictive covenants into account when
dealing with planning applications: “It is unlawful for the council to
take legal covenants into account on planning matters, meaning that it
will grant planning permission for activities in direct breach of a
covenant. This is another example of where there is a common
misconception about the protection that covenants provide, and the
Council needs to make the situation much clearer for local residents.”
|