Thanks for your question. Please kindly RATE my answer when you are satisfied
Could you clarify the meaning of ALMO please?
For the avoidance of doubt is it the council that has refused consent under the covenant or someone else?
XXXXX. XXXX manages the properties on behalf of XXXXXX
Thanks. Is it the council or the management organsation that have refused consent?
Their letter gets a ot wrong. For example, they say it would be very unlikely that the Council would agree to the restrictive covenant being lifted in this case. We didn't ask for this; we asked for consent to proceed, as per the covenant.
It is the council
Can I email their list of requirements, or would this be seen on this website? They ask for confidentiality.
13) The work to our property has the benefit of a 30 year guarantee in a form approved by the Council underwritten by a guarantor approved by the Council.
Thanks. The provision of the saving clause "not to be unreasonably withheld" provides principally that the covenatee cannot refuse consent for reasons unconnected with the merits of the proposals. If the proposals have been granted planning permission is is very difficult for a covenantee to subsequently refuse consent. If they attempt to do so then it is for them to demonstrate in view of the grant of planning permission on what basis they consider each reason for refusal is reasonable.
(Please do not post anything confidential as this site is not secure).
The example you have given would not appear to be a reasonable condition. There is nothing in law that requires a 30 year guarantee. There is provision for a 10 year warranty from an organisation such as NHBC or Buildzone for a new build or substantive conversion but the council cannot seek to impose measure beyond the requirements of building regulations under the covenant.
When I spoke with the Director of XXXXXX, he said to seek the consent before submitting plans, in order to save money. He also previously set out a list of demands, and as the letter reflects them, it feels as though he is leaning on the council to "ward me off".
You may consider replying to the council reminding of them that they cannot unreasonably withold consent under the provisions of the clause and as confirmed in the case of Rickman v Brudenell-Bruce, . You may consider responding to each point they raise setting out your view and asking them to justify on what basis they consider each requirement to be reasonable citing lawful authority where appropriate.
Who would adjudicate what is a reasonable condition?
You may wish to consider further advising that regrettably if the council is unwiling to be reasonable on the matter particularly in light of the fact the same council has granted planning permission for the build, you will have little option but to sue for a declaration that the covenant has been unreasonably denied or alternatively if you have no plans to sell you could simply advise the council that they will need to sue you for breach of covenant if they believe they have a case.
This issue will be raised if and when you come to sell however so it is wise to consider resolving the matter significantly prior to going on the market so a sale is not delayed.
The county court will hear the case if it goes to court and decide what is reasonable using the "reasonable man" test - whether the average person would consider a condition reasonable in the circumstances. Usually on the basis that planning permission is granted consent under the covenant should follow unless the covenantee can show it is reasonable not to do so.
Is there anything above I can clarify for you any further?
What damages could be awarded for breach of covenant if they were to win? I also worry that we may be allowed to proceed, but the court make very expensive requests. Looking at your earlier response (3:23), it feels as though the council is refusing for reasons unconnected with the merits of the proposals.
I haven't applied for planning yet, although planners were enthusiastic. Now, though, if we apply, people will be on the look out for this in order to reject it. Hmm .... it feels as XXXX did this on purpose.
Would it be easier to apply to get the convenant removed through the Land tribunal.
Planning and covenants are distinct issues and planning does not grant consent for a covenant and vice versa. The two should in theory not effect the other. If you feel the council's planners are acting unreasonably you can of course appeal to the inspectorate who will decide the matter purely on planning grounds.
You would likely consider not bothering too much with the covenant until you obtain planning permission because you could spend a time on it only to find you have planning refused.
Once you have planning confirmed then you can consider focusing on the covenant though you may consider pursuing negotiations under the covenant whilst planning is going through.
You could apply for the covenant to be removed but I suspect you would struggle with that as it is unlikely to satisfy the conditions for removal particularly given the not to be unreasonably witheld provision.
They have also asked:
1) You will cover all the costs of temporarily rehousing XXXX and his family (including the Council's costs in managing the transaction). These costs are to be met on an indemnity basis and the Council will not be required to explain or justify any reasonable claims that are made by or on behalf of XXXXX;
Is a "reasonable person" likely to agree with this? The tenant isn't worried.
(Apologies - I have realised I should have redancted that - can I edit it?)
Is XXXXX a secure tenant under an AST?
I can ask that the thread is locked for privacy once we are done or Names are XXXXX XXXXX privacy as you prefer.
He's lived there 40 years. I don't know, but suspct so. How would I find out? What is AST?
Would your advice be to proceed to planning and building control?
As he is likely to be a secure tenant based on what you sayyou will have to rehouse him in alternative accommodation - he cannot just be forced out as he has a secure tenancy. I would not agree to the councils provision but there is provision in statute for this and you will need to ensure you handle the eviction via a solicitor qualified in landlord and tenant law to ensure that you end the tenancy correctly. You would also wish to look at this before you spend too much money on planning to ensure there are no issues with removing the tenant. It is not easy to end tenancies though demolition is a ground to do so providing tenant is rehoused.
Given the secure tenant this is not a straightforward project and you will wish to ensure you fully understand the costs of rehousing and dealing with the tenancy before you spend too much time and money
Sorry - miscommunication. We have bought one of the semis. He lives in the other semi, and has for 40 years. He is completely happy with our plans. He wouldn't care about moving out whilst the demolition of our half were taking place.
OK - I was concerned that this was becoming overly complex for you. He only needs to move out if your works make the property uninhabitable or dangerous to inhabit. Your architect can give a his opinion in this respect. You would appear to have a somewhat overzealous council officer on your hands
Is there anything above I can clarify for you?
Lots, but I'm not sure it would be fair. If we wanted to employ you, how would I contact you, and what are your rates?
Unfortunately I am not able to accept private referrals fro this site however if you have further questions you can either post them and ask for me in the first line or click on my profile to specifically ask me. I will be happy to help where I can.
I feel that we need a good legal expert, with experience of this very specific type of law, to reply to the Council's letter. Going from the Law Society's website may be a bit random. How would you advise I go about doing this?
So, if I were to reply to the Council, I would:
-a explain what unreasonably withheld means
-b refer to Rickman v Brudenell-Bruce, 
In the mean time, apply for planning permission
completely separately, re the Party Wall Act 1995, is it worth taking the risk of going ahead without seeking the council's approval, as owners of the other semi-? The parents' neighbours have recently done so (althoguh they were detached properties), with no comeback.
The legal 500 will give you links to some of the best firms and solicitors that practice in any given area:http://www.legal500.com/c/london/real-estate/property-litigation
Sorry - I'll correct that. I have asked XXXX if we could work on this together, and they refused. So, I should have said "without the council's agreement".
I think planning should be your primary focus with the covenant secondary in the hope you can reach agreement but if you can't on obtaining planning you can seek a declaration from the county court if the council continue to be unreasonable.
You will need to deal with the Party Wall Act but again I would suggest this would be something to look at later as it is redundant until you have planning
Thank you for your help - it has helped immeasurably.
We just didn't know where to turn for advice
A pleasure. I am sure you will get there - believe it or not this doesn't sound too bad compared to what obstacles stand in the way of many developments.
What would you asses the % chance of success as?
Providing you get planning I cannot see that you will not be able to overcome the covenant issue. The council have limited grounds in general terms as they must act reasonably and acting beyond rights provided for in statute are going to be difficult for them to demonstrate as being reasonable.
Have a good weekend. Good bye, and thank you.
And to you. If you have no further questions for now I should be very grateful if you would kindly take a moment to rate my service to you today. Your feedback is important to me. If there is anything else I can help with though please reply back to me though.
DISCLAIMER: Answers from Experts on JustAnswer are not substitutes for the advice of an attorney. JustAnswer is a public forum and questions and responses are not private or confidential or protected by the attorney-client privilege. The Expert above is not your attorney, and the response above is not legal advice. You should not read this response to propose specific action or address specific circumstances, but only to give you a sense of general principles of law that might affect the situation you describe. Application of these general principles to particular circumstances must be done by a lawyer who has spoken with you in confidence, learned all relevant information, and explored various options. Before acting on these general principles, you should hire a lawyer licensed to practice law in the jurisdiction to which your question pertains.
The responses above are from individual Experts, not JustAnswer. The site and services are provided “as is”. To view the verified credential of an Expert, click on the “Verified” symbol in the Expert’s profile. This site is not for emergency questions which should be directed immediately by telephone or in-person to qualified professionals. Please carefully read the Terms of Service (last updated February 8, 2012).