Ben Weston

Wow, thank you for all these replies – much appreciated. I agree with this. Unfortunately, the overage was stipulated in the will and so there isn't much negotiation on it; hence not seeking to change any of the terms, just clarifying the definitions a bit. I must add that the house has fallen through twice before when previous purchasers have tried to negotiate the terms of the overage. This is a really interesting comment (as was Jilly's too). Our mortgage broker had hit a bit of a dead-end with it (maximum income multiples of 2.5 - 3x compared to the up to 5.5x we would get without the overage). I agree that it seems odd as it clearly doesn't impact the value of the house and there are no restrictions imposed as such – even permitted development is allowed on that land, it's literally only a % of uplift if planning permission is granted. So the overage proposes the value is calculated on the difference in land value (with single dwelling, that's the crucial bit, even though it doesn't sit on the Restricted Land) before and after permission. I think it's a hole in the overage to stipulate the single dwelling is included as it is not marked on the area covered by the covenant. Also, I don't see that the presence or not of the dwelling really alters the potential uplift in value. If anything, I can only see that the presence of an existing property on that title would marginally devalue those newly-permitted plots. Roundtuit – may I ask what mortgage lender you're with?

Thanks Joe. I should probably clarify by saying that one or two lenders did offer to lend but it was such a small amount relative to what a regular lender would give us (about £300K difference!) that it wasn't very helpful at all. We've no issue with the overage and we don't want to negotiate the terms, we only want to ensure it's separate from the house itself and the third of an acre that sits in. So far as I can see, this wouldn't alter the uplift value as it is a relative value, not an absolute one. You are, of course, correct that this is an issue for the solicitors – I suppose I was wondering if anyone here had come across a similar issue, or has experience with more complicated cases like this.

Hi all, Complicated one this but this forum seems very knowledgeable so I'm hoping someone will be able to help/point in the right direction. We've just had an offer accepted on a beautiful old cottage that needs complete renovation in two thirds of an acre. We're very fortunate to be able to borrow cash from family to purchase – we also have around £150K cash ourselves to renovate it and the plan is to then mortgage the property and repay the initial cash loan. The property has an overage (restrictive covenant) on the bottom two thirds of the garden and, as it stands, we're unable to mortgage the property at all – even with specialist building societies so far as our broker has tried. We don't think the overage itself is too bad and have no plans to develop on the 'Restricted Land' anyway. I've attached a redacted version for any legal beagles but, in short: It lasts 30 years (on the long side, I know) It requests 30% uplift in the value if planning permission is granted and only if work commences on that planning It covers the bottom two thirds of an acre (highlighted in red on the plan) and not the top third of an acre with the house on We spoke to Land Registry and they said that, in principle, this was reasonable grounds to apply to split the titles so that the two thirds with an overage could be separate (perhaps owned by a trust for our children) to the house on a different tile. This would make it much easier to raise a mortgage on the house. Although the overage only affects the 'Restricted Land', it does make reference to the 'residential dwelling' and my concern is that, as it stands, if we attempted to split the titles, the overage would remain on the house. It would be pointless and unactionable but it would remain. The property is being sold by a solicitor/executor for the previous owner's estate. They drafted the overage which is not yet applied but will be submitted on purchase. We want to ask our solicitors to ask them to: Alter the wording of the overage so that it clearly and explicitly only applies to the Restricted Land, with no reference or tie to the dwelling (we don't see that it makes any practical difference to the overage terms or implementation) Complete the sale as two transfers so the deed split is achieved naturally at time of purchase Is this reasonable? Are we asking the unachievable? We've never purchased a property like this before so any advice is extremely helpful as it is what we consider to be our 'forever' home. Overage_-_Redacted.pdf