fbpx

Tribunal Paves the Way for Suburban Garden Development

18th March 2019 By Arman Khosravi

Restrictions on land use appear in the title deeds of many properties – but the law permits their deletion or modification if they become obsolete over time or stand in the way of reasonable development. Exactly that happened in one case in which the Upper Tribunal (UT) opened the way for construction of three new homes in a large suburban garden despite neighbours’ objections.

The garden once formed a large field on the outskirts of a major city. Part of it was subject to a restrictive covenant, dated 1928, which forbade construction of more than three detached homes on the field. Those homes had long since been built. A further covenant, dated 1929, affected another part of the garden and required that any house built on that plot must have direct frontage to a public road.

A couple who owned one of the detached houses were granted planning consent to construct three houses on their land. It was accepted that two of the properties would breach the 1928 covenant and that the third was precluded by the 1929 covenant. In those circumstances, the couple applied to the UT to discharge or modify the covenants so as to enable the development.

In ruling that the 1929 covenant was obsolete, the UT noted that it did not amount to an absolute prohibition on house building. Due to the city’s expansion during the 20th century, the area had been absorbed into the urban area. The covenant had already been breached by a previous construction project and the protection it was designed to afford had been significantly eroded. It was therefore discharged, enabling construction of the third house.

Despite neighbours’ concerns that their sunlight and views would be harmed, the UT found that, by impeding development of the other two homes, the 1928 covenant did not secure any practical benefits of substantial advantage to objectors. The covenant was modified to the extent required to permit the development. The modification would take effect on the couple paying a total of £15,000 in compensation to the owners of two properties whose value would be affected by the project.

Source: Concious

Latest News

Retired Businessman's Final Will Ruled Invalid

2nd May, 2024 By

Having your will drawn up professionally by a qualified solicitor is always a sensible precaution, especially in later life. In a recent case, the High Court ruled that a retired businessman lacked testamentary capacity when he made a will less than three and a half years before he died at the age of 87. The man and his first wife were married for nearly 40 years and had four children. After her death he married again. In October 2015 he made a new will, revoking in most respects a will...

Company Owner's Negligible Value Claim Unsuccessful

29th April, 2024 By

When an asset falls in value to the point that it is almost worthless, it may be possible to make a negligible value claim under Section 24 of the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992. The asset will then be treated as if it had been sold and immediately acquired again, so that the loss can be set off against other income. For a claim to succeed, however, the asset must have become of negligible value during the time the claimant owned it. On 30 September 2017, a woman who...

Court Sanctions Leg Amputation for Man Lacking Mental Capacity

24th April, 2024 By

The courts are often called upon to sanction treatment for patients whose ability to make decisions for themselves is impaired. In a recent case on point, the Court of Protection had to decide whether it was in the best interests of a man with mental health issues to have his right leg amputated above the knee. The man, aged 60, was taken to hospital by his niece. He was found to have an ulcerated leg. He had a history of paranoid schizophrenia, and believed that the sores on his leg...

High Court Grants Parental Order Despite Previous Adoption

18th April, 2024 By

In law, adopted children are regarded as having been born to their adoptive parents. The Family Division of the High Court recently considered whether that fact precluded a parental order being granted under the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 (HFEA) in respect of a child born via surrogacy. A couple who lived in the USA had entered into a surrogacy arrangement with another woman. An adoption order naming the couple as the child's parents had been made by a US court and was automatically recognised under UK law. However,...