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

Challenge to Will's Validity Rejected by High Court

12th April, 2024 By

The best way to ensure your assets will be distributed as you wish is to have your will professionally drafted by a qualified solicitor. In a recent case, a challenge to the validity of an elderly man's will was dismissed by the High Court. The man had previously made a will in 2011, leaving most of his estate equally to his three children. In 2018, by which time one of his sons had predeceased him, he made a further will, leaving the residue of his estate to his other son...

Defiance of Family Court Orders Will Always End Badly

10th April, 2024 By

Custodial sentences very rarely come into play in the family courts. Where there have been repeated breaches of court orders, however, judges may have little choice but to clamp down. This was illustrated in the High Court during committal proceedings that stemmed from a child custody dispute. The background to the case involved contested proceedings between the father and mother of a young child. These concluded with a court order establishing that the child – a daughter – would live with the mother. Three months later the daughter travelled with...

Claim for SDLT Relief on Annex Unsuccessful

8th April, 2024 By

When buying a property consisting of more than one residence, it may be possible to claim multiple dwellings relief (MDR) against Stamp Duty Land Tax (SDLT). However, there are certain conditions that must be met for an MDR claim to succeed, as a recent case illustrates. A property was purchased for £1.8 million. Prior to the purchase, the buyer had agreed with the seller that he would be allowed to carry out works to construct a self-contained annex at the property. The buyer's SDLT return included a claim for MDR...

Divorce – Alleged Bigamy Raised in Financial Remedies Dispute

5th April, 2024 By

The issue of bigamy and its potential impact on a person's ability to seek financial remedies in a divorce came under the legal spotlight recently. A husband made an application to strike out his wife's financial remedies claim on the basis that she had committed bigamy and deceived him into a marriage when she knew she was not free to marry. This deceit, he claimed, was so egregious that, as a matter of public policy, she should be debarred from pursuing any claim for financial remedies against him. The husband based...