Application was made to vary a restrictive covenant: ‘ . . how the character of the area and the amenities would be affected by the modification of the restriction is not in my view to be judged by envisaging the worst that could be done without breaching the restriction and comparing it with what the proposed modification is intended to permit . . In such a case as this, the provision, it seems to me, operates in this way. By preventing development that would have an adverse affect on the persons entitled to his benefit, the restriction may be said to secure practical benefits to them but if other developments having adverse affects could be carried out without breaching the covenant, these practical benefits may not be of substantial value or advantage. Whether they are of substantial value or advantage is likely to depend on the degree of probability of such other development being carried out and how bad, in comparison to the appellant’s scheme, the effects of that development would be.’
George Bartlett QC
[2004] EWLands LP – 30 – 2001, LP/30/2001
Bailii
Law of Property Act 1925 84
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Shephard and others v Turner and Another CA 23-Jan-2006
The appellants challenged the removal of a restrictive covenant on a neighbour’s house restricting further building on the land to allow further house in the garden. It was in a small close of houses all erected, and the covenant imposed, in 1952. . .
Approved – Shepherd v Turner CA 2006
. .
Cited – Winter and Another v Traditional and Contemporary Contracts Ltd CA 7-Nov-2007
The land-owners applied for a variation of a restrictive covenant to allow them to put a second house on their plot. They had bought out the right of the original builder, but a neighbour also had the benefit of the covenant. They now appealed the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Land, Damages
Updated: 13 December 2021; Ref: scu.225804
