The applicants sought modification of a covenant, to enable them to build a second house on a single plot within a building scheme.
Held: ‘The position of the Tribunal is clear. Any application under section 84(1) must be determined upon the facts and merits of the particular case, and the Tribunal is unable to bind itself to a particular course of action in the future in a case which is not before it . . It is however legitimate in considering a particular application to have regard to the scheme of covenants as a whole and to assess the importance to the beneficiaries of maintaining the integrity of the scheme. The Tribunal has frequently adopted this approach.
Insofar as this application would have the effect if granted of opening a breach in a carefully maintained and outstandingly successful scheme of development, to grant the application would in my view deprive the objectors of a substantial practical benefit, namely the assurance of the integrity of the building scheme. Furthermore I see the force of the argument that erection of this house could materially alter the context in which possible future applications would be considered.’
Judges:
Judge Bernard Marder QC
Citations:
[1995] 71 PandCR 104
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Adopted – McMorris v Claude Brown and others PC 30-Jul-1998
(Jamaica) It could be a proper argument that the first relaxation of a restrictive covenant was merely the thin end of the wedge and it may be sufficient to reject the application though there was no immediate detriment to dominant land. . .
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. . .
Cited – Re Hunt’s Application LT 1997
Application was made to relax a restrictive covenant to allow a further house to be built within a garden plot.
Held: The scheme had the primary intention of securing a relatively low density residential development of houses and bungalows. . .
Cited – Lawntown Ltd v Camenzuli and Another CA 10-Oct-2007
Objecting neighbours appealed against a decision allowing a variation of a restrictive covenant to allow the owner to convert a dwellinghouse into two self-contained apartments.
Held: The appeal failed. The power in the 1985 Act to vary a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Land
Updated: 01 May 2022; Ref: scu.238673