In Davies and others' application
In Davies and others' application
- 2001
- Estates Gazette [2001] 03 EG 134-139(6) .
LT 5 October 2000. Two of the applicants, Mr and Mrs Davies, acquired a detached house and redundant agricultural buildings (the stables) from the SoS Wales acting on behalf of the Forestry Commission. Having obtained planning permission to convert the stables the Davies applied to have a restrictive covenant, requiring them to obtain permission from the vendor before altering any of the existing buildings or erecting new structures, discharged or reworded. The Davies, together with a third applicant Mr Murphy, contended that the covenant was either obsolete under Law of Property Act 1925 s84(1)(a) or that the proposed discharge or modification would not injure the persons entitled to the benefit under s84(1)(c). The first ground was rejected as it provided the Forestry Commission (the objector) with a means of control over development on the land but it was ruled that the covenant should be reworded under the second to allow the work for which planning permission had been given to take place. Compensation of £2,450 was to be paid to the objector under ground (c)(ii) by the applicants, who were also to pay half of the objector's costs.
AGRICULTURAL BUILDINGS
COMPENSATION
CONVERSIONS
DAVIES APPLICATION
DISCHARGE
LAW OF PROPERTY ACT 1925 S84(1)(A)
LAW OF PROPERTY ACT 1925 S84(1)(C)
MODIFICATION
PLANNING PERMISSION
RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS
LT 5 October 2000. Two of the applicants, Mr and Mrs Davies, acquired a detached house and redundant agricultural buildings (the stables) from the SoS Wales acting on behalf of the Forestry Commission. Having obtained planning permission to convert the stables the Davies applied to have a restrictive covenant, requiring them to obtain permission from the vendor before altering any of the existing buildings or erecting new structures, discharged or reworded. The Davies, together with a third applicant Mr Murphy, contended that the covenant was either obsolete under Law of Property Act 1925 s84(1)(a) or that the proposed discharge or modification would not injure the persons entitled to the benefit under s84(1)(c). The first ground was rejected as it provided the Forestry Commission (the objector) with a means of control over development on the land but it was ruled that the covenant should be reworded under the second to allow the work for which planning permission had been given to take place. Compensation of £2,450 was to be paid to the objector under ground (c)(ii) by the applicants, who were also to pay half of the objector's costs.
AGRICULTURAL BUILDINGS
COMPENSATION
CONVERSIONS
DAVIES APPLICATION
DISCHARGE
LAW OF PROPERTY ACT 1925 S84(1)(A)
LAW OF PROPERTY ACT 1925 S84(1)(C)
MODIFICATION
PLANNING PERMISSION
RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS