In the matter of an application under section 84 of the Law of Property Act 1925 [electronic resource] Tillotson
In the matter of an application under section 84 of the Law of Property Act 1925 Tillotson [electronic resource]
- 2008
See related article catalogued under the reference L145097 [2008] EWLands LP 56 2006, 06 June 2008. The case turned around whether landlords of expensive houses could oppose the development of an exclusive estate. The Tillotsons were granted planning permission to build an additional house on the land of their current home. However, restrictive covenants limited building to just one house per land. The Tillotsons applied to the Lands Tribunal to reject the covenant as invalid or to amend it to allow the building of the extra house. The neighbours opposed this. The tribunal examined whether the covenants gave benefits of such value to the neighbours that a financial compensation would be inadequate. The tribunal concluded that the estate substantially benefited from the restrictions from the covenants. Therefore, these covenants should be maintained as financial compensation would not be adequate to cover for the losses that would otherwise be incurred. "Held": Application rejected. The tribunal felt that the development could not be allowed as it would weaken the exclusivity of the area.
LAW OF PROPERTY ACT 1925 S84
SHEPHARD AND OTHERS V TURNER AND ANOTHER
GILBERT V SPOOR
SOLARFILMS (SALES) LTDS APPLICATION
MITMAN-KEAREY'S APPLICATION
HUNT'S APPLICATION
LEE'S APPLICATION
DOBBIN'S APPLICATION
STANNARD V ISSA
FELTON HOMES LIMITED'S APPLICATION
MCMORRIS V BROWN
BASS LIMITED'S APPLICATION
England and Wales--1543-
See related article catalogued under the reference L145097 [2008] EWLands LP 56 2006, 06 June 2008. The case turned around whether landlords of expensive houses could oppose the development of an exclusive estate. The Tillotsons were granted planning permission to build an additional house on the land of their current home. However, restrictive covenants limited building to just one house per land. The Tillotsons applied to the Lands Tribunal to reject the covenant as invalid or to amend it to allow the building of the extra house. The neighbours opposed this. The tribunal examined whether the covenants gave benefits of such value to the neighbours that a financial compensation would be inadequate. The tribunal concluded that the estate substantially benefited from the restrictions from the covenants. Therefore, these covenants should be maintained as financial compensation would not be adequate to cover for the losses that would otherwise be incurred. "Held": Application rejected. The tribunal felt that the development could not be allowed as it would weaken the exclusivity of the area.
LAW OF PROPERTY ACT 1925 S84
SHEPHARD AND OTHERS V TURNER AND ANOTHER
GILBERT V SPOOR
SOLARFILMS (SALES) LTDS APPLICATION
MITMAN-KEAREY'S APPLICATION
HUNT'S APPLICATION
LEE'S APPLICATION
DOBBIN'S APPLICATION
STANNARD V ISSA
FELTON HOMES LIMITED'S APPLICATION
MCMORRIS V BROWN
BASS LIMITED'S APPLICATION
England and Wales--1543-