Re Quaffers Ltd`s Application
Language: English Series: Journal of Planning and Environment Law ; (1988) JPL 420-422(3)Publication details: 1988Subject(s): Summary: LT 11 January 1988. Application for discharge or modification of restrictive covenants affecting 0.86 of an acre of land, surrounded by a motorway network. The covenants restricted use of the site for trade and business and forbade the sale of alcohol. The building of a 34 bed hotel was proposed. There were two main objectors, O and B. O was in the process of building a 119 bed hotel and claimed that the restrictions secured the advantage of preventing other business in the area from being in direct competition. O claimed £30,000 in compensation should the restrictions be modified. B leased an extensive licensed restaurant with banking and conference facilities and another restaurant and four public houses a few miles from the applicant site. B claimed that the object of the restrictions was to protect its amenities and its commercial interest. B claimed £22,250 in compensation . The applicants contended that the advent of the motorway network had created a fundamental change in the| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS39380 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 16263-1001 |
LT 11 January 1988. Application for discharge or modification of restrictive covenants affecting 0.86 of an acre of land, surrounded by a motorway network. The covenants restricted use of the site for trade and business and forbade the sale of alcohol. The building of a 34 bed hotel was proposed. There were two main objectors, O and B. O was in the process of building a 119 bed hotel and claimed that the restrictions secured the advantage of preventing other business in the area from being in direct competition. O claimed £30,000 in compensation should the restrictions be modified. B leased an extensive licensed restaurant with banking and conference facilities and another restaurant and four public houses a few miles from the applicant site. B claimed that the object of the restrictions was to protect its amenities and its commercial interest. B claimed £22,250 in compensation . The applicants contended that the advent of the motorway network had created a fundamental change in the