LP/34/2006, 15 April 2008. Considered whether it was permissible to alter a restrictive covenant, and whether objectors and beneficiaries of the covenant were entitled to any payment in compensation. The applicants (C) applied for an alteration to a covenant preventing them from erecting a wooden shed in the grounds of their property. The objectors (M) were occupants of the neighbouring property, previous owners of C's property, and beneficiaries of the covenant. A shed was already in existence on the site, which C proposed to remove in order to build the new shed at a new location. Plans also referred to a concrete structure on the site of the new shed which had since been removed. C argued that the building of a shed was fair use of the property under the General Permitted Development Order 1995, and that the covenant was effectively obsolete. "Held": The covenant was not obsolete. However C's argument of fair use was acceptable, and the covenant could legitimately be modified. No injury was foreseen to M, who had only limited view of the shed from their property. The matter of material compensation therefore did not arise. Application permitted.