Surrey CC and another v Bredero Homes ltd
Language: English Series: All England Law Reports ; (1992) 3 All ER 302-316(8)Publication details: 1992Subject(s): Summary: ChD 21 November 1991. The plaintiff councils (S) were freehold owners of two parcels of land acquired for road building purposes. By 1980 this was no longer required and S offered the site for development as a housing estate. By a contract dated 20 November 1980 S agreed to sell the site to the defendant B subject to planning permission for development in accordance with the S`s development brief. Consent was obtained and the land was transferred on 22 June 1981. B covenanted with S that it would carry out the development in accordance with the terms of planning permission and the approved scheme. B subsequently obtained planning permission to build more houses on the site than specified in the approved scheme and completed the enlarged development without seeking modification of the covenants. The development was therefore more profitable than that originally authorised. S despite being aware of this breach did not seek to compel B to develop the estate in accordance with the covena| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS46829 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 59611-1001 |
ChD 21 November 1991. The plaintiff councils (S) were freehold owners of two parcels of land acquired for road building purposes. By 1980 this was no longer required and S offered the site for development as a housing estate. By a contract dated 20 November 1980 S agreed to sell the site to the defendant B subject to planning permission for development in accordance with the S`s development brief. Consent was obtained and the land was transferred on 22 June 1981. B covenanted with S that it would carry out the development in accordance with the terms of planning permission and the approved scheme. B subsequently obtained planning permission to build more houses on the site than specified in the approved scheme and completed the enlarged development without seeking modification of the covenants. The development was therefore more profitable than that originally authorised. S despite being aware of this breach did not seek to compel B to develop the estate in accordance with the covena