Q&A: Wrestling with restrictive covenants
The management company of our building has received an application for its consent as freeholder to the erection of a new house on adjoining land under a restrictive covenant, which requires the company’s prior approval to the plans, not to be unreasonably withheld. Can the company refuse consent on the basis that we, as the leaseholders of the flats in the building, object to the appearance of the proposed exterior?
Potentially, yes, provided that a reasonable person with the benefit of the covenant might also refuse on that ground and so long as the refusal will not sterilise development of the neighbouring site entirely. Whether consent has been unreasonably refused in any given case will depend on the individual facts.
Similar facts arose in 89 Holland Park Management Ltd v Hicks  EWCA Civ 758;  EGLR 28. The Court of Appeal held that the freeholder could, in principle, rely on the aesthetic objections of the long leaseholders of the flats, who also benefited from the covenant, in refusing to approve the plans. This was held to be so even though the freeholder was a company, and the proposed development would neither diminish the value of its reversion nor affect the structural integrity of the building.
The case was remitted back to the High Court for a determination as to whether the company’s refusal to approve the plans for a contemporary dwelling proposed by architect Sophie Hicks was reasonable on the facts. In Hicks v 89 Holland Park (Management) Ltd  EWHC 930 (Comm);  PLSCS 83, it was held that the refusal, so far as grounded on objections to both the “uncompromisingly contemporary” design of the glass entrance and the extension of subterranean development beyond the rear building line, was justified as others in the same position as the company might reasonably have objected on those grounds.
It was held that, had implementing the proposed design been the only option for developing the adjoining site, approval could not reasonably have been withheld on the basis that the detriment to the burdened owner in not being able to develop the site would have been out of all proportion to the detriment to the beneficiaries of the covenant in having to tolerate a building whose design they objected to. However, on the facts, an amended design omitting the offending features would have been likely to have been acceptable in planning terms.
I have planning permission to convert an outbuilding on my land into a residential property. However, there is a covenant prohibiting this type of development, and so I intend to apply to discharge or modify it under section 84(1)(aa) of the Law of Property Act 1925. Given that I have planning consent for the development, will this automatically satisfy the tribunal that my proposed conversion is reasonable?
The grant of planning permission for a development does not automatically mean that the proposed use will be accepted by the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) as “reasonable” for the purposes of section 84(1)(aa). You should ensure that you have suitable evidence to satisfy this part of the criteria, and you may also want to consider whether any other grounds under section 84(1) might be available.
Section 84(1)(aa) allows the discharge or modification of a restrictive covenant where it impedes some reasonable user of the land for public or private purposes. Where that first hurdle is overcome, the UT will then consider whether the circumstances meet the tests set out in section 84(1A) of the 1925 Act.
The existence of planning consent for a proposed development does not guarantee that an application under section 84(1) will succeed, or that it will even overcome the first hurdle of satisfying the tribunal that the covenant is impeding a reasonable use. This has been shown in a number of cases, including the Court of Appeal decision in Re Martin and another’s application  1 EGLR 193 more than 30 years ago.
More recently, the UT in Thomson and another v Collins and another  UKUT 330 (LC) rejected an application made under section 84(1)(aa), even though the proposed residential conversion had planning consent. The tribunal found that the planning permission was not in line with any ascertainable pattern of permissions in the area. Moreover, it was so limited in scope and supporting detail that its existence was insufficient to satisfy the tribunal as to the reasonableness of the intended use. From its inspection on the ground, it concluded that residential use in the proposed location would not be reasonable.
To reduce the risk of a similar outcome, you should ensure that your evidence satisfies all aspects of the relevant criteria in section 84(1)(aa), including demonstrating the reasonableness of the proposed residential use. You should also consider whether any other grounds within section 84(1) might be included within your application.
This article was originally published in the June 2021 edition of Estates Gazette. Camilla Lamont is a barrister at Landmark Chambers and Emma Humphreys is a partner at Charles Russell Speechlys LLP
Dilapidations: the law and the reality
Emma Humphreys outlines how the Dilapidations Protocol and related guidance applies in practice.
Bond Clarke and Charles Russell Speechlys act on sale of person-centred software to cow corner
PCS is an award-winning company, founded in 2013 to help improve the quality of life for people in social care.
The Chartered Institution of Taxation (CIOT) Budget representations for October 2021
The CIOT has recommended an extension of the EMI scheme and a fairly comprehensive review of the rules underpinning EOT relief.
The Brick-and-Mortar Brand - How will landlords and tenants experience experiential retail?
Construction & Infrastructure Seminar
Experts will give insights and analysis on Building & Fire Safety, Case law updates and global supply shortages.
The death of the skyscraper?
Claire Fallows and James Souter write for Estates Gazette on the findings from the Firm’s Skyscraper vs Groundscraper report
Skyscraper vs Groundscraper looks at how and why our building typologies arise and the associated legal issues.
Charles Russell Speechlys advises shareholders of eCommonSense on sale to ECI Software Solutions
eCommonSense is a technology solutions provider focused on the construction and building materials supply sectors.
Supply (chain) and demand
Examining the draft RPDT legislation
Helen Coward considers the important aspects of the draft legislation for the new residential property developer tax.
Property Patter: Dealing with Sporting Rights over Land
Sporting rights can cause issues particularly if they are granted over land which may be developed in the future.
Charles Russell Speechlys advises Silbury Finance on a £55m facility to a Jersey unit trust
Silbury provides real estate development finance for professional developers seeking to acquire and build in the UK.
Who will carry the risk? Professional indemnity crisis in construction
The UK government announced details of its ban on the use of combustible materials on high rise buildings.
Charles Russell Speechlys acts for Cmostores Group Limited on its acquisition of JTM Plumbing Limited
CMO Group Plc, UK’s largest pureplay online retailer of building materials which recently listed on AIM.
David Haines writes for Property Week on preparing for future pandemics
Since the onset of the pandemic, landlords and tenants have been grappling with how to deal with future pandemics in new leases.
The role of IFCs in the post-Brexit environment
International Financial Centres (“IFCs”), are now on a level playing field with the UK when approaching the EU market.
Helen Coward writes for Tax Journal on the draft legislation for the new residential property developer tax
The government published draft legislation for the new residential property developer tax on 20 September 2021.
Emma Preece writes for the Estates Gazette Legal Q&A on recent guidance on residential service charge matters
Emma considers a recent Court of Appeal decision offers some timely guidance on residential service charge matters.
It was another exciting year at the Arabian & African Hotel Investment Conference (AHIC) .
Charles Russell Speechlys advises the founders of Compandben on the sale of the business to TopSource Worldwide
Compandben is one of the longest established international providers of employment solutions.