Azfar, Re [2001] EWLands LP_10_2000 (30 July 2001)

Azfar, Re [2001] EWLands LP_10_2000 (30 July 2001)

The restrictive covenant is not obsolete as the neighbourhood remains predominantly low-density residential and the covenant continues to secure substantial practical benefits to neighbours. The proposed development would cause significant adverse impact on amenity and property values, and the restriction secures benefits of substantial value to those entitled. Money is not adequate compensation. The application fails under both section 84(1)(a) and (aa).

Citation
[2001] EWLands LP_10_2000
Parties
Applicant: Adnan Azfar; Objectors: Mr and Mrs Adrian Jones; Objectors: Family Housing Association; Objectors: Professor and Mrs Richard Batley; Objectors: Selly Park Property Owners Association; Objector: Mr H K Lakey; Objector: Mr B Sherwood; Objectors: Mr and Mrs D A Payne
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 July 2001
Procedural Posture
Application to Modify Restrictive Covenant / Final Decision and Costs Order
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Restrictive Covenants, Modification of Covenants, Section 84 Law of Property Act 1925, Residential Use, Planning Permission, Public Interest
Property Law Restrictive Covenants Modification of Covenants Section 84 Law of Property Act 1925 Residential Use Planning Permission Public Interest

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Adnan Azfar

Applicant

Mr and Mrs Adrian Jones

Objectors

Family Housing Association

Objectors

Professor and Mrs Richard Batley

Objectors

Selly Park Property Owners Association

Objectors

Mr H K Lakey

Objector

Mr B Sherwood

Objector

Mr and Mrs D A Payne

Objectors

Procedural Posture

Application to Modify Restrictive Covenant / Final Decision and Costs Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the restrictive covenant is obsolete under section 84(1)(a) Law of Property Act 1925
  2. 2 Whether the covenant impedes reasonable user and fails to secure practical benefits of substantial value under section 84(1)(aa)
  3. 3 Whether modification is contrary to public interest

Ratio Decidendi

The restrictive covenant is not obsolete as the neighbourhood remains predominantly low-density residential and the covenant continues to secure substantial practical benefits to neighbours. The proposed development would cause significant adverse impact on amenity and property values, and the restriction secures benefits of substantial value to those entitled. Money is not adequate compensation. The application fails under both section 84(1)(a) and (aa).

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Application to modify restrictive covenant refused
  • Applicant to pay objectors' costs, to be agreed or assessed on the standard basis