Dart v No Respondent [2006] EWLands LP_68_2005 (08 August 2006)

Dart v No Respondent [2006] EWLands LP_68_2005 (08 August 2006)

The Tribunal held that the restriction secures to the council a practical benefit of substantial value by supporting planning policies that restrict residential development outside defined settlement boundaries. The grant of planning permission for the flat did not negate the restriction, and the council's refusal to modify was justified and not vexatious. The applicant failed to establish grounds for modification under section 84(1)(aa), (b), or (c).

Citation
[2006] EWLands LP_68_2005
Parties
Applicant: John Lionel Dart; Objector: Isle of Wight Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 August 2006
Procedural Posture
Application Under Section 84 of the Law of Property Act 1925 / Decision on Application to Modify Restrictive Covenant
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
Modification of Restrictive Covenants, Section 52 Agreements, Planning Permission and Land Use, Section 84 Law of Property Act 1925, Development Outside Settlement Boundaries
Property Law Planning Law Modification of Restrictive Covenants Section 52 Agreements Planning Permission and Land Use Section 84 Law of Property Act 1925 Development Outside Settlement Boundaries

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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Lionel Dart

Applicant

Isle of Wight Council

Objector

Procedural Posture

Application Under Section 84 of the Law of Property Act 1925 / Decision on Application to Modify Restrictive Covenant

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the restrictive covenant imposed by a section 52 Agreement should be modified to allow separate disposal of a self-contained flat
  2. 2 Whether the restriction secures practical benefits of substantial value or advantage to the council
  3. 3 Whether the council has agreed to modification by act or omission

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal held that the restriction secures to the council a practical benefit of substantial value by supporting planning policies that restrict residential development outside defined settlement boundaries. The grant of planning permission for the flat did not negate the restriction, and the council's refusal to modify was justified and not vexatious. The applicant failed to establish grounds for modification under section 84(1)(aa), (b), or (c).

Court Disposition

application dismissed