Peter Martin Kay v Joanne Sarah Cunningham & Anor

Peter Martin Kay v Joanne Sarah Cunningham & Anor

The Tribunal found that the covenant impedes reasonable use of Lea Hurst for bed and breakfast purposes, but does not secure practical benefits of substantial value or advantage to the objectors. The planning system provides sufficient protection against undesirable development. Modification of the covenant is justified and will not injure the interests of the objectors. Discretion was exercised in favour of the applicant, with an additional restriction to limit vehicle movements of paying guests to the new driveway.

Parties
Applicant: Peter Martin Kay; Objector: Joanne Sarah Cunningham; Objector: Barry Nix
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 October 2023
Procedural Posture
Application Under Section 84 of the Law of Property Act 1925 / Final Determination
Outcome
Application granted
Legal Topics
Modification of Restrictive Covenants, Bed and Breakfast Use, Heritage Property, Planning Permissions, Neighbourhood Amenity
Property Law Land Use Restrictive Covenants Modification of Restrictive Covenants Bed and Breakfast Use Heritage Property Planning Permissions Neighbourhood Amenity

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 7 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Peter Martin Kay

Applicant

Joanne Sarah Cunningham

Objector

Barry Nix

Objector

Procedural Posture

Application Under Section 84 of the Law of Property Act 1925 / Final Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the restrictive covenant should be modified to permit bed and breakfast use of Lea Hurst
  2. 2 Whether the covenant secures practical benefits of substantial value or advantage to the neighbouring owner
  3. 3 Whether the proposed use is reasonable and impeded by the covenant

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that the covenant impedes reasonable use of Lea Hurst for bed and breakfast purposes, but does not secure practical benefits of substantial value or advantage to the objectors. The planning system provides sufficient protection against undesirable development. Modification of the covenant is justified and will not injure the interests of the objectors. Discretion was exercised in favour of the applicant, with an additional restriction to limit vehicle movements of paying guests to the new driveway.

Court Disposition

Application granted

Orders

  • Covenant modified to permit use of up to five bedrooms for bed and breakfast purposes at Lea Hurst
  • Additional restriction to limit vehicle movements of paying guests to the new driveway, subject to agreed wording by parties