Tillotson, Re: 2 Middleton Drive [2008] EWLands LP_56_2006 (06 June 2008)

Tillotson, Re: 2 Middleton Drive [2008] EWLands LP_56_2006 (06 June 2008)

The Tribunal found that the restrictive covenants secured practical benefits of substantial value or advantage to the objectors, specifically the maintenance of the exclusivity, spaciousness, and character of Middleton Drive. The proposed new house would be out of character, detract from the entrance, and adversely affect the amenity of the area. Therefore, the requirements for modification under s.84(1)(aa) and (c) were not satisfied, and the application was refused.

Citation
[2008] EWLands LP_56_2006
Parties
Applicant: Peter Tillotson; Applicant: Jean Elizabeth Tillotson; Objector: Jack Alexander Walne; Objector: Geoffrey Brian Wessell; Objector: Frederick Charles Green; Objector: Colin Birchall; Objector: Christine Birchall; Objector: Steven William Blackadder; Objector: Gillian Mary Blackadder
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 June 2008
Procedural Posture
Application for Modification of Restrictive Covenant / Final Decision
Outcome
application refused
Legal Topics
Restrictive Covenants, Modification of Covenants, Law of Property Act 1925 S.84, Land Use Planning
Property Law Restrictive Covenants Modification of Covenants Law of Property Act 1925 S.84 Land Use Planning

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 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Peter Tillotson

Applicant

Jean Elizabeth Tillotson

Applicant

Jack Alexander Walne

Objector

Geoffrey Brian Wessell

Objector

Frederick Charles Green

Objector

Colin Birchall

Objector

Christine Birchall

Objector

Steven William Blackadder

Objector

Gillian Mary Blackadder

Objector

Procedural Posture

Application for Modification of Restrictive Covenant / Final Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the restrictive covenants should be modified under section 84 of the Law of Property Act 1925 to permit construction of a second detached house on the land at 2 Middleton Drive.
  2. 2 Whether the covenants secure practical benefits of substantial value or advantage to the objectors.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that the restrictive covenants secured practical benefits of substantial value or advantage to the objectors, specifically the maintenance of the exclusivity, spaciousness, and character of Middleton Drive. The proposed new house would be out of character, detract from the entrance, and adversely affect the amenity of the area. Therefore, the requirements for modification under s.84(1)(aa) and (c) were not satisfied, and the application was refused.

Court Disposition

application refused

Orders

  • Application for modification of restrictive covenants refused.