Automated Summary
Key Facts
This case from the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) concerns an application to modify a restrictive covenant on property at 7 Larkin Avenue, Cottingham. The applicants (Mr. and Mrs. Hodgson) sought to permit a beauty therapy business from a cabin in their garden, which they had operated since April 2021. The Tribunal determined that the covenant, prohibiting business use on the property, secured practical benefits of substantial value to neighboring property owners by protecting the amenity and character of the residential estate. The Tribunal found that the covenant prevents activities that would significantly impinge on the quiet enjoyment of neighboring properties and underpins property values, leading to the dismissal of the application.
Issues
- The main issue was whether the restrictive covenant prohibiting business use of a property could be modified under section 84 of the Law of Property Act 1925 to allow a beauty therapy business from a garden cabin.
- The court needed to determine if the restrictive covenant securing the objectors' right to a quiet residential environment provided practical benefits of substantial value or advantage, particularly considering the impact of the beauty business on the estate's amenity.
- The applicants argued that the objectors had implicitly agreed to the modification, but the court found no evidence of such agreement and dismissed this ground.
- The court had to assess if modifying the covenant to allow the beauty business would injure the objectors, who claimed the business would negatively impact property values and residential amenity.
Holdings
The Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) dismissed the application to modify a restrictive covenant prohibiting business use on a residential property, finding the covenant secured practical benefits of substantial value for the estate's residents. The court determined the covenant prevents activities that would significantly impinge on the quiet enjoyment and value of the development, and the applicants failed to satisfy the requirements of section 84(1)(aa) of the Law of Property Act 1925.
Remedies
The Upper Tribunal dismissed the applicants' application to modify the restrictive covenant, determining that the covenant secures practical benefits of substantial value to the objectors by preserving the residential character of the estate and preventing commercial activities that could disrupt neighborhood amenity.
Legal Principles
The Upper Tribunal determined that the restrictive covenant, which prohibits commercial use of the property, secures practical benefits of substantial value or advantage to the residents of the estate by preserving the amenity and value of the development. The tribunal found that the covenant prevents activities that would significantly impinge on the quiet enjoyment of neighboring properties and ensures the characteristics that make Larkin Avenue a pleasant place to live are preserved.
Precedent Name
- George Wimpey Bristol Limited and Gloucestershire Housing Association Limited
- Martin v Lipton
- Alexander Devine Children's Cancer Trust v Housing Solutions Ltd
- Shephard v Turner
- Alexander Devine Children's Cancer Trust v Millgate Developments Ltd
Cited Statute
Law of Property Act 1925
Judge Name
Mark Higgin
Passage Text
- It is my judgement that the covenant protects aspects of the estate that should be maintained. It prevents activities that would, if left unchecked, significantly impinge on the amenity of the development and is the sole means by which this protection can be secured. It ensures the quiet enjoyment of the houses on the estate and underpins their value. I regard this as a practical benefit of substantial value or advantage.
- Estates such as the one that Larkin Avenue forms part of are not designed with those using part or all of their property for business purposes in mind. The density of development is such that any noisy or unsightly use of one property is likely to have an impact on the enjoyment of their homes by a number of its neighbours.
- In my judgement the developer was offering purchasers an opportunity to buy in to a controlled environment where the appearance of the estate would remain the same and non-domestic uses would be prohibited. Commercial uses that generate the level of parking seen outside the Property over a significant portion of the day and over nearly every day of the week are prohibited by the covenant, whether they would be acceptable in planning terms or not.