Beeches Capital vs Hunt Estate – Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) – [2024] UKUT 414 (LC) – Case Summary

Introduction

The Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) recently handed down a significant decision in the case of Beeches Capital vs Hunt Estate, concerning the modification of a restrictive covenant under section 84 of the Law of Property Act 1925. The case involved Beeches Capital's application to modify a covenant that restricted the use of their land, Beeches Farm, for agricultural purposes only. The Tribunal's decision to allow the modification paves the way for the redevelopment of the site into a modern business hub, despite objections from neighbouring landowners.

Background

Beeches Farm, located on the outskirts of Tring, Hertfordshire, was subject to a restrictive covenant dating back to 1959, which limited the erection of buildings for agricultural use only. Beeches Capital sought to modify this covenant to implement a planning permission granted in 2022 for the development of office units. The application was opposed by the personal representatives of the estate of Margaret Adeline Hunt, who argued that the covenant provided practical benefits by preserving the rural character and amenity of the area.

The Tribunal's Considerations

The Tribunal, presided over by Mrs Diane Martin, examined whether the covenant was obsolete and whether its modification would secure practical benefits for the objectors. The Tribunal considered the planning history of the site, the character of the neighbourhood, and the potential impact of the proposed development on the objectors' enjoyment of their land.

Arguments and Evidence

Beeches Capital, represented by Ms Brooke Lyne, argued that the covenant was obsolete due to changes in the character of the area and that the proposed development was a reasonable use of the land. They contended that the redevelopment scheme would not significantly impact the objectors' amenity compared to the existing conversion scheme, which was permissible under the covenant.

On the other hand, the objectors, represented by Mr Richard Power, maintained that the covenant continued to provide substantial benefits by preventing urbanisation and preserving the rural landscape. They expressed concerns about increased noise, light pollution, and loss of privacy resulting from the redevelopment.

The Tribunal's Decision

The Tribunal concluded that the covenant was not obsolete, as the character of the neighbourhood had not changed significantly since the covenant's imposition. However, it found that the restriction did not secure practical benefits of substantial value to the objectors, particularly given the existing planning permissions.

Compensation and Modification

The Tribunal decided to modify the covenant to allow the redevelopment, subject to the conditions of the planning permission. It also awarded the objectors £15,000 in compensation for the marginal loss of amenity they would suffer until the landscaping matured. This compensation was intended to enable the objectors to undertake further planting to mitigate the impact of the development.

Implications

This decision highlights the Tribunal's approach to balancing modern development needs with the preservation of rural character. It underscores the importance of considering planning permissions and the actual impact of developments when assessing the benefits of restrictive covenants.

Conclusion

The case of Beeches Capital vs Hunt Estate serves as a critical reference for future applications involving the modification of restrictive covenants, particularly in rural settings. It demonstrates the Tribunal's willingness to allow development that aligns with modern planning frameworks while ensuring fair compensation for affected parties.

Learn More

For more information on housing law, see BeCivil's guide to UK Housing Law.