header-logo header-logo

27 July 2012 / Dean Bedford
Issue: 7524 / Categories: Features , Environment , Property
printer mail-detail

Arrested development?

rexfeatures_1760344a_4

Conserving history or restricting the future? Dean Bedford puts the National Trust under the spotlight

The benefit of a restrictive covenant attaches to land and can be enforced by successive owners of that land provided certain well-rehearsed conditions are met. However, s 8 of the National Trust Act 1937 enables the National Trust to enforce restrictive covenants without needing to satisfy all these criteria.  This can cause headaches for property developers by removing a developer’s ability to take an informed legal view on the risk posed by a covenant before committing to a project or, giving them little opportunity to defend themselves in the usual way. In the event of enforcement by the Trust developers have struggled to obtain modification or release of covenants in the Upper Tribunal because the injury caused to the Trust cannot be quantified in monetary terms. However, Re Thames Valley Holdings Ltd (2011) LTL 30/8/2011, [2011] UKUT 325 (LC) offers a ray of opportunity to developers looking to utilise land burdened by National Trust covenants.

Restrictive convenants

Thames

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll