Arrested development?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2025. All Rights Reserved.

27 July 2012 / Dean Bedford

Issue: 7524 / Categories: Features , Environment , Property

printer

mail-detail

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

Arrested development?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2025. All Rights Reserved.

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

SourceURL:

Links:

E-newsletter Sign-Up

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Slater Heelis—Chester office

Slater Heelis—Chester office

North West presence strengthened with Chester office launch

Cooke, Young & Keidan—Elizabeth Meade

Cooke, Young & Keidan—Elizabeth Meade

Firm grows commercial disputes expertise with partner promotion

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

NEWS

Assisted dying Bill timetable revised

The House of Lords has set up a select committee to examine assisted dying, which will delay the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

NLJ this week: Motor finance faces £11bn reckoning

The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers

NLJ this week: Gold on Awaab’s Law & digital divorce

In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives

NLJ this week: AI in the dock—courts need literacy, not fear

Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ

NLJ this week: Landlords lose their upward climb

James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights

back-to-top-scroll