header-logo header-logo

Offices to flats: a rare modification?

30 September 2019 / Andrew Bruce
Categories: Features , Property
printer mail-detail
Andrew Bruce explains the grounds for sweeping away a leasehold covenant under s 84 of the Law of Property Act 1925
  • Considers the case of Shaviram Normandy Ltd v Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council, in which the Upper Tribunal allowed the modification of a purpose-built office building’s leasehold covenant to permit use as a residential building.

Property practitioners will be well aware of the jurisdiction to modify restrictive covenants affecting freehold land conferred upon the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) by s 84 of the Law of Property Act 1925. Freehold owners keen to develop their land will often rely upon one of the four grounds set out in s 84 to discharge or modify any valid and binding covenant which inhibits or prevents their desired development. Thus, obsolete covenants (ground (a)); or covenants which confer no practical benefit of substantial value (ground (aa)); or covenants where the beneficiaries agree (ground (b)); or covenants the discharge of which will cause no injury (ground (c)), may be swept away and constructive land development

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

Arc Pensions Law—Richard Meers

Arc Pensions Law—Richard Meers

Pensions litigation team announces senior associate hire

Burges Salmon—Neil Demuth

Burges Salmon—Neil Demuth

Firm appoints new chief financial officer

Anthony Collins—Sue Bearman

Anthony Collins—Sue Bearman

Social purpose firm announces director hire plus eight promotions

NEWS
AlphaBiolabs has made a £500 donation to Sean’s Place, a men’s mental health charity based in Sefton, as part of its ongoing Giving Back initiative
Human rights lawyers, social justice champion, co-founder of the law firm Bindmans, and NLJ columnist Sir Geoffrey Bindman KC has died at the age of 92 years
RFC Seraing v FIFA, in which the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) reaffirmed that awards by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) may be reviewed by EU courts on public-policy grounds, is under examination in this week's NLJ by Dr Estelle Ivanova of Valloni Attorneys at Law, Zurich
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll