header-logo header-logo

When planning law meets restrictive covenants

09 February 2024 / Andrew Francis
Issue: 8058 / Categories: Features , Profession , Property
printer mail-detail
157358
The separation of the two systems can be frustrating to lay people & adds to the burden on their advisers. Andrew Francis helps make us at home in this area of the law
  • Explains the separation between the systems governing private rights and obligations, and those governing planning matters.
  • Illustrates the triangular relationship between the parties in large-scale developments.
  • Discusses the judgment in House and another v Waverley Borough Council and another [2023].

Private property rights and obligations, such as those within restrictive covenants or easements, are not generally considered easy bedfellows with rights and obligations under planning law. Even when they do fall in together, either of them is usually seen as having little relevance to the other. This legal apartheid is due mainly to three factors. First, there is the overriding concept of what are ‘material considerations’ when considering matters within planning law (see the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, s 70(2) and the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, s 38(6)). Private rights under covenants,

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

Pillsbury—Lord Garnier KC

Pillsbury—Lord Garnier KC

Appointment of former Solicitor General bolsters corporate investigations and white collar practice

Hall & Wilcox—Nigel Clark

Hall & Wilcox—Nigel Clark

Firm strengthens international strategy with hire of global relations consultant

Slater Heelis—Sylviane Kokouendo & Shazia Ashraf

Slater Heelis—Sylviane Kokouendo & Shazia Ashraf

Partner and associate join employment practice

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
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