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

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

Gilson Gray—Jeremy Davy

Gilson Gray—Jeremy Davy

Partner appointed as head of residential conveyancing for England

DR Solicitors—Paul Edels

DR Solicitors—Paul Edels

Specialist firm enhances corporate healthcare practice with partner appointment

NEWS
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
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
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
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
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll