header-logo header-logo

09 February 2024 / Andrew Francis
Issue: 8058 / Categories: Features , Profession , Property
printer mail-detail

When planning law meets restrictive covenants

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

NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

Daniel Burbeary, office managing partner of Michelman Robinson, discusses launching in London, the power of the law, and what the kitchen can teach us about litigating

Joelson—Jennifer Mansoor

Joelson—Jennifer Mansoor

West End firm strengthens employment and immigration team with partner hire

JMW—Belinda Brooke

JMW—Belinda Brooke

Employment and people solutions offering boosted by partner hire

NEWS

The Court of Appeal has slammed the brakes on claimants trying to swap defendants after limitation has expired. In Adcamp LLP v Office Properties and BDB Pitmans v Lee [2026] EWCA Civ 50, it overturned High Court rulings that had allowed substitutions under s 35(6)(b) of the Limitation Act 1980, reports Sarah Crowther of DAC Beachcroft in this week's NLJ

Cheating in driving tests is surging—and courts are responding firmly. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort Law School charts a rise in impersonation and tech-assisted fraud, with 2,844 attempts recorded in a year
As AI-generated ‘deepfake’ images proliferate, the law may already have the tools to respond. In NLJ this week, Jon Belcher of Excello Law argues that such images amount to personal data processing under UK GDPR
In a striking financial remedies ruling, the High Court cut a wife’s award by 40% for coercive and controlling behaviour. Writing in NLJ this week, Chris Bryden and Nicole Wallace of 4 King’s Bench Walk analyse LP v MP [2025] EWFC 473
A €60.9m award to Kylian Mbappé has refocused attention on football’s controversial ‘ethics bonus’ clauses. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Estelle Ivanova of Valloni Attorneys at Law examines how such provisions sit within French labour law
back-to-top-scroll