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,

To access this full article please fill the form below.
All fields are mandatory unless marked as 'Optional'.
If you already a subscriber to New Law Journal, please login here

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Browne Jacobson—Vicky Tomlinson

Browne Jacobson—Vicky Tomlinson

Browne Jacobson appoints Vicky Tomlinson as Head of Independent Health and Care

DWF—five appointments

DWF—five appointments

DWF further strengthens major injury and casualty offering with new partner and four directors from DAC Beachcroft

Switalskis—Laura Ornsby

Switalskis—Laura Ornsby

Switalskis strengthens Grimsby child care team

NEWS
The Supreme Court has settled a long-running dispute over part-time workers: unfavourable treatment need be a significant or effective cause, not the sole cause
Arbitration may be private, but its confidentiality is no impenetrable shield. Writing in NLJ this week, James Glaysher of Kingsley Napley examines when courts will permit arbitral material to surface in open litigation
The Financial Reporting Council’s revised Audit Enforcement Procedure will alter the balance of power in corporate investigations
A telecoms operator may be able to hold over under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, yet still be unable to secure a renewal: an outcome described as a legal ‘paradox’

Safety fears do not automatically justify shutting an interested person out of a statutory will application

back-to-top-scroll