The Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) has modified a restrictive covenant that blocked a three-bedroom house on Dartmouth garden land, finding the neighbours' benefit of preserving the area's appearance was not of substantial value.
Key facts
- Who: Owners of land burdened by a restrictive covenant, and neighbours who have the benefit of one
- From: 11 August 2026 (judgment date)
- Source: Hughes Family Property Co Ltd & Anor v Jonathan Marvin & Ors [2026] UKUT 310 (LC)
In Hughes Family Property Co Ltd & Anor v Jonathan Marvin & Ors [2026] UKUT 310 (LC), decided on 11 August 2026, the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) allowed an application under section 84 of the Law of Property Act 1925.
Background
Two companies own land that forms part of the garden of a house in Dartmouth. A director and shareholder of both companies lives in the house. The companies obtained planning permission for a three-bedroom house on the land. They could not implement it without breaching a restrictive covenant burdening the land.
The objectors live in some of the neighbouring houses in Redwalls Meadow, which have the benefit of the covenant. One attended the hearing and gave evidence. The others made written submissions.
The question
Under section 84(1)(aa) and (c) of the 1925 Act, the tribunal considered whether the covenant secured practical benefits of substantial value or advantage to the neighbouring owners.
The decision
The application was allowed. The tribunal concluded that the ability to preserve the aesthetic conferred by the covenant was a practical benefit, but not one of substantial value or advantage.
The reasoning
On appearance, the tribunal found that a one-and-a-half-storey house of modest dimensions would not have an adverse impact on the aesthetic of Redwalls Meadow. It would appear as a not particularly prominent extension of the existing row of houses on Mount Boone.
The ridge would be about 6 metres above the surrounding ground, and the permission allowed the site to be lowered by about a metre. The house would be set close to the Mount Boone boundary, and most windows face away from Redwalls Meadow. Overlooking would be kept to a minimum and was likely to affect only two properties. The planning officer's report had also remarked that the development would not harm the visual amenity of the site and surrounding landscape.
On traffic and parking, the objectors feared extra pressure on Redwalls Meadow. The tribunal noted that the house would be accessed from Mount Boone. It considered the house modest. Likely buyers would be a couple, possibly downsizing, or a couple with children, probably with two cars accommodated on site. The nearest on-street parking was less than 30 metres from the proposed house. The tribunal found the objectors' fears hard to reconcile with what it observed.
What this means for owners and neighbours
The decision shows how the tribunal weighed the covenant against the actual effect of the proposed house. It assessed neighbours' concerns about appearance, overlooking, traffic and parking against its own findings from its inspection and the evidence.
Anyone affected by a covenant that blocks building, or by an application to modify one, should check their own covenant and documents and get advice.
Sources
- Hughes Family Property Co Ltd & Anor v Jonathan Marvin & Ors [2026] UKUT 310 (LC), Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber), 11 August 2026: https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukut/lc/2026/310