The Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) has discharged, without compensation, a 1996 restriction that stopped an applicant using planning permission for five dwellings, three of them on a Surrey barn site.
Key facts
- Who: The applicant, Mr Duncan Grossart, and the objector, Mrs Vikki Ames, owner of the neighbouring Sturt Farm House
- From: 21 April 2026 (judgment date)
- Source: Duncan Grossart v Vikki Ames [2026] UKUT 139 (LC)
Background
In [2026] UKUT 139 (LC), decided on 21 April 2026, the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) dealt with an application under section 84 of the Law of Property Act 1925 by Mr Duncan Grossart. The restriction prevented him from implementing a planning permission for five dwellings, three of them on the land known as Sturt Farm Barn, Sturt Road, Haslemere.
The application land includes a single-storey barn conversion, a large garage and several sheds. A 1996 transfer restricted its use to a single dwellinghouse. The benefit of that restriction belongs to Mrs Ames, who owns the neighbouring Grade II listed Sturt Farm House and objected to the application.
The wider Sturt Farm land has since been developed as Grasslands Close, a scheme of 132 homes. Mr Grossart relied on grounds (a), (aa) and (c) of section 84(1). Mrs Ames represented herself.
The question
Could the restriction be discharged or modified because it was obsolete, because it secured no practical benefits of substantial value or advantage, or because discharge would cause the objector no injury?
The decision
The application succeeded under grounds (aa) and (c). The restriction was discharged without compensation.
The reasoning
The tribunal found that building three small houses on the application land was a reasonable use that the restriction impeded. It concluded that the development would have no impact on the objector's enjoyment of her property.
- The only view from her house would be of a roof ridge 50 metres away from one upstairs window, seen against the existing Grasslands Close development.
- There would be no overlooking and no identifiable new noise.
- Extra traffic on the access road would be insignificant compared with existing traffic from Grasslands Close.
- The new surface water attenuation system at Grasslands Close had been designed to prevent a future flooding event, and a condition of the planning permission requires a surface water drainage scheme to be approved before development begins.
- Preventing temporary disturbance during construction is not a practical benefit secured by the restriction.
The tribunal noted that the planning officer had found low harm to the listed building's setting, subject to a landscaped buffer. That buffer is aimed at the two plots on separate, unburdened land. Sturt Farm Barn already provides a buffer for the three plots on the application land. The tribunal concluded that the objector's concerns were unfounded.
What this means for the parties
For Mr Grossart, the discharge removes the restriction that prevented him from implementing the planning permission on the application land. For Mrs Ames, the tribunal found that the restriction secured her no practical benefit and that its discharge would cause her no injury, so no compensation was awarded.
Sources
- Duncan Grossart v Vikki Ames [2026] UKUT 139 (LC), Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber), 21 April 2026: https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukut/lc/2026/139