Restrictive covenants and planning PDF Print E-mail
Wednesday, 01 February 2012 17:14

Michael Fahy considers the recent Court of Appeal decision of Zenios v Hampstead Garden Suburb Trust Ltd [2011] EWCA Civ 1645 on the Lands Tribunal's refusal to modify a restrictive covenant.

The Court of Appeal has upheld the decision of the Lands Tribunal – now the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) – to refuse to modify restrictions prohibiting alterations to the external appearance of any house within the suburb without the consent of the Hampstead Garden Suburb Trust Ltd (the “Trust”).

This case is a useful reminder that planning law and estate management schemes can operate as independent dual systems of control. Developers should ensure they obtain both planning permission and consent from those with the benefit of a restrictive covenant, as the mere existence of planning permission will not override the authority of those benefiting from a restriction.

The appellants wanted to construct a first floor extension over their garage and argued that, under Section 84(1) of the Law of Property Act 1925, the Lands Tribunal should have modified or discharged the terms of the restrictive covenant preventing their development for the following reasons:

  1. the planning authority had already granted planning permission to construct the extension and the Trust’s decision should be driven by this decision; and
  2. in any event, the payment of money would be an adequate compensation for any loss or disadvantage.

Power to make independent decisions

The Judge ruled that it was for the Trust to reach its own independent view on the application and that it was entitled to arrive at the decision at which it did. It was held that the planning authority’s decisions “fall to be considered” but do not drive the decision to be made by the Trust. The Judge went on to comment that there was nothing unorthodox in a state of affairs where there are two controls, the local planning authority and the Trust, rather than just one upon the implementation of proposals such as these. Moreover, it was held that, if it were Parliament’s intention for the decisions of a planning authority to prevail in such circumstances, then one would expect that to be specifically provided for in the legislation.

Money as compensation

The Court confirmed that the Trust had a duty to act for the promotion of the public interest on behalf of those in the amenities of the area in question. It was ruled that the damage to the public interest represented by the Trust could not sensibly be compensated by money. While reaching its decision, the Court differentiated between the loss of amenity to an individual (where money could perhaps be an adequate compensation) and the loss of amenity to the public as a whole (where money could not be an adequate compensation).

Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

Appropriation by local authorities

Local authorities are in the unique position of being able to override private rights such as restrictive covenants under Section 237 of the Town and Country Planning Act (“TCPA”) 1990, as described in Kate Silverman’s article in Local Government Lawyer.

Further amendments to this power have been introduced by the Planning Act 2008. Paragraph 4 of Schedule 9 to that Act amends Section 237 of the TCPA so as to authorise the use of land which has been acquired or appropriated by a local authority for planning purposes, even if the use interferes with a private right or is in breach of a restriction as to the user of land arising by virtue of a contract. This change was introduced following the anomaly decision of Thames Water Utilities v Oxford City Council [1999] 1 E.G.L.R. 167 where it was held that the express wording of Section 237 did not override private rights triggered by a material change of use as distinct from the carrying out of works etc. as stated in section 237.

Therefore, if a local authority appropriates land for planning purposes, the current position is that the erection, construction, and carrying out of any works on the land or use of the land is authorised if it is done in accordance with the planning permission, notwithstanding that it may interfere with private restrictions. The effect of this is that private rights are overridden and converted into claims for monetary compensation.

Michael Fahy is Head of Real Estate at Steeles Law. He can be contacted on 020 7421 1720 or by email at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it .


Latest News

April 15, 2014

Council, HCA and pension fund seal "first of its kind" housing investment fund

A contract for a housing investment fund – said to be the first of its kind – has been signed by Manchester City Council, the Greater Manchester Pension Fund and the Homes & Communities Agency. Read more
April 09, 2014

Battle between trail riders and council heads to Supreme Court

A dispute between a county council and a group of trail riders over the status of certain rural routes is to go all the way to the Supreme Court. Read more
April 01, 2014

London borough to use s. 106 agreements to tackle 'buy-to-leave' homes

A London borough is consulting on plans to use s. 106 agreements to tackle the issue of “buy-to-leave” homes. Read more
March 31, 2014

Campaigners net hearing over planning permission for QPR training ground

Campaigners seeking to challenge Ealing Council’s decision to grant Queen’s Park Rangers planning permission for the redevelopment of a sports ground and to give the club a 200-year lease have been granted an oral… Read more
March 27, 2014

Council fails in High Court appeal over house in multiple occupation ruling

The High Court has rejected a city council’s appeal over a ruling that a house in multiple occupation (HMO) in its area was not subject to the mandatory licensing scheme under the Housing Act 2004. Read more
March 25, 2014

Supreme Court set to hear latest in series of village green cases

The latest in a series of village green cases to reach the Supreme Court will be heard next week by a five-judge panel led by Lord Neuberger. Read more



Planning 146x219
April 24, 2014

New permitted development rights in force

Polly Reynolds outlines the new permitted development rights introduced earlier this month. Read more
Construction iStock 000002149516XSmall 146x219
April 24, 2014

Borrowing powers, surplus land and affordable housing

The Government has given councils the opportunity to bid for more borrowing powers and also relaxed the constraints on them selling surplus land and property to developers for new affordable housing. Elizabeth Wood assesses whether this will really… Read more
April 24, 2014

Turbines, heritage assets and merits

Does a recent Court of Appeal ruling mark a change in the wind in relation to decision-makers and a key duty under the Listed Buildings Act 1990? Gordon Nardell QC and Justine Thornton analyse the judgment. Read more
April 16, 2014

State aid, "preparatory works" and infrastructure projects

Does the European Commission's approval for a German infrastructure scheme involving grants to local authorities mark a shift away from the decision in the Leipzig Halle case? Alex Kynoch reports. Read more
April 02, 2014

Further chinks in the armour of town and village green status

Polly Reynolds analyses the likely impact of a key Supreme Court ruling on rectification of the register of town and village greens. Read more
March 27, 2014

Storeyville: houses in multiple occupation

The High Court has confirmed the scope of the licensing regime for houses in multiple occupation. Suzanne Ornsby QC and George Mackenzie explain why. Read more


Older news and features

March 05, 2014

The sound and the fury

February 20, 2014

Searching for an answer

December 18, 2013

Land ahoy

December 05, 2013

To permit or not to permit?

Click here for full section archive

Featured Jobs

Kent CC Property Lawyer

CLICK HERE to search all current vacancies

Featured Courses & Events

50% off LGLtv subscriptions

Sign up for Courses and Events Updates

* indicates required

Services v2

Yellow pages iStock 000009762383XSmall cropTo access details of individual advertisers, please click on the relevant banner below.

To search all entries in the Local Government Lawyer Services Directory, please click here


Professor Tony Monk Architectural Expert Witness
No 37 Park Square Chambers
Easton Bevins Chartered Surveyors


 Shout_to_the_top_looking_left_iStock_000006002590XSmall_98x74 Latest Blog Posts





Snap Judgement

Is the role of monitoring officer worth the risk?