Case No. UKUT-41-(LC)-UTLC-Case-Numbers:-LC-2022-180

23. In their notice of objection Mr and Mrs Cook objected to all of the grounds advanced by the applicants. They did not accept that the proposed use was reasonable and said that the covenant secured to them practical benefits of substantial value and advantage in upholding the prosperity, amenity and ethos of the estate and wider neighbourhood. As far as ground (b) is concerned, they denied that they ever agreed to the modification of the covenant and said that the applicant’s assertion that they had done so is misleading and blatantly untruthful. Finally, they say that the operation of the business has caused them ‘an enormous amount of stress’ and that it could not be said that the proposed modification will not injure the persons entitled to the benefit of the restrictions. Mr and Mrs Cook also said that the applicants have continued to operate the business in breach of the covenant and were still doing so at the date of the hearing.24.Mr Holden objected in general terms but added a detailed list of reasons. These are set out later in the decision.