Evidence for the objectors
Evidence for the objectors
Mrs Joanne Cunningham
In her witness statement Mrs Cunningham recalled that in early 2005 she was newly divorced and had been living in rented accommodation. She was keen to find a family home for herself and her three children. She was aware that Mr Keck was trying to sell but she could not afford to purchase all three buildings. Her intention was to buy The Coach House and Lamp Cottage which would respectively provide a family home and a residential development property for resale. Mrs Cunningham was mindful that the Estate was in the Lea/Dethick/Holloway Conservation Area and the buffer zone for the Derwent Valley Mills World Heritage Site. She was also conscious of the Listed status of Lea Hurst. This context provided what Mrs Cunningham described as “a very strong degree of protection from any further/future development”.
She described the Estate as very private with access along a 200 metre private driveway which was also gated. At the time she was a single mother of three young children and privacy and security were absolutely essential to her. Mrs Cunningham was concerned that Lea Hurst and the land that formed the Estate might be developed commercially, perhaps with the house being divided into smaller units, or as a hotel, amongst other possibilities. To protect the tranquil family location and her significant capital investment she insisted that the transfer should include a number of covenants that would benefit both The Coach House and Lamp Cottage, including one which explicitly prevented Lea Hurst and its grounds from being used for anything other than a single private residence. Mrs Cunningham acquired the properties in her own name but later transferred Lamp Cottage to Haddon Grove Ltd, a company in which she and Mr Nix were directors and shareholders. Lamp Cottage was transferred to Mrs Cunningham and Mr Nix personally in October 2020.
During cross examination Mrs Cunningham was shown a Heritage Statement dated February 2023 for Alstonefield Hall in Staffordshire, a large historic house which she owns with Mr Nix. The statement was prepared in connection with a planning application to undertake remedial works and an extension. The extension was described in the statement as follows:
‘At present, the house is not large enough to meet the needs of the owner, who has a large family that he wishes to ensure can be accommodated at the house for family occasions. In addition, to enable the house to remain in use for its owners during their old age, an accessible ground floor bedroom with on suite bathroom are highly desirable.’
In response to a question from Mr Peachey about her retirement plans, Mrs Cunningham said that she was not intending to live at Alstonefield Hall but did consider it a few years earlier. She stated that she wanted to retire to Lamp Cottage but was not sure when. She denied that her intended move back to Lamp Cottage was a means to support her case.
- Heading
- Introduction
- The Facts
- The covenant
- The statutory provisions
- The application
- The objections
- Evidence for the applicant
- Mr Jeremy Keck
- Mr Anthony Jurkiw
- Evidence for the objectors
- Mr Barry Nix
- Expert Evidence
- Discussion
- Is the proposed use reasonable?
- Does the covenant impede the proposed use?
- Does prevention of the intended use secure practical benefits?
- Are the practical benefits of either substantial value or substantial advantage?
- Discretion
- Conclusions
![[2023] UKUT 251 (LC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_lnJS4Uj.png)