[2024] UKUT 384 (LC)

The owners of ten homes on the Estate cooperated by submitting their reasons for objecting to the application in a common form. Similar objections were expressed by the remaining six objectors who provided their own individual statements. One objector withdrew their objection before the hearing and, as we have already noted, none took the opportunity to attend the hearing to explain their views in person or ask questions of Mr Chalenor. No rule of evidence prevents the Tribunal from taking objections expressed only in writing fully into account, and we have done so in this case, but where an objector chooses not to express their views in person, concerns which they might usefully have explained in greater detail had they been present may make less of an impression and be given less weight by the Tribunal.

The objectors acknowledged the need for provision to be made to accommodate children with complex care needs and none based their opposition to the application on the use itself. Nor did any of the objectors suggest that the value of their houses would be diminished if the application is successful. They focussed instead on what they feared might be the consequences for the Estate if the covenant was relaxed.

As an introductory point the objectors explained that Mr Russell himself, and the owners of six of the remaining 19 houses (including all three in the Close) are the original purchasers who personally entered into and took the benefit of the covenants. Three themes then emerged from their statements of objection.

The first concern of the objectors centred on what the coordinated group described in their common statement as a noticeable increase in traffic and parking issues in the Close due to the number of staff coming to and from the property. They said that the Estate was not designed for multiple on-road parking and if it occurred it might block access for emergency vehicles, refuse collection, or delivery vehicles.

The second commonly voiced concern was that the discharge of the covenant against business use might result in a development of the House or a change in the activities conducted from it. It was suggested that in time the House might come to be used to accommodate a greater number of children than the two for whom it is currently registered, or that it might be used for adults, or as what one objector referred to as a secure unit.

A third concern was that allowing a business to operate from the House might set a precedent for other properties on the Estate to do the same which might significantly change the character of the neighbourhood.

Other more general complaints were against the principle of the House being used for business, for which it was said not to have been designed, and against the applicant making a profit from that use. One objector asked what the point would be of having covenants at all if they could be removed.