Ground (c)
Ground (c)
Having failed to establish that the conditions in ground (aa) are met, the applicant necessarily fails to establish ground (c).
Ms Cunningham relied on Ridley v Taylor [1965] 1 WLR 611 where the Court of Appeal held that ground (c) will be appropriate in the case of “frivolous” or “vexatious” objections from persons who have suffered no injury. None of the objectors would suffer no injury as a result of the proposed development so the point does not arise. But we wish to make clear that whilst not all the reasons for opposing the development succeeded, none of the objectors could be regarded as having been frivolous or vexatious.
- Heading
- Introduction
- Background: the High Elms estate
- The legal background
- The application
- The grounds for the application
- Title to the land proposed to be developed
- Section 7
- The objectors
- Covenant 3(c) in the 1967 conveyance
- The remaining covenants: grounds (aa) and (c)
- Open aspect and the prevention of over-development
- Potential effect on other development proposals in High Elms
- Overlooking
- Damage to structures including the listed wall
- Strain on services including drains
- Loss of access, and loss of view, for Forest House
- Conclusion on ground (aa)
- Ground (c)
- Conclusions
![[2024] UKUT 112 (LC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_lnJS4Uj.png)