[2024] UKUT 112 (LC)

In June 1828 The Times carried an advertisement for Forest House, Chigwell which was available for letting, either furnished or unfurnished. The house was described as ‘beautifully situate’ (12 miles from the City) and in its own grounds, on the verge of Hainault Forest and commanding unrivalled views over the counties of Essex and Kent. It was said to possess all the requisite accommodation for a family of respectability. In 1966, some 138 years later, Chigwell had surrendered some of its bucolic charm to the advance of Greater London and part of the 15 acres of grounds at Forest House was sold for residential development. Restrictions included in the disposal of the land and in a subsequent conveyance in 1967 are at the heart of the dispute before the Tribunal. It concerns High Elms, an attractive cul-de-sac built on the disposed land and now enjoying panoramic views of London to the south west. The entrance to the road is flanked by two bungalows (numbers 1 and 12) with similar pillared porticoes; after a left turn in front of number 12 there is a detached house (number 2), a row of three storey town houses (numbers 3 to 11 High Elms), and then there are 5 further, larger properties beyond a gate on a private section of the road.

The applicant Mr Colin Medley is the owner of number 12; he wants to demolish his bungalow and replace it with two houses but is prevented from doing so by restrictive covenants binding his property. This is his application under section 84 of the Law of Property Act 1925 to have one of the covenants discharged and the rest modified. The objectors are the current owner of Forest House and the owners of 13 of the other 20 properties on High Elms and the private roads connected to it.

Mr Medley was represented by Ms Robyn Cunningham of counsel, Mr James Fuller of counsel represented objectors 1 to 10, and Ms Boak represented herself; we are grateful to them all. The other three objectors were not present at the hearing and were not represented. The objectors represented by Mr Fuller have been represented during the proceedings before the hearing by one of their number, Mr Rajesh Khakhar.