[2024] UKUT 112 (LC)

Mr Fuller submitted that were the proposed development to be permitted it would create a precedent for future schemes, making it more likely that they would succeed in circumventing the covenants. This argument is normally referred to as the ‘thin end of the wedge’.

We recognise that the two bungalows in High Elms are on borrowed time. They are starting to show signs of their age, their architecture is dated and they make far from optimal use of the sites they occupy. If the proposals at number 12 are permitted it will not be long before a scheme of similar density, scale and mass is advanced for number 1. In our view that degree of development would fundamentally change the character of the estate and the ability to prevent it is a practical benefit of substantial advantage for the occupiers of numbers 1 to 11 High Elms but not for Forest House, nor for 16 to 18, nor for the properties situated north of the listed wall. We make this distinction because Forest House is sufficiently removed from High Elms to be largely unaffected by any intensification of use, whilst the owners of the houses north of the wall only pass through the estate and numbers 16 and 17 only drive a short way past the entrance to High Elms. Any effect on the amenity of the houses north of the wall will be negligible because of their position behind the listed wall and gates; there will be no effect on numbers 16 to 18 because of their position on the estate.