[2024] UKUT 123 (LC)

The application was made under grounds (a) and (c) of section 84(1) of the Law of Property Act 1925. Mr Robertson said in his witness statement that he had no plans to seek any sort of planning permission on the land but simply wished to keep his options open. He accepted, when questioned at the hearing, that depending on what he decided to do with the application land its value could be enhanced and there might be an impact on the benefitted land. Mr Robertson also said that he had been contacted by UK Power in connection with the Sea Link project, a proposal to enhance the National Grid by linking Suffolk and Kent with an undersea cable which would terminate at Richborough. Mr Robertson envisaged that were the scheme to go ahead he could be faced with the compulsory acquisition of all or part of the application land.He considered that the scheme would take 5 or 6 years to come to fruition.

Mr and Mrs Pace submit that with regard to ground (a) Mr Robertson had failed to identify the purpose of the covenant or to show that it does not have any continuing usefulness. In relation to ground (c) they object on the basis that Mr Robertson has mis-stated the extent of the benefitted land and has also failed to show that the benefitted land would not be injured by any type of use or development to which the application land could conceivably be put if the covenant were to be discharged.