[2025] UKUT 209 (LC)

In their application Mr and Mrs Anthony seek the discharge of the covenant or in the alternative, its modification to allow the completion of the conservatory and the creation of a large opening and door in the rear wall of the garage. They rely solely on ground (aa), namely that the continued existence of the covenant impedes some reasonable use of the land for public or private purposes, and it confers no practical benefit of substantial value or advantage, and any loss can be adequately compensated monetarily. In other words, Mr and Mrs Anthony say that their proposed alterations are modest in nature, objectively reasonable and will have no real impact on Mr and Mrs Hardy, or for that matter, any of their neighbours.

Mr and Mrs Hardy say that as originally built Welbeck House and Roche House were set against each other in a staggered configuration which is beneficial to both properties. Mr and Mrs Hardy say that if the covenant is modified the shape of Welbeck House will change and the staggered positioning will be altered in a way that will be detrimental to them. They dispute Mr and Mrs Anthony’s assessment of the impact on the proposed conservatory on Roche House and in particular say that the view from the window in their utility room will be harmed and the boundary between the two houses will become overly built up.

Mr and Mrs Pritchard who live in Rufford House (Plot 3) have no objection to the alterations.