[2025] UKUT 242 (LC)

Mr Hassan explained his family’s circumstances, and the difficulties they face in looking after Ali. He explained that No.24 is not suitable for them, as it only has two bedrooms. They bought it in the hope of being able to extend it. He said that they were aware of the restrictive covenants when they bought the property, but were advised by their solicitor that the covenants would not be an obstacle to what they were planning to do. He acknowledges that Mr Heath had alerted him to the restrictions, but given the advice he had received from his solicitor, he didn’t think it prevented him from proceeding. He said that his attitude could be summarised as ‘Mr Heath, you keep threatening me with Court, please proceed and I will respect whatever the Court decides’. He says that he now realises how ‘powerful’ the restrictions are, and has complied with the injunction pending his application to the Tribunal.

Mr Heath is a former opera singer, with qualifications in art and design. He spends three quarters of the year in his conservatory, which he uses as an office and a place to relax. It has views out to his well-tended garden. The side and part rear of no.24 is in plain view. He considers that the proposed roof alterations are completely out of keeping with the character of the area, and with the ‘flow’ of the two buildings when considered together. The proposed roof works would have an oppressive effect on his garden and his conservatory. Despite them receiving planning permission, he considers them ill-designed, akin to a shed on top of the roof. He is slightly more relaxed about the ground floor works, but objects to the window in the rear elevation, which he says [and as the experts note – see below] is higher and larger than that permitted by the permission, and causes light pollution into his conservatory. He says that the canopy which has been erected above Mr Hassan’s front door is out of keeping with the style of the property, and (as I have indicated above), is partly over his land. For Mr Heath, his objection is not about money, it is about the oppressive effect the works would have on his enjoyment of his property.