Conclusions
Conclusion
The application succeeds; the restrictions will be modified so as to permit the development of Hillside as it stands, subject to payment of £25,000 compensation to the objectors.
Upper Tribunal Judge Elizabeth Cooke Mrs D Martin TD MRICS FAAV
2 September 2025
Right of appeal
Any party has a right of appeal to the Court of Appeal on any point of law arising from this decision. The right of appeal may be exercised only with permission. An application for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal must be sent or delivered to the Tribunal so that it is received within 1 month after the date on which this decision is sent to the parties (unless an application for costs is made within 14 days of the decision being sent to the parties, in which case an application for permission to appeal must be made within 1 month of the date on which the Tribunal’s decision on costs is sent to the parties). An application for permission to appeal must identify the decision of the Tribunal to which it relates, identify the alleged error or errors of law in the decision, and state the result the party making the application is seeking. If the Tribunal refuses permission to appeal a further application may then be made to the Court of Appeal for permission.
- Heading
- Introduction
- The factual background
- Section 3
- The development at Hillside
- Development at Korobe
- Development at Claremont
- The present dispute
- The legal background
- Does the Tribunal have jurisdiction to modify the restrictions?
- Ground (a): are the covenants obsolete?
- Ground (aa): practical benefits of substantial value or advantage
- The view from Korobe
- Privacy: prevention of overlooking
- The expert valuation evidence
- The sincerity of the objectors’ position
- Control of development at Gap House and Claremont
- Conclusions on ground (aa)
- Ground (c)
- Discretion
- Conclusions
![[2025] UKUT 295 (LC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_lnJS4Uj.png)