Conclusions on ground (aa)
Conclusions on ground (aa)
None of the benefits claimed by the objectors is of substantial value or advantage, and their loss could easily be compensated in money as we have found above. We are directed by section 84(1B) to bear in mind “the development plan and any declared or ascertainable pattern for the grant or refusal of planning permissions in the relevant areas, as well as the period at which and context in which the restriction was created or imposed and any other material circumstances”. As can be seen in the above discussion we have had regard to the comments of the planning officer who approved the works, to development nearby, to the changing character of development in Fairfield Road and to the variety of architectural styles now found there. Those matters only go to reinforce our conclusion that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to modify these restrictions.
- 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)