Covenant
Hodgson and another v Cook and others [2023] UKUT 41 (LC), [2023] All ER (D) 54 (Feb)
The Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) dismissed the applicants’ application to modify a restrictive covenant on a modern residential estate in order to conduct a beauty therapy business from a cabin in the rear garden of a property on the estate. Although planning permission had been granted, the application was refused, having been made under grounds (aa), (b) and (c) of s 84(1) of the Law of Property Act 1925. Whether the effect of the covenant in preventing the use of the property for the business secured a benefit for the objectors depended on the impact that use had on amenity. The applicants regarded the noise generated by the business as being unobtrusive, but the objectors bemoaned a loss of privacy and became vexed by the traffic and parking arising from the business. The court held, among other things, that modification of the covenant would remove the sense of certainty about what might be permitted in future and raised concerns about the loss of amenity
