The Supreme Court has decided a significant appeal on the Upper Tribunal’s power to discharge or modify restrictive covenants pursuant to section 84(1) of the Law of Property Act (“1925 Act”).
The Supreme Court has decided a significant appeal on the Upper Tribunal’s power to discharge or modify restrictive covenants pursuant to section 84(1) of the Law of Property Act (“1925 Act”).
In this case, a developer constructed a social housing development. Some of the units were built on land burdened by restrictive covenants. These covenants prohibited building on the land and restricted use of the land for car parking only.
Following completion of the development, the developer applied to the Upper Tribunal to modify the restrictive covenants on the ground that they impeded a reasonable use of the land and, in doing so, were contrary to the public interest.
The application was allowed by the Tribunal but overturned by the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court has unanimously dismissed the developer’s appeal. It ruled that the Tribunal had failed to take into consideration both that the developer could have built on the part of the site that was not burdened by the restrictive covenants and that a developer should not be rewarded for, in effect, deliberately and cynically presenting the Tribunal with a fait accompli.
This case acts as a clear warning to developers of the risks involved in carrying out a development in breach of restrictive covenants even where there is no objection to a planning application. Where an application needs to be made to modify or discharge restrictive covenants under section 84(1) of the 1925 Act, developers should apply to the Upper Tribunal prior to commencing development.
Across the UK, homelessness is an urgent crisis, and one that is set to grow amid the rising cost of living. Local authorities are at the forefront of responding to this crisis, but with a lack of properties that are suitable for social housing across the UK, vulnerable individuals and families are often housed in temporary accommodation.
The Chancellor’s recent mini-budget provided a significant announcement for business as it was confirmed that the off-payroll working rules (known as “IR35”) put in place for public and private sector businesses from 2017 and 2021 will be scrapped from April 2023.
Homes England, the government’s housing accelerator, has partnered with two local authorities, Greater Manchester Combined Authority and the Association of South Essex Local Authorities, in a new Strategic Place Partnership (SPP) which is designed to align with the government’s levelling up agenda by delivering new homes in the regions.
The new regime introduced by the Act will take shape over the next 18 months, but those who design, build or manage high rise buildings are being urged to get ready for the changes to be introduced through the act.
On 14 February 2022, Secretary of State of the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, Michael Gove, announced proposals designed to pressure building developers and materials manufacturers to fund the remediation of unsafe properties.
The Government’s much-publicised ‘levelling-up’ programme brings with it a number of changes and challenges for property professionals which, without careful preparation, could see a steep rise in allegations and claims for professional negligence.
Over the last few years, our local authority and housing association clients have reported a significant increase in the number of claims received, usually from one of a specific group of claimant solicitors acting on behalf of tenants alleging a breach of their landlord’s repairing obligations.
What does the National Disability Strategy seek to achieve from a housing perspective, and what will it mean for housing providers?
The Debt Respite Scheme (Breathing Space Moratorium and Mental Health Crisis Moratorium) (England and Wales) Regulations 2020 is due to come into force on 4 May 2021. It’s a snappy title but what exactly is it?
The key legal questions for public bodies to consider before deciding to cease exercising a discretionary power due to limited resources or other reasons.
Public bodies must understand the scope of ‘irrational’ or ‘unreasonable’ challenges so that proactive steps can be taken to reduce the likelihood of successful judicial intervention.
The Supreme Court has decided a significant appeal on the Upper Tribunal’s power to discharge or modify restrictive covenants pursuant to section 84(1) of the Law of Property Act (“1925 Act”).
The resolution of disrepair issues will not always be straightforward for landlords in the new world in which we find ourselves. The Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government has therefore released Guidance for Landlords and Tenants.
A Registered Social Landlord is a hybrid public authority. It is therefore capable of exercising both public and private functions.
The Rent Standard 2020 defines rent increases, aligning regulation of all registered providers of social housing, including councils for the first time.
The Supreme Court decision in Poole Borough Council v GN and another [2019] UKSC 25 addresses key legal principles in relation to duty of care connected with the performance of statutory services by public bodies.
Issues about prescriptive rights of way and drainage arose on the redevelopment of dominant land.
This morning (6 June) the Supreme Court has handed down its decision in Poole Borough Council v GN and another. The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the decision in the lower court that the claim should be struck out. The claim addresses broad issues with the potential to impact on negligence claims against many public bodies including health and education.
Ealing Council have signed an agreement with Peabody to deliver 500 new homes at ‘The Green’ in Southall, West London. Browne Jacobson advised the Council on the project.
This article, the first in a series for public matters looking at housing law issues in a regeneration context, seeks to outline some of the key consultation requirements that should be in a local authorities’ contemplation when they are looking to regenerate, and additional considerations in London.
In a recent decision of the Court of Appeal in Alexander Devine Children’s Cancer Trust v Millgate Developments Ltd and others [2018] EWCA Civ 2679, developers were given a somewhat unwelcome reminder of the risks of ignoring restrictive covenants during development.
