Background
John Bladon owned 4 Polls Yard, one of four homes arranged around a shared courtyard in Castor, Cambridgeshire. A 1996 transfer restricted the property’s use to “a single private dwellinghouse.” The four owners held shares in Polls Yard M.C. Limited, which managed the common areas and operated through a structure of shared rights, obligations and equal service-charge contributions.
Mr Bladon obtained planning permission and listed building consent to convert a barn and garage within his property into a separate home, to be known as 5 Polls Yard. He and his wife proposed moving into that smaller home and selling the existing house. He applied under section 84(1)(aa) and (c) of the Law of Property Act 1925 to modify the user covenant so the development could proceed.
The Court’s Holding
The Upper Tribunal refused the application. It accepted that conversion to an additional dwelling was a reasonable use of the land and that the covenant impeded it. But the covenant secured practical benefits of substantial advantage to the owners of the other three properties.
Those benefits included preserving Polls Yard as a settled four-household development, with its established traffic and parking patterns, and avoiding the disruption caused by adding a fifth household. The Tribunal also found that the existing interlocking management-company arrangements were an important practical benefit: changing them for five properties would require contentious, costly negotiations and likely further consents. Since the covenant conferred substantial advantages, the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to modify it under section 84(1)(aa) or (c).
The Tribunal did not decide the status of a separate covenant requiring consent for external alterations, because Mr Bladon had not applied to modify it. It said the parties could make submissions within one month if they reached an agreed wording for modification of that covenant.
Key Takeaways
- Planning permission and listed building consent do not by themselves justify modification of a restrictive covenant.
- A covenant preserving the practical operation of a small, shared residential development can provide benefits of substantial advantage under section 84.
- Traffic, parking and the effect on a communal management structure may be assessed together when deciding whether a proposed additional dwelling should be permitted.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates that section 84 applications turn on the real-world benefits a covenant gives neighbouring owners, not simply whether the proposed development is planning-compliant. In a tightly structured development, the legal machinery governing shared land, costs and decision-making may itself be a substantial practical benefit protected by the covenant.
Applicants seeking to intensify a property within a managed scheme should therefore address not only design, access and parking, but also how the existing ownership and management arrangements can lawfully and practically accommodate the change.