George Wimpey Bristol Ltd v Gloucestershire Housing Association Ltd
Decision date: 14 March 2011
Neutral citation: [2011] UKUT 91 (LC)
Overall AI summary confidence: high
Short overview
This short overview is intended to summarise the case, issues and outcome so far as they are supported by the judgment.
AI confidence in this short overview: high
This appeal concerned an application under s.84(1) LPA 1925 to modify a 1936 restrictive covenant to allow residential development of land west of a prescribed line as part of a larger consented scheme. The Tribunal found the proposed residential use was reasonable and the covenant impeded it, but refused modification because the covenant secured substantial practical benefits to several identified objectors (including diminution of value and loss of amenity, and flood-risk/precedent concerns); the application therefore failed and was dismissed. The Tribunal also noted the applicants’ deliberate commencement of works on restricted land weighed against granting relief.
Ratio decidendi
This summary is intended to identify the ratio decidendi, meaning the legal reasons for deciding and the binding part of the decision.
AI confidence in this ratio decidendi summary: medium
Where a restrictive covenant impedes a planning-permitted reasonable use, the court/tribunal may nonetheless refuse modification under s.84(1)(aa) if the covenant is shown to secure practical benefits of substantial value to those entitled; such benefits may be established by evidence of diminution in value, loss of amenity, and other practical disadvantages (including flood risk and risk of precedent), supported by expert valuation and inspection.
Obiter dicta
This summary is intended to identify obiter dicta, meaning observations made by the way that were not necessary to deciding the case and are not binding.
AI confidence in this obiter dicta summary: medium
The Tribunal indicated that deliberate flouting of legal obligations by carrying out works in breach of a covenant is a factor that weighs against exercising discretion to modify the covenant. It also observed that a planning authority’s approval of drainage does not automatically eliminate reasonable local concerns about flooding in the absence of the applicant’s expert evidence.