- Project plans
- Project activities
- Legislation and standards
- Industry context
Last edited 29 Jun 2017
Modifying a restrictive covenant
Covenants that restrict the use of land (known as restrictive covenants) can be discharged or modified if they have ceased to serve a useful purpose and are of no real benefit to local people.
The case of James Hall and Company (Property) Limited v Maughan & Ors  proved this point, as the Upper Tribunal (UT) opened the way for the conversion of a hotel and pub into a convenience store.
The pub’s title deeds contained a restrictive covenant, dated 1966, which stated that the site could only be used as a hotel or licensed victualler. However, its brewery owners took the view that it was unviable as a business and had agreed to sell it to a developer who wished to turn it into a shop.
Completion of the sale was dependent on the covenant either being erased or modified and the developer applied to the UT with that objective in mind. A number of local residents objected on the basis that the pub had a loyal clientele and was an essential community hub, particularly for elderly and frail locals.
The developer, however, pointed to the pub’s high overheads and very modest profits. Despite having had eight different landlords in recent years, none of them had managed to make it an economic success.
In modifying the covenant to enable the pub’s transformation into a shop, the UT found on the evidence that the restriction on the land’s use did not secure any practical benefits for the objectors.
 Find out more
 Related articles on Designing Buildings Wiki
Featured articles and news
Bamboo pavilion built at London South Bank Uni.
Bringing in an expert.
Why the lowest price isn't sustainable.
The Most Economically Advantageous Tender.
Pipe dream or possibility?
The New Rules of Measurement.
Prioritising Sustainable Development Goals on projects.
The Architects Registration Board.
How BSRIA monitored the performance of new homes.