The Chambers of Mark Love

Take notice that an application under section 84 of the Law of Property Act 1925 to discharge or modify restrictive covenants affecting the land referred to below has been made to the Tribunal. If you are legally entitled to the benefit of the covenant and you wish to object to the application, you should object within 1 month of the date of this notice. The application relates to land at the Brookmans Estate, in particular 11 Brookmans Avenue, Brookmans Park Hatfield, Hertfordshire, AL9 7QH. The applicants are Stuart Herbert Morris and Christina Anne Morris of 11 Brookmans Avenue, Brookmans Park Hatfield, Hertfordshire, AL9 7QH. The covenants are contained in 3 conveyances made in 1928, 1929 and 1931 THE 1928 COVENANT. The covenant contained in the conveyance dated 11 December 1928 between, Frederick William Fane, Sydney Alexander Ponsonbly, The Guardian Assurance Company Limited, John Joseph Calder, Percy Collingwood Burton, Christine Rose Burton, Brookmans Park (Hatfield) Estate Limited (`The Company’) and Brookmans Buildings Limited in respect of which the application is made contains the following restrictions: “6. There shall not be erected more than 80 dwellinghouses on the premises and no additional buildings or additions to an existing building shall at any time be erected on the premises unless set back to the building line as aforesaid and in accordance with plans and specifications to be previously approved in writing by the Architect for the time being to the Company and in manner and situation to be approved by him.

10. No house shall be let out in separate tenements and no hospital lunatic asylum or factory of any kind or retail shops or shops shall be erected upon the premises and no fair show or public entertainment shall be held thereon or any part thereof and no hoarding shall be erected for the purpose for advertisement nor shall the premises or any part thereof be used for advertising purposes” THE 1929 COVENANT The covenant contained in a conveyance dated 2 March 1929 between Brookmans Buildings Limited and John White in respect of which the application is made contains the following restrictions: “2. Not to erect more than eighteen dwellinghouses on the premises herby transferred.” THE 1931 COVENANT The covenant contained in a conveyance dated 2 April 1931 between John White and George Scales in respect of which the application is made contains the following restrictions: “2. Not more than one private dwellinghouse shall be erected on the premises” A. The application seeks the discharge of the restriction that no house should be let out in separate tenements on the following grounds (a) that the restrictions ought to be deemed obsolete; (aa) that unless discharged the covenants would impede the use of the land as a dwellinghouse containing 5 flats; that such use is a reasonable use; that in impeding that use the restrictions do not secure to the persons entitled to the benefit of it any practical benefits of substantial value or advantage; and that money will be an adequate compensation for the loss or disadvantage (if any) which any such person will suffer from the discharge; (c) that the proposed discharge will not injure the persons entitled to the benefit of the restrictions. In the Alternative the application seeks the modification of the restrictions that no house should be let out in separate tenements on the premises so as to permit the erection of dwellinghouses containing 5 flats. Modification is sought on the following grounds: (aa) that unless modified the covenants would impede the use of the land as dwellinghouses containing 5 flats; that such use is a reasonable use; that in impeding that use the restrictions do not secure to the persons entitled to the benefit of it any practical benefits of substantial value or advantage; and that money will be an adequate compensation for the loss or disadvantage (if any) which any such person will suffer from the modification; (c) that the proposed modifications will not injure the persons entitled to the benefit of the restriction. B. The application seeks the modification of the restrictions that there shall not be erected more than 5 flats on the application land so as to permit the erection of 5 flats. Modification is sought on the following grounds (aa) that unless modified the covenant would impede the use of the land as 5 flats; that such use is a reasonable use; that in impeding that use the restriction does not secure to the persons entitled to the benefit of it any practical benefits of substantial value or advantage; and that money will be an adequate compensation for the loss or disadvantage (if any) which any such person will suffer from the modification; (c) that the proposed modifications will not injure the persons entitled to the benefit of the restrictions. You may inspect the application, plan and other documents at Statons, 53, Bradmore Green, Brookmans Park, Hertfordshire, AL9 7QS during office working hours. A copying charge may be payable if copies are required alternatively if Statons are closed you can request a copy by emailing r.cifonelli@2drj.com. If you are a person legally entitled to the benefit of the restrictive covenant and you wish to object to the application, you may download a Notice of Objection form from the Lands Chamber website or contact: The Registrar, Lands Chamber, 5th Floor, Rolls Building, 7 Rolls Building, Fetter Lane, London EC4A 1 NL (or telephone 020 7612 9710) and ask for a form of objection (Form LPD). The form should be completed and signed and sent to the Tribunal and to the applicant(s) or, if they are represented, their legal representative within 1 month of the date of this notice. You may apply for an extension of this time period. Persons who file objections become parties to the case, and, provided they are entitled to object, they may appear at the hearing of the application, if there is one. Objecting to an application is the assertion of a property right. The Applicant will be asked whether it accepts that the person giving notice of objection is entitled to the benefit of the restriction of which discharge or modification is sought. If it does not accept this, it will be for the Tribunal to determine whether or not the objector appears to be so entitled and should therefore be admitted to oppose the application. If such a determination has to be made the general rule is that the unsuccessful party will pay the costs of the party in whose favour the determination is made. Regarding the application to discharge or modify a restrictive covenant, when there is a person or people entitled to its benefit the applicant is seeking to have a property right removed from them. For this reason, successful objectors may normally expect to have their legal costs paid by the unsuccessful applicant. Likewise, although they will usually pay their own costs, unsuccessful objectors will not normally be ordered to pay the costs of successful applicants. Only an objector who acts unreasonably may be required to pay some or all of the applicant’s costs. The applicant may rely on a lack of objections, or a failure on the part of any particular person to object, in support of the application. If you are unsure of your position you should seek legal advice. Signed Date 24 June 2020 Status Applicants Legal Representative (Barrister) Ross Cifonelli The Chambers of Mark Love 2 Dr Johnson’s Buildings Temple, London, EC4Y 7AY 0207 936 2613 r.cifonelli@2drj.com