In R v Braintree District Council, ex parte Halls [2000] 36 EG 164, Mr Halls and his father, who had bought their council house under the right to buy scheme, wished to sell part of the garden as a building plot. Having obtained planning permission for the erection of a bungalow on that part, they sought a release from their covenants to use the property as a single dwelling-house and not to carry out any trade or business on the property. The council demanded a payment of 90% of the open market value of the plot, explaining (in writing) that the covenant had been imposed “in order to realise any future development value”.
In judicial review proceedings, it was held that the covenant had been illegally imposed. The council had manifestly acted with a purpose that was foreign to the underlying policy of the Housing Act 1985, which was to enable tenant buyers to enjoy the ordinary fruits of homeownership, including a rise in value.
Whether the decision can be applied to other councils will depend, of course, upon proof of the same improper purpose, which could be more difficult to obtain. The transparency of the Braintree correspondence may well not have been emulated elsewhere.
Also see
Start your free trial today
Your trusted daily source of commercial real estate news and analysis. Register now for unlimited digital access throughout April.
Including:
- Breaking news, interviews and market updates
- Expert legal commentary, market trends and case law
- In-depth reports and data-led analysis
In R v Braintree District Council, ex parte Halls [2000] 36 EG 164, Mr Halls and his father, who had bought their council house under the right to buy scheme, wished to sell part of the garden as a building plot. Having obtained planning permission for the erection of a bungalow on that part, they sought a release from their covenants to use the property as a single dwelling-house and not to carry out any trade or business on the property. The council demanded a payment of 90% of the open market value of the plot, explaining (in writing) that the covenant had been imposed “in order to realise any future development value”.
In judicial review proceedings, it was held that the covenant had been illegally imposed. The council had manifestly acted with a purpose that was foreign to the underlying policy of the Housing Act 1985, which was to enable tenant buyers to enjoy the ordinary fruits of homeownership, including a rise in value.
Whether the decision can be applied to other councils will depend, of course, upon proof of the same improper purpose, which could be more difficult to obtain. The transparency of the Braintree correspondence may well not have been emulated elsewhere.
Also see PP 2000/49
