- Refusal of consent under covenant on aesthetic grounds was reasonable (Hicks v 89 Holland Park Management Ltd)
- What are the practical implications of this case?
- What was the background?
- What did the court decide?
- Case details
Property analysis: A landowner (L) refused consent to a developer (D) to develop a site in Holland Park (the Site), which had previously been in L’s ownership. The refusal was inter alia on aesthetic grounds. The court had to determine whether this refusal was reasonable. The court held that the refusal was reasonable, but only on the basis of certain concessions by D that (i) there was a reasonable prospect of obtaining planning consent on the basis of an alternative design and (ii) the planning consent granted could be ‘under-utilised’ without the need for further consent, so as to create a smaller and less disruptive project. The case is a relatively rare example of a court being called upon to adjudicate on the aesthetics of a development project, with the added difficulty that it was in the context of a site where viable schemes were extremely limited. Written by Andrew Butler QC, barrister at Tanfield Chambers.
Sign in or take a trial to read the full analysis.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial