Restrictive covenants

A restrictive covenant is a contractual obligation requiring the covenantor not to do the thing specified (such as building on the land or using the land for particular purposes). Unlike positive covenants, the burden of a restrictive covenant is capable of 'running with the land' so that successive owners or occupiers are bound by the restriction.

Covenants restricting the carrying out of certain activities on land imposed by a seller may be divided into three classes:

•
covenants imposed for the seller’s own benefit—these are personal to the seller and are not enforceable by anyone else, unless expressly assigned
•
covenants imposed on or after 1 January 1926 by the seller (as the owner of retained land of which the land being sold formed a part) and intended to protect or benefit the retained land—these are capable of running with the land and may be enforceable without express assignment by the owner for the time being of the land for the benefit of which they were imposed
•
covenants imposed by the seller on a sale of land to various buyers who, with their respective successors in title, are intended

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest Property News

HM Land Registry updates Practice Guides 4, 5, 14, 21 and 63

HM Land Registry (HMLR) has updated five practice guides: Practice Guide 4—Adverse possession of registered land, Practice Guide 5—Adverse possession of (1) unregistered land and (2) registered land where a right to be registered was acquired before 13 October 2003, Practice Guide 14—Charities: advice for applications sent to HMLR, Practice Guide 21—Using our forms for complex and more unusual transactions, and Practice Guide 63—The land charges registers and agricultural credits register: registration, official search, office copy and cancellation.

Crown Estate launches development partnership under new statutory powers

The Crown Estate has announced its first major partnership under the Crown Estate Act 2025, entering into a £24bn joint venture with Lendlease. The partnership, enabled by the Act's expanded investment powers, will develop commercial and residential projects across the UK including 26,000 homes and 10m square feet of workspace. The venture represents the first significant implementation of the Crown Estate's new statutory authority to undertake large-scale property development partnerships, marking a substantial shift in its operational scope under the 2025 legislation.

Welsh Government announces £24m loan scheme for housing land development

The Welsh Government has allocated £24m in loan funding through its Land for Housing scheme to enable the development of more than 600 new homes across Wales. The funding supports land acquisition for both social and market housing developments, with loans being repaid and reinvested when construction funding is secured. The announcement highlights a previous £3m loan to Wales & West Housing for land in Grangetown, Cardiff, which led to the development of 100 affordable social rent homes. The scheme aims to contribute to the Welsh Government's target of delivering 20,000 new low carbon social homes during the current Senedd term.

Failure to publish section 106 agreement could put planning permission at risk (Greenfields (IOW) Ltd v Isle of Wight Council)

Planning analysis: In Greenfields, the Court of Appeal quashed a grant of planning permission on the ground that the authority failed to publish the section 106 planning obligation prior to granting planning permissionr). Publication of the heads of terms in the planning officer’s report did not constitute substantial compliance, as the heads of terms were not sufficiently detailed to allow the public to know the terms of the planning obligation and to comment on it if they chose to do so. Local planning authorities must publish a proposed or agreed planning obligation before granting planning permission, otherwise, the planning permission is liable to be quashed by the courts. However, it may be possible to avoid quashing if the authority can show that there was substantial compliance with the requirement, and no prejudice was caused. Written by Victoria Searle, principal associate at Browne Jacobson.