For the purposes of this Q&A we have focussed on the central issue as opposed to points which may arise from the construction of a particular transfer. The above question is concerned with the express grant of an easement whereby the dominant land has the right over the servient land to connect to both existing service apparatus or such future service apparatus which is to be laid within the perpetuity period both over or under the servient land. The extent of an expressly granted easement depends on the interpretation of the deed granting the easement, in its entirety, and in its context.

An express trust may come to an end in a variety of ways, including the actions of the trustees, settlor, beneficiaries or a third party or on the occurrence of a certain event or on the expiry of the trust period. For more information on the termination of trusts, see Practice Note: Termination of trusts—methods of termination. While a trust may appear to terminate after the distribution of all the trust assets, it is not automatically the case. If the intention is for the trust to come to an end, then it is always advisable for the trustees to formally

Constituting the settlement There are two basic requirements in order for a settlement to be validly created and they are: • the first requirement is that the 'three certainties' are present: ◦ the settlor intends to create a trust ◦ the beneficiaries of the settlement are clearly defined, and ◦ the subject matter of the settlement is clear. See Practice Note: Nature and classification of trusts—the three certainties • the second requirement is that assets are put into the settlement in order for it to be constituted It is assumed that the 'three certainties' are present. Therefore, dealing with the second element, namely constituting the trust, this can occur in one of two ways. The first method is that the settlor declares that he is

There is no express provision in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (TCPA 1990) which would prevent a local planning authority (LPA) from issuing an enforcement notice in circumstances where an appeal against refusal of permission under TCPA 1990, s 73A is pending. However, LPAs are required to ensure enforcement action does not exceed what is necessary to remedy any breach of planning

An application for planning permission can be made by any person, whether or not they are the owner of the land or hold any interest in the land. The relevant law is contained in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (TCPA 1990), particularly TCPA 1990, s 70, 'Determination of applications: general considerations' and the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 (TCPA Order 2015), SI 2015/595. There is no statutory definition of 'planning application' but the phrase 'application for planning permission' within the TCPA 1990 is taken to mean

Under section 171B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (TCPA 1990), development becomes immune from enforcement if no action is taken: • within four years of substantial completion for a breach of planning control consisting of operational development • within four years for an unauthorised change of use to a single dwelling house • within ten years for any other breach of planning control (essentially other changes of use) TCPA 1990, s 173A provides LPAs with powers to withdraw an enforcement notice. Section 173A(4) states that 'the withdrawal of an enforcement notice does not affect the power of the local planning authority to issue a further enforcement notice'. This

This Q&A assumes that this query relates to an assured shorthold tenancy. A landlord’s options as to how to terminate an assured shorthold tenancy (AST) are largely constrained by the provisions of Housing Act 1988 (HA 1988). For example, exercising a right to forfeit will not be effective to bring the tenancy to an end. See: Practice Note: Terminating assured and assured shorthold tenancies—pre-Renters' Rights Act position (under Method of landlord termination) which sets out the various options. Accordingly, the two main routes are pursuant to HA 1988, ss 8 and 21. The section 21 procedure can only be used to bring the AST to an end as at, or after, the end of the contractual term of the tenancy (ie on expiry by effluxion

There is no statutory requirement to complete a development once lawfully commenced. However, a local planning authority (LPA) can serve a completion notice under section 94 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (TCPA 1990), where they thinks that a permission may not be completed within a reasonable

Conservation area consent used to be required for the demolition of buildings in conservation areas but that requirement was abolished in England by the Enterprise and Regulatory

Under the doctrine of privity of contract, the rights and liabilities created by a contract will bind the parties to it but no one else but, in relation to a covenant over land, property law may allow it to be enforced by and against persons other than the original parties. In most cases, the benefit of a positive covenant will benefit successors in title by ‘running with the land’ both in common law and in equity. The burden of a positive covenant will not run with the land in any circumstances even where the obligation is of the most straightforward kind (ie to maintain a boundary or a shared roof), see: Rhone v Stephens. There are various mechanisms commonly used to ensure that the burden of a positive covenant runs with the land

After a tenant has been ordered to deliver up possession of a property, they become liable to pay mesne profits in return for continued use and occupation until such time as they give vacant possession. Mesne profits are usually calculated based on the level of the rent that was payable under the former tenancy (see Swordheath Properties Ltd v Tabet) but there might be grounds for the landlord to seek a higher figure if the landlord considers that the market rental value for the property is greater than the level of rent that was being paid

A warrant for possession must not be issued without the permission of the court where six years or more has lapsed since the date of the judgment or order giving possession (CPR 83.2(2)). If the court gives a landlord permission to enforce the possession order, but the warrant for possession is not issued within one year after the date of the permission order, then the permission will cease to have effect, but it is open to the landlord to apply for permission again (CPR 83.2(7A) and CPR 83.2(7B)). It is important to remember that the ‘six year rule’ is not one which comes under the provisions of the Limitation Act 1980 (LA 1980). This is because