The restrictive covenants which limit building to one house per plot and to more than a minimum distance from roads are enshrined in the title deeds of detached houses on the Wildernesse Estate. They were imposed by the original developers in the 1920s in order to preserve the character of the Estate. The 1925 sales brochure for the Estate referred to these ‘moderate restrictions’ in its very first paragraphs.
The covenants were designed to be mutually enforceable between owners of detached houses on the Estate. This remains the case today. An owner, individually or with other owners, can initiate legal action to enforce the covenants.
There is some minor variation in the detail of covenants on a few plots. A few original owners bought more than one plot, allowing two or more houses to be built on the combined plot. This does not alter the principle of one house per original plot. One or two houses have a building line which is less than 75 feet.
Other covenants prohibit the use of any property for business purposes and the erection of temporary buildings. Additional stipulations provide for the planting of hedges on boundaries and for owners on a private road to contribute a proportion of the cost of maintaining the road.
A number of legal cases have upheld the key covenants.
The case of Allen v Veranne Builders 1986 A.4269 relating to Tulip Tree Cottage, Blackhall Lane, confirmed that the covenants were created and imposed by the original developer as a “building scheme”. This means any owner of a detached property on the Estate which benefits from the covenants may enforce the covenants on any other resident. Notwithstanding the fact that there had been previous isolated breaches of` the covenants, the then Vice Chancellor of the High Court, Mr. Justice Browne-Wilkinson, the senior Law Lord at the time, held that there had been no acquiescence in weakening the covenants.
In 1985 and in 1995 applications were made to the Lands Tribunal to modify the one house per plot covenant to allow a second house. (These were Brambles’ application in 1985 and Reed Snaith and Doldings’ application relating to Westwood, Blackhall Lane, reference LP/43/1994 and 1996, P&C.R.) Both cases sought a modification of the covenants under the Law of Property Act 1925, Section 84.
These applications were both rejected. The most recent case reaffirmed the position of the building scheme and that, on the basis of the important and new “thin edge of the wedge” principle, the covenants were still appropriate and should not be modified.
The then President of the Lands Tribunal, Judge Marder, said the application “would have the effect of opening a breach in a carefully maintained and outstandingly successful scheme of development, thus depriving the objectors of substantial practical benefit, namely the assurance of the integrity of the building scheme”. The case has become a landmark judgement in property law and gained in significance by being cited with approval by the Privy Council in 1998 in an appeal in relation to a similar case in Jamaica.
Two points to note from this background are:
An owner or developer cannot escape the covenants by agreeing with some group of residents, such as neighbours, that a breach is acceptable. Any single resident on the Estate who benefits from the covenants is entitled to seek to enforce them. The WRA itself is committed through its Constitution to upholding the covenants.
The one house per plot rule means exactly that. The rule bears no relation to the size of the plot – it is not one house per acre or similar limit.
The erection of a detached garage with some accommodation on a plot could be a breach of the one house per plot covenant and raises special issues. These are covered on the Annexes page.