Legal advice on property law for Antonio and Sylvie Mills

Critically analyse the scenario and using your current knowledge, write an essay to advise Antonio and Sylvie of their rights under property (not planning) law. You should present a reasoned argument, supported by appropriate authority, including case law. Your advice should be legal, not practical (i.e do not recommend that The Mills consult a solicitor). Although you are asked to provide advice, your answer should be in an essay format, not a letter or a report.

Two years ago, your clients, Antonio and Sylvie Mills purchased some freehold land to the North East of the airfield development. Their intention for the site was to build a palliative care unit for teenagers with life-limiting illnesses. The site was chosen predominantly because of its setting –

Close to woodland, a river and nearby hills - which they believe will be helpful for the emotional wellbeing of both patients and their families once the unit is operational. An important aspect of the site’s purchase was that the adjoining land is subject to covenants which prohibit it being built on yet permit temporary (defined as no more than one month in twelve) grazing of livestock. Your clients received full planning permission for the care unit 11 months ago. Shortly after they purchased the land, Mr and Mrs Mills saw that a local development company (Porchstone Assets Ltd) had erected hoardings along the boundary of the covenanted land adjacent to their site. The Mills’ wrote to the developer, highlighting the restrictive covenant and offering to meet with them to discuss any proposed development if that would be helpful. When the developers planning application details were published, Antonio and Sylvie were relieved to see that no development was planned for the covenanted adjoining land.

Having secured sufficient funding and sponsorship, construction of the care unit started six months ago, but on their first site visit, your clients were surprised to see that some of the woodland on the adjoining covenanted land had been felled and houses were in various stages of construction. They arranged a meeting to discuss this. At the meeting, Porchstone advised your clients that the houses on the adjoining land were affordable housing built as a result of a planning condition. Your clients raised the issue of the restrictive covenants, but Porchstone declined to honour them. Porchstone have now made a retrospective application to the Land Tribunal to have the covenants discharged, or modified, in their favour, under the provisions of Section 84 of the Law of Property Act 1925.

Questions

Marking guidance for this activity. This guidance is designed to help you to do as well as possible in your assessment by explaining how the person marking your work will be judging it. Your work will be assessed in relation to the requirements set out in the assessment criteria marking guide at the end of this document and the grading guidance section below.It is recommended that you read both of these sections before starting your assessment to learn what will help you to achieve the highest marks. Once you have finished you should review the assessment before submitting it, to check you have done what is required to achieve the highest marks.

When you receive your feedback from your tutor you should clearly be able to see which categories you gained marks in and, where relevant, recommendations about how to improve your performance going forward.

This grading guidance section explains in more detail what a submission for this assessment should include in order to achieve a mark at the threshold, good and excellent standards.

You will have demonstrated some general knowledge of the relevant area of covenants and shown a basic understanding of the impact of common law in this area. Your work will be structured as an essay, with an attempt at logical flow and clear presentation. There may be some errors in grammar, spelling or sentence structure. You will have cited some relevant legal authority, although there may also be some irrelevant material. An attempt will have been made to follow the UCEM Harvard referencing style, but this may not be consistent, or accurate. Selection and application of sources will be adequate. The work will be mainly descriptive, but there will be some attempt at critical analysis. Conclusions presented may be general in nature,and may not be addressed to the correct parties.

You will have met the criteria for Threshold and demonstrated a greater level of understanding of the relevant area of covenants and applicable common law principles, with clear and logical reasoning demonstrated. Any errors in grammar, spelling or sentence structure will be minimal, and will not detract from the overall quality of the work. The UCEM Harvard referencing style will have been followed consistently, although there may be errors in some aspects of use. Selection and application of source materials will be competent. There will be a reasonable level of critical analysis, with clearly set out conclusions that advise the correct parties.

You will have met the criteria for Good and demonstrated a sophisticated level of understanding of the relevant area of covenants and applicable common law principles. Your work will present a clear, logical, well supported argument that proceeds without deviation to a fully reasoned conclusion. There will be no errors in grammar, spelling or sentence structure, with only minimal errors in the use of the UCEM Harvard referencing system. Selection of source materials will be advanced, with a perceptive application to the scenario facts. There will considerable depth to your analysis, and an articulate presentation of your conclusions, providing clear and appropriate advice to the correct parties.