Thank you. It appears that the transfer from Susan to Marthinus and Jane in 2016 was defective, although looking at the document, it’s not immediately apparent who was selling to was buying. (Looking at the office copies it appears that M&J were the buyers/transferees.
3.1, there is the requirement to register the deed at the land registry. Quite normal.
12.1.2 is interesting because legally, there is no right to a view in common law or statute but you can do that by way of covenant so this is extremely clever. Quite enforceable.
There is an obligation on the Transferee, enforceable in contract therefore, whereby this should have been registered at the land registry by the current proprietors M&J.
The reason it’s not shown the land registry is because they have not done that.
The granting of planning permission or not, is irrelevant because you can have a covenant that stops building but still get planning permission or you can be refused planning permission even though there is no covenant stopping it.
I’m sorry to say that if they wanted GBP50 million to remove the covenant, then you either pay the money or have to restrict your plans. There is no legal basis because they can just refuse right.
Restrictive covenant must be no more than is necessary to preserve the rights of the dominant land. If it were not for the fact that this covenant accepted that one of the major features of the house is the view, then you could potentially challenge it but as it is, my advice would be that he doesn’t worth going to.
I’m sorry to say that if they are holding you to ransom and wanting a chunk of money, you either pay up or change your plans.
I’m sorry, I know it’s not the answer you wanted.
I tried to call you as requested at about 5:15 PM and perhaps we can speak when you are available if you still need to do so.