THERE is something disturbing and, frankly, grubby about Oxford City Council’s approach to at least one covenant it held.
A resident in Sunnymead was hit with a demand for £30,000 to release a covenant preventing the extension of his property. Eventually the bill was haggled down to £1,750 after a complaint was laid with a Local Government Ombudsman.
Some may say that is a decent result for the resident concerned but examine the principle of this.
The covenant was put on by the city council because presumably it did not want this house (and we believe others) extended, based on valid planning reasons and principle.
If, over time, it has changed its view it should have released the covenant.
The restraint on extension is either acceptable now in principle or it is not.
But what appears to have happened here is that the principle was for sale – as long as the resident stumped up the right fee.
It would be scandalous for a city council, as planning authority, to be ready to drop its objections for a sum seemingly plucked out of the air in the manner of a sharp trader at a car boot sale.
That’s not to say a council shouldn’t cover its genuine administration costs for such a deal – but surely we are talking hundreds rather than tens of thousands of pounds.
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article