We would like to share the outcome of a legal matter that directly affected Downsview Road and the wider community.
As many of you know, a small group of 8 households from Downsview Road, Upper Norwood, London, SE9 3XD, led by Peter and Caroline Fenech of No. 17, had been involved in a legal dispute with a developer that planned to develop nine flats next door to them.
The dispute centred on a planning application submitted to Croydon Council by the developer, Hambridge Investments Limited of Hambridge Homes (Sevenoaks), to build nine flats on the site of one of the bungalows on Downsview Road. However, this land—along with neighbouring bungalows, including 283 and 285 Beulah Hill—forms part of the original Beulah Hill Estate, which is protected by a legal covenant prohibiting such a development. This restriction, established during the estate’s original planning, was known to the developer from the outset.
Planning permission for this development was granted by Croydon Council in July 2020.
To provide some historical background:
Although Downsview Road was developed during the 1920s and 1930s, it was specifically the land on the eastern side of the road, together with 283 and 285 Beulah Hill that formed what became known as the Beulah Hill Estate. These properties were included in a Building Scheme which imposed restrictive covenants limiting how each plot could be developed and used — both at the time and in the future. One of the central restrictions was that only a single detached private or professional dwelling could be built on each plot. This covenant formed the foundation of our legal challenge.
In 1927, the United Methodist Church sought to purchase two available plots on the southeastern side of Downsview Road to build a new church. The landowner, Mr. William George Ingram, initially declined the sale, citing covenant restrictions that only a single detached private or professional dwelling could be built on each plot.
However, Rev. Willis Bryars — who would later become the church’s first minister — approached the owners of the properties that had already been sold by Ingram and asked if they would be willing to allow a church to be built on these two plots. Fortunately for Rev. Bryars, all nine of then-owners agreed, and he secured their written consent, along with that of Mr. Ingram. The Deed of Covenant was modified and signed on 22 March 1927, formally permitting the construction of the church while preserving the original covenant restricting all other plots to single detached private dwellings.
This historical context not only demonstrates the community spirit and legal clarity that defined the area’s early development, but also reinforces how previous generations respected the covenant. This approach by the developer, Hambridge Investments Limited, undermines the respect shown by earlier owners.
This legal battle had spanned over five years and within this period, our group also opposed two other development proposals:
• At No. 21, where Hambridge Investments Limited had an agreement with the then owner, to build nine additional flats, despite already being engaged in court proceedings for No. 19.
• At No. 27, where Mayle Developments sought to purchase the property, contingent upon securing planning permission for flats.
Thanks to our group's joint efforts, both proposals were successfully opposed — initially through Croydon Council and later at appeal before the Planning Inspectorate.
• At Nos. 9 and 13, where both properties are owned by Shan Properties. Our legal victory will probably deter any development interest.
• We have also heard rumours that Downsview Methodist Church may be exploring development options, though nothing formal has yet been proposed. This was a concern for its future.
In February of this year, following a four-day trial at the Central London County Court before His Honour Judge Dight CBE, our group — represented by Mr Martin Hutchings KC — was successful.
The court granted an injunction preventing the development of nine flats at No. 19 and declared that the property is subject to, and bound by, the Beulah Hill Estate’s Building Scheme.
This victory, however, came at a significant cost. The legal challenge placed a heavy burden on our residents’ group—emotionally, financially, and through the time and effort it required. We had to take the matter all the way to trial at the Royal Courts of Justice on the Strand, simply to defend a legally binding covenant that the developer knowingly ignored. Even though we set up a GoFundMe and received generous support from the local community—support for which they are immensely grateful - and despite being awarded our legal costs, the combined expenses of legal representation, the expert witness, and a necessary but costly legal insurance policy left us more than £60,000.00 out of pocket.
The developer, fully aware of the covenant from the outset, could and should have applied to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber), under section 84 of the Law of Property Act 1925, to seek a modification before proceeding. Instead, they went ahead regardless, shifting the burden of enforcement onto ordinary residents. This is a serious flaw in the current planning and legal framework—one that unfairly punishes communities for standing up for what is legally and morally right.
This was not just a victory for our community, but for any neighbourhood facing inappropriate development that disregards legal protections. We are both relieved and proud that our perseverance has paid off. It is a testament to what a community can achieve when it stands united. The decision is a clear message to developers, that they cannot ignore legal covenants and that community voices matter.
The ruling comes as a welcome relief to many who feared the loss of character, increased traffic, and the erosion of the area’s historic character. Residents hope this outcome sends a clear message to developers to respect existing legal constraints and engage meaningfully with communities.
Our residents’ campaign was driven by passion, commitment, and considerable personal investment—not to mention the dedicated efforts of their legal representatives, including Mr. Shaw Kelly and Mr. Martin Hutchings KC. Our group extends a heartfelt thank you to everyone who supported them throughout this long journey—whether by standing alongside us, contributing financially, or simply believing in our cause.
If you would like to further assist with our group’s out-of-pocket expenses incurred during this lengthy process, your donation would be greatly appreciated.
Every donation, no matter the size, makes a meaningful difference in protecting our community.