Fact: If you want to see how nonsensical these restrictive covenants can be here's an example.... If our neighbours the F's were to be running a Nursery on their domestic premises, and unlike us, were to be generating lots of nuisance noise and terrible traffic congestion, WE would not be able to stop it using the same restrictive covenant.

For A to have the 'benefit' of an R.C. and B to bear the 'burden' of it, A's original sale of their title must come AFTER B's original sale of title. It's a time-sequence thing. There's nothing democratic abut this.

And let's remind ourselves: The R.C.'s were not intended to stop businesses, they do happily allow for a Dentist, or a Doctor, or a Solicitor! Nice middle-class businesses that won't affect the original developers ability to sell off remaining plots, but in fact to enhance that ability.

The RC's in this particular case were never intended to protect residents' peaceful enjoyment of their properties, as one Residents Association has claimed. They were designed by the developer to get maximum profit and sales from his remaining unsold plots quote: "...for the benefit of the remainder of the land..." in the developer's title number.

How do you believe the development of a modern community should be organised? Antiquated undemocratic developer's RCs or rational planning driven by the needs of that community?