As a general rule, landowners that obtain planning permission for development are entitled to build on their land. Their neighbours cannot complain, even though the presence of the new building may spoil their view or detract from their enjoyment of their land: see Hunter v Canary Wharf Ltd [1997] AC 655. What then should we make of the High Court decision in Dennis v Davies [2008] PLSCS 331? The parties lived on a development situated on an island in the River Thames. A feature of their properties was river views and each property was subject to restrictive covenants preventing further building without the approval of the management company. One of the occupiers obtained planning permission to construct a three-storey extension at the side of his property, despite the concerns of his neighbours. They took the view that the extension would diminish the value of their properties because it would affect their views of the river. Unsurprisingly, the management company came under pressure both to approve and disapprove the project. Consequently, the objectors cast around for an alternative. They asked the court for a declaration that the extension would constitute a breach of mutually enforceable restrictive covenants prohibiting nuisance and annoyances. The High Court upheld the objectors’ claim. The judge cited the leading Victorian case of Tod-Heatley v Benham (1888) 40 ChD 80 in which the Court of Appeal ruled that “annoyance” has a wider meaning than “nuisance” and that something that disturbs the reasonable peace of mind of the ordinary sensible English inhabitant of a house can constitute an annoyance. He also relied upon Wood v Cooper [1894] 3 Ch 671 to show that covenants prohibiting nuisance and annoyances can be used in respect of buildings. The judge dismissed the landowner’s arguments that: (i) the law does not protect views; (ii) the planning system exists to regulate development; (iii) the management company had the right to control building; and (iv) as a result, it would be surprising if individual landowners could invoke restrictive covenants against nuisance and annoyance to impose additional controls on building. To the judge’s mind, no inconsistency arose between the requirement that the management company should approve plans for further building and his interpretation of the covenant against nuisance and annoyances. The decision will surprise practitioners, who take the view that covenants against nuisance and annoyance are designed to regulate activities and do not apply to the erection of, or alterations to, buildings. However, unless and until the decision is either overturned or overruled, practitioners should think carefully about the breadth of cover purchased under restrictive covenant indemnity policies: does the insurance extend to potential breaches of covenants against nuisance and annoyance? It may also be worth broadening the scope of applications to the Lands Tribunal to modify or discharge restrictive covenants, to ensure that applications encompass these prohibiting nuisance and annoyance as well as those against building. Allyson Colby is a property law consultant