Brian Peters

doris

doris

Well-Known Member
Joined
19 Jun 2001
Messages
2,264
Location
London
Visit site
There was an article in yesterday's Telegraph about a certain 'Brian Peters' who is causing problems for people in Chichester Harbour.
He would appear to be very well heeled with a £5million house on the market. Is the same bloke that 'allegedly' walked away with a lot of peoples deposits etc when a certain boat broking firm went t*ts up?

Am surprised there isn't a queue of boys and girls looking to get very personal with him!!
 
Last edited:
doris said:
There was an article in yesterday's Telegraph about a certain 'Brian Peters' who is causing problems for people in Chichester Harbour.
He would appear to be very well heeled with a £5million house on the market. Is the same bloke that 'allegedly' walked away with a lot of peoples deposits etc when a certain boat broking firm went t*ts up?

Am surprised there isn't a queue of boys and girls looking to get very personal with him!!
Click to expand...

In this case he would seem to be totally in the right:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...e-couple-lose-court-battle-over-sea-view.html
 
So who decides when and where a covenant becomes unenforcable. If this one was 'clearly unenforcable' as the judge says, I didn't spot a reason why.

Lots of us live under seemingly daft or unenforcable covenants and its an area of law that sees one person able to enforce theirs and another having theirs set aside as in this case.

I like it.."Retired Yacht Broker". Has a nice ring to it doesn't it:rolleyes:

Tim
 
I didn't think that one could just build whilly-nilly on bare ground - it has to be earmarked for development in the local plan or there has to be an existing house on it.

Perhaps if you've got £5M in your hand, then if a little bit were to make its way into a brown envelope and accidentally fall into the hands of your local planning officer, then anything's possible.

What about Mr Cameron's promise to give back planning powers to local communities - whilst generally I'm against nimbyism, it would appear that there would be every justification for this development not to go ahead.

(Just don't bring up Donald Trump, OK?)
 
Last edited:
Alfie168 said:
So who decides when and where a covenant becomes unenforcable. If this one was 'clearly unenforcable' as the judge says, I didn't spot a reason why.
Click to expand...

Incredibly, the Daily Mail actually explains the reason:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...lionaires-fight-sea-view-ends-High-Court.html

It seems the owner of "Farne House" can allow building there and Mr Peters is part owner of whatever remains of that estate. So the Judge says he can build under the terms of the covenant. (Although it seems he's not building - he's selling instead.)

Wonder if anyone choosing to build there in future will get planning permission?
 
toad_oftoadhall said:
(Although it seems he's not building - he's selling instead.)

Wonder if anyone choosing to build there in future will get planning permission?
Click to expand...

Selling with benefit of possible future development though. Although we don't know what the relationship is like, this seems very un-neighbourly.

Hopefully CDC will not give permission, bearing in mind the promised new rules about stopping infill. (Too late for me where I am though) :( Yes it might not be considered as infill but one would hope that common sense will prevail. That having been said, I've known lawyers go the whole hog for planning, when it's been in their interests.

On the face of it I feel sorry for the Rees'.

What was the outcome of the business that went bust?
 
It's amazing what crops up in a forum when you least expect it!!!!

I happen to have witnessed the view in question first hand, having stayed at Farne House several times as a guest of the Rees family a few years ago. I have not spoken to them for a while now, but I can confirm that the view is amazing. They are an extremely nice family and it was clear to me back then that they loved their home. For them to potentially have the view ruined by potential building must be shattering for them. I would doubt that the possible negative effect on the money value of their house would be the motivating factor to go to court however.

I think in the UK none of us can guarantee anything in our life's. No matter what you think you have planned for, someone comes along at some point to screw it all up to your cost. 99% of the time it's the government - changing the rules to suit itself!
 
doris said:
There was an article in yesterday's Telegraph about a certain 'Brian Peters' who is causing problems for people in Chichester Harbour.
He would appear to be very well heeled with a £5million house on the market. Is the same bloke that 'allegedly' walked away with a lot of peoples deposits etc when a certain boat broking firm went t*ts up?

Am surprised there isn't a queue of boys and girls looking to get very personal with him!!
Click to expand...

Whatever you may think of the Opal situation, there is no suggestion that he "walked away" with anybody's money. The issue was about whether the company handled deposits into the client account correctly. Seems they did not - but not for any individual's personal benefit. There maybe a case against an individual or individuals but so far (from what I have seen) none that either the police or individuals have been able to pursue.
 
StephenSails said:
I agree, but we have seen some new-builds going up around the harbour in recent years.
Click to expand...

Yes but havent they been within the building line, ie in line with other buildings, where as this looks like it is right out in the open, in front of other buildings, as far as I can see.
 
Last edited:
What's the point in having rules, laws, covenants which are designed to be effective in perpetuity if they can be scrapped willy nilly. When the Rees's bought their house they were in effect buying the protection of the covenant which now appears to be a worthless piece of paper
 
In your original post you said he had been convicted in court and banned from trading. Nothing in these references supports what you suggest.

It is clear from the court case that there was mismanagement and lack of control, but so far there does not seem to be any further court action to pursue individuals.

The court case focused solely on clarifying whether there had been a breach of trust and was brought by the administrators so that they could have a firm legal basis for dealing with various claims on the client account.
 
daveyw said:
What's the point in having rules, laws, covenants which are designed to be effective in perpetuity if they can be scrapped willy nilly.
Click to expand...

In this case - if the Daily Mail is to be believed :eek: - "the judge said the 1957 covenant had not been drafted with the intention that it would 'bite' indefinitely."

As I understand it from the article, when the original property was split up nothing could be built on the field without the permission of the owners of "Farne House". Subsequently some of the land belonging to Farne House was sold off and the building in which the Peters live built upon it. Their claim was that the reference to "Farne House" in the covenant referred to the whole property at that time, and not just the building. They own part of that property and therefore can give the necessary permission. Same thing, really, as if the building Farne House had been split into flats.
 
galadriel said:
Yes but havent they been within the building line, ie in line with other buildings, where as this looks like it is right out in the open, in front of other buildings, as far as I can see.
Click to expand...

In Bosham there is a whole housing estate that has gone up in a field within 100 metres of the sea in the last few years, the legitimacy of which is a bit questionable all round.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top