The covenant is obsolete because:

1. there have been changes in the character of the burdened land (eg the terms of the covenant may already have been broken for many years; or the use of the property at the time of the covenant was imposed may have stopped, thus making the covenant pointless); or
   
   there have been changes in the character of the neighbourhood (eg the covenant may have restricted the number of new houses on a plot, those restrictions being imposed at a time when the surrounding area was totally undeveloped. If the locality has since been developed, it is possible the original purpose of the restriction might no longer be fulfilled); or
   
   other material circumstances (eg changes in social attitudes - an old restrictive covenant prohibiting the sale of alcohol might now be considered obsolete).
2. The covenant impedes some reasonable use of the land. In addition to the Tribunal being satisfied that the covenant impedes a reasonable use, it must also be satisfied that the restriction (a) does not secure any practical benefit of substantial value or advantage, or is contrary to public interests, and (b) that a payment of money would be adequate compensation for discharging or modifying the covenant.
3. If the parties agree (note that an agreement might be implied by acts or omission).
4. No injury will be caused. If the proposed discharge or modification will cause no injury to those having the benefit of the restriction, then the Tribunal may make an order accordingly.

Do not forget that when considering an application, the Tribunal must also take into account the development plan and any declared or ascertainable pattern to the grant or refusal of planning permission in the relevant areas, as well as the time and context in which the covenant was imposed. Source: practicallaw.com/A40048. © Practical Lawyer