fbpx

Overlooked Homeowners Fall Foul of Ambiguity in Planning Permission

12th May 2022 By

Finding your way around the intricacies of the planning system without professional advice is, for most people, a near impossibility. The point was powerfully made by the case of a couple whose intimate living space was overlooked by a skylight fitted to a neighbouring property.

The couple said that the top-floor bedroom, study and bathroom of their home was so badly overlooked by the skylight that they could only get undressed by hiding behind a bookcase. Their neighbour periodically installed a mannequin in the skylight, giving the impression that there was someone there, watching.

The clear glass skylight, which could be opened, was fitted to a side elevation of the neighbouring property as part of a loft extension. A condition attached to planning permission for the works required windows in the side elevation to be non-opening and to be fitted with obscured glass. In reliance on that condition, the couple asked the local authority to issue a planning enforcement notice against their neighbour. The council, however, declined to do so on the basis that the condition only applied to a dormer window and not to the skylight.

Ruling on the couple’s judicial review challenge to that refusal, a judge identified an ambiguity in the planning permission: a reasonable reading of the condition, which made no distinction between skylights and dormer windows, supported the couple’s interpretation. However, design drawings that formed part of the planning permission pointed in favour of the council’s arguments.

To resolve that ambiguity, the judge took account of extraneous evidence in the form of a planning officer’s report, prepared before the grant of planning consent. Viewed in combination with the drawings, the report made it abundantly clear that the obscured glass and non-opening requirements were only intended to apply to the dormer window, not to the skylight. The couple’s case was dismissed.

Source: Concious

Latest News

What are the Tax Implications of Settling an Employment Tribunal Claim?

20th May, 2022 By

When paying money to settle Employment Tribunal (ET) proceedings, employers are not infrequently motivated by a desire to make what they perceive as a nuisance go away – but how should such payments be treated for tax purposes? The First-tier Tribunal (FTT) tackled that thorny issue in a guideline case. A senior bank employee was dismissed following a regulator's investigation into an aspect of the bank's business. She asserted that she had been made a scapegoat and thrown under a bus by a white male cartel at the bank. She...

Interpreting Wills That May Be Ambiguous – High Court Guidance

17th May, 2022 By

Even with the most careful drafting, there is always a risk that a will may be capable of bearing more than one meaning. In resolving a family inheritance dispute, the High Court considered the extent to which extraneous evidence of a will-maker's intentions can be used as an aid to interpretation of the words actually used. The case concerned a businessman who, by his will, bequeathed a life interest in his home to his wife if she survived him. In the event, she predeceased him. Following his death, an issue...

Overlooked Homeowners Fall Foul of Ambiguity in Planning Permission

12th May, 2022 By

Finding your way around the intricacies of the planning system without professional advice is, for most people, a near impossibility. The point was powerfully made by the case of a couple whose intimate living space was overlooked by a skylight fitted to a neighbouring property. The couple said that the top-floor bedroom, study and bathroom of their home was so badly overlooked by the skylight that they could only get undressed by hiding behind a bookcase. Their neighbour periodically installed a mannequin in the skylight, giving the impression that there...

Wife Sees Off Bankruptcy Trustees' Attempt to Sell Off Her Home

9th May, 2022 By

When people dispose of assets shortly before having themselves declared bankrupt, it is inevitable that eyebrows will often be raised. However, as a judge's ruling showed, it is one thing to allege an improper motive and quite another to prove it. The case concerned a businessman who transferred a 50 per cent share in his home to his wife about four months before he was made bankrupt on his own petition. His trustees in bankruptcy questioned the timing of the transaction. They argued that the transfer should be rescinded and...