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

Court Explores Alleged 'Grave Risk' in Child Abduction Case

28th March, 2024 By

Cross-jurisdictional disputes surrounding child custody can be complex but, in cutting through the complexities, the courts will always focus on the welfare of the children involved, as was evidenced in a High Court case centred on a child abduction. A father wrongfully removed his 5-year-old child from Lithuania during an agreed contact session and took him back to the UK. Prior to this abduction, a series of contested proceedings related to the child's custody had already taken place in the Lithuanian courts. The father had applied to have the child returned...

Tenant Succeeds in Reducing Service Charges

26th March, 2024 By

A case recently decided by the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) serves as a reminder to tenants to check the terms of their leases and to monitor the service charges they are asked to pay. The tenant of a ground-floor flat sought a determination of liability to pay service charges under Section 27A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, in respect of the 2017-2022 service charge years. He challenged various charges, on grounds that they was no evidence that they had been incurred or that they had not reasonably been incurred. Although...

Risk Passing on Exchange of Contracts

20th March, 2024 By Arman Khosravi

Risk Passing on Exchange of Contracts   Between Exchange and Completion (where the property is freehold):- It is generally the responsibility of the seller to take care of the property and to keep it insured against damage. The buyer also has a responsibility to insure the property from the exchange of contracts because of “Risk Passing”. There is no obligation on the seller to maintain buildings insurance once exchange has taken place.  It is therefore very important that buildings insurance for the property is in place before you proceed to exchange...

Court of Appeal Overturns Will Dispute Ruling

20th March, 2024 By

Unfortunately, will disputes can sometimes be drawn out long after the passing of the person who bequeathed their assets. This was so in a contentious probate battle which progressed to the Court of Appeal after a High Court judgment was challenged. The crux of the matter was a 2015 will made by a woman prior to her death at the age of 85. In that will, the woman bequeathed her home – her largest asset – to her only daughter. The daughter and the woman's three sons were to share...