skip navigation

Latest News

  Property - Slow Improvement in Market Conditions 
  ASBI Permitted As Behaviour Was 'Housing-Related' 
  Couple Sell Farm to Pay for Chancel Repairs 
  Failed Property 'Try On' May Be a Crime 
  Court Finds Hole in Polo Argument 
  Court Rescinds Agreement Resulting From Misrepresentation 
  You Can't Make Me! 
  Inconsistency Defeats Right to Rescind 
  Pay Attention or Pay Up! 
  Does Right of Access Mean Right to Park? 
More...

Planning Permission is Only Part of the Story


 

If you are considering building an extension to your property, you may think that it is simply a matter of getting planning permission and finding a builder. A recent case shows, however, how important covenants affecting property can be in determining whether developments of any kind can go ahead.

The case involved an upmarket housing estate called Heron Island, which is near Reading. The estate is adjacent to the Thames. One of the homeowners wanted to build a three storey extension to his property that would have partially obscured the view of the river for some of his neighbours. The neighbours objected to the planning application. The planning inspector’s opinion was that whilst there would be some loss of view for one household, this did not result in a material diminution in living standards. There is no general right in law to a view. The planning application was granted on appeal.

The objectors then used a different line of attack. The properties were conveyed with a covenant prohibiting owners from doing anything which would constitute a ‘nuisance or annoyance’ to the other owners on the estate. One owner in particular argued that he put great store on his river views, which would be greatly curtailed by the extension. Also, the windows in one aspect of the development would interfere with his privacy. Other owners gave evidence that their views of the river would be partially obscured.

One of the more interesting aspects of this case was that the obstruction of the view was minor. However, the judge, who visited the estate and had the benefit of seeing computer-generated evidence, had to decide the question ‘would reasonable people, having regard to the ordinary use of their houses for pleasurable enjoyment, be annoyed and aggrieved by the extension?’ On that basis, he concluded, “In my view the three storey red brick extension would trouble the minds of the ordinary sensible English inhabitant of any of those three houses and in those circumstances it does constitute an annoyance within the meaning of the covenant.”

 
The contents of this article are intended for general information purposes only and shall not be deemed to be, or constitute legal advice. We cannot accept responsibility for any loss as a result of acts or omissions taken in respect of this article.
 
 

Steed & Steed Solicitors, 76-82 & 86 Coggeshall Road, Braintree, Essex, CM7 9BY | Tel: 01376 552828
6 Gainsborough Street, Sudbury, Suffolk CO10 2ET | Tel: 01787 373387

© Steed & Steed Solicitors. All rights reserved. | Legal Disclaimer
Steed & Steed LLP is a Limited Liability Partnership and is regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority - 508781

Registered in England and Wales under Registered No. OC 343265.
A list of members names is available for inspection at the registered office at 6 Gainsborough Street, Sudbury, Suffolk, CO10 2ET.

Where we use the word Partner or Principal it denotes member of Steed & Steed LLP.

[smaller] Change text size [larger]