Overlooking from the new balconies
Overlooking from the new balconies
There are inevitably some compromises involved in choosing to live in a city environment. The density of development can result in lack of privacy and this is the case whether you live in a modern development in Docklands or an Edwardian mansion block in Westminster. The placement of the various blocks in St David’s Square is not designed to eliminate overlooking. Some of the occupants of the lower floors of Dominion, Jupiter, Hamiliton and Enterprise Houses are overlooked by the residents of the Westferry Street and eastward facing flats in Dominion House are opposite the rear windows of the Ferry Street houses.
On our inspection we perceived the Ferry Street houses to be closer to the eastern flank of Dominion House than the West Ferry Street houses to any of the other blocks. However, the distance between the Dominion House and Ferry Street, even at the closest point, appeared to be greater than the spacing of the two sides of Ferry Street itself. The proposed loft extensions will be at third floor level and the parts of Dominion House most exposed to loss of privacy will be the lower four floors (noting that the ground floor is used for car parking). It can be seen from the plan at paragraph 7 that Dominion House is ’T’ shaped and that it is the flats at the eastern end of the horizontal element of the ‘T’ that will be most affected by the proposed development.
Ms Venediktova expressed concern that her master bedroom, living room and balcony would be overlooked by the loft extensions. She considered that homogeneous appearance of the Ferry Street roofs would be lost and that the harmony of the existing design might be disrupted if the extensions were not to be completed simultaneously. She was also concerned that the resultant ‘eye sore’ would affect her ability to sell or rent her flat, should the need arise.
Mr Asbury had inspected five flats on the eastern side Dominion House, they were on the 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 6th floors. He concluded that only the flats on the 3rd and 4th floors closest to Ferry Street have windows directly facing the loft extensions but they would be 18 metres apart and the privacy of the occupants would not be compromised. He thought that there was already a significant degree of overlooking in any case. In his view there would be no effect on value.
Mr Adam-Cairns considered that flats on the 3rd and 4th floors of Dominion House would suffer the greatest loss of privacy whilst those on the second floor would become aware of being ‘looked down upon’. However, he concluded that these issues were ‘comparatively minor’. He thought twelve flats would be affected by this issue and depending on their size the impact in terms of value would amount to between £3,000 and £5,000 each with a total effect of £50,000. Should the works not be completed simultaneously the ‘gap toothed’ effect might result in larger discounts, but Mr Adams-Cairns did not specify how much larger.
This is a crowded and densely-populated development. The loft extensions as originally proposed, with the Juliet balconies, will give rise to some additional overlooking, as discussed above. So would the Velux windows proposed as an alternative, albeit directed at the upper floors of Dominion House. Mr Asbury pointed out that the rear windows of the extended kitchens will be very close to the boundaries and carports of the application houses and so will have a more restricted upwards view than do the current kitchen windows. Mr Asbury thought that any increased overlooking would be thereby “neutralised”.
The alterations covenant does prevent this additional overlooking. But in the context of this development where no-one’s space is entirely invisible to anyone else (except perhaps the penthouses) we fail to see that the practical benefit conferred by that prevention is anything more than minimal. It certainly is not of substantial value or advantage. Those flats in the part of Dominion House that is orientated North-South (the vertical element of the ‘T’, or south wing), are in our view simply too far from Ferry Street to be impacted. The flats at the east-facing end of the north wing of Dominion House (the cross-bar of the T), are already overlooked to an extent by the West Ferry Street houses and in our judgement the proposed extensions will have no material effect on their value.
In light of our conclusion about the overlooking from the Juliet balconies in the original application, we do not need (under this head) to consider any further the offer to instal Velux windows in the sloping roof instead.
- Heading
- Introduction
- The facts
- The statutory background
- The applicants, the application and the open offer
- The application
- The open offer
- The objectors’ cases
- Does the covenant impede a reasonable use of the applicants’ land?
- Does the covenant, in impeding that reasonable use, secure practical benefits to the objectors? If so, are those benefits of substantial value or advantage?
- The prevention of increased nuisance from the occupants of HMOs
- The preventions of additional strain on the estate services and the service charges
- Damage to the trees at the back of the application houses
- Overlooking from the new balconies
- The change to the architecture of the development
- The breach in the building scheme and the risk of further development in the future
- Disturbance from the work done to carry the proposed projects
- Discretion
- Conclusions
![[2024] UKUT 62 (LC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_lnJS4Uj.png)