[2025] UKUT 295 (LC)

Privacy: prevention of overlooking

The objectors’ second complaint is loss of privacy; it is possible to see into Korobe from the dormer windows in Hillside’s upper storey. Mr Clarke argued that the prevention of that invasion of privacy was a practical benefit conferred by the restriction – and indeed the applicant’s expert valuer, Mr Green, acknowledged that the loss of privacy led to a loss in value (see below).

Mr Kempton, the objectors’ valuation expert, commented that the practical benefits of the restrictions were even stronger for the redeveloped Korobe than the previous property due the extra glazing and the resulting loss of privacy to the occupants. As we saw when we visited, when looking up at the first and second floor windows, the large expanses of glass allow a view through into the rooms beyond. That is a design choice which has reduced the privacy which the objectors can expect to enjoy, whether from a dormer window at Hillside or from a pedestrian in the road. By contrast, the first floor windows at the neighbouring property Wayland can also be seen from the dormer windows at Hillside, but their design does not permit any view through into the rooms.

We agree that in preventing dormer windows on the east side of Hillside the restrictions prevent the occupants of Hillside looking into Korobe from the first floor of Hillside and through the floor-to-ceiling glazing on the first and second floors of Korobe. Mr Skelly argued that in considering whether that was a practical benefit to the objectors we should take into account the objectors’ own actions and preferences. They have chosen to redevelop their home with huge windows. They have chosen to open up the access at the front, which means that both passers-by, and the occupants of the ground floor at Hillside, are able to look in at Korobe’s windows just as much as the occupants of the first floor.

We agree that the addition of the second storey dormer windows at Hillside means that Korobe’s privacy is reduced. It is a very slight reduction in view of the fact that it is possible in any event for the occupants of Hillside to look into Korobe from the ground floor and for passers-by to look into Korobe from the street. It is a practical benefit, but certainly not of substantial advantage for that reason. Again, whether it is of substantial value is a matter for the valuation experts to whose evidence we now turn.