Planning Objection Letters – Loss of Privacy

Loss of Privacy in Planning Objections

Ween development and maintaining the privacy of existing residents is a delicate one. The concept of planning objections, particularly those related to loss of privacy and overlooking, plays a crucial role in this process. Overlooking occurs when a new development provides direct views into neighbouring properties, leading to loss of privacy. This article delves into the depths of planning objections with a specific focus on the overlooking aspect, unravelling the complexities and offering insights into specific issues.

Legal Framework for Overlooking in Planning Objections

Navigating the legal landscape of planning objections is essential for anyone writing a planning objection letter. This section outlines the national and local guidelines that govern planning objections, including relevant case law that has shaped the understanding of overlooking in the planning sector.

Most Local Plans include development management policies that stipulate that development proposals should not adversely impact upon residents’ privacy. Although many local authorities seek to use rule of thumb “separation distances” between facing windows, such preconceived standards are normally treated as flexible guidelines. In practice, decisions are far more likely to be based on a case-by-case assessment of the actual physical situation posed by an application for development, including the types of rooms involved.

Separation distances

Where properties directly face one another, a distance of at least 20 or 21m between facing habitable room windows (living rooms, dining rooms, kitchens, studies and bedrooms) is normally required. This distance should increase by an additional 7 m for every storey above 2 storeys. On the other hand, whilst not directly connected with privacy, but more a consideration for outlook,  a separation distance of 13 m for 1.5 or 2 storey walls and 16 m for 2.5 or 3 storey walls between windowed elevations and opposing gable end walls provides a reasonable level of separation.

This guidance originated with Better Places to Live 2002 (now superseded by the National Design Guide), which advised that general planning standards prescribing minimum separation distances between habitable rooms can frustrate the creation of attractive residential environments by denying the ability to provide privacy through careful design. The guidance added that rules of thumb such as a minimum “back-to-back” distance of 20m needed to be applied flexibly.

It is of note that the “70 foot or 20m rule ”, which was for many years the “set in stone” standard separation distance specified for dwellings in housing estates, has nothing to do with overlooking or privacy. Its origin was the 1918 Tudor Walters report on the design of new housing containing a diagram showing that this was the minimum distance necessary to ensure that sunlight reached the ground floor windows of facing two storey houses on 25th December.

Neighbours’ Side Facing Windows

It is worth highlighting that for separation distances, neighbours’ side-facing windows on adjoining properties which get their light across another properties land will not normally be given the same degree of protection as front and rear facing windows. These cases will be judged on their individual circumstances. Furthermore, for windows which do not serve habitable rooms but rather correspond, for example, to bathrooms or storage rooms, the separation distance will be relaxed considerably.

Overlooking and Obscure Glazing

Overlooking problems can often be addressed by obscure glazing the windows. Where this is necessary, the Council will require glazing that prevents detailed views through the window glass. However, obscure glazing to a bedroom for example should not form an adequate mitigation measure as it will reduce the light available considerably.

Where proposals fail to address the above privacy standards, this issue should be highlighted in your planning objection letter.

Planning Objections and Loss of Privacy – Case Law

The fact that new development would overlook existing residential property and affect privacy is a common planning issue, and has been held by the courts to be a proper planning consideration particularly when neighbours object.

The National Design Guide at para.126 states that “The quality of internal space needs careful consideration in higher density developments, particularly for family accommodation, where access, privacy, daylight and external amenity space are also important.” Ministerial advice in former PPG1 stated at para.40 “it might be material to consider the question of overlooking or loss of privacy experienced by a particular resident”.

In R (Sager house) v SoS 26/4/2006 a developer applied to quash an inspector’s dismissal of a scheme involving the redevelopment of an abandoned power station as it would impair the privacy and “sense of enclosure” of neighbouring residential properties.

In Tatham Homes Ltd v SoS 16/6/2005 a developer applied to quash an inspector’s decision to refuse a block of flats. The local authority had refused the application due to harm to the character and visual amenity of the area. The inspector did not find this harm but did find it would cause neighbours to suffer a loss of privacy. He found that the proposed development would have living and dining room windows at first and second floor level, as well as two balconies directly overlooking the garden at a minimum distance of about 17 metres, and only about 34 metres from the house. In his opinion this potential degree of overlooking, especially from rooms that are likely to be well used, would be unacceptable and contrary to the local plan and supplementary planning guidance (SPG).

It is possible that the impact of overlooking may be affected by who is doing the overlooking and in Reynolds v Newport BC 6/9/2001, it was argued that in a case involving a guest house, overlooking from strangers was different from that of neighbours. However, it was held that the claimant did not have an arguable case.

In other cases it may be asserted that office workers or the elderly may spend more time looking out of windows. The latter situation was explored in the Southampton and Norwich cases described later in this section. The other way about, it has been held that because the elderly spend more time in their homes it is particularly important to protect their amenity, see Tandridge 17/01/1991.