High Court rejects challenge to decision by council not to take enforcement action in respect of alleged breach of planning control

A couple who claimed they were overlooked by a neighbour because the London Borough of Wandsworth failed to take enforcement action have lost their case.

Christopher and Rosemary Taylor-Davies told the High Court their neighbour Simon Cook periodically installs a mannequin in the disputed rooflight concerned, which Mrs Justice Lang said “gives the impression that there is a person at the window looking out at number 242. This suggests to me that he is not taking the claimants' concerns seriously”.

The Taylor-Davies sought judicial review of Wandsworth’s decision not to take enforcement action over the rooflight, which they said allowed occupants of the next door house to look directly into their bathroom and other rooms.

A planning condition known as Condition 3 requires windows in the side elevations to be fitted with obscured glass, and to be non-opening.

Mr Cook complied in respect of the dormer window, but not the rooflight as Wandsworth said the condition only applies to the former, and therefore it did not pursue enforcement proceedings.

The couple said the condition also applied to the rooflight and the council erred in failing to enforce the breach of planning control.

In Taylor-Davies & Anor, R (On the Application Of) v Wandsworth London Borough Council [2022] EWHC 355 (Admin) Lang J said: “In my judgment, the permission is ambiguous because the reasonable reader’s interpretation of Condition 3 lends support to the claimants' interpretation, but the reasonable reader's interpretation of the drawings points in favour of the council's interpretation.”

She said this meant the court could have regard to extrinsic evidence and she could consider the officer’s report concerned, though not various emails and messages not in the public domain and not part of the grant of permission.

The judge said: “The drawings which are part of the permission unequivocally demonstrate that the obscure glazing requirement only applies to the dormer window.

“The officer’s report clearly supports this interpretation. The ambiguity arises from the wording of Condition 3 which can be read as meaning that the obscure glazing requirement applies to the rooflight as well.

“However, upon considering all the documents and drawings, individually and as a whole, I am satisfied that the correct interpretation of the permission is that Condition 3 only applies to the dormer window on side elevation 1, not to the rooflight.”

Mark Smulian