Fearn & Ors v Board of Trustees of the Tate Gallery [2023] UKSC 4 (01 February 2023)
Citation:Fearn & Ors v Board of Trustees of the Tate Gallery [2023] UKSC 4 (01 February 2023)
Rule of thumb:Are you allowed to develop the roof of your property into a sitting/standing area without planning permission? If this can allow you to see into neighbours’ property more easily, the answer is ‘no’, planning permission is required. Are you allowed to develop the roof of your property into a sitting/standing area without planning permission? If this can allow you to see into neighbours’ property more easily, the answer is ‘no’, planning permission is required.
Background facts:Basic facts were that Tate developed the flat-roof of their building as a part of their art-gallery tour. This however allowed people to see directly into the flats across the roads. The flats across the road were annoyed that they would often be sitting, and see large groups of people all able to see directly into their home.
Parties argued:The flat-owners argued that this was a nuisance and a privacy breach, and sought an injunction against the Tate gallery to stop them doing this. The Tate Gallery argued they had not actually done any significant land-developments to their roof, and there was nothing in the deed of conditions for their property stating that they could not do this.
Court held:The Court affirmed this was a privacy breach & a nuisance, and thereby granted the injunction. In short, if people are developing the roof of their building, then they have to obtain planning permission for this or else they will not be allowed to use – roofs are not allowed to be developed to give them a view without planning permission being attained first.
Ratio-decidendi:
‘Property rights are not absolute. There are circumstances in which they may be subordinated to the general good of the community - a classic example being the expropriation of land needed for a major infrastructure project. But it is fundamental to the integrity of any system of property rights that, in any such case, the individuals whose rights are infringed or overridden receive compensation for the violation of their rights. In other words, the public interest may sometimes justify awarding damages rather than granting an injunction to restrain the defendant’s harmful activity, but it cannot justify denying the victim any remedy at all’, Lord Leggatt at 122.
Warning: This is not professional legal advice. This is not professional legal education advice. Please obtain professional guidance before embarking on any legal course of action. This is just an interpretation of a Judgment by persons of legal insight & varying levels of legal specialism, experience & expertise. Please read the Judgment yourself and form your own interpretation of it with professional assistance.