Sign up to receive free updates on House & Home news, delivered to your inbox every morning with our myFT Daily Digest email. The recent case in London’s High Court had an air of bathos to it. The European Convention on Human Rights, initially created to protect individuals from state infringement in the aftermath of World War II, was unexpectedly invoked. Although the subject matter may have seemed trivial to the drafters of the convention, it revolved around a dispute between neighbors in the Surrey commuter-belt regarding planning applications and the right to object. However, perhaps this is precisely what the convention intended.
The plaintiffs, Mark and Claire Dyer, who are property developers, took legal action against their neighbors, consisting of three pensioners and a local GP. Their request was for an injunction against alleged harassment, with a potential claim for damages of £1.3 million due to the loss of property value. The main issue at hand was the neighbors being described as a “menacing group” that acted collectively against the Dyers’ numerous planning applications in the hamlet of Brook, many of which had already been approved by the local council.
Human rights have been raised in previous property-related cases, such as the right to respect for private and family life, as seen in the case of residents near the Tate Modern. However, this case had a different focus. It questioned whether neighbors have the right to complain through the planning system, even if it causes disturbance to others. Essentially, it raised the philosophical debate about the balance between individual freedom and community interest, and who holds the greater right.
The notion that owning property grants one complete freedom is an illusion. Since the introduction of planning legislation in the UK in 1948, restrictions have been placed on property owners, and community input has been valued. Boundaries on a map may be defined, but they are also open to others’ opinions. The Dyers seemingly hoped to exclude their neighbors’ viewpoints.
The judge, Dexter Dias, examined two articles from the Human Rights Convention. Article 10, which addresses freedom of expression even if it upsets others, was relevant to objections made through the planning framework. According to the judge, the neighbors’ opposition did not constitute an abuse of the system but rather stemmed from sincere reservations about the Dyers’ proposals. Article 11, focusing on freedom of peaceful assembly, raised questions about the Dyers potentially trying to prevent their neighbors from socializing together. Ultimately, the Dyers lost the case and were ordered to pay costs of £200,000.
Some may view this case as an example of human rights legislation overstepping its bounds. They question whether such a convention should apply to disputes over house extensions or complaints to the council, as it may diminish the significance of the European Convention on Human Rights. However, another perspective considers this case essential to the fabric of democracy, as it highlights the importance of individual rights even in seemingly trivial matters. If one person’s opinion can be suppressed, even regarding a stable block renovation, what comes next?
Both the planning system and the human rights convention emerged in the aftermath of World War II, when society took a moment to reflect on how to move forward after such devastation. While freedom and rights are often discussed in lofty, abstract terms, most people’s lives involve parochial concerns and mundane disputes. It is crucial for lofty ideals to be applied from the ground up.
Stay informed about the latest stories in the world of House & Home by following @FTProperty on Twitter or @ft_houseandhome on Instagram.
Denial of responsibility! VigourTimes is an automatic aggregator of Global media. In each content, the hyperlink to the primary source is specified. All trademarks belong to their rightful owners, and all materials to their authors. For any complaint, please reach us at – [email protected]. We will take necessary action within 24 hours.
