Six-metre distance between windows of different properties must be maintained

The approved drawings show a proposed small, open terrace turned into a study at first-floor level.

Following this decision, a third-party objector, who resides in the adjacent property, submitted an appeal. In his appeal, the neighbour pointed out that the approved plans show a room (instead of a previously open terrace) having a window facing his property with a recess of less than six metres.

The neighbour alleged that the permit was in breach of paragraph 12.3 of the Policy and Design Guidance (DC 2007), which clearly states that "a minimum separation of six metres should be provided between the main windows of habitable rooms". In addition, reference was made to policy 12.1 of the same document, which provides that any "development should respect and maintain the privacy of adjoining dwellings".

The objector added that the surface area of the study measures 3.9 square metres, which area is greater than the minimum surface area for habitable rooms as stipulated in Article 112 (a) of the Code of Police Laws.

This 1931 legal provision states that rooms used for habitation must have a surface of at least 3.75 square metres for each person older than seven years and of 2.75 square metres for each person of seven years of age or under. With this in mind, the objector contended that " the said room qualifies as a room which is fit for habitation", and a distance of at least six metres between windows pertaining to different owned properties should be retained.

In reaction, the applicant argued that the room under contestation is very small (less than four square metres) and is thus considered unfit for habitation. For its part, MEPA (having issued the permit) insisted that there is no objection in having two windows pertaining to different properties facing each other within a distance of less than six metres, provided, of course, that any one of the rooms is very small.

MEPA observed that a private terrace in the applicant's residence always provided the occupant a direct view onto the internal yard. To this end, the objector was not in a position to allege that a "new opportunity for direct overlooking is being created." MEPA indeed reiterated that "the opportunity for overlooking is, if anything, being drastically reduced, since the terrace is being closed off and looking out will be limited to a small window, rather than the whole length of the terrace."

In its conclusions, the Tribunal observed that the floor area of the study exceeded 3.75 square metres and was therefore considered habitable in the eyes of law. In turn, the Tribunal held that a minimum distance of six metres between the window in the applicant's study and the objector's bathroom should be maintained, in line with paragraphs 12.1 and 12.3 of the Policy and Design Guidance.

In light of the foregoing, the Tribunal revoked the permit and requested that the Authority reassess the application.