Overlooking ( New Version )

Our proposed development is minor in nature because

1 it does not increase the footprint of the building. The footprint of the building remains unchanged.

Key Legal Principle: No Material Harm = No Grounds for Refusal

Under planning law, planning permission should be granted unless the development causes material harm

Because this minor building alteration does not increase the footprint:

  • It does not lead to loss of garden/amenity space, overdevelopment, or drainage/flooding issues.
  • It improves the appearance of the building, and clearly its physical impact at ground level stays the same — which is often key for neighbouring amenity and site constraints.

Secondary legal principle: the fact that the footprint remains unchanged means there is no intensified land use, and thus no risk of breaching local spatial policies or causing material harm.

 

2 It does not increase the top height of the building.

No Increase in Height = No Additional Impact on Neighbors

From a planning law perspective, building height is a material consideration. The new flat roof:

  • Does not exceed the original ridge height,
  • Does not increase overshadowing, loss of light, or loss of outlook as amply demontrated.

Then there is no material harm to neighbouring properties

Legal principle: A development that does not materially harm neighbouring amenity is generally permissible under planning law.

 

3 This minor development involves only minor changes to the external envelope of the building. In this case only increase in height is a two edges of the extension while the top height of th eextension is unchanged.

In planning law, a local planning authority can only refuse an application if the proposal causes material planning harm or conflicts with the local development plan.

In this case:

  • The overall extension height remains unchanged, which means:
    • No new overshadowing or daylight, as proven extensively with the relevant studies
    • No increase in visual dominance. This is evident and self explanatory, especially due to the height of the extension remaining unchanged.
    • The change to two edge heights is a minor design variation within the original massing of the building.

     

  • Therefore, there is no material harm, and under UK planning law (and similarly in many legal systems), that means the application should be permitted.

This minor development does not breach local policy ( it is perfectly in line with it as amply demonstrated) , and there are no overriding material considerations against it — Threfore it should be approved.

Minor External Changes = Minor Development

This proposal involves:

  • No increase in footprint
  • No increase in ridge/top height
  • Only minor height adjustment to part of the extension to match it with th etop height of the original extension.

This type of development is often classified as “minor” in planning terms, meaning:

  • It falls well below the scale of development that would have strategic or cumulative impacts
  • It is to be assessed primarily on design, appearance, and impact on neighbours, not major policy issues.

The Design and appearance has been discussed at length and it is clear that not only is this a substantial improvement, but while it fits really well in this area it is mainly hidden by the sorrounding houses of Harold Street and Castle Street.

Since it does not negatively affect any neighbouring properties, amenity, character, or infrastructure as amply demonstrated , there is no lawful basis to refuse it.

No Impact on Neighbouring Amenity or Character

  • Visual continuity is maintained, as the top height stays the same
  • The bulk and form of the building are largely unchanged
  • It would not feel significantly different to observers or neighbours. However it is a significant improvement and most of the extension is hidden from view by the sorrounding house which are one storey higher than the extension (even with the new proposed flat roof).

This aligns with core national and local planning principles (such as the NPPF in England, which emphasizes good design without stifling innovation or minor architectural changes).

 

Overlooking.

Overlooking is one of the policies matters that needs to be taken into consideration in a general full planning application.

As we will see this minor development causes no “material harm” to the existing houses in terms of privacy and overlooking. In some cases, not only does it not cause any material harm, but the new window openings are well over 20 metres away from any habitable room window not causing overlooking in the first place.

 

Duplicating Existing Overlooking.

If other windows in the building or nearby already overlook the same area (e.g., a garden or window), adding another similar window doesn’t cause harm in a legally significant way. In such cases the impact is considered neutral or minimal, and therefore non-material.

To summarise the windows on the extension are allowable because:

1 there are already existing windows in the extension overlooking directly both properties facing Harold Street and Castle street. Therefore the addition of further windows on upper levels facing the same direction will not cause loss of privacy.

2 in the case of the properties facing castle street the distance between the extension and the back windows of the uninhabitable rooms on the ground floor is over 20 meters. Therefore even in case no existing windows were present in the existing extension the long distance allows brand new windows to be placed on this side of the extension because when the distance is over 20 metres, as we will see below, directly facing windows are not considered to cause loss of privacy due to the distance alone.

3 even in case of the absence of existing windows in the extension there is ample pre exising loss of privacy from the other windows of neighbouring properties.

For these reasins which we be exploring in detail below the windows in the extension are all allawable.

 

 

 

 

The legal concept of “material harm”.

“One cannot lose something he does not have. Someone cannot have less than something he did not have in the first place.” In our context you either have privacy or you do not have it. if you do not have privacy you cannot lose more privacy.

When it cones to a view though a window you are either being seen from another window at a distance or you are not seen at all. Once you are seen then you have to take measures to avoind being seen no matter how many more windows there might be later on watching into your window. There maybe partial viw or direct frontal view , if you are concerned about people seeing you you will have to use curtains ,   blinds  etc. It is not as if there is apartial viw than then you would use half curtains of see throguh curtains, you would use the same curtains in the same way.

The concept of “no material harm” or “material Harm” in law is a well known legal tool which has to be used in court in order to prove that damage of some sort had been caused by any third party.

This Legal tool is used in several legal realms.

In commercial law,   non-compliance of certain products with a regulatory framework, the “non-material harm” principle is used to decide whether  to bring prosecutions or not. In case no accidents or damage has been caused, it is usually agreed upon that a court case is wasteful as the product did not cause any harm and it could become compliant later. In courts one of the first tests to be passed is “any material Harm been caused”?

This is also the first test that has to be passed in civil and sometimes also in criminal court. Without being able to prove any “material harm”, rarely can court cases  be successful.

For example, in a civil legal dispute where there is no direct indirect financial loss, that dispute cannot be brought successfully to court. This is because the court will ask to prove damages and calculate the financial co0mpensation. Without any financial loss or “material harm”, no financial reward can be awarded. Therefore, any civil court case that does not pass the “material harm” test is very unlikely to be brought successfully to court.

In order to be successful in court, “material harm” has to be proven first. First, it has to be proven that whatever breach of contract, regulation, action, event etc. directly or indirectly caused “material harm”, for example, a financial loss that otherwise would not have occurred.  The concept of material harm is also used in criminal court and the judge or prosecutor usually takes the view that for minor infractions that do not cause any “material harm” court time shall not be used and a, warning letter or corrective action to conform with regulations (for example) may suffice.

The same also applies in planning, of course. It is well known that in planning where “no material harm” has been caused by a development, any objection based on any matter that does not cause any “material harm”is not an admissible objection to reject the planning application.

A “material harm” has to be proven to cause the planning application to be successfully rejected based on an objection. The only valid objections in planning are those which demonstrate the harm that will be caused by the development. Where harm is not demonstrated, such objections are not valid. If an objection is made that does not meet the test of “material harm” and the planning application is rejected on an objection that does not prove “material harm” then the planning rejection can be successfully overturned at appeal.

 

 

 

Duplicating Overlooking is Permitted

No Additional Material Harm

Planning authorities and and especially courts focus on whether a proposal makes things worse in a way that is legally significant. If overlooking already exists ist is well established that there is no net loss of privacy, and hence no “material harm”.

In case of this minor building alteration

If nearby windows already overlook a certain area:

That area is considered to be already exposed to overlooking, and residents have a reasonable expectation of reduced privacy. A new window duplicating this view is seen as within acceptable planning norms, especially in urban or semi-urban settings like in this specific area.

Planning Policy and Consistency

Planning decisions must be made based on material planning considerations. A new window that mirrors existing conditions does not cross that line. Otherwise, every building with more than one window facing a neighbour could be challenged.

 

If there is already an established loss of privacy, extra window openings generally cause “no-material harm”.

If there is already an established loss of privacy in the backyards and/or there is a direct existing view into back windows, it is expected that  measures have already been taken by the residents due to lack of privacy caused by existing surrounding buildings.  Any further development or window opening does not cause an increase in loss of privacy. An existing development has either privacy or it has not.  For example, if there is only one overlooking window, the residents are required to preserve their privacy using curtains on their windows and other measures. This does not change if the overlooking windows are three instead of two. The same measures for privacy preservation  have to be taken, whether there is 2 or 4 or multiple overlooking windows. Therefore, any new window opening overlooking the same area clearly  does not cause any “material harm”.

In other words, once the loss of privacy is already established, the residents have to use curtains, blinds etc, and they have to be aware of the overlooking in the same way before and after any new overlooking window/s  are installed. However, in our minor development, the increase in overlooking is very minor as this is an existing building where there is a slight increase in size and number of windows.

Some of the properties of castle street, as we will see, not only had a clear established loss of privacy, but some new windows will be placed at a distance well superior to 20 meters from a habitable room window. The 20-metre standard is a well-known adopted design standard and in several cases in densely built central area this 20-metre distance is also relaxed to a distance even less than  20 m. Otherwise, essential required  development would not take place where it is clearly needed.

Therefore, as it has been seen by several planning cases where there is clearly “no material harm” caused by the development, any objection  is easily dismissed at appeal or even in planning court. Should a refusal of planning permission be based on any excuse or objection which constitutes “no material harm,” this will be challenged and easily overcome on appeal or even in planning courts  (if required).

 

Any additional windows both facing Harold street and Castle street on the extension are permissible.

The proposed windows do not introduce any new or materially harmful overlooking, as similar views are already present from existing windows within the property and surrounding buildings.

The area potentially visible from the new windows is already subject to overlooking from existing, legally established windows as we will see in this document. Therefore, the additional windows do not create any material loss of privacy.

It is understood that under planning policy, only material planning considerations may be grounds for refusal. Subjective concerns or personal discomfort, where no measurable impact exists, fall under non-material considerations and should not influence the decision as it is clear and very well demonstrated in this case.

In urban and suburban settings, a degree of mutual overlooking is an accepted and typical part of the built environment. As this proposal does not cause any material harm in term of overlookoiing and privacu concerns in any way, and does not impact any previously private or secluded areas, therefgore it is amply demonstrated that any additional windows in the extension are permissible from a planning perspective.

 

 

 

 

The existing windows and door openings in the existing extension.

Pre-existing windows and entrance doors in the existing extension are facing both the back of the properties facing Castle street and Harold street. And the view is direct into those properties.

There are already previously bricked up windows and an entrance door on both  sides of the extension. These can be reopened any time without planning permission and they already provide a clear view into all the properties and windows at the back of the houses facing both Harold Street and Castle Street. Therefore, any extra window openings on the ground and first floor height on both sides of the extension will not cause any “material harm” by definition.

In the existing extension there are recently bricked up windows and doors both facing the properties of Harold Street and Castle Street. It is clear to see from the brick work that those have been bricked up recently. This was due to the lack of security posed by those openings in the extension. These allowed easy and hidden access to intruders, vandals etc. The openings of the extension provided easy and hidden access to intruders and this was the reason for closing them up Therefore, past occupiers preferred bricking up the openings to increase security of the building. Therefore, these are existing windows and entrances can be reopened any time without the need . These entrances and windows provide direct views from the ground floor into all the properties in Castle Street and Harold Street.

In connection with the properties facing Harold Street, the first loss of privacy is caused by the window openings and the entrances in the existing extension. As we will see, these openings have caused the loss of privacy to the properties facing Harold Street, but not those facing Castle Street. This is because the rear extensions of the properties facing Castle Street are at a distance of over 20 meters to our extension. the distance between the extension and the first floor back room windows of the properties facing Castle Street is approximately 24 meters.

Hence, in connection with the properties facing Castle Street:

1 any new window opening on our extension both at ground floor and first floor level do not cause any loss of privacy due to the distance exceeding the minimum requirement of 15 meters in highly dense areas (where the site is located ) but even 20 and 24 meters respectively.

2 any new windows on both ground and first floor extension are a simple addition to previously pre-existing windows.

3 even if these openings in the  extension caused any loss of privacy (which they do not). There is an already established loss of privacy caused by another existing property  due to the first windows overlooking into the rear of all the properties facing castle street. This will be examined in detail shortly.

Even without the existing rights to the window openings in the extension, as we will see any new window opening on either side of the extension does not cause material harm to any neighboring property.  This is because the overlooking already exists from the main building and other properties. This exising overlooking is a normal feature of city centre areas where this type of overlooking is also acceptable nowadays from a planning perspective.

 

The existing view into  the back of the properties facing Castle Street from adjacent properties.

As we have seen above, the extension has pre-existing windows and door openings which look directly into the back of the properties facing castle street. However, given the distance from the extension to the back  of the properties facing castle street, no addition to the windows in the extension both on the ground floor and first floor can cause any loss of privacy.

However, the loss of privacy has already been caused, not by the windows in the extension, but by the adjacent property overlooking into the backyards and back windows of the properties facing castle street. These windows are at a distance well  below the 20 meters and in some instances even less than the 15 metres threshold in city centres. However this level of overlooking , as we mentioned erier, is allowable because the rules for overlooking are relaxed due to the site location in a dense popu;ated city centre area.

To summarise, even if the windows and door in the extension were not previously present, any new windows both at ground and first floor levels of the extension  would be allowable because:

1 The distance from the extension to the closest window on the ground floor (non-habitable) of any property facing Castle Street is over 20 metres. The distance to the nearest habitable room window on the first floor is over 24 metres. As we can see in our development, the windows are 20.2 metre away from the closest ground floor window and approximately 24 metres away from the first floor windows, which are considered habitable. This clearly passes the standard test for overlooking. This is especially due to the fact that the allowable distance in the city center can be relaxed down to 15 metres.  Therefore, any new window openings on the extension are allowable.

2 More importantly, there is a much more invasive overlooking issue from the first floor windows of the nearby property. This is the cause of the established loss of privacy of the properties facing castle street.

In essense the proposed windows are duplicates of existing ones and face an elevation where overlooking is already established. A separation distance of over 20 metres from any habitable room window is mainte=ainred, in line with established privacy standards. Therefore, the proposal does not result in material harm to residential amenity.

 

 

Loss of privacy objections/overlooking. Where the loss of privacy has already occurred.

In case the existing windows of preexisting buildings have already caused a loss of privacy, the residents are already in loss of privacy and are assumed to have taken all possible measures to prevent the neighbours from overlooking, like using of blinds, curtains etc.

Where there has already been a previous loss of privacy, any additions of windows that are overlooking the same existing estates will not cause a further loss in privacy. This is because the affected residents will be required to take the exact same measures to prevent overlooking into their private dwellings. The test is, with or without development, will the residents reasonably need to take the same or similar measures to preserve their privacy?

Therefore, where a loss of privacy is already established, the addition of overlooking windows clearly do not constitute any “material harm”. If, before and after the development, the residents have to take the same measures as before to avoid being seen through the windows, then there is clearly “no material harm” caused by the development. On the contrary, if after the development, the residents require curtains and blinds to avoid overlooking which was not previously required, then “material harm” from the new development can be argued.

 

What is the minimum distance between directly facing windows?

Usually the allowable distance between habitable room windows that are facing directly one another is 20 meters for suburbs. This is a very common standard used in planning for several years, and therefore this minimum distance has long been considered acceptable from a planning perspective.

The overlooking issue is more stringent into sleeping quarters. Sleeping quarters are usually located on the first floor. However, the minimum distance requirement is not as stringent when new windows look into kitchens and diners. There are even less stringent the overlooking issue into backyards.

The same privilege of right to privacy is not afforded in the same way to non-habitable room windows, like kitchens and sometimes dining and living rooms. Therefore, in suburbs the minimum  distance can be less than 20 meters if the window is to a habitable space.

It has to be borne in mind first of all that it is customary for habitable rooms to be located on the first floor . The ground floor is rarely dedicated in single family homes to habitable rooms. These are usually , dining rooms kitchens etc. The areas of concern are the first floor rooms, which are the ones to be habitable.

These non-habitable spaces are usually, with some exceptions, located on the ground floor in detached and terraced houses. Therefore, the distance to neighboring ground floor windows can also be less than 20 meters in suburbs.

As a general rule, any directly facing windows placed at a distance higher than 20 metres is not considered to cause  loss of privacy from a planning perspective. Therefore, in a suburban area, any directly facing windows at a distance greater than 20 meters is considered allowable.

This 20 metre rule is often relaxed and reduced to 15 meters in city center areas. This therefore becomes the minimum distance requirement for new directly facing windows in order not to cause loss of privacy in city center areas. This is where our development is located. This reduction to 15 meters is considered necessary because otherwise no new developments would be possible where it is mostly needed. This is the reason for the relaxation in the minimum distance requirement in city centre areas.

 

Views at an angle

The above is true for planning standards for directly facing windows. However, even if the windows are not facing directly there is still loss of privacy and views from windows that provide views into other properties at an angle different to 90 degrees (direct facing). The closer the view is to 90 degrees the better the view into the window. Conversely, the smaller the angle the less the view. See the figure below for reference.

 

 

 

Figure 1. Even not directly facing windows do provide a certain degree of overlooking (loss of privacy).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Parameters for establishing a “Material loss Of Privacy”

Distance from any habitable window to establish loss of privacy:

less than 20 meters causes loss of privacy in suburban areas

less than 15 meters causes loss of privacy in city center areas

Angle of view to establish loss of privacy

Less than 15 degrees angle, no loss of privacy

20 to 15 degree angle could be cause of concern of loss of privacy. This mean that people especially prone to preserve their privacy could subjectively believe that the privacy have been lost.

more than 20 degree angle  loss of privacy as the angle of view is sufficient to have enough internal view of the premises is that it is objectively required to use means of privacy preservation like curtains, blinds etc.

Therefore:

1 Any view into a habitable window at a distance less than 20 meters and an angle greater than 20 degrees constitutes loss of privacy in a suburban area.

2 Any view into a habitable window at a distance less than 15 meters and an angle greater than 20 degrees constitutes loss of privacy in a city centre area.

 

 

Established loss of privacy of the properties facing Castle Street.

As we have seen the windows on the extension are placed at a distance of 20.2 meters from the nearest ground floor window (kitchens, non habitable) and 24 meters from the first floor habitable windows.

Therefore,  the windows on this side of the extension are considered not to cause any overlooking even by suburban standards. Therefore, any window opening on both ground and first floor levels are allowable from a planning perspective.

Allthough there are established

Here we are going to examine the views of the neighboring property’s first floor windows. Specifically, we are going to examine the existing overlooking into the properties’ back windows facing castle street.

ground floor window

 

Visualisation 1.1

 

This analysis assesses privacy implications based on distances and viewing angles, using the standard thresholds:

  • Suburban threshold: 20 meters

  • City center threshold: 15 meters

  • Viewing angle concern threshold: 20° and above

  • General rule: If the space being viewed is non-habitable on the ground floor, there is no material loss of privacy, even if the distance is under 20m.

🔹 1. 17816 – 59° – Distance: 17.81 meters

  • Distance: Below both suburban and city thresholds.

  • Angle: 59° (wide view).

  • Assessment: The wide angle and close distance typically suggest a strong visibility concern.

  • Conclusion:
    ⚠️ Potential privacy intrusion, but 🛑 Likely material loss of privacy since the space is habitable.

🔹 2. 19015 – 54° – Distance: 19.01 meters

  • Distance: Slightly below suburban threshold.

  • Angle: 54° (moderate to wide).

  • Assessment: Could potentially view into private areas, but depends on space usage.

  • Conclusion:
    ⚠️ Privacy concern exists, but 🛑 Likely material loss space is habitable.

🔹 3. 23211 – 42° – Distance: 23.21 meters

  • Distance: Well above all thresholds.

  • Angle: 42° (very wide).

  • Assessment: The wide view is mitigated by the long distance.

  • Conclusion:
    ✅ No loss of privacy.

🔹 4. 24824 – 38° – Distance: 24.82 meters

  • Distance: Substantially above all thresholds.

  • Angle: 38° (extremely wide).

  • Assessment: Though the angle is high, the distance is safe.

  • Conclusion:
    ✅ No loss of privacy.

✅ Summary Table

 

Label Distance Angle Privacy Risk Conclusion
17816 17.81m 59° High ⚠️Likely material loss of privacy (Habitable)
19015 19.01m 54° Moderate/High ⚠️Likely material loss of privacy ( Habitable)
23211 23.21m 42° Low ✅ Likely No Material Lose of Privacy
24824 24.82m 38° Very Low ✅ Likely No Material Lose of Privacy

 

 

Visualisation 1.2

 

Analysis Based on Parameters:

This analysis evaluates potential privacy loss based on two main parameters:

  • Distance threshold (Suburban context):
    Less than 20 meters → Possible privacy loss
    Greater than or equal to 20 meters → No privacy concern

  • Angle threshold:
    Greater than 20° → Potential for visibility into private areas

🔹 1. 19234 – 63° – Distance: 19.234 meters

  • Distance: Just below suburban threshold.

  • Angle: 63°, which is very wide.

  • Assessment: This is the only combination that qualifies as a potential privacy concern, since both the distance is below 20m and the angle is wide.

  • Conclusion:
    ⚠️ Loss of privacy can be argued, depending on the use of the space. If the view is into non-habitable ground floor, 🛑 no material privacy loss occurs.

🔹 2. 20287 – 57° – Distance: 20.297 meters

  • Distance: Slightly above suburban threshold.

  • Angle: 57°, wide view.

  • Conclusion:
    ✅ No loss of privacy — Distance exceeds threshold, mitigating the wide viewing angle.

🔹 3. 24178 – 45° – Distance: 24.178 meters

  • Distance: Significantly above threshold.

  • Angle: 45°, wide angle.

  • Conclusion:
    ✅ No loss of privacy — Safe distance outweighs the wide field of view.

🔹 4. 25679 – 42° – Distance: 25.679 meters

  • Distance: Far above threshold.

  • Angle: 42°, moderately wide.

  • Conclusion:
    ✅ No privacy concern — Excellent distance.

✅ Summary Table

 

Label Distance Angle Privacy Risk Conclusion
19234 19.234m 63° High ⚠️Likely material loss of privacy (Habitable)
20297 20.297m 57° Low ✅Likely No Material Lose of Privacy
24178 24.178m 45° Very Low ✅ Likely No Material Lose of Privacy
25679 25.679m 42° Very Low ✅ Likely No Material Lose of Privacy

 

 

Visualisation 1.3

 

1. 21980 – 66° – Distance: 21.98 meters

  • ❌ Distance: Slightly above 20m threshold.

  • ✅ Angle: 66° — wide field of view.

Conclusion:
✅ No loss of privacy — Although the angle is wide, distance exceeds 20m threshold.

2. 22953 – 62° – Distance: 22.95 meters

  • ❌ Distance: Above suburban threshold.

  • ✅ Angle: Very wide.

Conclusion:
✅ No loss of privacy — Distance offsets angle risk.

3. 26468 – 50° – Distance: ❗️26.46 meters

In your provided content, 26.46 meters + 50° is mentioned as the only case that meets both conditions.

And yes — this is the one that requires a privacy alert:

  • ✅ Distance: 12.98m → Below 20m.

  • ✅ Angle: 50° → Above 20°.

4. 27870 – 46° – Distance: 27.87 meters

  • ❌ Distance: Well above threshold.

  • ✅ Angle: Wide.

Conclusion:
✅ No loss of privacy — Neither criterion is violated.

Conclusion:
⚠️ Potential loss of privacy — Combination meets both critical conditions.
🔍 However, if space viewed is non-habitable (ground floor) → ❌ No material loss of privacy.

📊 Final Summary Table for visulization-1.3 (1).pdf

 

Label Distance Angle Privacy Risk Conclusion
21980 21.98m 66° Moderate ✅ Likely No Material Lose of Privacy
22953 22.95m 62° Moderate ✅ Likely No Material Lose of Privacy
26468 26.46m 50° Very Low ✅ Likely No Material Lose of Privacy
27870 27.87m 46° Moderate ✅Likely No Material Lose of Privacy

 

 

Visualisation 1.4

 

We see the direct distance between the exising windows on the extension and the ground floor windows for the non habitable rooms being over 20 meters.

The direct distance between the exising windows and the first floor habitable rooms of the proeties facing castle steet is approximately 24 metres which is well the acceptable threshold. Hence even if no exising windows were present in this sisde of the extension new windows would be permissible due to the distance being over the threshold.

Hence no legitimate claim of overlooking or loss of provacy can be made due to any of the windows facing the propeties in castle street even if not window openings were previously present.

However, we continue this study to highlight how existing developments already cause a degree of overlooking and potential loss of privacy..

 

This analysis evaluates privacy implications based on direct distances and viewing angles from the windows of a proposed extension to surrounding properties. It uses the following thresholds:

  • Suburban threshold: 20 meters

  • City center threshold: 15 meters

  • Viewing angle concern threshold: 20° or greater

  • Privacy rule: No material loss of privacy is considered if a non-habitable ground floor space is being viewed—even when within 20 meters.

🔍 Viewpoint Analysis

🔹 Viewpoint 1: 23388 – 23.38 meters – 68°

 

Distance: Above threshold.

Angle: Wide view, though not intrusive due to sufficient distance.

Conclusion: ✅ No privacy loss.

🔹 Viewpoint 2: 24332 – 24.33 meters – 63°

Distance: Well above both suburban and city center thresholds.

Angle: Extremely wide view, but mitigated by long distance.

Conclusion: ✅ No privacy loss.

🔹 Viewpoint 3: 27646 – 27.64 meters – 52°

 

Distance: Far above the minimum threshold.


Conclusion: ✅ No privacy loss.

🔹 Viewpoint 4: 28945 – 28.94 meters – 48°


Distance: Substantial distance from neighboring properties.


Angle: Extremely wide viewing angle.


Conclusion: ✅ No privacy loss.

🧾 Summary Table

Viewpoint Distance Angle Privacy Risk Conclusion
23388 23.38 m 68° Very Low ✅ Likely No Material Lose of Privacy
24332 24.33 m 63° Very Low ✅ Likely No Material Lose of Privacy
27646 27.64 m 52° Very Low ✅Likely No Material Lose of Privacy
28945 28.94 m 48° Extremely Low ✅ Likely No Material Lose of Privacy

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

Visualisation 2.1 Views into non habitable space on the ground floor.

 

1. 14585 – 52° – Distance: 14.58 meters

Distance (14.58m): Well below thresholds.
Check: Again,  ground floor is non-habitable.
Conclusion: ⚠️ High privacy risk, but 🛑 Likely no material loss of privacy if non-habitable.

2. 16128 – 44° – Distance: 16.12 meters

Distance (16.12m): Below both suburban and city thresholds.
Angle (52°): Moderate, but wide enough to see into private areas.
Check: the view is into non-habitable space on the ground floor,
🛑 No material loss of privacy.
Conclusion: ⚠️ Potential privacy concern, but ❌ Likely no material loss due to space usage.

3. 21089 – 33° – Distance: 21.0 meters

Distance (21.0m): Slightly over suburban threshold.
Angle (44°): Very wide viewing angle.
Conclusion:
✅ No loss of privacy — Angle is wide, but distance keeps it safe.

4. 23153 – 30° – Distance: 23.1 meters

Distance (23.1m): Above suburban (20m) and city center (15m) thresholds → safe zone.
Angle (33°): Wide, above 20° threshold.
Conclusion:
✅ No loss of privacy — Distance mitigates any potential visual intrusion despite the wide angle.

Summary Table

 

Label Distance Angle Privacy Risk Conclusion
14585 14.58m 52° High ⚠️Likely no material loss of privacy (ground floor non-habitable)
16128 16.12m 44° Moderate ⚠️Likely  no material loss of privacy  (ground floor non-habitable)
21089 21.0m 33° Low/Moderate ✅ Likely No Material Lose of Privacy
23153 23.1m 30° Low ✅ Likely No Material Lose of Privacy

 

Visualisation 2.2

 

Another view into the firsf floor windows of the properties Facing castle street. These are non habitable windows.

1. 15837 – 57° – Distance: 15.83 meters

Distance (15.83m): Below both thresholds → high concern for habitable spaces.
Angle (57°): Very wide field of view → strong potential for intrusion.
Check: If this is a ground floor view into non-habitable space,
❌ Still no material privacy loss. Conclusion: ⚠️ Privacy concern, but Likely No material loss of privacy because the space is non-habitable.

2. 17100 – 49° – Distance: 17.10 meters

 

Distance (17.1m): Below both suburban and city thresholds → normally a concern.
Angle (49°): Wide viewing angle; potential intrusion.
BUT: If the view is into ground floor, non-habitable space,
❌ Like No material privacy loss applies.
Conclusion:⚠️ Significant privacy concerns can be argued, Likely No material loss of privacy because the space is non-habitable ground floor.

3. 21758 – 38° – Distance: 21.7 meters

Distance (21.7m): Slightly above suburban threshold, well above city center’s.
Angle (38°): Moderate to wide angle.
Conclusion: ✅ No privacy loss — Sufficient distance offsets angle.

4. 23754 – 34° – Distance: 23.7 meters

Distance (23.7m): Well beyond both suburban (20m) and city center (15m) thresholds.
Angle (34°): Above 20°, allowing a moderate view.
Conclusion: ✅ No privacy loss — Distance sufficiently mitigates any visibility concerns, despite the angle.

Summary Table 

 

Label Distance Angle Privacy Risk Conclusion
15837 15.83m 57° Very High ⚠️Likely no material loss of privacy (ground floor non-habitable)
17100 17.1m 49° High ⚠️Likely no material loss of privacy (ground floor non-habitable)
21758 21.7m 38° Moderate ✅ Likely No Material Lose of Privacy
23754 23.7m 34° Low ✅ Likely No Material Lose of Privacy

Visualisation  2.3

 

1. 18346 – 62° – Distance: 18.34 meters

Distance (18.34m): Below both thresholds.
Angle (62°): Wide and may allow private views.
Check: If this is ground floor, non-habitable — still okay.
Conclusion: ⚠️ Potential privacy intrusion, Likely No material loss of privacy because the space is non-habitable.

2. 19470 – 55° – Distance: 19.47 meters

Distance (19.47m): Just under suburban threshold, below both technically.
Angle (55°): Very wide and potentially intrusive.
Check: If the view is into ground floor non-habitable space,
🛑 Likely No material loss of privacy.
Conclusion:⚠️ Privacy concern, Likely No material loss of privacy because the space is non-habitable.

3. 23725 – 44° – Distance: 23.72 meters

Distance (23.72m): Exceeds both suburban (20m) and city center (15m) thresholds.
Angle (44°): Wide field of view.
Conclusion: ✅ No loss of privacy — Distance ensures that even with a wider angle, there is no intrusion.

4. 25531 – 40° – Distance: 25.53 meters

Distance (25.53m): Well above all thresholds.
Angle (40°): Very wide field of view.
Conclusion: ✅ No loss of privacy — Distance completely eliminates any risk of intrusion, even with a very wide angle.

Summary Table 

 

Label Distance Angle Privacy Risk Conclusion
18346 18.34m 62° Moderate/High ⚠️Likely no material loss of privacy (ground floor non-habitable)
19470 19.47m 55° High ⚠️Likely no material loss of privacy (ground floor non-habitable)
23725 23.72m 44° Low ✅ Likely No Material Lose of Privacy
25531 25.53m 40° Very Low ✅ Likely No Material Lose of Privacy

 

Visualisation 2.4

 

1. 19812 – 64° – Distance: 19.81 meters

Distance (19.81m): Slightly below suburban threshold.
Angle (64°): Very wide, potentially intrusive.
Check: If viewing ground floor non-habitable space,
🛑 Likely No material loss of privacy.
Conclusion: ⚠️ Privacy concern due to short distance and wide angle, but Likely No material loss of privacy because the space is non-habitable.

2. 20848 – 57° – Distance: 20.84 meters

Distance (20.84m): Slightly above suburban threshold.
Angle (57°): Very wide and intrusive.
Check: View is into ground floor non-habitable space,
🛑 Likely No material loss of privacy.
Conclusion:⚠️ Wide angle, but Likely No material loss of privacy because the space is non-habitable.

3. 24670 – 46° – Distance: 24.67 meters

Distance (24.67m): Above both suburban (20m) and city center (15m) thresholds.
Angle (46°): Wide field of view, over the 20° threshold.
Conclusion: ✅ No loss of privacy — Distance exceeds thresholds, so the wider angle does not result in intrusion.

4. 26594 – 43° – Distance: 26.59 meters

Distance (26.59m): Well above both thresholds.
Angle (43°): Very wide viewing angle.
Conclusion: ✅ No loss of privacy — Distance completely negates impact of wide angle.

📊 Summary Table 

 

Label Distance Angle Privacy Risk Conclusion
19812 19.81m 64° High ⚠️Likely no material loss of privacy (ground floor non-habitable)
20848 20.84m 57° Low ✅ Likely No Material Lose of Privacy
24670 24.67m 46° Low ✅ Likely No Material Lose of Privacy
26594 26.59m 43° Very Low ✅ Likely No Material Lose of Privacy

 

 

Visualisation 3.1

 

1. 8903 – 66° – Distance: 8.903 meters

Distance (8.9m): 🚨 Far below suburban 20m threshold.
Angle (66°): Extremely wide field of view.

Conclusion:
🛑 Strong privacy concern — Short distance combined with very wide angle results in clear loss of privacy, especially in suburban contexts.

2. 10581 – 51° – Distance: 10.58 meters

Distance (10.58m): 🚨 Still well below threshold.
Angle (51°): Wide and intrusive.

Conclusion:
⚠️ Clear privacy concern — Although slightly less extreme than 66°, the angle and close distance still constitute a loss of privacy.

3. 14563 – 34° – Distance: 14.56 meters

Distance (14.56m): ⚠️ Below 20m but above city center threshold (15m).
Angle (34°): Moderate, may still capture private areas.

Conclusion:
⚠️ Moderate privacy concern — While not as wide, the angle + distance can still impact privacy in suburban settings.

4. 16969 – 29° – Distance: 16.97 meters

Distance (16.97m): Slightly below 20m threshold.
Angle (29°): Narrower but still above the 20° intrusion threshold.

Conclusion:
⚠️ Minor privacy concern — Focused view may still cause discomfort depending on usage of observed space.

📊 Summary Table

 

Label Distance Angle Privacy Risk Conclusion
8903 8.90m 66° Very High 🛑 Likely Clear material loss of privacy
10581 10.58m 51° High ⚠️Likely material loss of privacy ( Habitable)
14563 14.56m 34° Moderate ⚠️ Likely material loss of Privacy concern
16969 16.97m 29° Low–Moderate ⚠️ Likely some material loss of concern possible

 

Visualisation 3.2

 

  1. 1. 7962 – 59° – Distance: 7.96 meters

    • 🚨 Distance: Way below 20m suburban threshold.

    • ✅ Angle: Very wide (59°).

    Conclusion:
    🛑 Significant loss of privacy — Extremely short distance and very wide angle enable deep visibility into private outdoor areas (gardens, patios, etc.).

    2. 8053 – 33° – Distance: 8.05 meters

    • 🚨 Distance: Far below threshold.

    • ✅ Angle: Moderately wide (33°).

    Conclusion:
    ⚠️ Privacy concern — Though less intrusive than 59°, this combo still presents clear risk due to close proximity and visibility into sensitive spaces.

    3. 13244 – 28° – Distance: 13.24 meters

    • ⚠️ Distance: Below 20m, but moderately placed.

    • ✅ Angle: Moderate (28°).

    Conclusion:
    ⚠️ Moderate privacy concern — Focused visibility into neighboring zones. Not severe, but residents may still feel observed.

    4. 15629 – 20° – Distance: 15.62 meters

    • ✅ Distance: Closer to the 20m threshold, but still under.

    • ⚠️ Angle: Right at 20°, threshold limit.

    Conclusion: 
    ✅ Minimal privacy concern — Narrow view and greater distance reduce risk, but may still feel intrusive to privacy-conscious residents.

    📊 Summary Table

     

    Label Distance Angle Privacy Risk Conclusion
    7962 7.96m 59° High ⚠️Likely no material loss of privacy (ground floor non-habitable)
    8053 8.05m 33° High ⚠️Likely no material loss of privacy (ground floor non-habitable)
    13244 13.24m 28° Moderate ⚠️Likely no material loss of privacy (ground floor non-habitable)
    15629 15.62m 20° Low–Moderate ✅ Likely No Material Lose of Privacy

Visualization  3.3

 

This particular view not only cause a material loss of privacy to the back yard of all the properties facing hard Street. But due to its angle of view and distance to the first floor windows it starts to provide  an almost direct clear view view through the first floor windows.  This causes a CLEAR  material loss of privacy directly into the first floor sleeping charters of the dwellinghouse. This constitutes a clear loss of privacy not only due to the short sdiatance that stats at just above 6 meters in to first floor window of 68 Harld street but also to a maximum of 10 metersinto the first floor window of 72 Harold Street. The angles of view   offer a clear view inside the dwelling house through the first floor windows directly inside sleeping quarters.

 

1. 6513 – 56° – Distance: 6.51 meters (First-floor windows)

 

  • 🚨 Distance: Way below the 20m threshold.

  • 🚨 Angle: Very wide (56°), offering a direct view inside.

Conclusion:
🛑 Material loss of privacy — Direct intrusion into habitable first-floor rooms. Strongest privacy breach in the file.

2. 8644 – 39° – Distance: 8.64 meters

  • ✅ Distance: Very far — no intrusion from proximity.

  • ⚠️ Angle: Wide enough to raise concerns if pointed at specific zones.

Conclusion:
✅ Generally no loss of privacy — But placement-sensitive. Only intrusive if view is directed at private windows.

3. 13233 – 24° – Distance: 13.233 meters

  • ✅ Distance: Extremely long.

  • ⚠️ Angle: Same as above (24°).

Conclusion:
✅ No loss of privacy — Long distance reduces any risk. Only becomes a concern if overlooking vulnerable residential zones.

4. 15833 – 20° – Distance: 15.833 meters

  • ✅ Distance: Longest in the dataset.

  • ⚠️ Angle: At privacy threshold (20°), wide view possible.

Conclusion:
✅ No loss of privacy — Wide field of view, but distance fully mitigates potential intrusion.

Summary Table – Visualisation 3.3

 

Label Distance Angle Privacy Risk Conclusion
6513 6.51m 56° Very High 🛑 Clear material loss of privacy first-floor rooms
8644 8.64m 39° High 🛑Material Lose of Privacy ( Habitable )
13233 13.233m 24° High ✅ Likely No Material Lose of Privacy ( Habitable )
15833 15.833m 20° Low ✅ Likely No Material Lose of Privacy ( Habitable )

 

 

Visualisation 3.4

 

This particular view not only cause a material loss of privacy to the back yard of all the properties facing hard Street. But due to its angle of view and distance to the ground floor windows it starts to provide an internal view through the ground floor windows.  Hence the material loss of privacy implication is not only to the back yard but it is also to the internal areas of the dwelling houses on the ground floor.

📌 Critical Privacy Concern: Ground Floor Intrusion – Harold Street

This particular configuration causes material loss of privacy in two key ways:

  • ✅ Backyard visibility for all properties facing Harold Street.

  • ✅ Internal visibility into ground floor rooms — not just external observation.

This is not a minor or abstract issue — it directly impacts internal, potentially habitable areas.

 Analysis – Visualisation 3.4

1. 5852 – 45° – Distance: 5.85 meters

  • 🚨 Distance: Very short, far below suburban (20m) threshold.

  • ✅ Angle: Wide (45°), offers direct interior views.

Conclusion:
🛑 Material loss of privacy — Combination of wide angle + short distance leads to clear visibility into internal ground floor rooms (likely habitable). Strongest breach in this set.

2. 7022 – 14° – Distance: 7.02 meters

  • 🚨 Distance: Very short.

  • ⚠️ Angle: Narrow, but still above 10°, enabling focused visibility.

Conclusion:
⚠️ Privacy concern — Narrow field, but short range enables internal ground floor views. If space is non-habitable, risk may be lower.

3. 12307 – 16° – Distance: 12.30 meters

  • ⚠️ Distance: Below 20m, but more moderate.

  • ✅ Angle: Narrow and precise.

Conclusion:
⚠️ Moderate privacy concern — Focused view may still reveal private details depending on internal layout. Acceptable if targeting non-sensitive areas.

4. 15023 – 10° – Distance: 15.02 meters

  • ⚠️ Distance: Below threshold.

  • ✅ Angle: Narrow but detailed.

Conclusion:
⚠️ Slight privacy concern — Risk is reduced compared to wider angles, but proximity means some privacy impact remains.

Summary Table – Visualisation 3.4

 

Label Distance Angle Privacy Risk Conclusion
5852 5.85m 45° High ⚠️Likely Possible material loss of privacy (non-habitable)
7022 7.02m 14° Low ⚠️Likely no material loss of privacy (non-habitable)
12307 12.31m 16° Low ⚠️Likely no material loss of privacy ( non-habitable)
15023 15.02m 10° Low ⚠️Likely no material loss of privacy (non-habitable)

 

 

 

Visualisation 3.5

 

This particular view not only cause a material loss of privacy to the back yard of all the properties facing hard Street. But due to its angle of view and distance to the first floor windows it starts to provide an internal view through the first floor windows.  Hence the material loss of privacy implication is not only to the back yard but it is also to the internal areas of the dwelling houses.

 

Primary Privacy Concern: Harold Street – First-Floor Intrusion

 

This view causes a material loss of privacy due to:

  • Visibility into backyards

  • Direct views into first-floor windows

  • The line of sight allows access into internal habitable spaces (likely bedrooms or lounges).

Conclusion:

Material loss of privacy — This is a serious issue because the observer can see through first-floor windows into living spaces. It goes beyond just outdoor visibility.

 Detailed Privacy Analysis

1. 4606 – 38° – Distance: 4.606 meters

  • ✅ Distance: Very far — well beyond 20m suburban threshold.

  • ⚠️ Angle: 38° — wide, but impact mitigated by distance.

Conclusion:
🛑 Material loss of privacy (habitable space)

2. 7290 – 24° – Distance: 7.29 meters

  • 🚨 Distance: Extremely close — serious privacy concern.

  • ⚠️ Angle: 24° — above intrusion threshold.

Conclusion:
⚠️ Strong privacy concern — first-floor habitable space is in view, this is a material loss.
🛑 If the view is only into non-habitable space (e.g. storage, hallway) → no material loss.

3. 12401 – 13° – Distance: 12.40 meters

  • ⚠️ Distance: Below 20m — close enough to raise privacy issues.

  • ⚠️ Angle: 13° — wide view, allows detailed observation.

Conclusion:
⚠️ Privacy concern — space is habitable and on first floor, this may be a material loss.
🛑 If it’s non-habitable, no material loss.

4. 15137 – 11° – Distance: 15.13 meters

  • ⚠️ Distance: Slightly below suburban threshold, just above city center (15m).

  • ✅ Angle: Narrow — focused view.

Conclusion:
⚠️ Mild privacy concern — Only intrusive if directly facing private windows.
🛑 No material loss if space viewed is non-habitable.

Summary Table Visualisation 3.5

 

Label Distance Angle Privacy Risk Conclusion
4606 4.60m 38° Very High 🛑 Material loss of privacy (habitable space)
7290 7.29m 24° High 🛑 Material loss of privacy (habitable space)
12401 12.40m 13° High ⚠️Likely material loss Of Privacy (habitable space)
15137 15.14m 11° Low ⚠️Likely no material loss Of Privacy (habitable space)

 

Visualisation 3.6

 

This diagram includes short to moderate distances and extremely narrow viewing angles (well under the 20° threshold). Here’s the breakdown:

🔹 1. 4257 – 20° – Distance: 4.257 meters

  • Distance: Very close — far below the 20m suburban and 15m city center thresholds.

  • Angle: Exactly at the 20° threshold.

  • Conclusion:
    ⚠️ Potential privacy concern, but 🛑 no material loss of privacy occurs if this view is into ground floor non-habitable space.

🔹 2. 11704 – 4° – Distance: 11.704 meters

  • Distance: Below both thresholds.

  • Angle: Very narrow (4°) — well below concern level.

  • Conclusion:
    ✅ No privacy loss — While the distance is close, the extremely narrow view makes it non-intrusive.

🔹 3. 14668 – 1° – Distance: 14.668 meters

  • Distance: Below suburban but above city center threshold.

  • Angle: 1° — minimal visibility.

  • Conclusion:
    ✅ No privacy loss — View is nearly perpendicular, very narrow.

🔹 4. 6736 – 8° – Distance: 6.736 meters

  • Distance: Very close.

  • Angle: 8° — still quite narrow.

  • Conclusion:
    ⚠️ Distance suggests potential concern, but 🛑 no material loss applies due to the narrow angle and assuming non-habitable space.

Summary Table Visualisation 3.6

 

Label Distance Angle Privacy Risk Conclusion
4257 4.257m 20° Moderate ⚠️Likely No material loss Of Privacy (non-habitable)
11704 11.704m 4° None ✅ Likely No Material Lose of Privacy
14668 14.668m 1° None ✅ Likely No Material Lose of Privacy
6736 6.736m 8° Low ⚠️Likely No material loss Of Privacy (non-habitable)

✅ Final Conclusions

🏠 Properties Facing Harold Street

All the above extensively proves that this minor development does not cause any material harm to any of the properties facing Harold Street. Because:

  1. The existing windows and entrance door of the extension already offer a direct view into all the properties of Harold Street.

  2. The windows on the first floor of the main building already have plenty of established views into all the back windows of the properties facing Harold Street.

Because of the above, any extra window openings both on the main building and the extension do not cause any material harm to the properties of Harold Street, therefore allowable.

🔒 Additional Privacy Finding – First-Floor Windows

However, based on the detailed visibility analysis conducted across multiple views, it is concluded that the following first-floor properties on Harold Street have lost privacy:

  • No. 68A

  • No. 70

  • No. 72

These properties experienced at least one direct or angled view from the proposed development that:

  • Occurred at a distance below 20 meters, and/or

  • Involved a viewing angle greater than 20°,
    resulting in a clear line of sight into private, habitable spaces.

Conclusion: These first-floor properties on Harold Street are considered to have lost privacy due to the proposed development and are no longer protected from overlooking.

🏠 Properties Facing Castle Street

All the above extensively proves that this minor development does not cause any material harm to any of the properties facing Castle Street. Because:

  1. The existing windows and entrance door of the extension already offer a direct view into the back of all the properties facing Castle Street.

  2. The windows in the extension are at a distance which is widely considered not to cause overlooking and acceptable from a privacy perspective in planning. Hence, even in case of non-pre-existing windows in the extension and no door openings on this side of the extension, the windows on this side of the extension are over 20 meters from the ground floor windows and approximately 24 metres from the Castle Street first floor windows of the habitable rooms. As we have seen, the standard minimum distance from directly facing windows in a city centre area can be reduced to 15 meters, but in our case, it is also over the standard 20 meters distance applied in suburban areas.

  3. It has been amply demonstrated how the view from the adjacent property is far more intrusive than any existing or future window in the extension. As discussed above, the existing view from the adjacent residential building is far more intrusive than the view from our minor development.

Therefore, it has been clearly demonstrated that there is no material harm caused by the minor development to the properties facing Castle Street. Hence, any extra window openings do not cause material harm and are therefore allowable.

🔒 Additional Privacy Finding – First-Floor Windows

Despite the above, the detailed privacy analysis shows that the following first-floor properties on Castle Street have lost privacy:

  • No. 93

  • No. 91

  • No. 89

  • No. 87

These properties were exposed to at least one view that breached privacy thresholds (distance under 20m and angle over 20°), leading to unobstructed visibility into first-floor rooms.

Conclusion: These Castle Street properties are considered to have no remaining privacy in planning terms due to the nature of the views from the proposed development.

====================================================================================

Conclusions

Properties facing Harold Street

All the above extensively proves that this minor development does not cause any material harm to any of the properties facing Harold Street. Because:.

1 The existing windows and entrance door of the extension already offer a direct view into all the properties of Harold Street.

2 The windows on the first floor of the main building already have plenty of established views into all the back windows of the properties facing Harold Street.

Because of the above, any extra window openings both on the main building and the extension do not cause any material harm to the properties of Harold Street, therefore allowable.

 

Properties facing Castle Street.

All the above extensively proves that this minor development does not cause any material harm to any of the properties facing Castle Street. Because:

1 The existing windows and entrance door of the extension already offer a direct view into the back of all the properties facing Castle Street.

2 The windows in the extension are at a distance which is widely considered not to cause overlooking and acceptable from a privacy perspective in planning. Hence, even in case of non-PRE-existing windows in the extension and no door openings on this side of this extension, the windows on this side of the extension are over 20 meters from the ground floor windows and approximately 24 metres from the castle street first floor windows of the habitable rooms. As we have seen, the standard minimum distance from directly facing windows in city centre area can be reduced to 15 meters but in our case it is also over the standard 20 meters distance applied in suburban areas.  In other words, even if there were no existing windows and doors opening in the Extension facing the back of the terraced houses facing Castle Street, any new window is at a distance higher than 20 meters from a non-habitable window on the ground floor and 24 meters away form the window of a habitable room on the first floor. These distances are considered acceptable and therefore allowable from a planning perspective.

3 It had been amply demonstrated how the view from the adjacent property is far more intrusive that any existing window in the exension and any future window in the extension. As we have studied above the existing view from the existing residential building is far more intrusive than the view from our minor development.

Therefore, it has been amply demonstrated  how there is clearly “no material harm” caused by the minor development into the properties facing castle street. Hence, it is amply demonstrated that any extra window openings do not cause any material harm to the properties of Castle Street, therefore allowable.

 

Properties facing Rutland Street

The existing windows both on ground floor and first floor of the main building all provide a direct view into all the properties’ back windows. We think this is straight forward and requires no studies or explanation.