It's a nightmare scenario. You buy your dream house, perhaps paying more than you should for a truly stunning view. And then a neighbour constructs a three-storey extension in your line of sight, completely ruining your enjoyment of your home. The problem is that while we have many rights as citizens, a right to a view is not among them. We all have different tastes, but traditionally the law has made it clear that provided you gain planning permission for your own pile of bricks, then your neighbours are generally obliged to admire - or resent - your own unique contribution to the architecture of the community without being able to do much about it. But like with every rule, there are exceptions. Some properties will have a legal right to light (normally where such right has been enjoyed for at least 20 years) and in such cases the owner may have the right to prevent the construction of buildings which block that light. This is not often as helpful as it sounds however, as unless your neighbour's building substantially cuts down on the amount of sunlight your property receives, you will not be able to stop it being built. However, all may not be lost, as a recent court decision has shown. This case has highlighted how standard restrictive covenants, often found in many housing developments in which neighbours are barred from creating a "nuisance or annoyance", can be interpreted in such a way as to protect a view from your property. The case involved a housing development in which the owners all bought their individual plots with restrictive covenants preventing them from using their properties for any purpose which would cause a nuisance or annoyance to their neighbours. This is pretty standard boilerplate language, commonly found in the titles to many properties, and left over from before planning laws were as comprehensive as they are today. Not much reliance was placed on such wording because "nuisance" in law has always been a reasonably high barrier to cross - and a neighbour's choice of a double garage built in a neo-gothic style doesn't quite cut the mustard as a nuisance. However, it now appears that an "annoyance" may not be so difficult a concept to prove, and a building that restricts your view can be so "annoying" as to be in breach of a covenant even when it is not in breach of planning guidelines. Much of course will depend upon the individual facts involved. In the facts of the case mentioned above for example, the housing development, when constructed, had been sold with the views of the location as a major feature, and this undoubtedly had an effect on the interpretation of the significance of the annoyance. Having said that, it does now seem clear that with this new interpretation of some very old words, the door is open for more rights to a view to emerge.