Two City multi-millionaires are locked in a battle over their neighbouring London mansions – as one wants to build new windows that it’s claimed would look directly into the other’s home.

Luke Stovell, 39, a partner at a hedge fund support consultancy, purchased a six-bedroom detached late Victorian house with views of Wandsworth Common for £5,825,000 three years ago – and immediately hatched plans for a major upgrade.

The lavish plans for the house in an exclusive six-road enclave known as ‘The Toast Rack’, would see Mr Stovell and his Australian partner Alex Waite install floor-to-ceiling windows, a terrace, lightwells, a vast side extension and extend a basement.

The couple, who have two children, would gain views of the famous common but the side of their house that they want to open up looks directly at the facade of an even bigger property belonging to legendary investor Nick Sleep, worth over £10million.

And Mr Sleep and his wife Serita, both 58, insist Mr Stovell’s bathroom, sitting room, kitchen, balcony and garden would be in ‘direct line of sight’ if Mr Stovell’s renovation plans went ahead.

The streets between Trinity Road and the Common are highly sought after – with current or recent residents including Gordon Ramsay and Jack Dee.

Objecting to the plans in April, Mr Sleep, a father-of-three, said enlarging the size and removing the obscure glazing from the windows would leave his family feeling ‘overlooked within our property and private garden’.

He said: ‘The proposal includes enlarging the size and removing the obscure glazing from the windows on the south elevation in order to afford the occupiers a view over Wandsworth Common.

Two neighbours are in a planning battle with the homeowner on the left wanting to expand windows to the right side of his property to give him better views of Wandsworth Common

Luke Stovell, 39, and his and his Australian partner Alex Waite purchased his property for £5,825,000 three years ago 

But Nick Sleep and his wife Serita, both 58, insist the renovations would put many rooms in ‘direct line of sight’ of their home, particularly compromising the privacy of their garden 

‘[The house already] has direct views over Wandsworth Common to the east, but it does not have a direct view of the Common to the south, instead the southerly view is over the house and garden of [my house] with the Common lying beyond our property.

‘A view over the Common to the south is therefore a view across our home first, with direct line of sight into our bathroom, sitting room, kitchen, balcony and garden.

‘It is for this reason that as a courtesy, and for as long as we have owned [our house] (over ten years), the former owners frosted the south facing windows.

‘We therefore object to both the enlargement of the windows on both floors and to the removal of the obscure glass, especially given the proposed change of use of the rooms and a more intensified use leading to the perception of being overlooked within our property and private garden.’

Nick Sleep – who has been described as ‘the greatest investor you’ve never heard of’ is famous in City circles for having achieved a 921% return on investment for clients in just 13 years.

His success followed early investments in Costco, Amazon and ASOS which paid off massively, making millions for his clients. He gained significant fame after his investor letters were leaked to the public.

His opponent, Mr Stovell, is a partner with Lascaux, a high-end hedge fund support company, after growing up in Wadhurst, East Sussex, recently named as the best place to live in the country.

Mr Stovell has a lower profile in the City – but inadvertently did attract attention last year when he was cited in industrial tribunal proceedings.

In one episode when ten women and just two men attended an after work drink, Mr Stovell likened the gathering to a ‘hen party’.

He also is said to have joked that his ideal employees would be ‘top sh***ers’ – though it was accepted that this was shorthand for ‘confident, sporty, team players’ rather than referring to their sexual prowess.

Mr Stovell wants to install floor-to-ceiling windows, a terrace, lightwells, a vast side extension and extend a basement at his home (pictured)

Objecting to the plans, Mr Sleep said enlarging the size and removing the obscure glazing from the windows would leave his family home (pictured) feeling ‘overlooked’ 

He was also said to have claimed he liked to hire ‘rugby lads’ and to have said of potential female employees: ‘Pregnancy is going to be an issue for anyone presentable with a normal personality’.

The company was found guilty of unfair dismissal, harassment related to sex and of victimisation in relation to one female employee – but cleared of many more charges.

Other neighbours in ‘the toast rack’ have also objected to Mr Stovell’s plans for the house.

A second near neighbour, Simon Munyard, a company director, said: ‘The proposed plan for No.1 extends the current balcony into a “Terrace”, doubling the depth of the existing balcony and extends its area across the entire back of the property.

‘We have no indication as to what this space is to be used for but as it is nominated as a Terrace, we are concerned that any use of this extended space will negatively impact on the privacy of our garden and allow direct visibility from the terrace into our bedroom, which is not possible from the existing balcony that only extends half the width of the house.

‘We would request that the Terrace is not approved to run the full width of the back of the house but is restricted to the same width as the existing balcony.’

A third neighbour, Roger Armstrong, a surveyor and local historian, added: ‘I would not call the existing pebbledash to the side elevation incongruous in its current un-painted condition.

‘It reads as a later feature that has mellowed with age, but on a flank elevation it does not seem out of place. The proposed extremely wide flat roofed first floor bay could however be seen as somewhat incongruous.

‘The heritage statement provides no information as to how the brickwork would be detailed and an additional window has been added adjacent to the bay.

‘The ground floor front elevation is improved, but whether adding a further ball finial to the front wall pier is of any value is doubtful. The issue of overlooking the adjacent house [Mr Sleep’s] needs to be addressed if the scheme is to proceed.’

Mr Stovell, is a partner with Lascaux, inadvertently attracted some attention last year when he was cited in industrial tribunal proceedings for terms he had used within the company setting 

In a 106-page document, Mr Stovell questioned the council’s rejection of the plans at his home (pictured) when neighbouring properties have been granted planning for similar projects

Following these representations, the plans were thrown out in May by Wandsworth Council.

The authority dismissed the project as being of ‘excessive scale, bulk, and inappropriate design’, adding how the redevelopment would ’cause harm to the character and appearance of the host property’.

Nick Calder, Wandsworth’s Head of Development Management, added: ‘The proposed terrace would by reason of its size and siting, lead to increased overlooking and a consequent loss of privacy, harming neighbouring residential amenity.’

But earlier this month, Mr Stovell appealed the decision.

In a monster 106-page document, he attempted to undermine the council’s ruling by questioning why neighbouring properties have been granted planning for similar plans but not him.

He said: ‘It is highly pertinent that numerous properties along Baskerville Road have been granted various alterations and extensions to their rear, some with component elements – in particular rear ground floor extensions and dormer windows, being at a greater scale than that proposed for those parts of these appeal proposals.’

Contesting the council’s conclusion that his plans were of ‘excessive scale, bulk, and inappropriate design,’ he said: ‘These have been designed in a considered manner that responds to the site constraints, the existing built form and plot, and the character of the surrounding area.’

He also accused Wandsworth Council of an ‘overly rigid interpretation of design policy’, claiming his property should receive special treatment because it is end-of-terrace and possesses a ‘greater degree of variation in form and architectural expression’ than other homes on the street.

Urging planners to reconsider his application, he said: ‘In this context, the proposal does not rely on strict replication of the adjoining property but instead provides a considered and site-specific design response.’