I have litigated several rights to light cases. It is only when I got involved in these cases that I appreciated such an impact right to light has on building design, particularly in central London where it is highly built up. The anticipated impact of skyscrapers blocking their neighbours’ windows plays is integral to design. Think of the Walkie Talkie and Gherkin buildings – might respecting neighbours’ rights to light have had a contribution to their end design? I don’t know, but probably.
There are specialist rights of light surveyors who prepare modelling and cut back designs for developers where a neighbouring building or buildings have acquired a right to light, and the new building is anticipated to impact the natural light being received by those windows. In order to be actionable in law by an owner whose light is, or is anticipated to be, infringed, the obstruction must make the building less fit than it was before the construction, for the purpose of business or occupation according to the ‘ordinary notions of mankind’.
Recently, the cases of Powell v Ludgate House Limited and Cooper v Ludgate House Limited have hit the headlines. Mr and Mrs Powell who have a 6th floor apartment in Bankside Lofts claim that the recently constructed Arbor Tower, which is part of a £2billion Bankside Yards development (the full development is yet to be completed), is making it hard for them to read in bed. Mr Cooper is the owner of a 7th floor apartment. Collectively they seek an injunction which, if successful, could potentially lead to the £35m Arbor Tower building being demolished, or the wider development and Arbor Tower building reconfigured to prevent the nuisance.
Alternatively, they claim damages in lieu of the injunction, which could ring in the £millions. What is said is that in the face of the right to light, the developer proceeded to construct the Arbor Tower as part of a wider scheme. Instead of construction being halted to negotiate a release of the rights to light enjoyed by neighbours, construction proceeded, which resulted in the build and associated cost being far less than if the scheme had been delayed allowing for concluding a settlement of the claim.
Another real difficulty for the developer is that the 19-storey office building is occupied, so an injunction will impact those occupiers, as well as the cost of demolition / reconfiguration should the injunction be considered the appropriate sanction.
The cases were heard in April, and Judgment is expected in July.
If you wish to discuss these right to light cases, please contact Helen in our Property Litigation team.