Rights of light in the wake of Cooper & Powell v Ludgate House Limited

Rights of light in the wake of Cooper & Powell v Ludgate House Limited 

On 8 July 2025, the High Court handed down judgment in the highly anticipated rights of light case of Cooper & Powell v Ludgate House Limited, offering a rare insight into the judicial assessment of rights of light disputes, which do not often see the inside of a courtroom. 

This is an important case in the area of rights of light and, whilst the decision does not result in a substantive change in law, much stood on its potential outcome. All those involved in development should take note of this decision. 

Background

The dispute centred around the construction of a 19-storey office building known as Arbor, which reached practical completion in 2022 and forms part of the major £1bn Bankside Yards regeneration scheme on London’s South Bank. The scheme involves the construction of a further 7 buildings before the development as a whole is complete.  

Following a resolution made on 18 January 2022, the Council of the London Borough of Southwark appropriated the Bankside Yards development site pursuant to section 203 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016. This had the effect of permitting the developer to build out the remainder of the development, notwithstanding that it will interfere with adjoining owners’ rights of light, and where the development actionably interferes with such light, an injunction will not be available and the adjoining owners’ only remedy will be damages. Arbor was substantially built at the point of the Council’s appropriation of Bankside Yards,  and was excluded from the resolution and did not benefit from the exemption from the usual rights of light rules that the other buildings on the development site enjoy.

The claimants, residents of two flats on the sixth and seventh floors of a neighbouring building known as Bankside Lofts, alleged that Arbor interferes with their rights of light to the extent that they were entitled to an injunction to require Arbor’s developer to demolish substantial parts of Arbor to restore their light. 

Key issues and the court’s findings

There were four key issues considered by the court. 

1. Did the construction of Arbor cause an actionable interference with the claimants’ rights of light? 

Whether the claimants enjoyed rights of light was not in dispute. The key question was whether Arbor was substantially interfering with the claimants’ rights of light so as to constitute an actionable nuisance. The assessment turned on whether sufficient light remained in the affected rooms for ordinary use and enjoyment. 

A novel issue arose on how to treat light passing over the unbuilt section 203 site, for the purpose of the correct “before” and “after” comparisons from which rights of light surveyors would model the light enjoyed by the claimants’ flats before and after the construction of Arbor. The claimants’ position was that light enjoyed over the unbuilt section 203 site should be excluded, as the claimants cannot rely on their rights to prevent construction of the section 203 site, whereas Arbor’s developer sought its inclusion within the assessment as the claimants retain their rights until the section 203 site is built.

The court held that light which cannot be enforced or protected due to a section 203 resolution must be excluded from the assessment. Excluding the section 203 site, the court held there was insufficient light for the ordinary use and enjoyment of the affected rooms in the claimants’ flats, and the court held that Arbor caused an actionable interference with the claimants’ rights of light. 

2. How should loss of light be measured for the purpose of determining whether there is an actionable interference with the claimant’s rights of light? 

This is the first time that detailed evidence and arguments on the merits of different methods of assessing loss of light have been presented to a court.

The claimants relied on the traditional Waldram method, a standard method of assessment within the rights of light industry and named after the chartered surveyor who created it, Percy Waldram. It uses sky visibility as a proxy for identifying the proportion of a room that is well lit, with a proportion below 50% indicating that the room, as a whole, is poorly lit. 

The Arbor developer criticised this method as outdated and advocated for more modern Radiance methods, which use illuminance metrics such as median daylight factor and median daylight illuminance.

While the court acknowledged the sophistication of Radiance methods, as well as there being legitimate questions about the accuracy and reliability of the Waldram method, the court reaffirmed the Waldram method in this case. The court noted that the Waldram method has stood the test of time and has the confidence of the industry. It remains a primary tool for assessing light loss, and a surveyor would not be failing in their duty if they considered only the Waldram method, particularly in a straightforward case. Modern methods do, however, have a place in appropriate cases and are not to be ignored.  

3. If there is an actionable interference caused by Arbor, should the court grant an injunction? 

The court reiterated that an injunction is the default remedy for ongoing nuisance, but that it retains discretion to award damages instead. Applying the principles established in the earlier decision of Lawrence v Fen Tigers, the court undertook a holistic balancing exercise, taking into account the following key factors: 

• Arbor was already completed and occupied;
• Arbor’s tenants were not joined to the proceedings, complicating the matter of enforcement if an injunction were granted;
• There was a strong likelihood that Arbor could be rebuilt under a new section 203 resolution;
• Enforcement of an injunction would be practically difficult and environmentally harmful; and
• The public interest in retaining the building outweighed the private loss. 

The court ultimately declined to grant an injunction based on the particular facts, emphasising that this should not be seen as a carte blanche for developers to ignore rights of light. Each case will turn on its facts, and developers who act cynically are unlikely to receive much sympathy from the court. 

4. If an injunction is refused, what damages should be awarded? 

The claimants sought negotiating damages, reflecting a hypothetical agreement to release their rights prior to construction. The Arbor developer argued for a calculation of damages based on diminution in value to the claimants’ flats caused by the reduction to light, which, incidentally, would likely have resulted in a level of compensation substantially below a negotiating damages level. 

The court awarded negotiating damages, finding them more appropriate given the nature of the interference and the inadequacy of diminution in value as a remedy in this case. The Judge adopted a pragmatic approach to valuation, considering what “feels right” and tempering the final awards to ensure proportionality with the value of the flats, ultimately awarding £500,000 to Mr and Mrs Powell and £350,000 to Mr Cooper respectively.

Key takeaway

This decision offers developers clarity on how the court may approach claims for injunctive relief and, where not granted, how the court might approach an assessment of damages in lieu. It provides valuable guidance for developers and adjoining owners on navigating the complex interplay between redevelopment, private property rights and planning powers. It also signals a development in judicial approach in cases of this type, with an apparent emphasis on proportionality, transparency and equitable outcomes. 

This article was written by Perry Swanson and Nick Lee, with support from James Sutherland and Penny Shannon.

For any further information on this case or advice on rights of light generally, please contact any of the writers.

Read the full decision here.