Stephen and Jennifer Powell complained that the Arbor tower, next to their home, ‘substantially’ reduced the natural light getting into their apartment on London’s South Bank
A retired couple who sued developers after a 17-storey £35million office tower next to their home blocked their light, making it hard for them to read in bed, have been handed a £500,000 payout by a judge.
Stephen and Jennifer Powell complained that the Arbor Tower, part of the £2billion Bankside Yards development, “substantially” reduced the natural light getting into their 6th floor apartment in the designer block Bankside Lofts next door on London’s South Bank. The development is set to consist of eight towers, including “mega-structures” 50 storeys high when completed. So far, Arbor the first and only building completed between 2019 and September 2021.
Developers ran into trouble when the Powells and their 7th floor neighbour Kevin Cooper sued them, seeking an injunction to protect their rights of light and threatening the tower, which cost nearly £35million to build, with potentially being torn down. Mr Justice Fancourt, ruling on the case at the High Court, has now refused the neighbours an injunction, saying that over £200million would be wasted in demolishing and rebuilding the tower, with massive associated “environmental damage”.
READ MORE: LGBT veterans compensation to be sped up after fury at ‘painfully slow’ process
But he went on to find that the couple’s flat was “substantially affected” by their light being cut off and ordered the co-developer of the site, Ludgate House Ltd, to pay the Powells £500,000 in damages, plus £350,000 to Mr Cooper. The judge said that parts of the two flats had been left with levels of light “insufficient for the ordinary use and enjoyment of those rooms.”
“I also conclude that there will, as a result, be a substantial adverse impact on the ordinary use and enjoyment of those flats,” he added. Ludgate House Ltd had fought the claims, insisting that the tower doesn’t block enough light from the neighbouring trio’s £1m-plus flats to give the owners a valid claim.
Their lawyers said the couple could solve the issue of lower light levels causing them problems when reading in bed by simply turning a light on, arguing that “the loss was not important because the room is a bedroom and any reading in bed would be done with the aid of artificial light.” They also protested that an injunction forcing them to demolish the Arbor tower would be “a gross waste of money and resources.”
The judge agreed with the latter argument, saying demolition “could cost £15million to £20million, and re-building of the whole would cost around £225million.” He said: “The claimants say that an injunction is the right remedy to grant because the defendant has deliberately proceeded with its development in the face of the claimants’ rights, knowing that there was probably an infringement, and taking the chance that it would be able to buy off the claimants and all those in an equivalent position.
“The claimants are people who say that they have a particular and strong attraction to the benefits of natural light directly from the sky, and are unwilling to see that light taken away from them as a fait accompli. The position was, I am sure, exacerbated by advertising the new development as having ‘exceptional levels of natural light’ that promote productivity and wellbeing, which Mr Cooper pointed out amounted to (the developer) helping itself to his light and offering a modest payment while intending to sell it to others for a high price.”
But he added: “There are strong arguments, in modern times, why over £200million of development costs should not be wasted. There would also be substantial harm done by a further, complex demolition contract and considerable environmental damage as a result.
“Apart from the financial interest of the developer, to which an order for demolition could be said to be oppressive in comparison with the degree of harm done to the claimants, there is a significant public interest that needs to be taken into account.” The judge went on to refuse to grant an injunction, but awarded damages, saying the loss of light has had a “substantial adverse effect” on the flats.
“The damage is principally to the use and enjoyment of the flats, not to their exchange value; though the reduced use and enjoyment value may have some impact on the market value,” he said. “Mr Cooper and Mr Powell both stressed that they did not want money, they wanted their light, so that they could enjoy fully the advantages that their flats offered.
“Despite the loss of light, the flats remain useable, attractive and valuable, but less enjoyable in terms of their good light. The claimants should be awarded damages in lieu of an injunction. I consider that sums that would reasonably have been negotiated and agreed in 2019 to compensate the claimants for their rights of light are £500,000 for the Powells and £350,000 for Mr Cooper. These are the damages that I will award in lieu of granting injunctive relief.”
During the trial of the case, the court heard that Powells have lived in their 6th floor flat in the yellow ochre Bankside Lofts building on the south bank of the river for over 20 years, having moved in in 2002, whilst property finance professional Mr Cooper bought his 7th floor flat in 2021. In written arguments put before the court, their barrister Tim Calland told Mr Justice Fancourt: “The Bankside Yards development will consist of eight towers, the tallest of which stretches to 50 storeys in height. The marketing material for Arbor describes it as a mega-structure and boasts of exceptional natural light.
“The claimants maintain that this will have been achieved – wrongfully – at the expense of their light. Light is not an unnecessary ‘add on’ to a dwelling. Light does not just give pleasure, but provides the very benefits of health, wellbeing and productivity which the defendants are using to advertise the development. That is the reason the claimants have brought their claims.”
John McGhee KC, for Ludgate House Ltd, had told the judge: “The flats remain useable and desirable and, on any view, valuable. In respect of the bedroom in Mr and Mrs Powell’s flat, the reduction in light is primarily around the headboard of the bed…anyone reading in bed would use electric light to do so for much of the time anyway. The injury is a minor one.”