A retired couple who say a 17-storey office tower is blocking the light in their £1m apartment are suing in a case which could see the £35m building demolished.
Stephen and Jennifer Powell are complaining that the Arbor tower, part of the £2bn Bankside Yards development, is reducing the natural light getting into their 6th floor apartment next to the River Thames.
The couple living in the South Bank designer block have launched the claim saying that the lack of light is making it hard for them to read in bed.
The Bankside Yards development is set to consist of eight towers, including ‘mega-structures’ 50 storeys high, with Arbor being the first and so far only building completed between 2019 and September 2021.
But the block, which cost nearly £35m to build, is now facing the threat of being torn down after the Powells and their 7th floor neighbour Kevin Cooper sued, seeking an injunction to protect their right to light.
The couple and their neighbour are alternatively seeking damages which could be worth ‘millions’ if their injunction is not granted.
But co-developer of the site Ludgate House Ltd is fighting 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 say the couple could solve the issue of struggling to read in bed by simply turning a light on.
They also accuse the neighbours of trying to hold them to ‘ransom’ and protest that demolishing the Arbor tower would be ‘a gross waste of money and resources.’
London’s High Court heard that the couple 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.
The trio complain about reduced light into their apartments and want an injunction compelling the developer to alter plans for the rest of the planned towers to account for the light being blocked by Arbor, or if there is no other option to knock the building down.
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 claimants have brought their claims.
‘Mr Cooper, who chose his flat for its phenomenal light, places considerable value, as do his family, on the light he receives in a dwelling, not just for simple illumination but for the wellbeing of those who reside there.
‘Mr Powell, who has had his residence at Bankside Lofts for over 20 years, chose the flat over those with better views because it was flooded with light.
‘The only way to vindicate the claimants’ right of light – to preserve that access to adequate light – is with an injunction.’
Mr Calland added that if the injunction is refused that the trio would have been ‘denied their right of light’ and the ‘defendant will have taken something for nothing’.
‘The remedy that the claimants seek is an injunction preventing the retention of Arbor in such a way as to cause a nuisance,’ he said.
‘The claimants’ objective is not the demolition of Arbor if that can be avoided. They have always said they would accept alterations to the rest of the development as a means of restoring their light.
‘An injunction would only involve the demolition of Arbor if the defendants wanted it to,’ he told the judge.
He went on to say that the Arbor tower cost £34.9m to build in 2019, but estimated that it could have been as much as £42.2 in 2021 if the developer had been forced to wait whilst negotiating the right to light with Mr Cooper and the Powells.
Explaining that the flat owners want a share of that multimillion-pound saving if their injunction is refused, he said: ‘If an injunction is refused, the claimants will say that damages should be awarded in lieu of relief.
‘They contend that such damages should be assessed as a fair price that might have been agreed for the release of their rights to allow Arbor to be built.
‘The defendant sought to profit by ignoring the claimants’ rights and taking the light for itself, denying the claimants even the level of light sufficient according to the ordinary notions of mankind, whilst at the same time advertising premises at the development as enjoying “exceptional levels of natural light,” which it claims promote productivity and wellbeing.
‘It is the defendant that has rushed ahead in building Arbor without resolving rights of light to which it knew the land was subject.’
He insisted any ‘release fee’ awarded to the flat owners should be ‘sustainable’ and calculated as a ‘share of the defendant’s profits from building Arbor, rather than a non-infringing building.’
‘The defendants chose to rush ahead with the construction, propelled no doubt by its investors’ demands, and left the solution to the rights of light issues to another day,’ he said.
‘The claimants have lost not only value in their properties but also their ability to insist on their light.
‘Where a defendant has acted wantonly and quite unreasonably in relation to his neighbour, he may be ordered to repair his wanton and unreasonable acts by doing positive work to restore the status quo, even if the expense to him is out of all proportion.’
John McGhee KC, for Ludgate House Ltd (LHL), in his written submissions told the judge: ‘The claimants seek injunctive relief requiring the defendant to demolish an occupied 19-storey office building known as Arbor on the grounds that it has caused them nuisance by interfering with the rights of light which they enjoy.
‘Whether Arbor is considered on its own or together with the (whole) development, LHL denies that there will be any actionable interference with the rights of light.
‘The reduction in light caused by Arbor is not such as to substantially interfere with the use or enjoyment of the flats and as such is not an actionable nuisance.
‘LHL has engaged extensively with all other owners of neighbouring buildings whose light might be affected. In almost all other cases, they have agreed to release any claim to interference with their light in return for modest sums by way of compensation.
‘The flats remain usable 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.
‘Ultimately, both Mr Cooper and the Powells are using these proceedings to seek to extract a ransom payment.
‘The court ought not to order the demolition of Arbor.
‘It would be a gross waste of money and resources and would deprive the area of much needed office accommodation,’ the barrister added.
He said all the other parts of the development enjoy legal protection from property rights claims brought by nearby residents under an indemnity provided by local authority Southwark Borough Council under Section 203 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016.
Arguing that an injunction forcing them to tear down Arbor would be pointless, he told the court: ‘LHL would obtain planning permission for the erection of a building of the same or similar height, the construction of which would then be protected by section 203.’
He went on to argue that the lucrative ‘negotiating damages’ sought by the claimants are not appropriate and that if nuisance is found, an injunction should be refused and damages paid on the basis of a ‘diminution’ in the value of their flats, of not more than 25 per cent.
‘The claimant’s case is that they are entitled to millions more than the value of their respective flats,’ he said.
‘But one cannot sensibly conclude that it feels right to award more than or indeed anywhere near the full value of flats which they retain and which remain valuable and usable.’
He added that the Powells had previously been offered £36,000 to release their right to light and Mr Cooper had been offered £26,000.
Both apartments are estimated to be worth over £1m.
The hearing continues.
