Bankside Yards Rights to Light Judgement

The recent Bankside Yards Rights to Light judgement in Cooper & Powell v Ludgate House Ltd (2025), delivered by Mr Justice Fancourt, is a landmark ruling in the evolving landscape of rights to light disputes. This judgment provides the first authoritative judicial guidance on how statutory powers under section 203 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016 interact with rights of light and sets out the proper approach for determining actionable nuisance and appropriate remedies in such cases. The case centres on the Bankside Yards development in London SE1, particularly the construction of a 19-storey office block known as Arbor.

The claimants, Kevin Cooper (flat 705) and Stephen and Jennifer Powell (flat 605), sought an injunction or damages against Ludgate House Ltd (LHL), claiming Arbor unlawfully interfered with their rights to light. The judgment delivers detailed guidance on the legal analysis, the applicable light measurement methodologies, and how courts should approach damages when injunctive relief is inappropriate.

Background - Bankside Yards Rights to Light Judgement

Bankside Lofts is located opposite the Bankside Yards development and historically faced the now-demolished Sampson House and Ludgate House buildings. The developer constructed Arbor on the Ludgate House site and is now building the taller residential tower, 'Opus,' beside it. Rights to light had accrued over both the Sampson and Ludgate House sites due to 20+ years of uninterrupted use.

However, in 2022, the Council passed a resolution under section 203 HPA 2016 that permitted development across the wider site (excluding Arbor) notwithstanding interference with adjoining owners' rights to light, in return for compensation under section 204.

Key to the dispute was the correct method to assess whether Arbor alone caused an actionable interference with light.

Key Legal Issues and Findings

1. Correct Legal Scenario for Comparison (CS1 vs CS2 vs DS1)

The parties asked the Court to determine the correct legal scenario for comparing light levels before and after Arbor’s construction:

CS1 (Claimants' Scenario 1): Excludes light from the future "203 development" (permitted under s.203) when assessing Arbor's impact.

CS2: Proposes an equal sharing of the burden across the site.

DS1 (Defendant's Scenario): Includes all light currently available, even if later lost to the 203 development

Decision: The court held that CS1 is the correct scenario and that it should exclude light that cannot be protected due to the section 203 resolution. Otherwise, claimants lose meaningful enforcement rights. The Court rejected CS2 for incorrectly treating the site as two separate servient tenements.

2. Assessment of Light Loss: Waldram vs Radiance Methods

Mr Justice Fancourt evaluated competing light assessment methodologies:

Waldram Method: Traditional rights to light assessment based on visible sky factor and a 50% room lit threshold.

Radiance Methods: Modern illuminance modelling based on BS EN 17037 (MDF and MDI standards).

While acknowledging certain limitations in the Waldram method, the judge firmly upheld its continued relevance, noting its century-long industry acceptance and robustness when applied correctly. He explained that some criticisms of the method were mistaken - for example, critics misunderstood its intended use as a consistent proxy rather than a direct lux measurement when they claimed it failed to account for internal and external reflectance.

Mr Justice Fancourt cautioned against over-reliance on alternative methods that involve "a subjective and impressionistic assessment of false colour graphical representations of results, rather than the results themselves".

He went further to say:

"I question the value of that. It amounts to replacing an established, universally applied, agreed standard with the subjective opinion of an expert light surveyor – which was the opposite of what Percy Waldram attempted to do over 100 years ago."

The court emphasised that the Radiance methods (MDI and MDF) may be informative, but in this case, they did not significantly diverge from the Waldram results. The Radiance-based false colour images, which the defence relied on to argue that changes in light would be imperceptible, were ultimately considered too impressionistic to overturn the objective metrics.

Conclusion: The judge found that the flats - particularly flat 605, which included a poorly lit LKD and principal bedroom - suffered substantial and actionable loss of light. He relied primarily on the Waldram method, which the more modern Radiance models corroborated, but he declined to give weight to visually subjective interpretations of those models. This reinforced the continuing legal primacy of the Waldram approach when determining actionable light loss.

3. Grant of Injunction vs Damages

The court declined to grant an injunction. While Arbor caused an actionable nuisance, an injunction would be oppressive, costly, environmentally wasteful, and likely futile, as the developer could re-seek planning consent and rebuild with s.203 protection.

Instead, the court awarded negotiating damages (sometimes referred to as Wrotham Park damages) to reflect the hypothetical value of the claimants releasing their rights in a pre-construction negotiation.

4. Assessment of Negotiating Damages

The Court assessed damages based on the uplift in development value gained by infringing the claimants' rights to light, rather than on any direct reduction in the value of the affected flats. The Court rejected diminution in value as the primary measure and instead found that the correct approach was to assess what a reasonable settlement would have been if the parties had negotiated before Arbor was built.

Mr Justice Fancourt considered expert valuation evidence from both parties, focusing on the difference in land value between constructing a cut-back, non-infringing version of Arbor and the actual 19-storey scheme that was built. This difference served as a proxy for the benefit LHL derived from infringing the claimants' rights.

Justice Fancourt took a principled approach to hypothetical negotiations, considering precedent settlements with other residents, the degree of interference, and the likelihood that the claimants would have agreed to release their rights pre-construction. He awarded Mr Cooper and the Powells negotiating damages that reflected their relative bargaining positions and the practical impact on their respective flats.

The Court awarded £350,500 to Mr Cooper and £500,000 jointly to Mr and Mrs Powell in lieu of granting injunctive relief.

The Court found that these sums reasonably reflected what the claimants could have negotiated to release their rights to light if LHL had engaged with them in good faith before Arbor’s construction began.

Download Judgement

Key Takeaways - Bankside Yards Rights to Light

This is the first ruling to address how the loss of enforceability due to a s.203 resolution should be treated in assessing rights to light claims.

Light that cannot be legally protected due to s.203 must be excluded from the Before/After analysis.

The court endorsed the continued use of the Waldram method while acknowledging the growing role of climate-based daylight modelling (CBDM).

Injunctions may be withheld where demolition would be futile or environmentally and economically oppressive.

Negotiating damages are appropriate where development was deliberately undertaken with knowledge of potential infringements.

Conclusion - Bankside Yards Rights to Light judgement

Cooper & Powell v Ludgate House Ltd provides important clarity for developers, local authorities, and affected residents on rights to light and the interplay with planning powers. It confirms that parties cannot use section 203 to indirectly justify prior infringements and that significant compensation - rather than injunctions - may offer the practical remedy in large-scale developments.

This decision makes a significant contribution to rights to light case law and will undoubtedly shape how parties handle future disputes—especially those involving large urban regeneration schemes and local authority interventions.

Need Expert Advice on Rights to Light?

At Anstey Horne, our specialist Rights to Light surveyors have extensive experience advising developers, property owners, and legal teams across the UK. We help identify risks, negotiate solutions, and ensure your project progresses with confidence. Contact us today to discuss how we can help resolve any Rights to Light concerns.

For more information on how a right is acquired, measured and defended, please see our Fact Sheet, and for a collection of articles on all aspect of this service see our blog.

For advice on rights to light direct from one of our surveyors, please call our Rights to Light Enquiry Line on 020 4534 3138.

If you’d like us to call you, please fill in our Contact Us form and we will call you back.