Legal right to light: Small extensions and non-habitable rooms
May 26, 2012
We have recently been involved with some right of light matters which demonstrate the risks from even the smallest of residential extensions. We have had acted recently for a couple of domestic clients who have suffered legal injuries as a consequence of a loss of light to non-habitable rooms where the designers overlooked the risks to the developer. These seem to be interesting and worthy of sharing to demonstrate some examples of situations where even minor domestic alterations or extensions can cause major problems and where seemingly relatively minor losses of light to a neighbour can cause major problems for the developer.
Firstly, we were involved in respect of a project where our client's neighbour decided to add a pitched roof to the garage attached to the side of his house. This was work which did not require planning permission. However, the proposed roof reduced the light to a room within our client's house to an injurious level. The outcome of this was that, after incurring many thousands of pounds in building costs, fees and other expenses, our client's neighbour finally had to partly dismantle and reconstruct the pitched roof at yet further expense and disruption.
The second recent example concerns a development adjacent to our client's home. The development is itself only residential in nature and the resultant loss of light would only be to a stairwell. The designers of the development did not adequately consider the implications of rights of light to such a space and, as a consequence, there have been both delays and costs to the development.
The first scenario above did not require planning permission and so there was no option for any possible consideration of the effect of loss of light to the neighbour at planning application stage. Had this alteration required planning permission, then the risk of the implications of loss of light to the neighbour, our client, may have been 'flagged up' at that stage, most probably then requiring an assessment using the guidance within a document named BRE 209. However, BRE 209 does not require consideration of non-habitable rooms – this was the failing of the second example above in that the design was checked and passed in respect of BRE 209 but no consideration was given to legal rights of light.
The matters to bear in mind are that even the smallest of extensions (whether domestic or commercial) can result in legal rights of light injuries to neighbours' buildings and that legal rights of light extend to all rooms, including staircases, bathrooms and toilets. Often an extension may not need planning permission or, even if it does need planning permission, this is completely separate from legal rights to light. Even if BRE 209 is used by the planning officer as a reference document, BRE 209 only requires consideration of habitable rooms and the test itself is not the same as the test for a legal right to light. A pass of the tests contained in BRE 209 does not mean that the affected room will not suffer a legal rights of light injury.
If you are planning an extension then it is important to give at least some consideration to whether this might reduce light to your neighbour's windows. If you are a neighbour objecting to a development, even if very small in nature, you may have a legal case to object in respect of lights of light. And, in both situations, planning permission for a scheme does not mean that there are not any legal right to light matters to address.
To discuss any right of light matters, please do not hesitate to contact either Philip or Adrian on 0845 519 7703 or take a look at our website at www.righttolightsurveyors.co.uk
Source: Right to Light Surveyors
To find a company who may assist you further, simply click on the free links located on the right hand side of the page.
Comment on This Article:
All HTML, except <i>, <b>, <u> will require your comment to be moderated before it is publicly displayed.
If you would like your own avatar displayed, read about comment avatars.
Reader Comments
Skip to form
There are currently no comments about this article.