Rights to light revisited

It is a difficult balance for property owners and developers when considering their rights to light. On one side, there is a need to allow development to take place, but on the other side, there are the rights of existing home owners who have always had the right to enjoy natural light to their properties. The right to light has an impact on any potential construction work on neighbouring land, which could be merely a neighbours' extension but could be a new development, whether houses, flats or even offices.

The accepted view is that, in a home, just over half the room should be lit by natural light, and, in a commercial building, about half of the room. The minimum standard is the equivalent to the light from one candle, one foot away.

Accepted level

Until recently, a person's right to light was protected in England and Wales under common law, adverse possession or by the Prescription Act 1832. If the amount of light coming into a room is limited by a new building and that amount of light is below the accepted level, then this constitutes an obstruction and legal action can be brought against the neighbour.

Any kind of 'development' can potentially block or limit the amount of light coming into a room. This includes a neighbour's new shed, garden walls, or an extension. Presently, if the developer hasn't taken the right to light into consideration, then there is a potential claim for compensation or for negotiating changes to the development '“ most claims involve both. In serious cases, the court may issue an injunction to prevent the development going ahead, but this is unlikely to be the outcome if the court can award compensation, especially if it is only a minor matter. And in extreme cases a court may award an injunction to have the offending part of the building pulled down.

At the moment rights to light are civil matters between neighbours and are independent of the planning system. Even if planning permission has been granted, care should be taken not to cause an infringement to the rights to light enjoyed by nearby buildings. In its recent consultation, the Law Commission has proposed removing the 'right to light' ?on the grounds that it has become ?a 'tool to extract money from a neighbour who proposes to develop his or her land' and warns that such rights have a 'disproportionately negative impact upon the potential for the development of land'. It believes that the right to light is now a 'serious concern' and acts as a major block on development, especially in city centres.

Powerless homeowners

The commission has made various proposals, including the abolition of the acquisition of rights of light by prescription (see box).

But if the right cannot be acquired by prescription, what of all the new houses and developments built within the last 20 years which will not yet have acquired any rights to light by prescription? It is important to remember that the right to light can have an impact on property values. Removing the protection could leave almost three million households powerless to prevent large developments near their homes, reducing their value and appeal.

Clive Betts, chairman of the Commons' Communities and Local Government committee, said there was 'no merit' in revising the laws and said that light '?makes an enormous difference to people's homes'. 'Light is actually very important,' he said. 'If you allow people to build ?large extensions and you took away their right to light, essentially people could ?have the enjoyment of their homes substantially worsened.'

The challenge is to balance out the creation of new housing, new offices and shops which will have a positive impact ?on and hopefully stimulate the economy, with the necessity to protect existing property owners who will be affected by such developments.

Such development can often be very detrimental to the amenity of existing properties and by implication can affect property values. Ask any estate agent and they will tell you how much easier it is to sell a property with rooms bathed in natural light compared to an identical property dimly lit.

Homeowners' rights could be seriously affected by some of the commission's recommendations, so before we proceed ?we should reflect on the possible ?adverse consequences.