Have the lights gone out on the Government's new planning policy?

The Government have today trumpeted the relaxation of planning regulations.  We all can now build bigger and better extensions to our houses with out bothering with all that pesky red tape.  While this may be good news for some, what of the neighbours?  They may find their house cast into darkness by the towering edifice you’ve constructed.

Planning permission is only one of the consents you need before carrying out building work.  If your property is leasehold you will normally need the consent of your landlord.  Many freehold properties are subject to covenants restricting development without the original developers consent.

Light though, is the main issue.  Your neighbour may think it unfair that his living room is now a place of continual shadow.  And he may well be right.  Most of us will have a right to light either under common law or as a result of the Prescription Act of 1832.

This provides that just over half of your home should be lit by natural light.  The minimum standard is quaintly described as light which is equivalent to that from one candle one foot away.

Rights may be acquired under the Prescription Act where they have been used for 20 years.  The house doesn’t need to have been in the same ownership throughout that period.

So before you start thinking about your extension, you should give serious thought to the effect it will have on the light enjoyed by your neighbours.  If your extension is going to diminish that light, then they may be entitled to prevent you from building it.

If you build it regardless of those rights, you may find they obtain a court injunction requiring you to take it down.  When considering whether or not to grant an injunction, the court will have regard to the following criteria:-

1.       Is the loss of light small?

2.       Is the loss one which is capable of being estimated in money?

3.       Is it one which can adequately be compensated by a small money payment?

4.       Is the case one in which it would be oppressive to grant an injunction?

The case of HKRUK II Ltd-v- Heaney 2010, involved the loss of light to a commercial property.  The loss was calculated at less than 1% of the net lettable area and the book value calculation of damages was only £80,000 against the £4,000,000 value of the building.  The neighbour did not want compensation though.  The court were influenced by the fact the developers infringement had been deliberate and could have been avoided if the extenstion had been smaller.

Each case is always judged on its own merits.  However, before you call that builder you may need to think again.