Bankside Yards and the changing landscape of ‘rights to light’

The recent High Court ruling in Cooper & Ors v Ludgate House Ltd marks a pivotal moment in the law of rights to light, with serious implications for urban developers across the UK.

At the heart of the dispute was the tension between private rights and large-scale regeneration – specifically, whether long-standing neighbouring homes can halt ambitious schemes due to lost daylight. The court’s answer, while nuanced, signals a shifting balance in favour of progress, where damages, not demolition, may become the default outcome.

But the case also serves as a timely reminder – rights to light remain enforceable, and the risks of ignoring them are real. Understanding how such rights arise, how they are assessed, and what remedies may follow is essential for developers seeking to deliver complex city-centre schemes without being blindsided.

What is a right to light?

A right to light is a type of easement – a private right over another person’s land. It allows the owner (or long-term occupant) of a building to receive a reasonable amount of daylight through a defined opening, usually a window.

Importantly, it is not a right to sunlight, views, or general openness. It relates only to the quantity of diffuse, natural light needed for ordinary internal use. And it doesn’t arise automatically – it must be granted expressly, implied from transfers, or acquired by long use (typically 20 years of uninterrupted daylight to the window in question).

The legal standard, shaped by old case law such as Colls v Home & Colonial Stores, asks whether the obstruction would leave the space “unduly dark”, below what ordinary people would find reasonable. Surveyors usually apply the Waldram method to quantify this, measuring how much sky is visible to a horizontal plane 850mm above floor level, and assessing whether at least 50% of that surface receives 0.2% of the sky’s total illuminance.

Where this standard isn’t met, and the right has been acquired, interference may be actionable. The landowner may seek an injunction to halt development or demolish the offending structure, or claim damages in lieu.

The battle of Bankside: What happened?

The Bankside Yards regeneration is one of the largest and most ambitious mixed-use schemes in central London. Spearheaded by Native Land, the project spans 1.4 million square feet between Blackfriars and Southwark, replacing the monolithic former Ludgate House with a new cluster of towers on the Thames’ southern bank.

Completed in 2022, one of the flagship buildings, Arbor, is a 19-storey, high-spec office tower designed to raise the bar for ESG credentials in London’s commercial market.

But two residents of the neighbouring Bankside Lofts development, Kevin Cooper and Stephen & Jennifer Powell, brought claims in the High Court in 2023. They alleged that Arbor had interfered with their rights to light, acquired through uninterrupted daylight access to their apartment windows for over two decades.

They sought an injunction to require the developer to alter or remove parts of the new tower—or, failing that, to award damages equivalent to what they claimed would have been negotiated if they had agreed to release those rights prior to construction.

A courtroom in the shadow of a tower

The case centred on two main questions:

1. Had the claimants acquired rights to light, and had Arbor infringed them?
2. If so, what was the appropriate remedy: injunction, damages, or nothing?

On the first point, the court found for the claimants. Their flats had indeed enjoyed uninterrupted light for over 20 years. Applying the standard methods of assessment, the court concluded that the interference caused by Arbor’s bulk, particularly its impact on internal living spaces, was substantial enough to be actionable.

But it was the second question that held greater significance for developers.

The judge refused to grant an injunction. While the interference was real and legally recognised, he held that ordering demolition or structural changes to a newly completed office tower, especially one delivering significant social and economic benefits, would be disproportionate.

Crucially, the developer had not acted in bad faith. Native Land had carried out extensive rights-to-light assessments during the design phase, consulted affected residents, and even made changes to the scheme to mitigate impact. Their conduct was considered open, reasonable, and attentive to risk.

Instead, the court awarded damages – £500,000 to the Powells and £350,000 to Mr Cooper – based not on loss of amenity, but on a hypothetical negotiation. The amounts reflect what the developer might reasonably have paid the claimants in exchange for waiving their rights before work began.

A turning point for developers?

For many, the Bankside Yards judgment marks a critical turning point in rights-to-light enforcement.

Historically, the mere threat of an injunction, even over minor obstructions, has given neighbours immense leverage over large-scale schemes. The 2010 case of HKRUK II (CHC) Ltd v Heaney infamously saw the court order part-demolition of a completed building in Leeds due to light infringement. That sent a chill through the market, and drove many developers to pay hefty premiums or over-insure, simply to manage the litigation risk.

Bankside Yards strikes a new balance. It suggests that injunctions will no longer be automatic, particularly where the interference, while real, is not overwhelming, the developer has acted transparently, and the development serves a strong public or economic interest.

The message is not that rights to light can be ignored, but that proportionality matters. The court will take a broader view of competing interests and will not readily sacrifice major urban investment to uphold private rights unless the developer has acted recklessly or without regard.

What this means in practice

The Bankside Yards decision offers both reassurance and caution. On one hand, it confirms that the courts will not lightly halt or dismantle important city-centre developments for the sake of marginal daylight loss. Where the developer has acted in good faith, and the harm can be compensated in money, injunctions are unlikely.

On the other hand, developers who rely on that outcome do so at their peril. Had this dispute been brought earlier, or had the developer been less cooperative, the court might well have issued an injunction. The risk of costly litigation, project delays, and reputational damage remains real.

The key lessons for developers are clear:

1. Early modelling remains critical – Surveyors and rights-of-light consultants must still be involved early. Waldram analysis, daylight impact diagrams, and internal illumination studies should form part of every design-phase risk assessment. Identifying and mapping potential claims is the first line of defence.

2. Conduct counts – The court placed significant weight on Native Land’s approach: open dialogue, design mitigation, and engagement with neighbours. Developers who can show that they made real efforts to manage impact are more likely to avoid injunctions, even if they ultimately lose on liability.

3. Insurance is still key – Rights to light insurance remains a useful tool, especially where land assembly makes clean releases impossible. However, the premium structures may shift: insurers will now have greater precedent to limit cover to damages rather than full injunction risk.

4. Public benefit carries weight – While this was a private dispute, the court’s refusal to grant an injunction was clearly shaped by the scale and significance of the Arbor building. Developers whose schemes deliver jobs, housing or sustainability gains may find the court more receptive to balancing those benefits against private complaints.

5. Risk of inflated claims is reduced – The claimants’ awards were far lower than the sums they had claimed by several million pounds. The court’s methodology emphasised realism and resisted attempts to maximise “ransom” valuations. That may deter speculative claims.

Where next?

The Bankside Yards ruling does not eliminate risk, but it realigns the calculus. Rights to light remain enforceable, but the courts are now more likely to assess interference in context, and to favour financial redress over demolition.

For urban developers, that shift could unlock sites previously considered too risky or constrained. But only if the fundamentals are still done right – early expert input, careful modelling, neighbour engagement, and a clear audit trail of good-faith decision-making.

Above all, Bankside Yards reinforces that even in dense, high-value cityscapes, the law is not blind to common sense. Light matters, but so too does progress.