Questions on rights of light

Question

I am planning a redevelopment of my building, but I am aware that there is a nearby development with planning permission due to take place soon. How does this affect the position in respect of any rights to light claim that might be made against me by other neighbours?

In a case such as this where the light of neighbours will not only be affected by your proposed development but that of others, you should undertake an analysis on alternative bases. The legal position is not clear-cut, and the answer will depend on, in part, whether the neighbour (the dominant owner) can protect the light enjoyed over the nearby development. You will need to seek advice from a specialist rights of light surveyor.

Explanation

This issue was not directly relevant in the recent case of Cooper v Ludgate House Ltd [2025] EGLR 33; [2025] EWHC 1724 (Ch) [2025] because the issue there was whether light, which could not be protected by an injunction, should be taken into account when determining if there is sufficient light left.

However, the Court considered the decision in Sheffield Masonic Hall Co v Sheffield Corporation [1932] 2 Ch 17, where the claimant’s house received light from separate windows facing north and east. The issue was whether the reduction in light from the north was sufficiently compensated by remaining light from the east. The court found that the defendant was not permitted to build as high as it wanted to because, were it to do so, that would throw all of the burden of the rights of light on the owner of the land to the east. Therefore, where a room enjoys light from different windows over two separate parcels of land and a development is planned on one parcel, when modelling the impact of that development on the room it is necessary to assume a similar development exists on the other parcel of land. On the facts in Cooper the question of whether Sheffield Masonic was correctly decided did not arise because the servient land in that case was held to be all in one ownership.

However, the court made it clear that receiving light “from other quarters” is relevant only if it can be protected and, if it cannot be protected, it should be disregarded when assessing the rights of light impact of the relevant development. Sheffield Masonic also deals with two different windows facing different developments which were not in the same ownership. Whether or not this principle applies to a single window overlooking two or more parcels of land remains unclear. You will need to seek advice from a specialist rights of light surveyor who can advise on the particulars of your development.

I am looking to bring a rights of light claim against the owner of a proposed nearby development. I have obtained a rights of light report which shows that most of the rooms including my living room will remain well-lit using the Waldram method (over 50%) but the main bedroom will fall from 51% to 49% well lit. Am I likely to have a claim for an injunction?

The position is somewhat unclear and has not been resolved by the recent Cooper decision. Given that this is a marginal case you may be well-advised to explore what the losses are based on other more modern methods of assessment.

Explanation

In Cooper, the court confirmed that the Waldram method was the most reliable, and the industry standard, model relied on for measuring light. Other more modern methods, such as Median Daylight Illuminance (MDI) and Median Daylight Factor (MDF) where less reliable, and in the court’s view should only be referred to in cases that were borderline under Waldram. The parties’ experts agreed that, pursuant to the Waldram method, if there was insufficient light (ie below 50%) in the “before” scenario then any further loss would be actionable in principle. However, they agreed there is some leeway of up to a 2% reduction because this would generally be imperceptible to the eye.

This separate test of perceptibility was not accepted by the court. In a case where the reduction was from 51.1% to 49.9% on the Waldram method, whether perceptible or not, that loss would have a substantially adverse impact on the use and enjoyment of the premises. The only way round this would be to try to demonstrate that the Waldram results were unreliable – particularly in marginal cases where a room is oddly shaped – in which case other more modern methods of assessment could possibly assist. As there are borderline results in your case, obtaining further advice from your surveyor on other modern methods of assessment will assist you but, depending on the outcome, may not give you grounds for a successful injunction.

Rupert Cohen is a barrister at Landmark Chambers and Georgina Muskett is a senior associate at Charles Russell Speechlys LLP. This article was first published in Estates Gazette on 31 March 2026.