Briefing Note: Cooper & Powell v Ludgate House Ltd (2025) – Rights of Light “Bankside Case”
- Gregory Francis
- Nov 9, 2025
- 2 min read
High Court of Justice (Ch D) – [2025] EWHC 1724 (Ch)
Judgment Date: July 2025
Subject: Rights of Light – Injunction vs Damages – Section 203 Housing & Planning Act 2016
🔍 Background
Claimants (Mr Cooper and Mr & Mrs Powell) owned flats in Bankside Lofts, London SE1.
Ian Absolon, Senior Director at ULS was called by Tim Calland of Maitland Chambers to act as expert witness for the Claimants.
Defendants (Ludgate House Ltd and related companies) developed Arbor, a 19-storey office building within the Bankside Yards scheme.
The claimants alleged that Arbor unlawfully interfered with their rights of light.
The adjoining land was later covered by a Section 203 resolution, allowing future phases to override rights in exchange for compensation.
⚖️ Court’s Findings
Actionable Interference
The court found an actionable loss of light, guided in part by RoL Surveyors expert evidence.
Light passing over land protected by s 203 must be excluded from the “before” assessment.
Methodology
The traditional Waldram method remains accepted for rights-of-light analysis.
Modern modelling (e.g., Radiance or MDI) is also useful but does not supplant Waldram.
Remedy
Despite being the primary remedy the court refused an injunction — no demolition or alteration of Arbor.
Proportionality, practicality, and environmental concerns weighed heavily in the decision.
Damages
Damages awarded on a negotiating basis, reflecting what a reasonable developer would have paid to release the rights, having regard to the financial benefit of the interference and ensuring proportionality.
£350,000 was awarded to Mr Cooper and £500,000 to the Powells, representing a significant % of each property value.
Diminution-in-value approach rejected as inadequate.
Ten Key Lessons for Developers & Investors
Private rights still matter – large schemes do not override them.
Secure s203 early – statutory protection must precede construction.
Exclude s203-protected light from loss calculations. Prior to Bankside the approach was unclear.
Waldram remains valid – still the industry benchmark, however there is a clear preference for blended analysis using a combination of different methods plus qualitative evidence .
Expect damages, not demolition where an injunction would be complicated / problematic to implement and the developer is considered to have acted reasonably.
Negotiating damages reflect real-world leverage, not just loss in flat value.
Sustainability matters – courts dislike wasteful demolition.
Engage neighbours early – proactive negotiation reduces risk.
Claimants must be realistic – inflated claims discouraged.
Integrate rights-of-light strategy early – link design, planning, and legal teams.
🧾 Summary
The High Court reaffirmed a pragmatic balance between development and private rights.
It confirmed the Waldram method as remining valid in the face of modern methods, a preference for damages over injunction where this would be complicated and wasteful, and clarified that s 203-protected light must be excluded from loss models.
For developers, early statutory protection, neighbour engagement, and integrated risk management are now essential steps in avoiding costly litigation.
Comments