Developers need to see the light early or risk huge costs if they impede the light of others

Published in CoStar 28 March 2025

Developers have an increasing number of obstacles to tackle before they can deliver their schemes but there’s one that is often overlooked that can be costly – both in terms of delay and costs and, in some of the worst cases, can threaten viability of the whole scheme.

Rights to light is a complex area of legislation where a landowner has the right to receive light through defined apertures in buildings on their land. If a proposed development does not have an agreement in place, and a neighbouring landowner can prove that their Right to Light has been compromised, then a costly court case, injunction and even damages can be awarded.

A recent case that demonstrates these complexities is that of Handstone Investments Ltd vs Abri Group Ltd. Here, Housing Association, Abri Group had acquired a site with planning permission that had been granted some five years ago but there had been no Rights to Light risk strategy embedded in its design.

The building was to be a four-storey social housing scheme in the Dorset town of Broadstone, just outside of Poole.

Handstone Investments’ objection arose after foundations on the Abri Group’s development had already been constructed and so the opportunity for changes to the proposal was limited. Handstone should have been well aware of the planning consent but didn’t raise an objection at the time. Abri Group thus progressed with construction works out of the ground before the objection was raised. 

The court determined that Handstone Investments waited to raise an objection until Abri Group was in a weaker position to do something about the issue given the existing consent and that construction had started.

As investors, Handstone was financially driven, therefore they were seen as being opportunistic rather than geared towards actually wanting to protect their light. Pursuing an interim injunction was likely perceived as a strategy to get higher levels of compensation. The judge dismissed the application for an interim injunction to stop the developer’s building works which is lucky for Abri Group who argued such an injunction would cost them thousands of pounds per week due to the resulting delays given that they were already underway with construction. As the Group’s mission was to deliver homes to those in need, paying significant compensation or amending the design would not have been a favourable outcome. 

The judge used the ‘American Cyanamid’ principles surrounding how to deal with the granting of an interim injunction, namely:

1. Is there a serious issue to be tried?
2. Would damages be an adequate remedy?
3. Where does the balance of convenience lay?
4. Are there any other special factors to consider?

The judge decided that compensation would be the appropriate remedy. As a Housing Association, Abri are essentially not for profit. The compensation will most likely be calculated via the traditional book valuation approach rather than as a proportion of the developers profit which would usually achieve a higher settlement.

As it emerges, neither side are likely to be happy with the result. Abri Group have to pay compensation and Handstone did not get the financial compensation they would have wanted.

Had an appropriate Rights to Light risk management strategy been adopted during design and planning process then a design could have been achieved that did not trigger an injury. Had Handstone not been proven to have a commercial interest rather than an ethical one in seeking an injunction, the circumstances in this case would have been very difficult and potentially threatened the viability of the social housing scheme at a time when such housing has never been more in demand.

Many developers, Abri included, don’t want the expense to tackle issues of Rights to Light earlier in order to avoid a battle. However, if a battle does emerge later down the line, it can have disastrous consequences. The only way to mitigate this is to build Rights to Light into the initial planning and design meetings so that they can demonstrate they have taken this into consideration, make any alterations or considerations at the time before consent and construction, and thus make sure the development and the owner is protected.