Dark Cloud wrote:Agree and haven't trawled through it either, but looking at the date it seems to coincide with a time when the government were actively trying to stimulate construction work, whether it be huge projects or small scale home extensions and they wanted to make it easier to get PP and less easy for neighbours to object.
On the subject of the guy who took on Chelsea, I suspected he was a clever chap and he knew enough to keep plugging away and be a thorn in their side until eventually they simply paid him off and he did more than ok out of it thanks very much.
Right to light is a civil matter. Any window (whether to residential property or commercial property) accrues a right to light after 20 years. This right exists outside the planning sphere, meaning something that is acceptable in planning terms may still be injunctable in Right to Light terms.
Loss of daylight to neighbouring residential windows
is a planning issue. There are long established tests and methodologies for assessing losses of daylight, usually based on Vertical Sky Component, and these are set out in a Building Research Establishment document used by all planners. Losses of up to 20% of VSC are usually considered acceptable in planning terms. Beyond that, it becomes problematic. However, a Council can still grant planning permission for a development that has a detrimental impact on its neighbours provided the 'offending' development provides a tangible planning benefit which outweighs the harm. Hence, Burnley Borough Council could grant permission for an enormous new tier on the Bob Lord Stand which wipes out a huge amount of daylight to the neighbouring houses if, for example, the Council considered the economic benefits of another 3,000 visitors to Burnley outweighed the harm to three or four houses opposite.
As for the objector at Stamford Bridge, I happen to be working with the Right to Light consultant who represented Chelsea FC. The objector did
quite well out of the deal, but he was holding out for a hell of a lot more until Hammersmith and Fulham Council threatened him with compulsory purchase of his property by invoking a provision in the Town and Country Planning Act that is designed to prevent right to light objections from stopping development.