Permitted development and right to light

[SmartyKarty]

Hi,
I am planning on building a rear extension on my 1960's semi-detached home. It is a single storey 3m deep extension the full width of the original house and would comply with permitted development.

However, my adjoined neighbours have a downstairs window on their rear wall, the centre of which is 1.2m from our shared boundary. I have been looking into the 'right to light' and I would contravene the 45 degree rule with the extension (i.e. the new wall on the boundary would cross the line drawn at 45 degrees from the centre of the window). The architect says this is OK to do as I do not have to apply for planning permission. I have spoken to the neighbours and they seem ok with my plans too. So if I dont need to then I dont want to reduce the size of the extension.

However, my concern is that at some point in the future my neighbours could, if they wanted to, complain that I am conteravening the right to light rule. Even if I verbally agree it with them before I build it they might still complain once it is built (eg " I didnt realise it would be THAT big" etc).

I dont know if it's a factor but the rear gardens are east facing and my extension would be north of their garden/house/window. Also, the window is for their lounge but it is not the only window in that room.

So does permitted development trump right to light and can I ignore it?
If I agree it with my current neighbours, if new ones move in could they complain?
Is there perhaps a legal document that my neighbours could sign to say they are happy with my plans?

If anyone has any experience of this I would be grateful to hear your views.

Thanks.

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

If the proposed development complies with the Permitted Development rules then it shall be permissible end of story. The Right to Light is irrelevant (and in fact some authorities do not even use it anyway, it is not legislation). These are the rules: http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/permission/commonprojects/extensions/
This also assumes your house has not had any of its Permitted Development rules taken away over the years. Your architect should have checked this with planning if you have not done so yourself.

Your neighbours be them current or new or anyone else for that matter could complain. If that happens your local authority could visit/write to you ordering you to stop works on site demanding that you prove that your plans are within the rules before you continue in which case you may need to apply for a Lawful Development Certificate. But at the end of the day provided the development meets the PD rules such a certificate is guaranteed to be granted. Not very likely though if they're happy with it though.

I only recommend clients get a Lawful Development Certificate for something that is not abundantly clearly within the rules or if you plan to sell your house in the next few years as solicitors have a habit of bringing these items up at somewhat inconvenient times!

 

[SmartyKarty]

Thanks for your reply and thats exactly what I want to hear!

I was going to apply for a certificate of lawful development anyway as the architect has recommended it and it has also been checked that rules for PD havent been taken away.

The main reason I'm concerned is that if some reason I had to go down the planning permission route then permission probably wouldnt be granted unless I cut the corner off the building because of the right to light!? I find it a bizarre siutation that I can get away with more when folowing PD.

 

[jeds]

If it's within PD rules there is nothing under planning legislation that can stop you building.

Rights to light legislation is a separate issue and neighbours can always make claims if they think their light has been blocked or reduced. The criteria is based on the overall amount of light received rather than the amount it has been reduced. that's to say you could reduce your neighbours light but if they still have a enough for normal needs then there would be no claim. The amount they are entitled to is 'that sufficient for normal needs' - which I think is usually taken as one candle, one foot away. Which actually isn't very much.

Even when cases have gone to court over the years judges have normally awarded fairly small financial compensation payments rather than ordered a building to be altered. There are exceptions - a case in Brighton the judge made a developer remove a top floor because it blocked light to a neighbouring stairwell. But these are rare and I'm sure the developer was taking the **** and deserved all he got.

If your extension is to the North and the window is not the only window to the room then it's unlikely your neighbours room would be affected sufficiently. If I were you I would ask your neighbour to confirm they are happy with your plans and specifically that they are happy it will not affect the overall amount of light into their room. That would effectively waive any right to claim from them or future neighbours.

 

[SmartyKarty]

I have seen something similar to this written on quite a few websites about right to light - "Unless the owner of the affected window waives his rights he would be entitled to take legal action against the landowner if he considered that his light is being blocked."

Does waive his right just mean he verbally agrees to it before I start work or is there a more technical/legal process we could follow?

 

[DevilDamo]

As people have said, if the proposals are PD, then it's PD and nobody can object (on planning grounds). Therefore, the right to light and other similar policies are irrelevant.