Planning matters

As a specialist in the field of natural light analysis for property development, I’ve spent over 20 years navigating the intricate relationship between rights of light and modern urban development. While it might sound like a niche subject, rights of light plays a critical role in shaping how we design buildings, how developments impact their surroundings, and even how legal disputes are resolved. It’s an issue that’s crucial for both developers and architects—and one that has significant implications for the future of urban settings.

In this blog, I’ll share some of the key aspects of my work, the tools we use to carry out these analyses, and why I’m so passionate about ensuring that we develop light-sensitive and efficient spaces in our cities.

Firstly, what are rights of light. In simple terms, rights of light refers to the legal right that a property owner has to receive natural light into their space. When a new development is proposed, especially one that could block existing light, the property owners of neighbouring buildings may have the right to challenge the development if it significantly reduces the amount of light they currently receive.

We create computer models to simulate the existing scenario, the proposed scenario, and how neighbouring buildings are impacted. We analyse how much light was received before and how it would be affected once the new development is in place. This model helps us identify potential risks to neighbouring properties and ideally prevent any light-related disputes before they escalate.

The technical side of rights of light analysis has come a long way over the years. Computer simulations are used to assess light levels. The traditional calculation is quite straightforward: If a room loses light such that less than 50% of its area that can see o.2% of the sky a rights of light injury may be present.

However, the courts have shown flexibility with this rule, especially when it comes to residential properties. The legal gray area between 50% and 60% light retention can be tricky to navigate, and while it’s not a hard-and-fast rule, it’s a starting point for negotiations. That’s where the art of arbitration comes into play—especially if you're dealing with proactive developers who want to find a solution that works for everyone.

In recent years, there have been major updates to the way daylight within properties is tested, especially for proposed developments. The 2022 changes introduced new guidelines that allow for more granular analysis of how much natural light will enter a room. We can now test daylight levels by considering factors like seasonal variations (for instance, how much light will enter a room in summer versus winter), the impact of trees or nearby buildings, and much more.

This technological leap is transforming how we understand daylight. But here's the rub—rights of light is still handled the traditional way, focusing on light loss and legal disputes, rather than integrating newer methods that could potentially show if there’s truly a nuisance caused by light loss. While modern daylight analysis helps us understand light distribution and impact, rights of light disputes still rely on older methods and often, the courts tend to fall back on the traditional standards.

There’s an opportunity here to rethink how we approach rights of light. By blending modern daylight analysis techniques with rights of light testing, we could potentially streamline the process and make it more reflective of the true impact of light loss.

It’s important to note the distinction between daylight and sunlight issues, which are planning matters, and rights of light, which are private legal matters. In a planning context, developers are often required to show how their proposed developments will affect the amount of daylight and sunlight in neighbouring properties, especially for residential buildings. This is assessed using guidelines like the British Standard (BS (EN) 17037), which sets out daylight targets for new developments.

However, rights of light is a different beast altogether. It doesn’t factor into the planning process and is purely a private matter between the property owner and the developer. While planning officers may care about the effect a new development will have on natural light to neighbouring properties, they won’t take rights of light disputes into account during the planning process.

It’s a tricky area, as these two aspects often overlap, but as a rights of light specialist, it’s important to differentiate the two and approach them with the appropriate legal and technical considerations.

Now, some of you might be wondering, “Why does Toby seem so passionate about rights of light?” The truth is, the best part of this work for me is the problem-solving. I’ve had the privilege of working with developers who are willing to roll up their sleeves and get involved early on in the process to mitigate rights of light risks. Whether it’s tweaking the design, adjusting the height of a building, or negotiating settlements, there’s a real satisfaction in knowing that the final design is both functional and legally sound.

Over the years, I’ve had the opportunity to work on some amazing projects where the shape and design of the building were directly influenced by natural light considerations. You might walk past a rounded building or an oddly shaped structure and never know that its unique design was a result of light analysis. It’s these kinds of challenges that excite me—the chance to work with developers, architects, and planning teams to create spaces that are not only aesthetically pleasing but also function well in terms of light distribution.

As urban areas continue to grow and buildings become taller and more complex, the right to light will play an increasingly important role in the way we design, build, and navigate legal challenges. Modern technology has the potential to revolutionize how we analyse light in our built environment, and we’re already seeing changes in the way daylight is assessed.

However, when it comes to rights of light, there’s still work to be done. It’s a fascinating area of property development, one that requires a blend of legal expertise, technical skill, and creative problem-solving. I look forward to the future of light analysis and how we can continue to innovate to ensure that our developments are both light-friendly and legally compliant.

 

The Government recently issued a written response (6^th February 2025) to the House of Lords Built Environment Committee's report, 'High Streets: Life beyond retail?’ published in November 2024. This blog covers the Government's response to recommendations, following our earlier analysis of the original report in December.

The Government's response points to measures such as High Street Rental Auctions, alongside wider aims for devolution and local authority investment to promote micro interventions at the local level. There is admission that a full response, including on any policy updates, is deferred, but the report nevertheless provides 'the most up-to-date position as of now'. Central is the Government’s commitment to empowering local authorities to take local action to enhance vitality and viability, in recognition that each high street has a unique combination of issues amongst recurring themes: high vacancy rates, falling footfall, changing consumer habits and in some cases, a need for imaginative repurposing.

In acknowledgement of this need for localised and, in some cases, bespoke solutions, and in accordance with its broader strategy, the Government’s response points towards ambitions of further devolution, coupled with financial support for local government backed initiative for achieving the recommendations set out in the House of Lords Built Environment Committee's report. Indeed, this constituted the bulk of the responses to recommendations relating to as diverse topics as enhancing transport networks, local markets, local authority property acquisition, and it also forms the mechanism for the new Community Right to Buy. It was also cited in the answer to the Lords’ suggestion for dedicated ‘town centre managers’. An earlier Lichfields blog suggests this unlikely to be implemented consistently because of resourcing and funding disparities.

The Government’s response references specific measures for the ‘rebuilding’ of local government, through targeted funding such as the Recovery Grant to address regional disadvantages and removal of competition for funding streams. By targeting financial improvements to Local Authorities, much of the Government’s response is delegated to equipping Local Authorities to take local action, which includes decisions on whether a ‘town centre manager’ is appropriate use of individual budgets, or whether such resource is better utilised elsewhere.

However, increased local authority powers and funding must be paired at the national level with clear policy and guidance to create consistent planning conditions to attract town centre investment. In terms of this national framework, and any future National Development Management Policies to protect town centres, the Government’s response was limited in detail.

Our previous analysis pointed to the need for an update to the ‘Town Centres and Retail’ parts of the Planning Practice Guidance to improve consistency of decisions and reduce delays. There is yet no update; but the Government has voiced its intention to consult on National Development Management Policies in the Spring.

Beyond this potential for updated guidance there is no indication of significant changes to established policy. Whilst it will be kept under review, the Government has confirmed that it has no plans yet to extend Class E or amend Permitted Development Rights. The sequential test will continue to apply to retail, but will not be expanded to cover public services as suggested in the Lords’ Report. Whilst the Government has acknowledged the value of local service provision on the high street, location will continue to be decided by broader infrastructure delivery strategies and at the local level.

The Government’s response did not directly respond to the Lords’ recommendation that the ‘town centre first’ approach be maintained in the NPPF. The response instead referenced the sequential test. Rigid application of the ‘town centre first’ approach often catches developments which cannot be accommodated in these locations. Future consultation may provide an opportunity to embed additional flexibility to more closely align with a changing commercial occupier market, enabling Local Authorities to consider the needs of individual developments and their contributions to local requirements and growth, in balance with the need to direct appropriate development to the high street.

The Government’s growth agenda has been applied to the high street through support for businesses, reiterating in its response the proposed reforms to the business rates system, and signposting to the publication of the Small Business Strategy later this year. The Government is also expanding the tools available to Local Authorities: not through planning policy reform, but through initiatives such as the High Street Rental Auctions. An Early Adopters programme has been launched to provide actionable feedback, with Bassetlaw, Darlington and Mansfield councils as confirmed participants.

The Government’s response also pointed to the Long-Term Plan for Towns, High Steet Accelerators, and Community Right to buy to emphasise the role of community and business involvement in partnership working for regeneration. There was mention of forthcoming plan-making reforms to support community involvement, requiring local plans to be shorter with increased community engagement. These measures sit firmly within the devolution agenda, establishing frameworks for action by communities, local business, and local authorities.

In this context of devolution, there perhaps remains a gap for strategy at the regional level. At the end of January, North East Mayor Kim McGuinness announced plans to form a High Streets Commission along with other local leaders. As identified in our recent blog, this could form an important strategy for ensuring devolution delivers the right benefits, tailored to ensure that diversification and re-purposing contributes to broader strategic goals. We have previously emphasised the need for greater regional collaboration in the plan-making process; and perhaps strategic initiatives such as this Commission will occupy the currently vacant space between national planning policy and local implementation tools.

The Government has responded to the Lords’ recommendations in part, with a fuller response outlining policy implications expected in due course. However, in doing so it has been helpful for the Government to further outline the tools available, and has suggested that financial support for business is likely to come in future through local channels via devolution and increased financing of local government. This will assist, in our view, local entrepreneurial reponses, such as those being trialled in the North East and an increasing array of initiatives delegated through local action, recognising that there is not a ‘one size fits all’ solution to achieving renaissance within our town centres.

There is, however, little indication of the direction of travel for bolstering national guidance and planning policy for town centres, but by its own admission, a full policy response remains in development, with suggested additional consultation in the coming months. There remains, in our view, a need to consider the potential of Class E in support of regeneration, and greater understanding of changing operator needs, which may be reflected through greater policy flexibility. In the meantime, regional strategies such as the High Streets Commission may take the reins, and provide a template for local, Government backed entrepreneurial initiative.