A quiet retirement for Stephen and Jennifer Powell has been thrown into turmoil, facing a potential bill of millions after a legal battle over sunlight. Their London flat, once bathed in natural light, found itself increasingly shadowed by the rising presence of a new development.
The source of their distress? Arbor Tower, a gleaming, 17-story office building erected on the South Bank. The Powells, along with their neighbor Kevin Cooper, argued the tower dramatically diminished the light reaching their homes, disrupting the peaceful enjoyment of their properties.
They took the developers to court, seeking an injunction – a legal order that could have forced alterations, or even demolition, of the nearly £35 million structure. The stakes were incredibly high, threatening the future of the ambitious Bankside Yards project, planned to eventually encompass eight towering structures, some reaching 50 stories.
Initially, the Powells and Mr. Cooper found victory. Justice Fancourt agreed the tower had “substantially affected” their right to light, awarding them a combined £850,000 in damages – a landmark sum in rights-of-light cases. However, the judge stopped short of ordering the demolition or significant alteration of Arbor Tower, citing the immense financial waste it would entail.
Now, that refusal has dramatically shifted the landscape of the case. The developers are seeking to recoup a staggering £3.7 million in legal costs from the Powells and Mr. Cooper, arguing they were ultimately unsuccessful in their primary goal: to halt the development.
The court heard how the Powells had enjoyed their sixth-floor flat since 2002, while Mr. Cooper purchased his seventh-floor residence in 2021. Both believed the marketing promises of “exceptional natural light” associated with the Bankside Yards development were fundamentally undermined by the construction of Arbor Tower.
The developers’ legal team emphasized that the case wasn’t about monetary compensation, but about control – the right to dictate the development’s form. They contend that because the injunction was denied, the Powells and Mr. Cooper should bear the financial burden of the lengthy legal proceedings.
However, the Powells’ barrister countered that the substantial damages awarded prove their success in the litigation. They argue that the developers’ defense ultimately failed, and relief at avoiding demolition doesn’t equate to overall victory in the case.
A further complication arises from a settlement offer made to Mr. Cooper, which his legal team claims was invalid due to its scope extending beyond the core issues of the lawsuit. The final decision on who will pay the enormous legal bill now rests with the judge, with a ruling expected at a later date.
The case highlights the complex intersection of property rights, urban development, and the enduring human desire for natural light, leaving the retired couple facing a potentially devastating financial outcome.
