Chelsea FC Caught Offside By A Family's Right To Light

The dispute between the Crosthwaite family, the owners of a neighbouring residential cottage, and Chelsea FC highlights the risk of a developer assuming it can acquire a neighbour's right to light by offering the neighbours suitable compensation. A developer must always remember that the primary remedy for infringement of a property right, including a right to light is, an injunction.

Background

Chelsea FC successfully secured planning permission for a significant GBP 1 billion redevelopment of their Stamford Bridge stadium. However, the scale of the redevelopment threw up a number of right to light claims from neighbouring residents occupying properties around the stadium. Despite compensatory payments proving satisfactory for the majority of the residents, the Crosthwaites had not reached an agreement with Chelsea FC and wished to continue to oppose the footballing giants.

The Crosthwaites successfully obtained an injunction in May 2017, putting the brakes on Chelsea FC's redevelopment plans. The injunction prevented development and even the demolishment of the existing stadium. The courts do have a wide discretion to grant damages in lieu but in this instance, an injunction was nevertheless granted.

Section 203 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016 ("HPA 2016")

Under s. 203 HPA 2016, a local authority can carry out a development if planning permission has been granted, even if it interferes with third party property rights like rights of way, easements and rights to light. However, the land in question must be held by the local authority and it must be shown that the development is in the public interest. If these requirements are met, instead of an injunction, the right holder is only entitled to statutory compensation based on injurious affection. Such statutory compensation is commonly a lot less than the likely damages that might be agreed with a developer or that the court might award in lieu of an injunction.

Taking advantage of s. 203 HPA 2016, Chelsea FC leased the land to Hammersmith and Fulham Council ("HFC") before securing a leaseback from them. The stadium development was successfully argued to be in the public interest due to the community wide benefits it brought, such as, amongst others, increased affordable housing. Therefore, by relying upon the local authority utilising their powers provided by statute, Chelsea FC was able to proceed with the redevelopment.

However, the Crosthwaites next proceeded to challenge HFC's...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT