Bankside Yards: London couple could face £3.7m court bill – despite winning case over tower that blocked light to home
A retired couple who sued developers over a 17-storey tower blocking the light from their home could now face a £3.7 million court bill despite winning the case.
Stephen and Jennifer Powell said the Arbor tower, part of the £2bn Bankside Yards project on London’s South Bank, had “significantly” reduced the natural light entering their sixth-floor flat in Bankside Lofts next door.
Bankside Yards is planned to eventually consist of eight towers, including “megastructures” as high as 50 stories.
The Arbor was the first building completed in September 2021.
The Powell couple and their seventh-floor neighbor Kevin Cooper sought an injunction to protect their light rights as the tower, which cost around £35 million to build, was in danger of collapsing.
Deciding on the case at the High Court, Mr Justice Fancourt said he was “significantly affected” by the lights being cut in the couple’s flat.
It ordered the site’s joint developer, Ludgate House Ltd, to pay £500,000 compensation to the Powells, as well as £350,000 to Mr Cooper.
But the landlords now face an offer to pay the £3.7 million legal costs of the case after the judge rejected a bid for an injunction requiring the tower to be demolished.
During the hearing, the court heard the Powells had lived in their flat for more than 20 years, while Mr Cooper, a property financier, bought his seventh-floor flat in 2021.
Their lawyer, Tim Calland, told Mr Justice Fancourt: “The Bankside Yards development will consist of eight towers, the tallest of which reach up to 50 storeys. Arbor’s marketing material describes it as a megastructure and boasts exceptional natural light.”
“Plaintiffs argue that this will be achieved, unfairly, at the expense of their own lights.
“Light is not an unnecessary ‘add-on’ to a residence. Light not only provides pleasure, it also provides benefits such as health, well-being and productivity that defendants use to advertise the development.”
“That is why plaintiffs brought their claims.”
Mr Justice Fancourt awarded compensation to the Powells and Mr Cooper, saying the light in parts of the two flats was left at a level “insufficient for the ordinary use and enjoyment of those rooms”.
But he refused an injunction to neighbors requiring the Arbor to be replaced or demolished, saying more than £200 million would be wasted demolishing and rebuilding the tower, causing massive “environmental damage”.
At a new hearing this week, John McGhee KC, on behalf of the developer, argued the decision meant the Powells and Mr Cooper must pay the huge costs of the case.
He told the judge: “The plaintiffs should be ordered to pay the defendant’s costs of the claim because the party that successfully resisted the plaintiffs’ request for injunctive relief was generally the successful party.
“These claims were not about monetary damages, but rather whether the plaintiffs could obtain an order requiring the defendant to alter its development so that the plaintiffs could preserve their lights.
“Plaintiffs failed to achieve the ‘objective of their claims,’ namely to obtain injunctive relief, and these claims are dismissed.
“Also for the defendant, the main concern in these proceedings was the possibility of injunction. If injunction had been granted, the defendant would have been required to demolish part of the Arbor at a cost of £15-20 million and pay a further £225 million for reconstruction.”
“It is true that the plaintiffs were ordered for compensation and interest in the amount of £397,484.64 in Mr Cooper’s case and £567,835.21 in the Powells’ case. However, these sums, particularly in respect of damages, were fully consistent with the amounts offered by the defendant and were only a small fraction of the £3.37 million claimed by Mr Cooper and the £3 million claimed by the Powells.”
He said the demands were over-inflated and were more than three times the value of the apartments involved.
“In real life, the defendant is the winner in this case because it was able to continue and continue its development unhampered by the plaintiffs’ claims.
“The claimants are the real losers, having failed to achieve their stated sole purpose of bringing these claims in the first place.
“For these reasons, the court is invited to find that the defendant is the defendant and accordingly decide that the plaintiffs must pay the defendant’s costs.”
The lawyer added that homeowners must pay 75 percent of the developer’s costs if the judge disagrees with their argument that they should be paid the entire bill.
Tim Calland, for the neighbours, although they disagreed, told the judge: “Without doubt, the plaintiffs are the successful party in the case: the court awarded them a substantial sum of damages, which in the Powells’ case exceeded the largest sum previously awarded in a civil rights action and was equal in Mr Cooper’s case.”
“The defendant may be relieved that an injunction was not granted, but that does not make him the successful party. His defense to the claim failed.
“Prior to this case, the defendant was only willing to offer settlements to plaintiffs at book value. They had to bring these extraordinarily difficult and expensive claims and see them through to trial to establish and defend their rights.
“They were successful in every respect: in accordance with the general rule, the plaintiffs should be awarded the costs.”
The developers also argue that they failed to honor an offer they made to settle Mr Cooper’s pre-litigation claim, but their lawyers argue that the offer is invalid on costs implications because it involves matters that go beyond those discussed in the case.
While rejecting the measure to demolish the tower in his decision in 2025, the judge said: “The plaintiffs say that the preliminary injunction is the correct solution to be given because the defendant deliberately continues the development of the tower against the rights of the plaintiffs, knowing that there is probably a violation and taking the chance to buy out the plaintiffs and anyone else in an equal situation.
“The claimants are people who say they have a special and strong interest in the benefits of natural light coming directly from the sky and do not want to see this light taken away from them as a fait accompli.
“The situation was, I am sure, exacerbated… by the new development being advertised as having ‘exceptional levels of natural light’ which improved productivity and well-being, which Mr Cooper stated meant the developer helped with its own light and offered a modest payment while considering selling it to others at a high price.”
But he added: “In modern times, there are strong arguments as to why the development cost of more than £200 million should not be wasted. “Also, a more complex demolition contract would cause significant harm, resulting in significant environmental damage.
“There is a significant public interest to be taken into account, apart from the financial interests of the developer, whose demolition order may be said to be oppressive compared to the degree of harm caused to the plaintiffs.”
The decision on costs will be made at a later date.
