Sadia's objections on light and other grounds

Sadia, a local resident writes about various issues about the TTT including light pollution, the more residents who write and object the better. I have council for an email address to send late objections to and will publish it when I have it. Sadia's piece follows:

Overpopulation- Redbridge is already the second most crowded borough in London and this high rise flat may well push us over the edge.

Air quality and increased pollution- The Public Health Outcomes Framework found that 6.4% of deaths in Redbridge in 2014 were attributable to long-term exposure to poor air quality. As such, Redbridge continues to exceed national targets for air pollution. The council therefore created the Air Quality Action Plan to attempt to tackle air pollution in the area. Allowing this high rise flat to be built will go against your own plans to reduce air pollution, as a high rise flat of this nature will mean more cars on the roads attributing to more fumes and leading to more risks to people’s health.

Crime rates will increase- time and time again, studies and articles have shown that crime rates increase where there are high rise buildings. In fact, one study showed that that those in high-rise accommodation committed measurably more (petty) crime then those in low rise buildings. Furthermore, sharing semi-public spaces with strangers can make residents more suspicious and fearful of crime, which in turn effects there mental health.

Fire risk- we only need to look at the devastating fires which took place in Grenfell towers, Notting Hill Tower Block, Gamble Hill Croft in Bramley, and De Pass Gardens in Barking to see how hazardous a high risk block of flats like this could be. If we fail to learn from our mistakes we only have ourselves to blame for what happens next.

Increased risk of disease- The sheer number of people sharing a single building can also increase the threat from communicable diseases such as influenza, which spread easily when hundreds of people share a building’s hallways, door handles and lift buttons.

Rights to light – a new high rise flat of this size would infringe on the light already enjoyed by the local residents making it an illegal high rise.

Reference is made to the case of HKRUK II (CHC) Ltd v Heaney [2010] EWHC 2245 (Ch); [2010] 3 EGLR 15;

“Where although the loss of light affected less than 1% of the neighbouring building, the most badly affected areas were deemed to be 'star rooms'. On that basis the Court found that the injury to the Defendant was not small and an injunction was awarded”.

Reference is also made to the case of Tamares (Vincent Square) Ltd v Fairpoint Properties (Vincent Square) Ltd: CHD 8 FEB 2007

“In this case the court assessed damages in lieu of an injunction. The court had previously found that the defendant company (F) was liable to the claimant company (T) for infringing a right to light to two windows that illuminated some stairs leading to the basement of T's building”. 

It is clear from the case law alone that the reduction of light does not have to be significant in order to be an encroachment. In this case it is submitted that a high rise flat of this size would most definitely infringe and encroach on the light received by several properties and houses in the local area and is therefore illegal.

We further rely on Section 3 of the Prescription Act 1832 Act which provides as follows:

"When the access and use of light to and for any dwelling house, workshop, or other building shall have been actually enjoyed therewith for the full period of 20 years without interruption, the right thereto shall be deemed absolute and indefeasible, any local usage or custom to the contrary notwithstanding, unless it shall appear that the same was enjoyed by some consent or agreement expressly made or given for that purpose by deed or writing."

There will be several residents who have residing in close proximity to where the flats are being proposed for more then 20 years and have enjoyed that right for that period of time. It is illegal to now attempt to deprive them of that right.