Planning permission obtained to develop site into hotel and offices – Defendant obtaining part of site and building hotel – Defendant’s lease containing term granting right of light – Plaintiff obtaining remaining part of site and intending to build offices – Extent of right of light – Whether term to be construed differently by reference to other provisions in lease – Plaintiff’s claim dismissed
The London Residuary Body (LRB) invited bids for the development of a site of land and applied for planning permission to develop one part, the Riverside Building, formerly County Hall, the headquarters of the GLC, into an hotel and conference centre, and the other part, the East Land, into an office building. The proposed development involved a degree of physical inter-linking between the two parts, which were divided by a road. The Secretary of State granted planning permission for the development of the site. In 1990 the LRB entered into negotiations with the defendant in relation to the Riverside building, which led to an agreement whereby LRB granted a lease to the defendant, substantially in accordance with the agreement, for a premium of £60m. The right granted as part of the demise to the defendant included in para 6 of Schedule 2 ‘ . . . the free and unobstructed passage of light and air to the premises at all times’. In 1995 LRB transferred the freehold of a block of property which included the East Land to the plaintiff which the plaintiff planned to develop. The development which the plaintiff intended to carry out was more limited than the planning permission obtained by LRB would have allowed. However it would have caused a substantial diminution in the amount of light reaching the Riverside building.
The defendant claimed that para 6 was in familiar and clear terms and that the purpose of the grant was to ensure that nothing was to be done on the East land which would so obstruct the light received by the Riverside building that it would fall below a level required for the ordinary purposes for which that building was used. The plaintiff contended that the right of light granted by para 6 was of only so much light as would survive the construction of offices as contemplated by the planning permission because it was clear that the parties anticipated that offices would be built on the East land.
Held The plaintiff’s claim was dismissed.
1. The plain meaning of para 6 was that nothing was to be done on the East land which would so obstruct the light received by the Riverside building that it would fall below a level required for the ordinary purposes for which the Riverside building was used.
2. Although parts of the lease reserved a number of rights over the Riverside building in relation to the construction of, and access to, the proposed offices on the East land, they were not sufficient to justify a different construction of para 6 or lead to the conclusion that the terms of the agreement reserved a right to LRB and its successors in title to construct offices, or some other similar building, on the East Land, notwithstanding the grant of light in the lease. It was not a commercially absurd construction since it did not render the East land incapable of any possible redevelopment.
Christopher Lockhart-Mummery QC and Timothy Morshead (instructed by Howard Kennedy) appeared for the plaintiff; Michael Barnes QC and Nicholas Taggart (instructed by Winward Fearon & Co) appeared for the defendants.
