Rights of Light - Will Tunbridge Wells Borough Council accept responsibility ?

37 Church Road
Royal Tunbridge Wells

e-mail: telephonehouse@cs.com
internet: http://uk.geocities.com/telephonehouse

Tunbridge Wells Borough Council
FAO John Haynes, Esq
Director, Operational Services
Town Hall, Royal Tunbridge Wells

1 May 2002

Dear Mr Haynes

Telephone House Development - Right of Light
Your ref: JH/SD letters/topl2.doc

We refer to the Minutes of the Operational Services Board Meeting (156/01) on Tuesday 27 November 2001, which state that: He (John Haynes) then addressed the points raised by Mrs Topliss, a number of which indicated a misunderstanding of the very complicated planning process.

May we direct you to our Internet site: http://uk.geocities/telephonehouse/shadowdiagram.html" where you will find the shadow diagrams submitted by the appellant, which formed part of the appellants’ planning application and which we proved to be erroneous.

These were used by your officer in her Report to the Western Area Planning Committee.
The Statement of Common Ground, Matters agreed, 11) reads that based on the information supplied by the appellant (in particular their sunlight and daylight consultant - Schatunowski-Brooks) the Local Planning Authority are satisfied that the appellants have demonstrated that a refusal on the grounds of impact on sunlight and daylight would not be warranted.
Interestingly enough, the Inspector in his appeal decision did not refer to all the houses affected by the loss of light, but confined himself to nos 34 to 38 instead of nos 30 to 44. This clearly indicates that houses 30 and 32 were left out of his report for the reason that they were excluded in the shadow diagrams submitted by the appellant.

May we further draw your attention to Mrs Ruth Chambers’ letter of 15 February 2001 (RCC/DAH/TW/00/01474) where she states that I am no expert on loss of light as a legal issue, but as a qualified planner I am able to offer a view from that perspective.

You may recall that we wrote to you on 30 May 2001 and requested that the Council pay our reasonable costs to have a survey done and, if required, to compensate all affected parties. In your reply of 13 June 2001 (JH/SD letters.topl2.doc) you advised that if you wish to pursue this matter it will be necessary to make proper justification.

Surely, you will now understand our reasoning that the Council has some responsibility in this issue. For this reason, I repeat my request that the Council should accept to pay our reasonable costs for an independent survey on the issue of loss of light and our rights of light.

We consider that we are quite capable of understanding planning issues, take exception to your minuted remark and believe we have just submitted some proof of it.

Yours sincerely
Annemarie Topliss

Schatunowski Brooks - Shadow Diagrams for Telephone House Development

The rights of light and loss of light issue