'Right to light' planning row leaves dentist and wife with £200,000 bill

Victory: Peter and Frances Scott at the Court of Appeal

A couple who had planning permission for an extension at their home have been left with a £200,000 court bill — after a “right-to-light” feud with their neighbours.

Dentist Peter Aimiuwu and his GP wife Catherine believed they could go ahead with the building work at their £1.65 million home in Potters Bar after gaining consent.

But neighbours Peter and Frances Scott sued, arguing that the extension broke the right-to-light rule by putting their home in the shade.

A judge agreed and awarded the Scotts £31,449 damages.

After an Appeal Court hearing the Aimiuwus will have to pay more than £200,000 in costs.

Dentist Peter Aimiuwu, who will have to pay costs of more than £200,000

Experts told the court the extension blocked out light to a bathroom and a garage which the Scotts used as an occasional workshop and office.

After the ruling, Mrs Scott, 49, said: “We asked the Aimiuwus to change the design of their extension — long before they started building it.

"When they started building, and refused to change the design, we went to the law… We feel the Aimiuwus brought the difficulty and costs of this matter on themselves.”

Mr Scott, 51, a building surveyor, told the court he had not formally objected when planning permission was first sought in 2010, hoping to avoid offending his neighbours and being labelled “awkward”.

He and his wife, a management skills trainer, wrote to Hertsmere council pointing out the problems — stopping short of a formal objection — and hoped the plans would be rejected. However, they were approved.

Mr Scott then tried to convince the Aimiuwus not to build the extension, but work began in June 2012, shattering previously “cordial” relations.

At Central London county court in February last year, Judge Edward Cole said the Aimiuwus had believed right-to-light did not affect them as they had planning permission.

Mr Aimiuwu, 55, said there had been an agreement between the couples not to object to work at each other’s houses, and claimed they had stuck to this when the Scotts extended the front of their house.

The Scotts denied making such an agreement and Judge Cole agreed it was “inherently improbable” there was one.

He added that the Aimiuwus “appear to have underplayed the significance of the impact that their work would have on Mr and Mrs Scott and their rights of light”.

At the Appeal Court yesterday, Lord Justice Briggs rejected an application for further hearings as it would only result in “further substantial” bills.

Mr and Dr Aimiuwu declined to comment.

Create a FREE account to continue reading

eros

Registration is a free and easy way to support our journalism.

Join our community where you can: comment on stories; sign up to newsletters; enter competitions and access content on our app.

Your email address

Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number

You must be at least 18 years old to create an account

* Required fields

Already have an account? SIGN IN

By clicking Create Account you confirm that your data has been entered correctly and you have read and agree to our Terms of use , Cookie policy and Privacy policy .

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged in

MORE ABOUT