Tunbridge Wells Borough Council
FAO Martin Harris, Borough Secretary and Solicitor
Town Hall, Royal Tunbridge Wells
27 May 2002
Dear Mr Harris
Telephone House Development – Rights of Light
I refer to Mr John Haynes’ letter of 7 May 2002 which, together with our letter of 1 May 2002, has been copied to you.
Would you please advise us on the following points:
- Will the Council be able to reimburse us for the cost of light survey bearing in mind the special circumstances of this development. [Will the Council accept full responsibility for the aggrievement residents will suffer due to Policy H6 (a)?]
- You will recall that the scheme was recommended by officers; there also were errors in the shadow diagrams submitted by the developer and not detected by planning officers (please see http://uk.geocities.com/telephonehouse/shadowdiagram.html); and Policy H6(a).
- Would you please explain to us the precise right which we have under Section 2 of the 1955 Rights of Light Act? We would be more than happy to meet with you.
- How does the Council’s Land Charges Section fit into the picture?
- Would you, as the Senior Manager responsible for the Council’s Land Charges Section,
be the person who would negotiate a settlement on our behalf?
We look forward to hearing from you.
Yours sincerely
Annemarie Topliss
Secretary
|
|
The rights of light and loss of light issue
|
|
|
Bizzarely, Policy H6(a) allocated for Telephone House was identical to the two refused planning applications for the Telephone House development.
[1st: refused at delegated officers level - 2nd: refused by the Councillors of the Western Area Planning Committee].
It is the most controversial document, produced by the Tunbridge Wells Borough Council, leading to the Telephone House Debacle.
|