Progressing the rights to light debate: Part 2: the grumble point revisited

Purpose - The paper examines the origins of the so-called "grumble point" (a sky factor of 0.2 per cent) as the measure of daylight adequacy in rights to light disputes. It seeks to identify the rationale, and underlying scientific basis, for the adoption of this standard in the early twentieth century. Design/methodology/approach - Analysis of archive materials. Findings - The use of the 0.2 per cent standard does not appear to be based on empirical investigations involving human perceptions of adequate light. No evidence exists of the investigations reputedly undertaken by Percy Waldram during the early twentieth century. Waldram's own writings suggest that the standard began as a "rule of thumb" and was only later justified by reference to other independent reports. These generally do not support the use of the standard and, in any event, were soon superseded by other reports that concluded that it was too low. There is a lack of reliable evidence to justify the original adoption of the 0.2 per cent figure, and many of the assumptions underpinning modern rights to light practice are found to be based on inaccurate information. Research limitations/implications - Continues the debate, started in this journal in 2000, about the future of surveying practice in rights to light disputes. Practical implications - Places new information in the public domain which has implications for the professional liability of surveyors advising clients in rights to light cases. Originality/value - Presents the first investigation into the original scientific basis for modern rights to light practice since its introduction in the early part of the twentieth century

Practice-informed research: An alternative paradigm for scholastic enquiry in the built environment

This paper introduces the concept of practice-informed research. It offers this as an alternative approach to scholarship that has the potential to increase the relevance of research within universities, and to generate an increased level of dialogue between academics and practitioners. The article demonstrates the long academic pedigree of the proposed approach through an examination of established theoretical perspectives. It seeks to encourage debate about the legitimacy of academic research in a vocational subject area, and to encourage the adoption of a greater breadth of research approaches within the built environment subject area

Progressing the rights to light debate – Part 1 : a review of current practice

This study introduces a series of articles which respond to Pitts' call for a debate into current rights to light practice. It summarises relevant areas of law as well as current measurement and valuation practices in this area. Describes the Waldram methodology, grumble point, fifty-fifty rule and the concept of equivalent first zone loss. It also shows how these concepts are used to determine the amount of damages payable where a right to light has been infringed and calls for others to contribute to the debate proposed by Pitts

Unnecessary inconvenience and compensation within the party wall legislation

Examines the obligations to avoid unnecessary inconvenience and to pay compensation for loss or damage within the Party Wall, etc. Act 1996. Considers the argument that the two obligations are directly related. Demonstrates that the obligation to pay compensation only relates to work lawfully undertaken under the Act and that the obligation to avoid unnecessary inconvenience exists to define the limits of such work. Concludes that the two obligations are separate but complementary aspects of the statutory code and that no direct relationship exists between the two

Progressing the rights to light debate: Part 3: judicial attitudes to current practice

Purpose – Aims to examine judicial attitudes to current surveying practice in rights to light disputes. Tests the assumption that the use of the Waldram methodology is endorsed by the courts and seeks to establish whether, despite its acknowledged limitations, its continued use can be justified on this basis. Design/methodology/approach – Analyses reported judgments. Findings – Neither the 50-50 rule, nor any other aspect of the Waldram methodology, has the status of a rule of law, or is otherwise approved of by the courts. On the contrary, the methodology has been the subject of judicial criticism. Although the courts frequently rely on the expert evidence presented to them, they have consistently expressed disquiet over aspects of the methodology. Particular concerns have been expressed over its inability to cater for the effects of sunlight and externally reflected light, on its dependence on internal room design, and on its failure to distinguish task illumination from general room lighting. There is also no indication that the judiciary are aware of the extent to which the Waldram threshold of adequate illuminance falls short of that prescribed by contemporary standards. The paper concludes that the courts' attitudes to the Waldram methodology cannot therefore justify its continued use by surveyors, either when acting in the capacity of expert witness, or when advising clients who may be contemplating litigation in a rights to light dispute. Research limitations/implications – Makes a further contribution to the debate, started in this journal in 2000, about the future of surveying practice in rights to light disputes. Practical implications – Places new information in the public domain which has implications for judges in future rights to light cases, and for the professional liability of surveyors when advising clients in contemplation of possible rights to light litigation. Originality/value – Presents the first comprehensive analysis of judicial attitudes to modern rights to light surveying practice since its introduction in the early part of the twentieth century

The scope for agreement in statutory party wall procedures

Statutory party wall procedures are now an almost inevitable feature of city centre construction projects. They involve the service of notices and the appointment of surveyors who publish awards to resolve a variety of construction-related issues affecting structures in boundary locations. They are part of a statutory code which has operated under the London Building Acts since 1855 and which was extended to the whole of England and Wales by the Party Wall etc Act 1996. The statutory procedures apply to construction operations in three different situations. They are most frequently encountered where works ('party wall works') are carried out to a party wall or other shared boundary structure. They also apply to the erection of a new boundary structure ('line of junction works') and to excavations which have the potential to interfere with the stability of an adjacent building or structure ('adjacent excavations'). There are minor differences between the procedures in each of these three situations. However, they all commence with the service, by a property owner wishing to undertake the work (the 'building owner'), of an originating notice on an adjoining owner whose property will be affected by it. The adjoining owner can respond in a number of different ways but in most cases a dispute will arise between the parties within the meaning of the legislation. Although there is then scope for this to be resolved by a single agreed surveyor the parties will usually each appoint a surveyor and the two surveyors will publish a joint award which will regulate the conduct of the works. Despite the existence of this procedural framework it is common for the parties, or their surveyors, to depart from it by agreement. This may sometimes involve reaching an agreement to undertake the works entirely outside the statutory framework. More frequently, it will involve an agreement, or series of agreements, about the future conduct of the statutory procedures which may be at variance with the strict wording of the legislation. The motivation for the agreement may lie in a wish to avoid the delays and costs associated with the statutory framework. Alternatively, it may arise from a reluctance to institute a formal dispute resolution procedure in situations where, in reality, a situation of amity exists between the parties. Agreements typically arise in four different contexts. Firstly, as stated above, the parties may seek to exclude the Act entirely by concluding an agreement which pre-empts the service of an originating notice. Secondly, in circumstances where an originating notice has already been served, they may seek to avoid the need for surveyors to produce an award by themselves reaching agreement about the nature and conduct of the works. Thirdly, where works have commenced in breach of the Act, the parties sometimes seek to regularise the situation by agreeing on the retrospective operation of the statutory machinery. Finally, and most frequently, the parties or their surveyors may agree that variations can be made to the nature of the proposed work. Although these practices have become commonplace it is unclear whether the Act anticipates that the parties and their surveyors should be free to contract in and out of its provisions at will. This article therefore explores the extent to which they are free to do so. It examines each of the four practices in turn and considers the validity of the agreements reached in each case

Making sense of the party wall legislation: still no easy task

Notes the ambiguities within the party wall legislation. Describes the “proceduralist” and “rightist” approaches to interpretation of the statute. Provides examples of each approach. Traces the development of the current judicial approach to interpretation and describes surveyors’ responses to this. Cites the recent case of Frances Holland School v. Wassef [2001] as demonstrating the consistency of the judicial approach. Discusses issues, raised by the case, relating to ex parte awards and the statutory definition of “owner”. Concludes that surveyors should follow a rightist approach to the legislation, whilst also understanding the limits of the rightist doctrine