黑洞社区

The Supreme Court鈥檚 ruling that the public viewing gallery at Herzog & de Meuron鈥檚 Tate Modern extension is a 鈥渘uisance鈥� to residents of RSHP鈥檚 nearby Neo Bankside apartment scheme is likely to have wider implications for development, property lawyers have said.

One area of particular exposure are projects that feature public viewing space, if that offer is not the primary purpose of the building. The provision of such space in new high-rise buildings has been actively promoted by the City of London Corporation in recent years.

In a decision handed down yesterday, the nation鈥檚 top appeal court said lower courts had been wrong not to categorise hundreds of thousands people using Tate Modern鈥檚 10^th floor viewing gallery as posing a nuisance to inhabitants of the nearby high-end Southwark scheme.

The Supreme Court said the ruling effectively reviewed the 鈥渃ore principles鈥� of the law of nuisance, which categorises nuisance as a use of land that wrongfully interferes with the ordinary use and enjoyment of neighbouring land.

A summary of the Supreme Court鈥檚 decision said the interference must be 鈥渟ubstantial鈥� and that claims could not be successful if a defendant was doing nothing more than making 鈥渃ommon and ordinary use鈥� of their own land.

However, it also said that once nuisance had been established, it was no answer for a defendant to say that they were using their land 鈥渞easonably鈥� or in a way that was 鈥渂eneficial to the public鈥�.

In the case of the Tate Modern, the Supreme Court said inviting members of the public to admire the view from a viewing platform was not a 鈥渃ommon and ordinary鈥� use of the Tate鈥檚 land, even in the context of operating an art museum in a built-up area of south London.

It said the Tate was liable to the claimants for the nuisance caused, and sent the case back to the High Court for the remedy to be decided.

Martin Thomas, a real estate partner at law firm Gowling WLG, said the case made it clear that visual intrusion could be a nuisance, and made a connection between an 鈥渁ctionable nuisance鈥� and activities that were outside of the 鈥渙rdinary use鈥� of a building.

鈥淭his decision will have an important impact for buildings which have public spaces such as viewing galleries which are not directly connected to the use of the property,鈥� he said.

鈥淎 London Eye-esque building is OK, but art galleries, museums or restaurants with ancillary viewing platforms will need to re-consider their position.鈥�

Thomas added that the Supreme Court ruling did not count the fact that Neo Bankside residents had bought new homes with glass wintergardens in a prominent urban location against them.

鈥淭he fact that the neighbours should have known interference would have been possible when purchasing flats with floor to ceiling glass walls was not a defence to the nuisance,鈥� he said.

James Souter, partner and land specialist at law firm Charles Russell Speechlys, said the Tate Modern decision was a 鈥渓andmark moment鈥� for extending the law of nuisance to protect against visual intrusion.

鈥淟ooking ahead, it will be interesting to see whether this case triggers more property owners to make similar claims where they feel they are being over-looked,鈥� he said.

鈥淭he Supreme Court has made it clear that the circumstances where the new law will be applied will be rare but did highlight issues around CCTV and sharing of images from camera phones on social media.鈥�