rockofages
Registered User
- Messages
- 191
Niall, a few things:
1) Colls v Home was in England, where a right to light does exist since 1832 (as noted)
2) The extension is blocking some light, naturally, but not an unreasonable amount (imho)
3) An extension of similar dimension is in place 4 doors down; the people who built it did the same as we did, just told the people next door that they were - the people next door didn't spit the dummy out tho
4) The owner of the house doesn't live there, it's rented. He lives in another town, so is unable to enjoy this house anyway!
Thoughts?
1) Colls v Home was in England, where a right to light does exist since 1832 (as noted)
2) The extension is blocking some light, naturally, but not an unreasonable amount (imho)
3) An extension of similar dimension is in place 4 doors down; the people who built it did the same as we did, just told the people next door that they were - the people next door didn't spit the dummy out tho
4) The owner of the house doesn't live there, it's rented. He lives in another town, so is unable to enjoy this house anyway!
Thoughts?