Planning Permission Refused due to Daylight Impacts

London Borough of Waltham Forest Council has refused a long running planning application to add a new floor of residential accommodation at Bridge Court in Leyton, London. After a battle over flawed light impact assessments and with input from BRE to assist our client’s objections, the Council eventually refused permission due to insufficient information regarding daylight impacts and failure to secure necessary legal agreements.

Since November 2022, Richard Buxton Solicitors have represented local residents objecting to a planning application for roof extensions at Bridge Court, Lea Bridge Road, Leyton E10 7JS. The proposal would add a fourth floor to existing blocks, creating 8 additional self-contained flats.

Following the resolution to grant planning permission on 14 June 2022, our client instructed Building Research Establishment Group (BRE) to review the daylight and sunlight impacts of the proposed development. BRE designed the standard methodology used to assess daylight and sunlight impacts which the Applicant had purported to use in their application documents. Daylight is a technical matter, and it is imperative that the results presented are accurate (see our previous cases: R (Rainbird) v London Borough of Tower Hamlets [2018] EWHC 657 and R (Guerry) v London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham [2018] EWHC 2899.

BRE identified a number of discrepancies and omissions in the application documents, and we wrote to the Council on this basis in November 2022 to highlight that these issues undermined the advice given during the June committee meeting when members resolved to grant planning permission.

The Applicant then provided an updated daylight and sunlight report in October 2023 which again, BRE reviewed and found flawed. After we wrote to the Council, the report was updated a second time by the Applicant and reviewed by BRE in October 2024. BRE maintained that the Applicant’s report was unreliable for the following reasons:

1. The report was materially incomplete on key issues, including adverse impacts on vertical sky components and daylight distribution, which would arise with the development.
2. Some data between the two reports was not consistent.
3. Some data was not analysed and, where done by BRE, the results show resulting light levels below BRE standards – something not spelled out in any clear manner in the Applicant’s updated daylight reports.

On 16 September 2025 the planning application was refused for two reasons.

First, due to the Applicant’s failure to provide sufficient information regarding loss of light and, in turn, the quality of accommodation for existing occupants. Without such detail the Council could not confirm that the development would not breach relevant planning policies.

Second, the development had failed to enter into a legal agreement (s106 agreement) to mitigate the potential impact of the scheme.