The Arts vs. The Affluent
The recent Tate Modern nuisance case applies to an extension of the museum, the Blavatnik Building, which offers a 360-degree viewing platform over London that allows visitors a clear view into the adjacent flats of the Neo Bankside complex. The Blavatnik Building opened its doors to the public in 2016 and acts as an important cultural space, for displaying installations as well as video works. The Neo Bankside construction is located directly opposite the Blavatnik extension and comprises a number of luxury flats. The residents of Neo Bankside filed an injunction in 2017 demanding that the museum prevent its visitors from looking into their flats from the platform, or alternatively, an award of damages. In particular, the flat-owners appealed to the law of nuisance and its purpose to protect homeowners from disruptive and interfering activities of neighbours. Following the twofold rejections of the case in lower courts, the UK supreme court has now ruled in favour of the appellants’ appeal in February 2023.
The residents’ involved concerns regarding their privacy rights. They stated that they feel exposed and under constant surveillance in their kitchen and dining areas, which are made up of floor to ceiling glass panels. Their evidence included published photographs and videos, taken by visitors of the Blavatnik Building.
According to the court case, members of the Tate Trustee Board refuted the residents’ claims. The Tate have argued that the platform is a valuable artistic and cultural asset to the public, and that it is an important hosting place for external events that subsidise the museum financially. In an earlier attempt to find a compromise for both parties, the Tate has decreased the opening hours of the platform in 2018 and posted notices, reminding visitors to respect the privacy of the gallery’s neighbours. Those measures were understood to be judged as insufficient by the residents of Neo Bankside.
Contradicting to previous decisions of lower courts, Justice Lord Leggatt described the matter as a “straightforward case of nuisance” in his judgement summary. The 3-2 majority verdict ruled for the liability of the museum with resulting consequences to be decided by the high court.
By arguing that the installation of a viewing platform constitutes neither a common nor an ordinary use of neighbouring land, Leggatt disowns the considerations of earlier hearings, where the justice concluded that the complaint would not have existed if the building was “designed with more wall and less window”. Simultaneously, while stating that there would have been no case of nuisance if a complaint was filed against another complex of flats, rather than a viewing platform, Leggatt diminishes the role of the arts in an urban environment:
“I suspect that what lies behind the rejection of the claim by the courts below is a reluctance to decide that the private rights of a few wealthy property owners should prevent the general public from enjoying an unrestricted view of London and a major national museum from providing public access to such a view.”
Challenging this argument, the mission of the Tate states its vision as follows: “We believe access to art is a universal human right. We want to encourage people to explore the many ways in which art is created and to develop their own creative potential.” A platform which overlooks the juxtaposition of historical and modern architecture might very well be described as a justified source of artistic inspiration to the collective public.
From a cultural viewpoint, rejecting the justification of an artistic installation as appropriate use of neighbouring land in a densely populated metropole like London equals a devaluation of cultural spaces in an urban setting which might have a grave influence on future city planning.
Featured image credits: Unsplash
