Dump the two-storey ‘ill-considered’ planning give-away to freeholders, says Sir Julian Lewis
The government needs to rethink its two-storey permitted development give-away that it allowed freeholders in June 2020, according to Sir Julian Lewis.
The Conservative MP of the hardly very urban New Forest East is most exercised on this point, raising it at the last APPG meeting.
He told Mr Gove:
“There is one step the Government took that has not been helpful to leaseholders, and of which I have personal experience: creating a presumption in favour of developments where the airspace above a block of flats is sold and the freeholder then insists on having one or two more floors built on top.
“That can cause immense damage to the building, not to mention disruption, and then who gets the bill for paying for the damage?
“It is transferred from the freeholder to the leaseholders. The Government should think again about that presumption in allowing that sort of ill-considered development.”
https://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/049c012d-0c14-4997-bfcb-c4c1a1c1ac69
Related posts:
Freeholder Andrew Craige Curtis to use two-storey planning give-away at a north London cladding site while leaseholders ruined with remediation bills
Two-storey planning windfall means billions for freeholders, reports The Times
42 MPs back Starmer’s attempt to block rooftop planning give-away to freeholders
The Times reports criticisms of Jenrick’s two-storey planning windfall to what he called ‘egregious’ freeholders
Has Jenrick just handed £1bn each to Astor, Tchenguiz and Wallace Estates with two-storey planning gift?
Insurance pooling to lessen leasehold insurance bills appears to have stalled – but not commissions – says Sir Stephen Timms
Most post war buildings will not take the extra loading so that schemes talked up fail to proceed on an engineering basis. Even if planning is liberalised, the applicant has to satisfy Building Control that it is all feasible. I agree that it could be disruption and noise for existing leaseholders so that there is usually a package of goodies for the leaseholders to make amends even though not a legal requirement
The good things for existing leaseholders tend to be that
1. They tend to be provided with new fire door sets to their flats and building wide alarms as part of the building regs package courtesy of the developer
2 They don’t tend to pay anything for the new roof which replaces an old one and is typically more thermally efficient
3. The developer will generally carry out some other upgrades at no cost to the lessees
4 The fixed costs of the s/c are split amongst more lessees
Our freeholder has a pre-planning enquiry in at the moment for just such a develpment. It would require the building to be covered in scaffolding and opaque sheeting for two years. Since my lease says I should have “peaceful enjoyment” of my flat I’m wondering if I (and the many others in the same situation round the country) would be able to claim for relocation for the duration of the works since the development is purely for profit and not for the benefit of the building (and most likely a buy- to-leave investment?) There is nothing in my lease that allows for “improvements”.