• Menu
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

Before Header

  • Home
  • What is LKP
  • Find everything …
  • Contact
Donate

Leasehold Knowledge Management Logo

Secretariat of the All Party Parliamentary Group on leasehold reform

Mobile Menu

  • Home
  • What is LKP
  • Find everything …
  • Contact
  • Advice
  • News
    • Find everything …
    • About Peverel group
    • APPG
    • ARMA
    • Bellway
    • Benjamin Mire
    • Brixton Hill Court
    • Canary Riverside
    • Charter Quay
    • Chelsea Bridge Wharf
    • Cladding scandal
    • Competition and Markets Authority / OFT
    • Commonhold
    • Communities Select Committee
    • Conveyancing Association
    • Countrywide
    • MHCLG
    • E&J Capital Partners
    • Exit fees
    • FirstPort
    • Fleecehold
    • Forfeiture
    • FPRA
    • Gleeson Homes
    • Ground rent scandal
    • Hanover
    • House managers flat
    • House of Lords
    • Housing associations
    • Informal lease extension
    • Insurance
    • IRPM
    • Jim Fitzpatrick MP
    • John Christodoulou
    • Justin Bates
    • Justin Madders MP
    • Law Commission
    • LEASE
    • Liam Spender
    • Local authority leasehold
    • London Assembly
    • Louie Burns
    • Martin Paine
    • McCarthy and Stone
    • Moskovitz / Gurvits
    • Mulberry Mews
    • National Leasehold Campaign
    • Oakland Court
    • Park Homes
    • Parliament
    • Persimmon
    • Peverel
    • Philip Rainey QC
    • Plantation Wharf
    • Press
    • Property tribunal
    • Prostitutes
    • Quadrangle House
    • Redrow
    • Retirement
    • Richard Davidoff
    • RICS
    • Right To Manage Federation
    • Roger Southam
    • Rooftop development
    • RTM
    • Sean Powell
    • SFO
    • Shared ownership
    • Sinclair Gardens Investments
    • Sir Ed Davey
    • Sir Peter Bottomley
    • St George’s Wharf
    • Subletting
    • Taylor Wimpey
    • Tchenguiz
    • Warwick Estates
    • West India Quay
    • William Waldorf Astor
    • Windrush Court
  • Parliament
  • Accreditation
  • [Custom]
Menu
  • Advice
  • News
      • Find everything …
      • About Peverel group
      • APPG
      • ARMA
      • Bellway
      • Benjamin Mire
      • Brixton Hill Court
      • Canary Riverside
      • Charter Quay
      • Chelsea Bridge Wharf
      • Cladding scandal
      • Competition and Markets Authority / OFT
      • Commonhold
      • Communities Select Committee
      • Conveyancing Association
      • Countrywide
      • MHCLG
      • E&J Capital Partners
      • Exit fees
      • FirstPort
      • Fleecehold
      • Forfeiture
      • FPRA
      • Gleeson Homes
      • Ground rent scandal
      • Hanover
      • House managers flat
      • House of Lords
      • Housing associations
      • Informal lease extension
      • Insurance
      • IRPM
      • Jim Fitzpatrick MP
      • John Christodoulou
      • Justin Bates
      • Justin Madders MP
      • Law Commission
      • LEASE
      • Liam Spender
      • Local authority leasehold
      • London Assembly
      • Louie Burns
      • Martin Paine
      • McCarthy and Stone
      • Moskovitz / Gurvits
      • Mulberry Mews
      • National Leasehold Campaign
      • Oakland Court
      • Park Homes
      • Parliament
      • Persimmon
      • Peverel
      • Philip Rainey QC
      • Plantation Wharf
      • Press
      • Property tribunal
      • Prostitutes
      • Quadrangle House
      • Redrow
      • Retirement
      • Richard Davidoff
      • RICS
      • Right To Manage Federation
      • Roger Southam
      • Rooftop development
      • RTM
      • Sean Powell
      • SFO
      • Shared ownership
      • Sinclair Gardens Investments
      • Sir Ed Davey
      • Sir Peter Bottomley
      • St George’s Wharf
      • Subletting
      • Taylor Wimpey
      • Tchenguiz
      • Warwick Estates
      • West India Quay
      • William Waldorf Astor
      • Windrush Court
  • Parliament
  • Accreditation
You are here: Home / Latest News / Two-storey planning windfall means billions for freeholders, reports The Times

Two-storey planning windfall means billions for freeholders, reports The Times

July 2, 2020 //  by Sebastian O'Kelly

The Leasehold Knowledge Partnership’s concerns over the two-storey planning give-away to owners of residential freeholds – worth billions – is reported in The Times today.

Robert Jenrick’s flats reform gifts huge windfall to investors

Robert Jenrick, the housing secretary, has given a “multibillion-pound” planning windfall to freehold investors including those in a fund run by David Cameron’s brother-in-law. Under reforms, owners of residential tower blocks will be allowed to extend their developments upwards by two storeys without planning permission from the start of next month.

The newspaper focusses on William Waldorf Astor’s secretive £2 billion Long Harbour fund – where beneficial ownership of the Adriatic Land and Abacus Land freeholds are hidden and often offshore.

In evidence to the Communities Select Committee this year, Long Harbour said it managed 190,000 flats.

LKP argues that about 1,900 freeholds could qualify for two-storey planning windfall adding four flats each. If sold for a profit of £250,000 each, the fund will have risen in value by £1.9 billion.

The Times reports:

“Long Harbour said that the majority of its investors were pension funds and that it did not recognise those numbers. It said that it had not changed the valuation of its fund since the policy change and that the new rules would not lead to a windfall for Mr Astor personally because he was not invested in the fund.”

But the real winner of the two-storey planning change is Vincent Tchenguiz, whose Tchenguiz Family Trust based in the British Virgin Islands is the ultimate owner of the freeholds to 239,000 flats.

Although highly indebted, this group is still the largest residential freehold owner in the country.

Ground rent income at the freeholds goes to the Goldman Sach’s founded, de-regulated pension investor Rothesay Life through a debenture, leaving Mr Tchenguiz’s Consensus Business Group with administration charges (sub-letting, building consents etc), insurance commissions … and development potential.

If only 2,390 blocks qualify for the two-storey planning windfall, and build four flats each selling at £250,000 profit, then the portfolio has increased in value by £2.3 billion.

Wallace Estates, owned by the Norfolk-based Italian Count Luca Rinaldo Contardo Padulli and whose ground rents are administered by Simarc, has the freeholds to 106,000 flats.

If only 1,060 blocks qualify for the two-storey development potential, and these flats are worth £250,000 each, the fund has increased in value by just over £1 billion.

Wallace Estates says of its freeholds that “99% of which are financed by pension funds”, but like Long Harbour the beneficial ownership is secret.

This astonishing planning give-away, which first surfaced at the Conservative party conference last autumn, has been handed over to owners of residential freeholds who failed to respond to the cladding crisis after the Grenfell tragedy.

Ministers such as Sajid Javid and James Brokenshire repeated urged building owners – the freeholders – to do the decent thing and pay to remove first the ACM Grenfell cladding and then the other combustible HPL cladding identified as a fire hazard.

Not one speculator in residential freeholds did so.

The Leasehold Knowledge Partnership repeatedly told ministers that freeholders would not, and in many cases, could not pay to remove the cladding.

The income from some of these sites is absolutely minimal and residential freeholds (pre-planning windfalls) were worth 1-3% of a block of flats: the leaseholders have the overwhelming financial stake.

Why should Will Astor, Tchenguiz etc be paying to remove Grenfell cladding?

Now the situation has changed.

Consider Northpoint, a self-managing site of 57 flats in Bromley, in south east London, where Mr Tchenguiz is the freeholder via Citistead Limited and where cladding remediation costs are estimated at £4 million.

Tchenguiz group says profiting from Grenfell cladding scandal would be ‘abhorrent’ and won’t happen

Yet the ground rents are only £7,000 a year – and, as it happens, go straight to Rothesay Life.

LKP argued that it was unreasonable to expect the Tchenguiz organisation, as the building owner, to pay to remove cladding given this minimal financial stake in the building.

As it happens, Northpoint qualifies for the cladding fund, so the £4 million bail-out will be paid for by taxpayers.

But what if Northpoint also qualifies for the two-storey permitted development rule change and Mr Tchenguiz puts four new flats on top of the spanking new refurb?

That will be at least £1 million pure profit for the former tycoon who, before the 2008 financial crisis, was one of the UK’s most powerful corporate players bidding to take over Sainsbury’s.

Might the two-storey permitted development rule revive his career in the big time?

LKP has long wondered who had been cleverer over the Rothesay Life debenture on the Tchenguiz freeholds: Vincent or the generously remunerated ex-Goldman Sachs pension investors at Rothesay Life, who took out the debenture on the ground rents only but declined to buy the freeholds.

Well, this massive planning windfall may suggest an answer.

Tchenguiz group dismisses government ‘hollow threat’ to make freeholders pay for Grenfell cladding removal

Related posts:

The Times reports criticisms of Jenrick’s two-storey planning windfall to what he called ‘egregious’ freeholders Jenrick two storey giveawayHas Jenrick just handed £1bn each to Astor, Tchenguiz and Wallace Estates with two-storey planning gift? Robert Jenrick windfall to freeholdersRobert Jenrick: Why give freeholders such a whopping planning windfall over two new storeys rule, like this site in Newark? Andrew Craige CurtisFreeholder 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 give-awayTory councillors and Labour MP back leaseholders in blocking ERE freeholds shoving up two more storeys under Jenrick’s planning give-away

Category: Latest News, News, Press, Rooftop developmentTag: Count Luca Rinaldo Contardo Padulli, Northpoint, Permitted development, Rooftop development, The Times, Vincent Tchenguiz, Wallace Partnership Group, William Waldorf Astor

Latest Tweets

Tweets by @LKPleasehold

Mentions

Anthony Essien (34) APPG (37) ARMA (87) Bellway (30) Benjamin Mire (32) Cladding scandal (71) Clive Betts MP (31) CMA (44) Commonhold (52) Competition and Markets Authority (39) Countryside Properties plc (33) FirstPort (40) Grenfell cladding (56) Ground rents (54) Harry Scoffin (150) James Brokenshire MP (31) Jim Fitzpatrick (35) Jim Fitzpatrick MP (30) Justin Bates (40) Justin Madders MP (64) Katie Kendrick (37) Law Commission (60) LEASE (66) Leasehold Advisory Service (62) Leasehold houses (32) Long Harbour (48) Martin Boyd (80) McCarthy and Stone (39) National Leasehold Campaign (38) Persimmon (49) Peverel (61) Property tribunal (49) Redrow (30) Retirement (37) Robert Jenrick (33) Roger Southam (47) Sajid Javid (38) Sebastian O’Kelly (55) Sir Peter Bottomley (200) Taylor Wimpey (106) Tchenguiz (33) The Guardian (33) The Times (31) Vincent Tchenguiz (42) Waking watch contracts (40)
Previous Post: « Barking Riverside fire survivors round on secretive freeholder Adriatic Land, reports BBC R4
Next Post: Insiders carve up code of practice for property managers – having been silent on systemic abuses for years! Leaseholders excluded from code of practice»

Reader Interactions

Comments

  1. Housing shortage steve

    July 2, 2020 at 12:17 pm

    Whilst the assumptions on viability and profit quoted are typical tabloid exaggeration there is a big positive from this change. Using the base figures quoted in the article these three companies alone could contribute around £20-25bn of new housing supply and increase output by maybe 20%. The focus should be on the benefits rather than some of the potential beneficiaries

    • martin

      July 6, 2020 at 7:13 pm

      Housing shortage steve. If you know anything you will realise the figures were a massively conservative assessment. Wait till you see the next set

      We challenge you to produce more reliable figures instead of quoting sector cant.

      The companies also will also add nothing measurable to housing supply

    • Martin

      July 11, 2020 at 8:28 am

      The governments own data used for their impact assessment used for the SI it shows an increase of housing supply of just £1.8 billion over 10 years using the ONS April 2020 average sales price per flat. The prediction is just 8,120 new homes over ten years will be added.

      This compares to the detriment of £20-£40 billion we now estimate applies to existing leaseholders using the governments own IE data and same ONS figure on average prices.

      The reason for the huge difference is that government assumption (not ours) is the SI will add to the value of sites that could potentially develop, >1.2 million, rather than the much smaller they expect will develop.

      So a,very limit benefit and a lot of negative impact.

  2. Charles Willis

    July 2, 2020 at 1:40 pm

    Steve, isn’t this way of thinking the reason leasehold exploitation has been allowed by governments to continue for years.

  3. stephen

    July 3, 2020 at 2:02 pm

    The potential to develop roof voids will of course impact on the lessees who may have wished to purchase the freehold.

    Therefore, the government should, as has been suggested, allow the freeholder in an enfranchisement claim to take a development lease of the roof void at a peppercorn rent and thus side step the arguments over its valuation by taking it out of the equation.

    • stephen

      July 3, 2020 at 2:13 pm

      Making it as the Goverment has stated…”easier, quicker and cost effective” for lessee to enfranchise or extend their lease

      The word “cost effective” has crept in rather than cheaper, which to my mind suggests that the area where meaningful savings could be made is making the landlord responsible for his own legal and valuation fees which seem reasonable where a landlord has acquired his interest post 1993 and there was aware of the possibility of enfranchisement/ lease extension.

      A lessee of a flat with say 75 years remaining with a ground rent of £100 per annum on a flat worth say £250k could pay a premium of circa £11,000 but in addition would have to pay around £2,500 in legal and valuation costs on their side with a further £2,500 on the landlords side. So the lessee pays £5,000 for a calculation that is hardly rocket science and neither is the deed of surrender and re-grant to give effect to all this. That is the area where significant saving could be made.

      If the landlord had to pay his own fees, I think a great deal of common sense and pragmatism would then come into play and deals would be concluded much quicker and cheaper

      • Sebastian O'Kelly

        July 3, 2020 at 2:55 pm

        Yes, but less politely it would discourage the cheating.

        If the landlord had to pay his own fees, I think a great deal of common sense and pragmatism would then come into play and deals would be concluded much quicker and cheaper

  4. Alec

    July 4, 2020 at 8:10 am

    Following a statement from Lord Greenhaigh that “unscrupulous freeholders” should be made “pariahs” after the pandemic, the Communities Secretary Robert Jenrick confirmed to MP’s in parliament that the government is opposed to “rip off practices in the leasehold sector” and consequently “draft legislation” will be with MP’s for scrutiny shortly.

    In January 2020 the Law Commission published its report on valuation in enfranchisement (report on options to reduce the price payable), to be followed later this year by three further reports attending to other aspects of leasehold reform.

    “Options to reduce the price payable” can only mean: options to make purchasing the freehold/extending leases “cheaper” and not simply “cost effective”.This followed on Sajid Javid’s promise to make buying the freehold/extending leases “easier and cheaper”. Has Mr Jenrick now moved the goalposts ?

    It is disturbing to note instead of bringing forward “draft legislation” to end “rip off practices in the leasehold sector”, as promised to MP’s in parliament, all we have to date from Mr Renjick is removal of the need for planning application so as to permit construction of additional levels on existing residential buildings.

    Residential blocks of flats put up between 1948 and the early 1970s will have lift systems built to imperial measurements. There is a lucrative industry engaged in upgrading and re-warranting these lifts. You do not put a new metric lift into an imperial lift shaft! However, I am not a mechanical engineer, so anyone, please feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

    At what point does it become cheaper (or more practical) to knock down an old c. 1960s building and put up a new one.?

    Central to all this are residential blocks of flats purchased illegally without the knowledge of the majority qualifying long leaseholders in criminal breach of their right of first refusal (as amended by the Housing Act 1996).

    One anticipated reform is to permit leaseholders to take disputes before the First-Tier Tribunal-Property and not to the Courts as at present (where disproportionate costs have failed to protect them from deep pocketed illegal freeholders) It is here Mr Renjick’s removal of the need for planning permission is in danger of legitimising fraud.

    We are now in the second half of 2020. When may we expect the Law Commission to publish its three reports on other aspects of leasehold reform and Mr Renjick to bring forward his promised reforms?

  5. Alec

    July 5, 2020 at 6:09 am

    Since 2017, we have waited patiently for news on Government leasehold reforms. The measures, first announced by Sajid Javid in December 2017, were expected to have produced results before now. As a result of the Referendum, General Election, and Brexit, the Law Commission was prevented from publishing its report with recommendations for reform.

    in January 2020, the Law Commission was finally able to publish its report on valuation in enfranchisement (report on options to reduce the price payable). We are informed this is to be followed “later this year” by three further reports attending to other aspects of leasehold reform.

    Following a statement from Lord Greenhaigh that unscrupulous freeholders will be made “pariahs” after the pandemic, the Communities Secretary, Robert Jenrick confirmed to MP’s in Parliament that the Government is opposed to “rip off practices in the leasehold sector” and “draft legislation” will be issued shortly for scrutiny. This was expected possibly before the summer recess. Where is it?

    Unfortunately, all we have to date from Mr Jenrick to is a measure permitting freeholders to add two storey’s to existing residential blocks of flats.

    Adding a couple of storey’s to an existing block of flats involves major structural works affecting the existing long leaseholders, For example, blocks built post 1948 and up to early 1970s have lift systems constructed in imperial measurement, There is a thriving industry in upgrading and re-warranting these old lifts, as new ones are built in metric measurement. I am not a mechanical engineer, so perhaps someone could explain how can a new metric lift be put in an existing imperial liftshaft, not to mention construction of a new machinery housing system for the whole on the new roof. .

    At which point does it become cheaper, or more practical, to knock down an old 1960s building and put up a new one?

    More importantly (for this scribe), how about the unscrupulous freeholders who purchased freehold titles to residential blocks of flats without the knowledge of the majority qualifying long leaseholders in criminal breach of their right of fist refusal (as amended by the Housing Act 1996).?

    Will such freeholders be disqualified from taking advantage of this relaxation of planning laws. This legislation is in danger of legitimising fraud.

    Concerning the Law Commision report on enfranchisement, “options to reduce the price payable” can only mean “cheaper”. There can be no moving of goalposts.

    And as we are already in July, when can we expect “draft legislation” designed to end “rip off practices in the leasehold sector.” as now promised by Mr Jenrick.?

    Shall this be before the summer recess?

    This is of primary import as one essential feature of anticipated reform is for disputes on title to be determined by the First Tier-Tribunal – Property and not by the Courts as at present (at disproportionate and extortionate cost to leaseholders). The extortionate cost factor being the customary tactic used by unscrupulopus and deep poccketed freeholders to hold on to their ill gotten gains purchased through original illegal disposals. T

Above Footer

Advising leaseholders. Avoiding disasters.
Stopping forfeiture. Exposing abuses. Urging reform.

We depend on individuals for the majority of our funding.

Support Us and Donate

LKP Managing Agents

Become an LKP Managing Agent

Common Ground
Adam Church
Blocnet property management2

Stay in Touch

To achieve victory in the leasehold game where you are playing against professionals and with rules that they know all too well - stay informed with the LKP newsletter.
Sign Up for Newsletter

Professional Directory

The following advertisements are from firms that seek business from leaseholders.
Click on the logos for company profiles.

Footer

About LKP

  • What is LKP
  • Privacy and data

Categories

  • News
  • Cladding scandal
  • Commonhold
  • Law Commission
  • Fleecehold
  • Parliament
  • Press
  • APPG

Contact

Leasehold Knowledge Partnership
Open Data Institute
5th Floor
Kings Place
London N1 9AG

sok@leaseholdknowledge.com

Copyright © 2023 Leasehold Knowledge Partnership | All rights reserved
Leasehold Knowledge Partnership Limited (company number: 08999652) is a company limited by guarantee that is a registered charity (number: 1162584) with the Charities Commission.
LKP website is hosted at www.34sp.com
Website by Callia Web