Tory councillors have joined Labour MP Darren Jones in calling for a freeholder’s bid to add two extra storeys to a five-storey block of flats to be turned down.
Leaseholders at Grange Court in Henleaze, Bristol, are appalled at the proposal, which has been made under the government’s controversial two-storey planning give-away to freehold speculators pushed through by Communities Secretary Robert Jenrick.
LKP has estimated the give-away to be worth between £22 to £42 billion in increasing the values of freeholds. This reported here:
At a video meeting on November 11, 23 local residents opposed the move, and there have been 268 objections.
The issue is reported on the Bristol Live website here
Decision made on ‘cruel’ bid to add two storeys to block of flats
Bristol residents battling to stop two extra storeys being built on top of their block of flats had a victory last night. City councillors voted nine to one against what they said was an “unusually cruel” application to extend the three-storey block of flats on Grange Court Road.
Planning consultant John Cockling is quoted telling the planning committee that there was “no good reason to withhold prior approval”.
“The application before you responds positively to new legislation intended to boost the housing supply and the local economy in the wake of coronavirus. [In fact, the proposal was aired publicly before the pandemic.]
“The legislation only allows the local planning authority to consider eight criteria.
“Other matters cannot lawfully be taken into account.”
Two Conservative councillors joined Labour, Green and LibDem councillors, in urging the measure to be thrown out. Cllr Geoff Gollop said that once the two additional storeys were completed, the building would stand at five storeys and 14m high and would “overwhelm” the neighbours.
The councillors voted nine to one that they were “minded to refuse” the application.
It is unclear what this will mean.
The government is strongly backing its measure as part of its “Build Back better” or “Build Build Build” sloganising.
The two-storey give-away to speculators in freeholds may only create 800 new homes a year, according to the government’s own impact assessment.
But far more important is that these open-door development rights hugely increase the value of freeholds in enfranchisement cases.
MPs fail to stop Robert Jenrick’s multi-billion pound planning hand-out to offshore freeholders
We await to see how it will be deployed as an argument in the courts.
Curiously, we were recently contacted by a London cladding site that was considering enfranchisement. Our advice was to push ahead with it, because while a site is covered in combustible cladding a freeholder would struggle to advance an argument for development rights.
Related posts:
Robert Jenrick: Why give freeholders such a whopping planning windfall over two new storeys rule, like this site in Newark?
Freeholder Andrew Craige Curtis to use two-storey planning give-away at a north London cladding site while leaseholders ruined with remediation bills
Has Jenrick just handed £1bn each to Astor, Tchenguiz and Wallace Estates with two-storey planning gift?
The Times reports criticisms of Jenrick’s two-storey planning windfall to what he called ‘egregious’ freeholders
42 MPs back Starmer’s attempt to block rooftop planning give-away to freeholders
Baroness Dianne Hayter criticises LKP for not taking part in property managers’ new code of practice
The leaseholders affected by this absurd and disgraceful law should consider pursuing a claim for an injunction on the basis that the proposed development constitutes a private nuisance.
It was established in Lawrence & Anor v Fen Tigers Ltd & Ors [2011] EWHC 360 (QB) that the mere fact that planning permission has been granted is no defence to a claim for nuisance. With the support of the local council there would be a good chance that such an application would succeed. With any luck, even the threat of it might dissuade the greedy developer from going ahead.
There could also be a claim under Article 1 of the First Protocol: of the Human Rights Act that the development is a breach of the right to peaceful enjoyment of the leaseholders’ property.
I sincerely hope that this appalling law is made unworkable.
I wonder why it was not reported here that the Government won the judicial review about this law. In the last few days. The law was ruled as legal and the application by environmentalists to try and stop it has failed.
Disgracefuly myopic law. After all the work, shouting builders at 7am, access blocked by commercial vehicles, Bulgarians playing radios on the roof for months, banging, drilling, smashing et al, your life turned upside down, you end up with.. more cars in the car park, more activity and no better off. Tenants will leave. Privacy will come to an end.
Read your lease. You should have rights over the common areas and if any of these areas need to be used for the new flats then you will have substantial negotiation rights.
Second, your lease should also refer to the right to “peaceable enjoyment of the premises without interruption” or similar. Compensation is due. Rent your flat prior, document the monthly rent – this would be the minimum claim plus compensation for inconvenience.
Explain to Planning that the amenities (parking, bins, access etc) do not support more flats.
Many managing agents/freeholders will dip into your reserve fund to make good the TOTAL MESS they will create for 18 months on your estate. For example, if they have to extend the stairs etc, your fund will be used to replace carpets and interior painting under the guise of “cyclical maintenance”. There should be an injuction against misappropriation of the reserve fund to make good any aspect of the major works, but you bet it will happen.
Target the managing agent who has a public brand for other aspects of their business – lettings, auctions, property sales, whatever. Their public image needs to be “dismantled”.
Be sure to mention their name at every opportunity.
All very substantial points, and well made.
The Conservative Government MPs ungently needs to act in favour of Leaseholders and bring in long overdue leasehold reforms. Otherwise leaseholders of flats will have no sensible option but to vote against them when election time comes.
why is pp needed?