Two storey rooftop developments on blocks – government consultation on leaseholder impact?

Two storey rooftop developments on blocks – government consultation on leaseholder impact?

0:01 AM, 6th March 2024, About 4 months ago 5

Text Size

Hello, There is a government consultation on proposed changes to some permitted development rights – the deadline 9 April. I have posted the link below.

It seems crazy to me that developers can get permission to go ahead from a council to add rooftop flats without providing proof that the structure can cope with the extra weight (as has already happened with my block in Hanwell). Surely, it should be a requirement that they should submit independent evidence from surveyors that the structure can cope before permission can be granted? And leaseholders should be allowed to submit their own independent survey on this point, too.

Also, that the present legislation allows for prefabricated rooftop developments bearing no aesthetic sympathy with the existing structure. They look like terrapins on top of a block.

Also, that developers should be obliged to re-house existing residents in appropriate accommodation while the work is ongoing. A local block to me did this. To subject residents to two years building works is anti-social in the extreme.

Also, that developers should be responsible for any building faults that appear in the existing block for 20 years after the rooftop development. Otherwise, leaseholders bear the cost through their service charge. Might be difficult to prove….

Does anyone have any other points, PLEASE!

This is the link for the consultation: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/changes-to-various-permitted-development-rights-consultation/changes-to-various-permitted-development-rights-consultation#changes-to-the-permitted-development-rights-for-building-upwards

Scroll down to “How To Respond” and you will find: You may respond by completing an online survey
Click on “completing an online survey” and it will give you a form for completion.
Also on this link Refer to Section 3 (after “How To Respond” ) and para 43,44,45 re effect on leaseholders.
Leaseholders can make comments on loss of light; effect during construction works etc.

Thank you,

Jean


Share This Article


Comments

Darren Peters

14:36 PM, 6th March 2024, About 4 months ago

"...to add rooftop flats without providing proof that the structure can cope with the extra weight"

Wouldn't Building Control require this proof? Planning permission is just aesthetics & whether in keeping with the environment. Building Control should be asking for engineering calculations or have I missed something?

Wyn Burgess

10:44 AM, 9th March 2024, About 4 months ago

New flats cannot be sold without showing that Building Control requirements have been met and this will include proof that the existing structure can withstand the additional load needing investigation by the project engineer of the load bearing capacity of the existing foundations and walls etc.

Property Gal

12:00 PM, 9th March 2024, About 4 months ago

Reply to the comment left by Wyn Burgess at 09/03/2024 - 10:44
My understanding is that Council's have outsourced Building Control and that standards have dropped to zero. Hence, the tragedy of Grenfell. I personally know a luxury block of flats overlooking the Thames which was built without any fire compartmentalisation screens between flats and eventually, after a long struggle by the leaseholders, had to be refurbished with fire screens at huge cost. So, I have very little faith in Building Control.

Shining Wit

19:10 PM, 9th March 2024, About 4 months ago

Welcome to the world of the Cladding Scandal. Ever since Grenfell, the scale of the problem has become ever more apparent.
The government solution is to fund some cladding works, in some flat types, for some leaseholders.
As the saying goes, you can't have a a "half-safe" - so even when the cladding is fixed, other dangers remain. Compromised, or missing, compartmentation/fire break, other (highly) combustible materials, stacked balconies etc etc. all mean the building remains potentially unsafe and/or the leaseholders pay for the failings of others such as Building Control, Manufacturers, Developers, etc
Michael Gove said: "It is neither fair nor decent that innocent leaseholders should be landed with bills they cannot afford to fix problems they did not cause" - and yet that is exactly what the legislation delivers.

Wyn Burgess

9:08 AM, 10th March 2024, About 4 months ago

Reply to the comment left by Shining Wit at 09/03/2024 - 19:10
Yes, to me the privatisation of Building Control was madness, private BC providers were onto a winner until Grenfell. The real issue is that Council or Private BC providers have little liability unless there is death or injury so are not as thorough as they should be in ensuring BC standards are met.

Leave Comments

In order to post comments you will need to Sign In or Sign Up for a FREE Membership

or

Don't have an account? Sign Up

Landlord Tax Planning Book Now