EG 28-11-20

P.33 interesting article touching on the way in which to structure turnover rents and online showrooming sales - the drafting is never going to be easy

P.59 Allocation of social housing rules by local housing authorities - reporting on two cases where applicants were in overcrowded circumstances, and that a jewish housing provider could choose applicants from their religion and not be held to be discriminatory

P.61 How connectivity in offices because an important factor in office choice - affects rent review clause and even it is suggested a right to break the lease if the connectivity of the building is compromised, or service charge provisions to include an obligation on L to provide connectivity!

p.62 Ainscough v Ainscough [2020] EWHC 2909 - family dispute over a forged transfer, involving arguments about Res Judicata, and mistake. In cases where the LR makes a decision aggrieved parties must act promptly for a JR within 3 months, including where the LR desert refer an objection to the FTT but makes its own decision

P.63 Valuation approaches for flexible workspaces - mainly for valuers, involves analysing trading performance, capitalisation of income, and review

P.64 Call for the UK to adopt the Dutch approach to the issue, which is more in the nature of an annual tax on property value

p.65 Planning Use class for ‘extra care housing’ - should it be C2 (residential institutions or C3 (dwelling houses)? Considers Rectory Homes v SS Housing [2020] EWHC 2098. Did 78 of such units count as ‘dwellings’ under C£ for the purpose of the LA’a strategy requirement to provide 40% affordable housing? If they were C2 then the developer could avoid having to provide the affordable element… They each had their own front door but there were facilities which allowed for independent living. HC held they were still dwellings so triggered the affordable element - this may dissuade developers from providing this concept and instead  provide traditional ‘care home’ structures.

p.66 Environmental Social and Governance issues in Scottish real estate 

P.67 Another article on the important SC case of Alexander Devine, on s.84. A cynical breach of covenant by a developer was not relevant to the question of whether the provision of affordable housing was ‘in the public interest’ justifying a relaxation of the covenant under s.84 (1) (aa) but was relevant to the exercise of the court’s discretion to modify - the SC ordered in effect that the affordable housing will have to be demolished. The developer should have either designed the buildings to accommodate the covenant or made the s.84(1) (aa) application before it built them (which may well have been successful in that case).

RSS Feed 

This site uses cookies. But unlike WhatsApp, Facebook and the rest we don't trawl your phone and PC for your personal data and sell it to advertisers!