EG 27-07-1928-07-2019, 17:43
P.35 Fascinating article about how the Belgian town of Roeslare’s town centre is now thriving after adopting all the Grimsey Review recommendations on retail, whereas here its just one CVA after another…
P. 37 The UK’s real estate investment market is still the third biggest in the world (after US & Japan), despite sharing to £564bn last year..Should be plenty of comm prop legal work on that ! But p.43/44 auction volumes dropping with the Boris & Brexit effect on investors..
P. 49 Rights to Light. Good article explaining what is enough ‘light’, how difficult it is to assess, ‘parasitic light losses’, and the role of the Custom of London in disputes. Sadly Govt has not implemented the Law Commissions excellent suggestions on this tricky subject.
P.51 Alternative assets’, such as the 'Student Hotel’ concept (accommodation/hotels/co-working combo), or Build to Rent (BTR) combined with co-working spaces, or BTR + retirement living, or 'Beds & Sheds’ (love it). Our planning system doesn’t sit well with ‘blending uses’.Complications also with VAT,CIL and SDLT, etc. Calls for the constraints to be removed to allow flexibility
P. 52 Whats happened in the 2 year since Grenfell. Looks at the advisory panel’s recommendations, the confusion over whether works are needed and who is to pay for them. What happens if the building owner on a 999yr reversion has to pay and has no money? The tenants? Good review of the current state of play
P.54 Sustainablity. Overview of whats happening on this in property, big picture rather than detail
P.56 Planning conditions Supreme Court in Lambeth v SS Housing - a Homebase store and the interpretations of uses permitted should be interpreted using the ’natural and ordinary meaning of words’ as a reasonable reader may find them, in the context of a s.73 permission.
P. 57 Restrictive Covenants again - Hicks v Holland Park (Management) Ltd  EWHC 1301. The management company freeholder adjoining had unreasonably refused to approve plans for a development of adjoining land, but, unusually, in this case there were still justifications for refusing to approve the plans to allow construction to to start as there were significant aspects that had not at that stage been decided in relation to matters such as groundwater, piling, subsidence etc.