Author: Fiona Sawyer, Professional Support Lawyer, Planning, Real Estate
In our blog post of 10 December 2018 (see here), we discussed the potential impact on developers and landlords of changes to permitted development (PD) rights and Use Class A which were being consulted on by the government. Despite widespread criticism, and counter to some calls for a greater role for local authorities in securing the futures of their town centres through holistic town planning, in a Written Statement on 13 March 2019 James Brokenshire announced that the government is implementing the majority of the proposals. Some of the changes to PD rights are to be made later this spring; other changes, such as upward extensions for residential use, will be dealt with in further regulations in the autumn. We were also told that we can expect an Accelerated Planning Green Paper later this year. Whilst the changes are intended to “[simplify and speed up] the planning system, to support the high street, make effective use of land and deliver more homes”, whether this can be achieved by these changes remains to be seen. This post discusses what the changes are, and what their impact could be within the context of wider change. Continue reading
Author: Fiona Sawyer, Professional support lawyer, Planning, London
Last week, we published a post (see here) noting that the Mayoral Community Infrastructure Levy 2 (‘MCIL2’) was due to come into force on 1 April 2019, setting out details of the new charges, which developments would be affected and the implications for developers. By a letter dated 28 February 2019, the Greater London Authority (‘GLA’) has now confirmed that the Mayor of London has formally adopted the MCIL2 Charging Schedule and that it will indeed be brought into effect on 1 April. Two modifications have been made to the final version of the Charging Schedule, the most important of which is that the Elephant and Castle Opportunity Area is not part of the Central London Charging Area for office, retail and hotel development; the second modification clarifies the definitions of hotel, office and retail uses. The GLA has also confirmed that MCIL2 will be used to fund both Crossrail 1 (the Elizabeth Line) and Crossrail 2, and that the MCIL2 Charging Schedule will supersede both the 2012 Mayoral CIL Charging Schedule (‘MCIL1’) and the 2016 Section 106 Crossrail Funding from Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Guidance (referred to in our previous post as the ‘s106 Crossrail Charge’). Continue reading
Author: Ben Hazenberg, Senior Associate, Planning, Real Estate, London
The Mayoral Community Infrastructure Levy 2, or ‘MCIL2’, is a new charging schedule for the Mayor’s Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) charge. It sets new (higher) rates for Mayoral CIL and is due to take effect on 1 April 2019. (It is technically possible that the Mayor may change his mind about MCIL2 before 1 April 2019, but it should be assumed that he will not.)
This post explains what MCIL2 is, what it means for developments in London and what action developers may wish to take before MCIL2 comes into force.
Author: Julia Tobbell, Senior Associate, Real Estate Disputes, London
Today the Supreme Court will hear the case of S. Franses Ltd v The Cavendish Hotel (London) Limited, a case which property litigators have been following closely since last year. The case concerns a landlord’s ability to oppose a lease renewal under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (the “Act”) using ground (f) (redevelopment). If the tenant is successful in today’s hearing, the evidential burden on landlords contemplating redevelopment could increase dramatically. Continue reading
Author: Fiona Sawyer, Professional Support Lawyer, Planning, London
Viability is at the heart of the extent to which private developers can be expected to bridge the gap between demand for and supply of affordable housing. In April this year, in a postscript to his judgment in the case of Parkhurst Road Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and another  EWHC 991 (Admin), Mr Justice Holgate said that “uncertainty on how viability assessment should properly be carried out” is leading to “a proliferation of litigation” and called on the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) to revisit its 2012 Financial Viability in Planning Guidance. Since then, the revised National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) has been published together with revised Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) on viability, but a review of the RICS guidance is still ongoing. On 5 October, the Deputy Mayor of London and the Executive Member for Housing & Development at Islington Council wrote a joint open letter to the President of the RICS regarding affordable housing and the 2012 RICS Financial Viability in Planning Guidance. Their letter asks RICS to revisit its guidance, as called for by Holgate J. Continue reading
Author: Susannah Davis, Professional Support Lawyer, Construction, Real Estate, London
This blog post explores why purchasers should take an assignment or insist on other protection before relying on reports provided to them by others.
If your answer to the question posed is ‘yes’, read on as this is exactly what happened in the case of BDW Trading Ltd (the “developer”) v Integral Geotechnique (Wales) Ltd (the “consultant”). In this case, the developer was left without a legal remedy when he suffered loss having relied on a negligently prepared report. Continue reading
Author: Charlotte Dyer, Of Counsel, Planning, Real Estate, London
This blog post explores how the meaning of affordable housing has evolved following the publication of the revised National Planning Policy Framework (“NPPF”) on 24 July 2018 and the Draft New London Plan showing Minor Suggested Changes on 13 August 2018. This is part of our ‘back to basics’ affordable housing series and is intended to supersede entry 1 in the series. Continue reading
Author: Julia Tobbell, Senior Associate, Real Estate Disputes, London
When purchasing a development site, it is important to make sure that the site can be used for the purpose for which it is acquired. When it comes to easements, in theory a purchaser should not get any nasty surprises. However, overriding equitable easements can be hard to detect but can have costly consequences. What are they, what is their impact and how can the risk they present be minimised? Continue reading
Authors: Ruth Benfield, Senior Associate and Alice Dockar, Partner, Real Estate, London
It is unlikely to have gone unnoticed from the volume of emails asking individuals to “opt in” to future company mailing lists that tomorrow (Friday 25 May), the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) comes into effect in all EU countries and in the UK it will be supplemented by the Data Protection Act 2018. The stakes are high – if your company does not comply, it could be fined up to 4% of worldwide turnover or 20 million Euros, whichever is higher. As the information being held by landlords and developers is likely to be varied and complex (and not just employee data), such industries are in a vulnerable position with regards to compliance.
So what do companies operating in the real estate sector need to do?
- Read the rest of this blog post for a reminder of the types of personal data which you might be holding on your databases which will need to be GDPR compliant;
- Check our HSF hub page on GDPR here; and
- Contact us at HSF with any queries or for further information.
GDPR will affect anyone using, collecting, processing and storing personal data. Personal data covers the type of information which you would expect, for example contact name and details, but could also include information collected by landlords and developers on building management systems and databases (for example when an individual enters and exits a building, and see more examples below).
The property development industry appeared to be lagging behind other sectors in its preparation for GDPR so we have put together a brief reminder of the types of personal data which you might be holding on your company databases which will be subject to GDPR requirements. This could include:
Authors: Nick Oury, Senior Associate, Disputes, Tokyo and Jean Hamilton-Smith, Associate, Disputes, Tokyo
A commonly encountered provision in the standard form JCT Building Contract (2005 edition) was interpreted by the Court of Appeal to include an implied obligation on a developer to use “all due diligence” to obtain planning approvals. The phrase “all due diligence” was held not to require the developer to ensure that planning approvals were in fact granted, or that they were granted within sufficient time to prevent delays. At most it required the developer to make a timely application containing sufficient information and to co-operate with the Local Authority during the planning process.
The decision demonstrates the limits of the obligations commonly entered into by developers in the UK in relation to planning approvals.
1. Facts of the case
2. Developer responsible for Planning Approvals
3. Obligation to exercise “all due diligence”
4. Delays caused by Local Authority