Tweet
I live in a new build freehold property in a conservation area ,within the same estate is a listed school building that has been converted into apartments, there is also a listed chapel on the estate. The development was completed 5 years ago under a Section 106 planning consent which required the developer to ensure the long term wellbeing of the listed school building and chapel . This has been achieved by covenanting the owner of the freehold of the school building to ensure that it is painted on a 5 yearly frequency.
A clause in the leases for the apartments sets out the responsibility to pay a suitable contribution to the maintenance of the school building and the listed chapel ,plus a contribution to the maintenance of the rest of the communal areas and common facilities of the estate. The prescribed obligations on the freeholders is set out in a TP1 document which requires them to contribute to the maintenance of the chapel and the communal areas and common facilities of the estate. There is no specific mention whatsoever about an obligation to contribute to the maintenance of the school building. The TP1 defines expenditure as that being incurred by the maintenance of the aforementioned communal ,common facilities and chapel .It also includes the following paragraph under the definition of expenditure “compliance with the requirements of the section 106 Agreement in particular in relation to the chapel.”
This definition has been seized upon by leaseholders to try and justify requiring freeholders to contribute to the not inconsiderable expense burden for the 5 yearly maintenance of the school building.
Freeholders have commissioned a report from a legal firm that confirms that the leaseholder interpretation is an incorrect one ,a board member from the developer who was operational director of this development has issued a letter confirming that the leaseholder interpretation is an incorrect one and several freehold houses have been sold without any concerns being raised but the leaseholders refuse to accept this position and we are currently in a state of impasse. Can you provide any advice on how we may resolve this issue, the first part of the statement in the TP1 under the definition of expenditure I.e.”compliance with the requirements of the section 106 Agreement in particular in relation to the chapel” is being cited by the leaseholders as evidence the freeholders being required to contribute to the maintenance of the school building. Is it possible for freeholders to revise the statement of responsibility if so how is that achieved?
Many thanks
MIkebee
A clause in the leases for the apartments sets out the responsibility to pay a suitable contribution to the maintenance of the school building and the listed chapel ,plus a contribution to the maintenance of the rest of the communal areas and common facilities of the estate. The prescribed obligations on the freeholders is set out in a TP1 document which requires them to contribute to the maintenance of the chapel and the communal areas and common facilities of the estate. There is no specific mention whatsoever about an obligation to contribute to the maintenance of the school building. The TP1 defines expenditure as that being incurred by the maintenance of the aforementioned communal ,common facilities and chapel .It also includes the following paragraph under the definition of expenditure “compliance with the requirements of the section 106 Agreement in particular in relation to the chapel.”
This definition has been seized upon by leaseholders to try and justify requiring freeholders to contribute to the not inconsiderable expense burden for the 5 yearly maintenance of the school building.
Freeholders have commissioned a report from a legal firm that confirms that the leaseholder interpretation is an incorrect one ,a board member from the developer who was operational director of this development has issued a letter confirming that the leaseholder interpretation is an incorrect one and several freehold houses have been sold without any concerns being raised but the leaseholders refuse to accept this position and we are currently in a state of impasse. Can you provide any advice on how we may resolve this issue, the first part of the statement in the TP1 under the definition of expenditure I.e.”compliance with the requirements of the section 106 Agreement in particular in relation to the chapel” is being cited by the leaseholders as evidence the freeholders being required to contribute to the maintenance of the school building. Is it possible for freeholders to revise the statement of responsibility if so how is that achieved?
Many thanks
MIkebee