Getting Commonhold Done
TENURE RESPONSIVE LAND USE PLANNING
How to introduce Commonhold Successfully at ground level
Tenure responsive Land Use Planning means allocating land for development based on the way in which its owned. We do this already with requirements for affordable housing in planning and 'shared ownership' It is not widely recognised as a tool for planning in the UK but the UN sees it as a major tool for distribution of housing rights and encouragement of a fair society. It has been through leasehold, that land ownership has been handed down by the few to the few, lent for a period of years to the many, and then taken back again.
Through Tenure Responsive Land Use Planning we can provide a simple steer away from our present feudal system towards the stated goal of commonhold ownership.
The National Plan specifically mentions Tenure and recommends the benefits a preference for Commonhold will bring. Using Planning Policy Preference we can accelerate the change from leasehold to commonhold on a national scale.
This will be through encouraging the provision of Commonhold Housing by developers in preference to leasehold because of local planning policy on land use.
The National Plan and policy framework allow for a preference to be given to commonhold tenure in local plans.
Local Plans are based on the National Plan which has legal status.Our National Plan refers to tenure and its objectives are in line with a preference for Commonhold Development.
Local Authorities can presently designate land as Commonhold in the same way as for self build
Through the local plan a preference for Commonhold can be given in planning applications
New leaseholds may now be less attractive due to the Ground Rent Bill
The National Plan supports Commonhold
The National Plan itself begins with 3 objectives - 2 are:
a) an economic objective – to help build a strong, responsive and competitive economy, by ensuring that sufficient land of the right types is available in the right places and at the right time to support growth, innovation and improved productivity; and by identifying and coordinating the provision of infrastructure.
b) a social objective – to support strong, vibrant and healthy communities, by ensuring that a sufficient number and range of homes can be provided to meet the needs of present and future generations; and by fostering well-designed, beautiful and safe places, with accessible services and open spaces that reflect current and future needs and support communities’ health, social and cultural well-being; (P5)
The National Planning Policy Framework refers to tenure which should be taken into account in preparing the National and Local development plan.
see paras 60-80 in particular para 62:
"Within this context, the size, type and tenure of housing needed for different groups in the community should be assessed and reflected in planning policies (including, but not limited to, those who require affordable housing, families with children, older people, students, people with disabilities, service families, travellers people who rent their homes and people wishing to commission or build their own homes "
The UN advocates Land Use Planning which influences access to homes and security of tenure.
"Tenure responsive land use planning UN 2016"
"This guide is a starting point for developing practical knowledge on how to improve tenure security through land-use planning..
We can do this - we can start now - we already have the precedents and guidance. Local authorities can lead. I'm hoping my home town of Brighton will be the first.
Superb news in the latest report from the pre-legislative scrutiny committee on the Fire Safety Bill.
It all begins with an idea.
An all party committee has been considering the New Fire Safety Bill. The Bill came out of the discovery that the cladding imposed on many tall blocks was a fire risk. For some time Freeholders have been billing leaseholders for the changes needed.
This is an outrage as Lessees are the least responsible. Here's what the Committee said:
The final Bill will establish new duties, some of them extremely onerous, on individuals and organisations responsible for building safety throughout the lifecycle of higher-risk buildings. We do not think it right to expect individuals to implement its provisions and assume such heavy responsibilities without sufficient transition periods.
The Government must recommit to the principle that leaseholders should not pay anything towards the cost of remediating historical building safety defects, and, in order to provide leaseholders with the peace of mind they deserve, amend the Bill to explicitly exclude historical costs from the building safety charge.
The draft Bill provides for landlords to recover the cost of building safety measures through a new building safety charge. Contrary to repeated assurances from Ministers, these provisions permit landlords to charge leaseholders for the cost of remediating historical building safety defects for which they were not responsible. We consider this unacceptable and an abdication of responsibility on the part of government.
I'm also the Vice Chair of the Federation of Private Residents Associations. We're thanking all the MP's and calling on the Government to go along with their report.
FPRA’s Vice-Chair Shula Rich has expressed thanks to all of the MPs on the Committee for their consideration of leaseholders caught in this plight:
Clive Betts MP (Labour, Sheffield South East) (Chair)
Bob Blackman MP (Conservative, Harrow East)
Ian Byrne MP (Labour, Liverpool, West Derby)
Brendan Clarke-Smith MP (Conservative, Bassetlaw)
Ben Everitt MP (Conservative, Milton Keynes North)
Paul Holmes MP (Conservative, Eastleigh)
Rachel Hopkins MP (Labour, Luton South)
Ian Levy MP (Conservative, Blythe Valley)
Abena Oppong-Asare MP (Labour, Erith and Thamesmead)
Mary Robinson MP (Conservative, Cheadle)
Mohammad Yasin MP (Labour, Bedford)
Here is the link to their reports and conclusion:
https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/3605/documents/35262/default/