Reasonable for Directors to refuse consent in a conservation area?

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Reasonable for Directors to refuse consent in a conservation area?


    So the Directors of our Freeholders Association (Mansion Block with Freehold owned by Leaseholders), have now discovered that one leaseholder has:

    - taken out a support wall between the living room and main bedroom, to push the wall back and turn the living room into a kitchen (so now with wooden floors & a kitchen above the below flat's living room)
    - made a section of a back bedroom into a third shower room, with shower, sink and WC all going through a macerator that sits on the floor with no insulation for noise for the below flat's bedroom.
    -threaded the new waste pipe through the ceilings of the below flat's kitchen, and 2nd bedroom, exiting through their window lintel.

    All this was done without permission. The local buildings control/council also were not notified. A local surveyor looked over the works and it took 2 years to correct all the bad and shoddy works (including leaks into the below flat and noise issues from the macerator), but no official building or official surveyor signed off on any of it.

    The Directors at the time granted leases, as they said they were told they could "not reasonably withhold consent". And now too much time seems to have passed to rescind the lease.

    Are the Directors liable for allowing bad works, ongoing noise issues for the below flat, change of use of wet-above-dry rooms, the new use of the flat being 3 bedsits with multiple occupancy use of the kitchen above a living room - causing sound issues in the below living room, and back bedroom from the third bathroom?

    The mansion flats are Edwardian and in a conservation area. It used to be a listed building but I believe is no longer. The lease stipulates no noise nuisance or leaks effluence, floors to be carpeted, and permissions to alter to be sought. All of these terms have been breached. ..?

    I believe it is quite difficult for a company's members to sue its directors. The correct course of action is to vote the directors out of office.

    If this happened some time ago, the directors' appointments have probably been re-ratified, which would, I think constitute ratifying any questionable decisions they had made.

    To successfully sue, I think you would have to replace them, then the new board prove they were operating outside their authority, or deliberately operating against the interests of the company. They are only required to operate to the level of competence they actually possess; it is up to the members to ensure only competent people get appointed.


      The phrase in unreasonably refuse, not reasonably refuse.

      I don't understand why they were granting leases. Surely the lease already existed, and only licence to alter was required?

      It is reasonable to refuse if no building notice has been issued.

      It is reasonable to refuse if not structural engineering calculations have been provided.

      It is reasonable to refuse if the leaseholder won't pay for the freeholder's surveyor to approve the work.

      It is probably reasonable to refuse if the modification would result in a nuisance to other flats.


        Thanks Leaseholder. Very helpful


        Latest Activity