Rooftop decking and usage on a non-demised roof - Help!

E7residenttobe

Hello -

We are in the process of purchasing a 2 bed flat in a converted house that was approved to be split in 3 apartments. We are purchasing the top flat and the current owner had build an opening in the living room that leads via a spiral staircase onto the flat roof where he has set a box with door onto a roof deck. 

As the building has a missing freeholder over 25 years it seems he was never able to ask the freeholder and just went and built this as it has sole access to it only from the top flat.

We have asked to see a planning permission or council approval but he tends to claim that he doesn't need one even though this is clearly listed as non-demised roof and doesn't show up under the lease.

He said that when he was building it the council came around to check it but there is no record of this visit or any approval of documentation. As we are buying this property we are concerned that we might end up in a situation where we are not allowed to use the rooftop terrace which will impact the value of the property and one of the main reasons we are buying this place.

Our options now are either force him to get retrospective planning permission, contact the council ourselves via our solicitor or go with the indemnity policy which only protects us in case someone complains but still doesn't solve the issue.

Any help or advice please!

greatcrested

Do not confuse Planning Permission, with Building Regulations, with Freeholder consent. They are 3 completely separate issues.

I doubt you need PP (though I'm not sure).

You'd probably need BR (esp with regards fire safety/evacuation, and strength of the roof structure - roofs are not typically designd for people to walk on! But enforcement after 12 months is almost impossible under the Regs.

You would need freeholder consent, and the freeholder could reappear any time and not only deny access, but force removal of the stairs and other structural changes.

I'd be equally concerned about the absent freeholder. How is the building maintained? Insured? .........

davidmcn

How long ago was the work done?

lincroft1710

If you contact the council, then it will invalidate any (useless) indemnity insurance you may be thinking of taking out. You would be more likely to get trouble from the freeholder than the council. Councils are not in the habit of targetting random properties to see if Building Regulations or Planning Permissions have been breached or ignored.

If the lack of decking is a deal breaker then look elsewhere

E7residenttobe

@greatcrested - RE:

Thanks the update - in terms of the absent freeholder as he has been missing over 25 years, all three leaseholders have been taking care of the building overall and sharing the costs. We are talking to the other 2 leaseholders this weekend to get their input on how things have gone so far and if they are willing to go ahead and go through the process of acquiring the share of freeholder. We know it's a costly process but worth it in the price we are paying for this property if the rooftop terrace issue is solved.

What is the main difference between PP and BR in this case and who approves any of these 2? Thanks!

E7residenttobe

davidmcn said:

How long ago was the work done?

I think he's had the terrace box with a door for few years already and just now in the last year has put railing around it.

davidmcn

E7residenttobe said:

davidmcn said:

How long ago was the work done?

I think he's had the terrace box with a door for few years already and just now in the last year has put railing around it.

If he's carried out work that recently, it may be difficult to get indemnity insurance anyway. Insurers prefer to know that there's been a good opportunity for neighbours etc to have kicked up a fuss.

E7residenttobe

davidmcn said:

E7residenttobe said:

davidmcn said:

How long ago was the work done?

I think he's had the terrace box with a door for few years already and just now in the last year has put railing around it.

If he's carried out work that recently, it may be difficult to get indemnity insurance anyway. Insurers prefer to know that there's been a good opportunity for neighbours etc to have kicked up a fuss.

The current owner did took out an indemnity policy insurance now but it's listed for the absent freeholder situation. We are going to wait on a response from his lawyer I guess!

eddddy

Perhaps the best solution is to think of it as a flat without a roof terrace, and tell the mortgage lender to value it that way - and regard the use of the roof terrace as a 'free bonus', which you might lose at some point.

Acquiring the freehold won't solve this problem - in fact, it might make matters worse.

After acquiring the freehold, you will have two joint freeholders who might:

• Tell you to stop using the roof terrace, and close up the openning that's been cut in the roof, and/or...
• Ask you to pay a big chunk of money to each of them to have your lease varied, to include the rooftop in your demise.

Even if they haven't thought of asking you for money now, when the property is valued for the freehold purchase, the valuer is likely to explain that you should pay the other joint freeholders.

And FWIW, a flat roof is often not designed to be walked on. I know somebody with a flat who did exactly what you describe. The result was that walking on the roof damaged it, and resulted in rain water leaking into their flat, and dampness spreading into the flat below as well.

silvercar

E7residenttobe said:

davidmcn said:

How long ago was the work done?

I think he's had the terrace box with a door for few years already and just now in the last year has put railing around it.

I doubt it had building regs consent before the railing was built! So now the question is whether the roof is strong enough to take the weight of people walking on it. A question for your surveyor.

greatcrested

E7residenttobe said:

@greatcrested - RE:

Thanks the update - in terms of the absent freeholder as he has been missing over 25 years, all three leaseholders have been taking care of the building overall and sharing the costs. We are talking to the other 2 leaseholders this weekend to get their input on how things have gone so far and if they are willing to go ahead and go through the process of acquiring the share of freeholder. We know it's a costly process but worth it in the price we are paying for this property if the rooftop terrace issue is solved.

What is the main difference between PP and BR in this case and who approves any of these 2? Thanks!

Building Regulations is to do with the quality of the work and compliance with standards (hence my reference to fire escapes and roof structure). It is enforced by the council's Building Control Dept.

Totally different to, and separate from, Planning Permission, granted (or refused) by the council's Planning Dept which is to do with whether you are allowed to build or not.

Well done for getting together with the other leaseholders - always a good idea irrespective of an issue like this. Just be aware they might want paying for going along with this unauthorised 'extension' to the demise of your lease. After all, why should you (your flat) benefit from this extension and the other 2 flats get nothing........