Answered

eddddy

Leesabee1 said:

To my knowledge, they will absolutely need permission to do the works that you are referring to. I think you are looking at wrong part of the lease to be honest. I would be requesting the plans and who is going to be doing those works. I am a property manager and that is the norm for such things. If the builders put a loose connection in and someone else suffers leaks then you will suffer consequences. Finding out the detail would be standard. 

That would be the case with most leases.

However, the the OP talks about "2 maisonettes". They sometimes have very unusual leases.

For example,

• There are no common parts
• The first floor leaseholder is responsible for the first floor structure and roof
• The ground floor leaseholder is responsible for the ground floor structure and foundations
• The freeholder isn't responsible for anything

If the freeholder isn't responsible for any part of the building, it might not be too surprising that the freeholder's consent isn't required for alterations. 


The bottom line is that the OP needs to read through the leases thoroughly, to check.

Leesabee1

eddddy said:

Leesabee1 said:

To my knowledge, they will absolutely need permission to do the works that you are referring to. I think you are looking at wrong part of the lease to be honest. I would be requesting the plans and who is going to be doing those works. I am a property manager and that is the norm for such things. If the builders put a loose connection in and someone else suffers leaks then you will suffer consequences. Finding out the detail would be standard. 

That would be the case with most leases.

However, the the OP talks about "2 maisonettes". They sometimes have very unusual leases.

For example,

• There are no common parts
• The first floor leaseholder is responsible for the first floor structure and roof
• The ground floor leaseholder is responsible for the ground floor structure and foundations
• The freeholder isn't responsible for anything

If the freeholder isn't responsible for any part of the building, it might not be too surprising that the freeholder's consent isn't required for alterations. 


The bottom line is that the OP needs to read through the leases thoroughly, to check.

That’s true re the different type of leases and I haven’t seen one for a maisonette. I re-read the first post  and the clause mentions needing a license to alter the plan of the demise. By changing the position of the kitchen to the spare room, they are altering the plan and so would need permission from the leaseholder

user1977

Leesabee1 said:

eddddy said:

Leesabee1 said:

To my knowledge, they will absolutely need permission to do the works that you are referring to. I think you are looking at wrong part of the lease to be honest. I would be requesting the plans and who is going to be doing those works. I am a property manager and that is the norm for such things. If the builders put a loose connection in and someone else suffers leaks then you will suffer consequences. Finding out the detail would be standard. 

That would be the case with most leases.

However, the the OP talks about "2 maisonettes". They sometimes have very unusual leases.

For example,

• There are no common parts
• The first floor leaseholder is responsible for the first floor structure and roof
• The ground floor leaseholder is responsible for the ground floor structure and foundations
• The freeholder isn't responsible for anything

If the freeholder isn't responsible for any part of the building, it might not be too surprising that the freeholder's consent isn't required for alterations. 


The bottom line is that the OP needs to read through the leases thoroughly, to check.

That’s true re the different type of leases and I haven’t seen one for a maisonette. I re-read the first post  and the clause mentions needing a license to alter the plan of the demise. By changing the position of the kitchen to the spare room, they are altering the plan and so would need permission from the leaseholder

I would read "the plan of the demise" as meaning changes to the extent of the demise, not reallocating the use of rooms within it. Otherwise where do you stop that e.g. if I start using a bedroom as a dining room, do I need consent?

NameUnavailable

indigofreeze said:

They will need to move pipes. I thought this part meant they needed consent

"make any alteration in the plan"

I happy for them to do the work but my family member is not very happy about the disruption.

I'll just let them get on with it. Thanks for the input

This isn't a good enough reason to refuse permission (if it was needed) and would be overturned if they took you to tribunal.

georgehere

Whatever happens try to keep on reasonable terms and avoid disputes. In truth, there could be practical issues with this ... often flats are arranged so that for example, bathrooms are above bathrooms - thus leaks can be easier to deal with/damage from leaks can be less harmful. Or bedrooms are not sited below living rooms which can give rise to noise conflicts.

Have the discussion on friendly terms and if you discover they need consent, then you can still allow changes but perhaps be more insistent on the specifications with extra waterproofing or soundproofing as an example.

Leesabee1

user1977 said:

Leesabee1 said:

eddddy said:

Leesabee1 said:

To my knowledge, they will absolutely need permission to do the works that you are referring to. I think you are looking at wrong part of the lease to be honest. I would be requesting the plans and who is going to be doing those works. I am a property manager and that is the norm for such things. If the builders put a loose connection in and someone else suffers leaks then you will suffer consequences. Finding out the detail would be standard. 

That would be the case with most leases.

However, the the OP talks about "2 maisonettes". They sometimes have very unusual leases.

For example,

• There are no common parts
• The first floor leaseholder is responsible for the first floor structure and roof
• The ground floor leaseholder is responsible for the ground floor structure and foundations
• The freeholder isn't responsible for anything

If the freeholder isn't responsible for any part of the building, it might not be too surprising that the freeholder's consent isn't required for alterations. 


The bottom line is that the OP needs to read through the leases thoroughly, to check.

That’s true re the different type of leases and I haven’t seen one for a maisonette. I re-read the first post  and the clause mentions needing a license to alter the plan of the demise. By changing the position of the kitchen to the spare room, they are altering the plan and so would need permission from the leaseholder

I would read "the plan of the demise" as meaning changes to the extent of the demise, not reallocating the use of rooms within it. Otherwise where do you stop that e.g. if I start using a bedroom as a dining room, do I need consent?

Changing a living room to a bedroom is one thing, you wouldn’t need consent for that as the room usage is not that different. Adding pipes, gas connections etc is a whole other ballgame. That is not a simple internal redecoration and would definitely require permission. 

user1977

Leesabee1 said:

user1977 said:

Leesabee1 said:

eddddy said:

Leesabee1 said:

To my knowledge, they will absolutely need permission to do the works that you are referring to. I think you are looking at wrong part of the lease to be honest. I would be requesting the plans and who is going to be doing those works. I am a property manager and that is the norm for such things. If the builders put a loose connection in and someone else suffers leaks then you will suffer consequences. Finding out the detail would be standard. 

That would be the case with most leases.

However, the the OP talks about "2 maisonettes". They sometimes have very unusual leases.

For example,

• There are no common parts
• The first floor leaseholder is responsible for the first floor structure and roof
• The ground floor leaseholder is responsible for the ground floor structure and foundations
• The freeholder isn't responsible for anything

If the freeholder isn't responsible for any part of the building, it might not be too surprising that the freeholder's consent isn't required for alterations. 


The bottom line is that the OP needs to read through the leases thoroughly, to check.

That’s true re the different type of leases and I haven’t seen one for a maisonette. I re-read the first post  and the clause mentions needing a license to alter the plan of the demise. By changing the position of the kitchen to the spare room, they are altering the plan and so would need permission from the leaseholder

I would read "the plan of the demise" as meaning changes to the extent of the demise, not reallocating the use of rooms within it. Otherwise where do you stop that e.g. if I start using a bedroom as a dining room, do I need consent?

Changing a living room to a bedroom is one thing, you wouldn’t need consent for that as the room usage is not that different. Adding pipes, gas connections etc is a whole other ballgame. That is not a simple internal redecoration and would definitely require permission. 

Only if the lease actually says so. The clause quoted doesn't say anything about alterations to plumbing etc.