New planning changes intended to address Australia’s housing shortage have opened up “micro-development” opportunities for private investors and property developers.
Recent analysis has identified more than 655,000 suitable sites for the construction of a granny flat across Australia’s three largest capital cities—Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane.
So what are these opportunities and how can property developers tap into them?
Join us for a virtual course where we explore the market opportunity, planning framework, investment model and built outcomes associated with developing granny flats.
Click here to register and learn more.
What will be covered
PRESENTATION
MARKET OPPORTUNITY
Ben’s presentation will explore the research underpinning their recent report Granny flats: Where are the greatest opportunities for development? which identified 655,000 suitable sites across Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne.
Speaker: Dr Benjamin Coorey – Founder, Archistar.Ai
Dr Coorey is a global leading expert in architecture and generative design. He has a PhD in generative design and has dedicated his working career to consulting, educating and developing cutting edge technology to revolutionise the architectural design and property industries.
PRESENTATION
PLANNING FRAMEWORK
In this session, we’ll explore the planning pathways for developing granny flats in Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane. This includes application and approval processes, council contributions and costs and other certification requirements.
Speaker: Andrea Pagliaro – Director, Urbis
Andrea has more than 15 years planning experience working in private consultancy and local government. He is recognised for his expertise in statutory and strategic planning, and regularly handles complex planning approvals. He has also worked on the preparation of strategic planning applications and provides strategic policy advice. Andrea has worked on numerous residential development applications across inner and middle-ring suburbs in Melbourne.
PRESENTATION
INVESTMENT MODELS AND THE BUILT OUTCOME
Dive into the feasibility model for investing in granny flats, exploring direct costs, depreciation benefits and typical returns. Additionally, discover a range of design typologies, construction methods, program insights, pricing considerations and consumer preferences.
Speaker: Wally Gebrael – Design & Approvals Manager, Granny Flat Solutions
Wally, the founder of Granny Flat Solutions and New South Homes, has more than two decades in the industry. Pioneering custom-designed, high-quality granny flats across Sydney and the Central Coast, Wally leads a team with a remarkable track record, delivering more than 200 projects annually and establishing his brands as industry leaders.
The Urban Developer’s A Developer’s Guide to Granny Flats vCourse will take place on Thursday, December 14, 2023. Click here to register and learn more.
Published: Nov. 7, 2023 at 2:23 a.m. ET
By Adria Calatayud
Telecom Italia said it signed an agreement for the sale of its fixed-network assets with private-equity group KKR and an Abu Dhabi Investment Authority entity, which is an additional investor.
The Italian telecommunications company said late Monday that Azure Vista, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Abu Dhabi Investment Authority,…
By Adria Calatayud
Telecom Italia said it signed an agreement for the sale of its fixed-network assets with private-equity group KKR and an Abu Dhabi Investment Authority entity, which is an additional investor.
The Italian telecommunications company said late Monday that Azure Vista, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Abu Dhabi Investment Authority, together with a business controlled by KKR, signed the agreement for the sale of the business also known as NetCo.
On Sunday, Telecom Italia said its board had accepted an offer from KKR that valued the network business at 18.8 billion euros ($20.15 billion), including debt, and potentially at up to EUR22 billion. At the time, the company didn’t mention the participation of the Abu Dhabi Investment Authority in the deal.
Write to Adria Calatayud at adria.calatayud@dowjones.com
Meghan Markle has been planning her comeback and will soon unveil a new money-making venture, a royal expert has speculated.
Royal biographer Emily Andrews has predicted a notable return to the spotlight for the Duchess of Sussex since her Archetypes podcast was axed by Spotify earlier this year.
It comes after Meghan, 42, signed up to talent agency William Morris Endeavor (WME) in April, which boasts clients including Dwayne ‘The Rock’ Johnson and Serena Williams.
Speaking on Meghan’s future in the public eye, Andrews noted that the Duchess has been spotted at public events more and more over the last few months – indicating that her next big step may be imminent.
She told Woman Magazine: ‘It was no accident that over the Summer, we saw rather more of Meghan than for all of the past year.’
Ms Andrews believes Meghan’s moves are very ‘calculated’ and claimed her ‘sudden willingness’ to be photographed suggests the former actress knows her ‘commercial value.’
Indeed, the Duchess has been making regular appearances lately: shopping at a farmers’ market, watching Barbie with friends, attending a Beyonce concert and celebrating her birthday at a local restaurant.
She also spent six days at the Invictus Games, attended Kevin Costner’s star-studded One805 Live! fundraiser in Santa Barbara and spoke at a mental health summit in New York on World Mental Health Day.
The royal biographer said: ‘Meghan has decided she wants to live her life much more openly and the ‘relaunch’ by her new Hollywood power broker agency, WME, was started with a series of August photographs and reports to maximise plans for a new money-making venture.’
The Duchess’ recent career moves suggest she is working on her enterprise efforts – and, since she and Harry are still involved in a deal with Netflix, there could be more content in the works.
So far, the couple has released chart-topping docuseries Harry & Meghan, revealing shocking bombshells about the Royal Family, and Heart of Invictus, which followed six people competing in the 2022 Invictus Games.
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex are currently working on a project addressing the impact that social media can have on the mental health of young people, according to a report released by the Archewell Foundation.
After speaking with parents and young individuals, the pair outlined plans to address the negative impacts of social media, including altering platform design and bringing in new laws and special education, as well as increased access to resources.
It comes after Prince Harry and Meghan were spotted touching down in Atlanta following a romantic weekend getaway in the Caribbean.
They were seen flying into the city on a private flight on Monday as they returned from their brief holiday to the tiny island of Canouan in St Vincent and the Grenadines.
Exclusive DailyMail.com photos show the royal couple disembarking the plane and leaving the tarmac, where they were greeted by staff and U.S. Customs and Border Patrol agents.
Meghan, sporting a post-vacation glow, came prepared for the cooler Atlanta weather in a black maxi dress and Hermes sandals, along with the brand’s Brides de Gala scarf.
She wore dark sunglasses and tied her hair back in a messy bun, and carried a souvenir tote emblazoned with the words ‘Cream of the Islands’.
Equipped with his weekender bag, Harry was also dressed casually in a white polo shirt, olive trousers and shoes, topping off his look with a black cap.
The Sussexes’ two young children were not seen returning with their parents and appeared to not have joined them on their trip.
It is unclear if Harry and Meghan traveled to Atlanta – where close friend Tyler Perry is known to have his own massive studio lot – for work or leisure.
A 1980s carpark in a central Perth location would be the scene of a $150-million office and residential conversion under plans for the WA capital.
GDI Property Group acquired the Perth CBD block at 301-311 Wellington Street in 2021.
The proposed development would deliver a 19-storey tower with a mix of apartments, office space, retail and dining. It would include 12 storeys of offices, 51 apartments and a public plaza.
GDI Property Group’s plans for the adaptive reuse project have been supported by the City of Perth and will now go to the state for approval.
Construction costs for the project have been estimated at $150 million. Sections of the existing structure would be retained during construction.
The approval of the building was subject to conditions—the public should receive unrestricted access to public areas of the building.
The existing carpark contains 595 spots and has an office space on the ground floor.
▲ A render of the project at the intersection of Wellington and Pier streets.
Reportedly, the apartments would be a build-to-rent model and include a mix of one and two-bedroom apartments.
There would also be retail and restaurants included in the development for the public and residents to use.
According to the development application,“the adaptive reuse proposal aims to create a vibrant and sustainable mixed-use development”.
▲ Vacant buildings in the Perth CBD could follow suit.
- Greenwich council issued an enforcement notice against Comer Homes Group
- Developer was told to completely tear down the tower blocks due to breaches
Estate agents are still advertising viewings for the ‘mutant’ South London flats which the Labour-led council has ordered developers to raze due to a planning law breach, MailOnline can reveal today.
An email was sent around but many residents of the tower blocks, which contain 205 flats, found out their homes were earmarked for destruction by news reports. Some were forced to approach the front desk for more information today after reading about it.
The Royal Borough of Greenwich has issued an enforcement notice against Comer Homes Group and the developer has been told to completely tear down its Mast Quay Phase II residential towers in Woolwich which were originally approved in 2012.
The Labour-led council said the blocks, one of which is 23 storeys tall, are ‘substantially different’ to the approved plans and are now in breach of planning permission.
Some residents complained the quality of the property was so poor that they welcomed the demolition, while others were dumfounded how no one from the council noticed the years-long project was going awry.
Woolwich residents reported they received a statement featuring 26 things wrong with the property, where a carparking space reportedly costs £250 a month and one-bed flats rent for £1,750 a month.
They didn’t create a roof top terrace, as promised on the planning application, nor did they make their gym and ground floor apartments step-free, and the overall floor plan was said to be oversized.
One anonymous woman rushed across the forecourt to speak to the reception, and on her way said: ‘I got an email saying “update on the planning enforcement” and I was like, what planning enforcement?’
Another resident, who worked in housing and would not give his named, said he was ‘shocked’ it was being knocked down, and that the estate agents at Hamptons, who have an on-site office, were still giving viewings to potential renters.
He said: ‘I was shocked that it’s come to this.
‘I’m a little confused why they were still conducting viewings if they know it’s going to be demolished, I saw people over the weekend.
‘I just want to know what the plans are, do we need to start looking now? Do we need to start packing now?
‘It will be a waste of money, it was create people unnecessary problems.
‘[The council] should have been checking and keeping an eye on it. I just don’t see how our council could let something like this be constructed without checking in about what’s happening. So both sides there are a lot of poor decisions.’
Council leader Anthony Okereke said the decision had not been taken lightly but said he believed it is ‘reasonable and proportionate to the scale and seriousness of the situation’.
He added: ‘Mast Quay Phase II represents two prominent high-rise buildings on Woolwich’s riverside that just are not good enough, and the reason that they are not good enough is because the development that was given planning permission is not the one that we can all see before us today.
‘In Our Greenwich, our vision for the borough by 2030, I committed to development that delivers positive change to the area for existing and new communities, and this is simply not the case with Mast Quay Phase II.
‘The right thing to do is not usually the easy thing to do. That is why we will not stand by and allow poor quality and unlawful development anywhere in our borough and we are not afraid of taking difficult decisions when we believe it’s the right thing to do.’
A 30-year-old resident, who’s a full-time writing student in the States, living and working remotely in Woolwich, said he ‘wasn’t surprised’ to hear it was going to be knocked down.
The man, who wanted to remain anonymous, said: ‘It’s a really nice place, I was surprised to hear they weren’t supposed to build it.
‘I think most of the conversations happening in the building are really just people concerned about finding homes.
‘There is still a housing crisis here in London.
‘I was surprised at how quickly it was built, I would be lying if I said there weren’t some cricks and cracks.
‘I would say I’m not surprised about the way that it’s gone, it was just very, very, very quickly built here.’
He added that people moved in while works were ongoing, and that he felt it was heavily marketed towards young people, and that all the residents he saw were in their 20s and 30s.
He said: ‘It’s a new place for younger people at the expense of expediency.’
Another resident, who did not want to be named, was so dissatisfied with the quality of the property that she would use the break clause if she had been given it.
She suggested that the demolition had been on the cards since March but that no one was made aware.
She said: ‘I didn’t know about it [the demolition.] I found out yesterday when I saw the statement on my email.
‘I think I saw some article in March. To be honest if there was a break clause because of all this I would take it.’
Shraddha Qureshi, 37, who lives in the flat block next door that will remain standing, said she was worried about living next to a demolition site. She felt it was unnecessary to knock it down because it didn’t fit the plans.
She added: ‘It’s a huge, huge building, so there would be too much in the air. Just because it didn’t go along with the initial planning? Oh, God.
‘It’s going to spoil the views as well, the demolition. So I wouldn’t go with that idea.’
She said she had been excited for the building to come to the area and felt it looked high quality and sleek, with bright colours than its neighbours.
Comer Homes Group has said it will appeal against the enforcement notice and will ‘robustly’ correct what it says are ‘inaccuracies’ about the development and address the council’s concerns.
It said: ‘The Comer Homes Group is surprised and extremely disappointed by the decision of the Royal Borough of Greenwich to issue an enforcement notice in respect of our Mast Quay Phase II development.
‘We are particularly surprised to see the accompanying public statements which are inaccurate and misrepresent the position and our actions.
‘We have over many months sought to engage constructively with the council and, not withstanding these disproportionate actions, remain willing to do so.
‘We are justly proud of our track record of delivering high-quality developments across the UK. In our view the council’s concerns regarding Mast Quay Phase II can be addressed through following normal process and engaging with us on a retrospective planning application. We encourage the council to meet with us and agree a way forward which will avoid wasting significant sums of taxpayers’ money on litigation when sensible solutions to their concerns are available.
‘We are also prioritising the interests of residents at Mast Quay Phase II and we are and will continue to do all that we can to assist them to remain secure in their homes while we respond to the council’s actions.
‘We will make no further public comment and will be writing directly to the council to seek the meetings we have been calling for.’
Sessions House, the landmark headquarters of Kent County Council, will go on the market tomorrow.
The sale is to be handled by Montagu Evans, a property consultancy specialising in selling public buildings.
The property, off Week Street in the centre of Maidstone, will be sold as whole or chopped up into five separate blocks.
A 12-page full-colour brochure has been produced as part of a co-ordinated marketing campaign to find a buyer.
There is no price tag on the property, also known as County Hall, but potential buyers have been invited to submit bids by December.
mpu1
The brochure states: “Rare opportunity to acquire the whole or part of a listed building in the heart of Maidstone.
“The whole building is surplus to requirements and we are inviting interest from parties (either for part or all of the building) on an all inquiries basis. Unconditional and subject to planning offers considered for a long leasehold interest.”
Much of Sessions House is empty, shut on safety grounds, and with an historic lack of maintenance will continue to deteriorate.
KCC has made no secret of its plans for “disposal” of the 227,000 sq ft building in recent years and the need to move to premises fit for the 21st century.
The building, designed by Sir Robert Smirke in the Greek Revival style, is 150 years old next year.
In an email to members, deputy leader of KCC, Cllr Peter Oakford, writes: “As you may recall I recently took a decision to undertake some further market testing of Sessions House, Maidstone.
mpu2
“I am pleased to confirm that the campaign led by our real estate agents is due to go live at the end of this week with bids due in December.
“This will include an advert in the Estates Gazette and marketing material along with a focused campaign across a range of sectors.
“The further market testing is an important part of the process which will inform the options and the next steps moving forward.
“Bids are planned to close in December and following an assessment of the options I will be in a position to consider next steps and report an update to the Policy and Resources Committee next spring.”
A copy of the Montagu Evans PDF document was circulated to elected members on Tuesday and passed to the LDRS.
It states that Sessions House is subject to a restrictive covenant in favour of the Ministry of Justice as much of the estate overlooks Maidstone Prison. Vacant possession is available on completion, it adds.
A recent KCC document stated: “Historic under-investment in the estate over many years has created a significant maintenance backlog.
“As a result of this backlog and the limited suitability of buildings, many services are delivered from buildings that offer a poor user experience.
“In some cases, staff and service users have had to work in restricted and challenging environments due to condition problems which have resulted in the need to temporarily close areas of buildings or a whole building due to health and safety concerns.”
Nearby Invicta House would be refurbished for continued use by KCC staff, the brochure said.
On the subject of what it the building may be turned into, the brochure says “the principle of development is supported for all uses, noting the town centre location but cognisant of the marketing exercise and viability”.
However, any residential scheme, including affordable housing, would be “subject to viability”.
Earlier this week, Cllr Antony Hook, the leader of the Liberal Democrat, pointed out many of Sessions House’s many current shortcomings – including a plastic mop bucket placed near the council chamber to catch rainwater through a leaking skylight.
Cllr Hook added: “It’s a beautiful old building and has a real, imposing presence and, with a sympathetic approach, it could be put to great use. You could see a boutique hotel with cafes and restaurants with its wide open frontage.
“It could prove to be a landmark for people to visit. It’s a grand building for a county council but not as it stands.”
Conservative councillor Simon Webb said: “We haven’t got any option but to sell it – the repair bill for Sessions House would be enormous.
“We haven’t the money to fix the building and it is just going to fall into further disrepair. We need to sell it to someone who can look after it. It’s common sense.”
In an exclusive interview with DFT, C2G Consultancy managing director and founder Anil Sehmi (pictured above), delved into the impact his new company will have on property developers and investors.
C2G — named after its “Cradle 2 Grave” offering for property developers and investors — launched earlier this month to help clients find optimal building sites and assist with all planning, team, and finance matters.
Anil, who has 25 years of experience in relationship management and business development banking — having worked for lenders such as Paragon Bank, Hampshire Trust Bank, RBS, National Australia Bank, and Clydesdale Bank — saw how frustrated developers were with the time it took to secure loans.
He also witnessed brokers lacking specialist knowledge in analysing developments prior to approaching lenders, and the headache of having to deal with numerous companies throughout the development journey.
To help these problems, Anil set up C2G as a one-stop-shop to help clients find sites, assist with all planning matters, and evaluate opportunities to determine realistic land values — not just based on market conditions — but also on the client’s own way of procurement.
Anil said that the C2G team will be able to “quickly and at no cost identify realistic land values and, more importantly, the pitfalls and key issues on a project that lenders or investors may pick up on”.
The consultancy company will also be involved in arranging finance, and will prepare detailed reports backed by the lender’s own panel of professionals so that when it reaches a committee, C2G will likely have success at little or no cost to the client.
“From my experience, getting all the banks’ professionals to complete formalities is a challenge and can be quite frustrating for all; C2G will have a robust process to get the deal drawn,” stated Anil.
“By using the lender’s own professional panel to evaluate the project in advance . . . the underwriters/committee will be more supportive as it’s those panel professionals they will appoint.
“A developer does not want to waste weeks of supplying information only for the lenders or investors to decline the deal.
“C2G will be in a position to tell the clients quickly if this is a project that will work or not.”
The company’s vast database of contractors and property professionals will also help with setting up the right team for the project.
After that, C2G will assist in monthly construction meetings with the client’s team and lender professionals.
Anil told DFT this was key, especially if things don’t go to plan.
The team will also devise and implement a clear exit strategy on completion.
“Whether the client wants to retain or sell, C2G has the necessary expertise to ensure maximum profits and good returns are achieved.”
Looking forward, C2G will be building its own development projects under this brand.
The Building Safety Act 2022 (“the Act”), which received Royal Assent on 28 April 2022, is being brought into force in stages. The Act aims to reform building safety legislation and hopefully is another step forward to achieving better building safety following the Grenfell Tower disaster in 2017. Developers, building owners/managers, landlords and contractors are among those to be affected by the changes already in place as well as further awaited secondary legislation and guidance to be passed. Here, we have set out a brief overview of the Act and how it may impact commercial buildings. Please note the focus of the Act in this article is on its application in England, although there are provisions that apply to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
Does the Act apply to ALL buildings?
The focus of the Act is on higher-risk buildings (“HRBs”), which is separately defined. Part 3 of the Act, which focuses on the design and construction stage of buildings, defines HRBs as those which are at least 18 metres in height or with at least 7 storeys, which contain two or more dwellings. Part 4 of the Act is considered during the occupation stage of a building and sets out a minimum height of 18 metres or at least 7 storeys and must contain at least two residential units. Although there is a residential element within the definitions, there is no requirement that such buildings must be purely residential and therefore, mixed-use buildings may fall within the scope if they meet the other criterias in the definition of HRBs.
It is worth noting that care homes and hospitals are included within the definition of HRBs within Part 3 of the Act, however, are excluded from the definition in Part 4 of the Act. This is because such buildings already have high levels of regulations in place relating to their occupation, for example, care homes and hospitals come under the Care Quality Commission and are regulated as workplaces by the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005. Hotels and secure residential institutions are excluded for similar reasons.
Part 5 of the Act also creates another category of buildings, which is relevant building (“RB”). A RB is a building at least 11 metres in height or 5 storeys and contains at least two dwellings. Mixed-use buildings also come under this category. Different rules therefore apply to different categories of buildings, however, some parts of the Act apply to all buildings.
The new regulator
The Act established a new Building Safety Regulator (“BSR”), who will be part of the Health and Safety Executive. The BSR will be the new building control body for all HRBs under the Act (removing this function from building control approved inspectors/local authority), and developers will therefore face a more onerous building control regime under the new three-stage “gateway” regime. The aim is to ensure that building safety risks are considered at each stage of a new HRB design and construction and refurbishment stage.
Gateways
The BSA creates a gateway regime for the design and construction of and major refurbishment to all HRBs. There are three gateways that HRBs must adhere to. In brief, gateway 1 applies at the planning stage and is already in force and forms part of the existing planning application process in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Satisfaction of gateway 1 involves a developer submitting a fire statement with the planning application, showing fire safety issues have been considered. Gateway 2 applies before construction or refurbishment works of a HRB begins and the BSR must be satisfied that the design meets building regulations and that safety management requirements for the completed building are realistic. The BSR has a 12-week statutory period to review and determine the application. Gateway 3 relates to completion – the BSR approval must be obtained on completion of the building works in the form of a completion certificate. Again, the BSR has a further 12-week statutory period to review and determine the application. A HRB cannot be occupied unless a completion certificate has been obtained from the BSR and the building has been registered. At each gateway, the approval of the BSR will need to be obtained in order to progress to the next stage of work.
The timing of the gateway approvals is important and will need to be factored into some real estate documents such as, agreements for leases and development agreements particularly if buildings cannot be occupied for up to 12 weeks after completion. Important dates such as completion dates, rent free periods, dates of permitted entry will all be determined by sign off from the BSR and the property being registered.
Which buildings need to be registered?
Once a HRB has been constructed and gateway 3 completion certificate has been provided, the building will need to be registered with the BSR. Existing HRBs must be registered with the BSR by 30 September 2023 and failure to do so is a criminal offence. HRBs completed after 1 October 2023 must be registered before the building is occupied.
Accountable person/ principle accountable person
Once a HRB is occupied, Part 4 of the Act imposes obligations on the accountable person (“AP”) to monitor and manage building safety risks. The AP is whoever owns or is obliged to repair the common parts. There may be more than one AP for a building, and they can be an individual, a partnership, or a company. Where a building has more than one AP, a principal accountable person (“PAP”) will be identified and have overall responsibility for the safety of the building. The PAP will be the person who either owns or is legally obliged to repair the structure and exterior of the building. The AP or PAP has an overall obligation to maintain a “golden thread” of up-to-date information about HRBs, which evidence compliance with building regulations. This will ensure that each building owner has the information they need to manage building safety properly and that those responsible for design and construction can be identified and remain accountable throughout the lifecycle of the building.
Other provisions
Part 5 of the Act deals with the recovery of remedial costs of historic defects, which applies to a RB. Generally, landlords are required to undertake to pay for remediation works for a “relevant defect” in a RB. A relevant defect is a defect arising out of relevant works, which are works carried out in the last 30 years (i.e between 28 June 1992 and 27 June 2022) or works undertaken on or after 28 June 2022 to remedy a relevant defect), and which puts people’s safety at risk from the spread of fire or the structural collapse of the building.
Section 122 and Schedule 8 of the Act introduces restrictions on recovery of service charge for remedying defects under “qualifying leases”’ A qualifying lease is a lease for a term of 21 years or more, granted before 14 February 2022 and obliges the tenant to pay service charge. The dwelling must be the tenant’s principal home and the tenant must not own more than two dwellings in the UK. Essentially, the Act sets out a number of financial caps and exclusions on service charge payments for defects in relevant buildings, the aim being to provide additional protection for leaseholders in relation to both cladding and non-cladding remediation works.
If there is a relevant defect, section 123 of the Act gives the First-Tier Tribunal (“FTT”) powers to issue remediation orders, if it considers it “just and equitable” to do so, to a relevant landlord of a qualifying lease. The remediation order does not offer a right of recovery against a contractor, designer or developer who has disposed of the property. In addition, section 124 of the Act gives the FTT powers to issue remediation contribution orders (“RCOs”), which are concerned with the funding of these remedial works. The FTT can make RCOs if it considers it just and equitable to do so if applied for by an interested person. These include the BSR, the Secretary of State, the local authority, the local fire and rescue authority, any person with a legal or equitable interest in the RB or other persons specified in the regulations. If granted, the RCO require payment to be made to a specified person for the purpose of meeting costs relating to the remediation works. The order can be made against corporate entities or partnerships that are landlords, developers of the building or a person associated with the landlord or developer.
- Building industry schemes
Section 126-129 of the Act allows the government to introduce building industry scheme(s), in order to “secure the safety of people in or about buildings in relation to risks arising from buildings or improve the standards of buildings”. The first of these schemes is the “responsible actors scheme”, which requires members to comply with the “developer remediation contract”. The scheme is aimed mainly at major housing developers and other larger developers who have developed or refurbished multiple residential buildings known to have “life-critical fire safety defects”. Eligible developers who do not become members may face consequences for example prohibition from carrying out major development. The definition of major development includes residential schemes that provide 10 or more residential units and also includes commercial development creating at least 1,000 square metres of floor space.
- Building Liability Orders
These provide a mechanism through which the costs of remedying building safety risks can extend to “associated” entities with the company/companies involved with the original build, making them jointly or severally liable. Section 131 of the Act sets out the criteria for determining whether a corporate body is associated. The definition is wide and is going to be a concern on corporate acquisitions as it includes parent companies, a company which subsequently purchases the party responsible for the defect, as well as sister companies. In order for the court to make a building liability order, there must be a “relevant liability” under:
- the Defective Premises Act 1972 (“DPA”);
- section 38 of the Building Act 1984 (“BA”), which is a new cause of action relating to a breach of building regulations causing damage including death or personal injury; or
- resulting from a building safety risk, which is defined under section 130 (6) of the Act.
The Act does not provide restrictions on the types of buildings or building works in respect of which building liability orders can be sought. Liability under the DPA attaches only to works in connection with dwellings but if brought into force, section 38 of the BA is wider and allows claims in respect of any works or buildings. Also, section 130(6) BSA doesn’t specify a type of building.
Section 1 of the DPA enables claims to be made for defective works concerning the construction of dwellings where the work renders the dwelling unfit for habitation. The Act introduces a new section 2A under the DPA, which extends the right to claim under the DPA for any work carried out to an existing dwelling i.e repairs, extensions and refurbishments. This is providing the works are done in the course of business and not by an individual doing work in their own or anyone else’s home. Previously, the limitation period for claims under this section was six years from the date of completion of works, however, the Act amends the DPA to extend limitation periods for claims brought under both sections 1 and the new 2A (as of 28 June 2022) from:
- six years to 15 years for claims that accrue or for works completed on or after 28 June 2022 under sections 1 and section 2A of the DPA; and
- six to 30 years retrospectively for claims that accrued or for works completed before 28 June 2022 under section 1 of the DPA.
- Section 38 of the BA
Part 3 of the Act intends to bring into force section 38 of the BA, which was brought into law in 1984 but never brought into force. This provision allows a claim for compensation to be brought by anyone suffering losses for physical damage (i.e. injury or property damage) caused by a breach of building regulations. Unlike the DPA, the claims are not limited to just dwellings and residential properties and can apply to all buildings in England and Wales. The limitation for these claims is 15 years and there is no 30 year retrospective limit.
Conclusion
Although there appears to be a particular focus on residential construction, the Act will have a significant impact on all buildings. In addition to the specific HRBs definitions contained in Part 3 and Part 4 of the Act, the BSR is required by Section 3(1) of the Act “to secure the safety of people in or about buildings in relation to risks arising from buildings and improving the standards of buildings”. This is not limited to HRBs. Furthermore, some provisions apply to all properties regardless of height or use, for example, the building industry scheme provision under section 126 of the Act covers buildings in general and the provisions in relation to building liability orders.
Buyers/occupiers of buildings will be concerned to discover how the Act might impact them. CPSEs have been updated to include specific enquiries relating to the Act in CPSE 1 and CPSE 6 and since the Act highlights the importance of ensuring that the property meets certain conditions, conveyancers will need to be more vigilant and obtain more information about the building safety measures, compliance with regulations and any ongoing remediations works that may be necessary. Overall, as the Act is constantly undergoing updates, we are expecting further significant amounts of secondary legislation and guidance to be passed and it may take some time to see how the Act is interpreted in practice. Overall, it will be a challenge for the built environment sector to keep up with the changes and it may take some time to see the lasting effects of the Act as a lot can change over the coming years. Ultimately, the hope is that the Act will help residents and occupiers in buildings feel safer and will change the way buildings are designed, constructed, and managed.
- There are legitimate ways to pass down money without incurring tax
- Unexpected tax bills could crop up if you don’t follow the rules
As inheritance tax receipts hit a record £7.1billion a year, a growing number of families are looking for ways to slash their costs.
From making gifts during your lifetime to setting up trusts, there are many legitimate ways to pass down money to loved ones without incurring tax. But before you steamroll ahead it is worth doing your homework.
Fail to abide by the strict rules and you could inadvertently land your family with an unexpected tax bill.
We have identified eight major pitfalls that you should be wary of when planning the future of your estate, and how much they could cost you.
1 Hand over home and stay in annexe – £115,000 hit
Parents often want to pass on the family home to their children – but without landing them with a massive tax bill.
A property worth up to £1million can be handed by a couple to direct descendants tax-free – but anything above this is charged at 40 per cent.
A single person with children can pass on a home worth half that sum tax free. Therefore it can be tempting for parents to hand over a family home during their lifetime, in the hope that it won’t form part of their estate for inheritance tax purposes.
There is no inheritance tax to pay on gifts so long as you live for a further seven years after making them. However, this plan can easily backfire if done incorrectly. That is because if you continue to live in the home after gifting it, it is considered a ‘gift with reservation of benefit’.
That means that the property is not deemed a genuine gift because it comes with strings attached.
Should this happen, the property may still be considered part of your estate when you die and therefore could attract inheritance tax.
Ian Dyall, estate planning specialist at wealth manager Evelyn Partners, says: ‘Generally, gifts will only be effective in mitigating inheritance tax if there is no continued use of the gifted assets and no strings attached, saying that they can be returned to the donor.’
The impact of this will depend on what the property is worth and what other assets you have. If, for example, you gifted your child a second home, but still used it regularly for holidays, your family could be hit with a bill of about £115,000.
This assumes that you own your own home and that it is worth more than £325,000 – or £650,000 if you’re a couple – and have a second home worth the average UK house price of £288,000. To mitigate the risk, you could pay your child rent if you plan to continue using the property.
But be careful: you must pay rent at the going market rate for it to be valid. And your children would have to pay income tax on the rent you paid them.
Related Articles
HOW THIS IS MONEY CAN HELP
2. Sell up and buy home together – £27,000 hit
Don’t think you can get around the rules by selling your home and gifting your children the cash to buy another one.
Dyall says he often sees cases where parents sell their home so their child can buy a bigger property for them to all live in together.
However, because the children then allow the parents to live rent-free, they risk a shock tax bill. ‘In some cases it is done completely innocently,’ he says, ‘perhaps by families buying a new home together so the grown-up children can provide care for an infirm parent.’
Families who do this risk falling foul of either ‘reservation of benefit’ rules, which would lead to an inheritance tax bill, or so-called ‘pre-owned asset’ legislation, which would lead to an income tax bill.
The latter would mean you could be landed with an income tax bill based on the rental value of the property. For example, if you sold your home and handed the cash to your child to buy a home for you all to live in together, Revenue & Customs would work out what share of the property came from your gift, add the annual rental value of that share to your income and charge you income tax on it.
It is effectively billing you for the benefit it deems you to have received. On the average UK rent of £1,126 a month, according to Zoopla, this would amount to a tax charge of £2,702 a year (or more for higher rate taxpayers). Over a ten-year period, that amounts to £27,024.
3. Make half-hearted gifts – £3,500 hit
If you make a gift, ensure you do it properly and formally. For example, if you hand over a painting, do so physically – even if it means leaving an unsightly space on your wall.
You should also make sure the beneficiary adds it to their home insurance – and you take it off yours – so there is evidence that the gift has been made.
Mike Warburton, a former tax director at the accountancy firm Grant Thornton, says: ‘There is a temptation, for example, to say after your parents have died that their valuable Old Master had been given to you seven years ago.
‘Contrary to some rumours, tax inspectors are not stupid. Apart from the insurance issue, when the solicitor handling the estate calls round, what is your answer for the suspiciously clean patch on the wall where it used to hang?’
Revenue & Customs will often investigate if gifts were made seven years before the giver died. It has access to huge amounts of personal information via a database called Connect, says Robert Levy, a specialist in tax investigations at law firm Kuits Solicitors.
There is no time limit on how long the taxman has to open an investigation into this. The interest charged on unpaid inheritance tax is currently 7.75 per cent.
A penalty can then be added to this, depending on the reason for underpayment. Where a mistake has been made, or there was lack of reasonable care, families could pay up to 30 per cent of the extra tax due. So if you had a painting worth £5,000, and failed to pay inheritance tax on it, after five years you would owe £905 in interest, £2,000 in the initial unpaid inheritance tax and £600 as a late penalty – amounting to £3,505.
4. Fail to put life cover into trust – £45,000 hit
Life insurance policies are often taken out to pay out to loved ones on the policyholder’s death.
But failing to set up the policy properly could needlessly land them with an inheritance tax bill. Life insurance policies can be put into trust, which means they are not included as part of your estate for inheritance tax purposes.
However, nearly 7,000 estates paid inheritance tax on life insurance payouts in 2020-21, according to the latest data.
These life insurance policies were worth £830million, which means up to £332million of inheritance tax may have been paid unnecessarily.
Sean McCann of wealth manager NFU Mutual says if a policy is not put into trust, it will be included in your estate. This means that up to 40 per cent of the payout could be lost to the taxman from the outset. On a policy that pays out £100,000, this would amount to a £40,000 bill.
‘Putting life insurance policies into trust is straightforward and many providers make trust forms available free of charge,’ he says.
5. Put pension cash into savings – £10,000 risk
Pensions can be a very tax efficient way of passing on money to loved ones. They can be passed on tax-free if the giver dies before the age of 75.
If they are older, the beneficiary pays income tax when they subsequently withdraw money from the pension.
However, pension holders often unwittingly jeopardise their tax-free status by needlessly withdrawing money from it and putting it into a savings account instead.
Once money is out of the pension, it is no longer safe from inheritance tax. This is a problem because pension holders frequently take advantage of their right to withdraw a 25 per cent tax-free lump sum from their pension whether or not they need the money.
McCann says: ‘Many people take significant sums from personal pensions, often with no clear idea of what they intend to do with the money, with many choosing to put it straight into a savings account.
‘It’s important to remember that money remaining in your pension on your death is normally free from inheritance tax, whereas savings accounts and most other investments are included when calculating an inheritance tax bill.’
For example, if you took £25,000 from a £100,000 pension pot and put it into a savings account, your beneficiaries would face a £10,000 bill when they inherited it. Whereas if you had left it in a pension, they may not have had to pay a penny.
6. Miss joint allowance – £200,000 hit
Couples who are married or in a civil partnership can combine their inheritance tax allowances.
A single person has an allowance of £325,000, but a couple has one of £650,000 to be used on the death of the remaining spouse.
However, many people do not realise that widows or widowers retain their deceased spouse’s inheritance tax allowance even if they remarry.
If you remarry, you can combine your inheritance tax allowance with that of your new spouse.
McCann says: ‘Many people who have been widowed and have remarried don’t realise they can potentially leave up to £1.5million free of inheritance tax. If their spouse was also widowed, they could leave up to £2million.
‘It’s important for anyone who has lost a spouse and remarried to take advice to maximise the sum they can leave tax-free to their family.’
For example, a widower who plans to leave the family home to his children could pass on a property worth £1million tax-free.
His new bride would also have her own allowance worth £500,000, assuming she too wishes to pass on a family home. Together, they can pass on a tax-free estate worth up to £1.5million.
7. Fail to tie the knot – £70,000 hit
You may have been with your partner for decades, have a home together, children, and shared finances.
But you will only enjoy the inheritance tax benefits of a couple if you are married or in a civil partnership.
If you own a property with your partner as joint tenants, your partner’s share will pass to you automatically if they die first.
However, their share still forms part of their estate for inheritance tax purposes so you may face a tax bill. If the property is worth £1million, their share would be £500,000 and so inheritance tax would be payable at 40 per cent on the sum above their tax-free allowance of £325,000. That would amount to a hit of £70,000.
8. Unclaimed overpaid IHT – £40,000 HIT
Inheritance tax usually has to be paid within six months of a death and is based on an estimate of the value of deceased’s assets on the day they died.
If the executors sell a house within four years of the death at a lower value they can reclaim the overpaid IHT.
Refunds are particularly common when house prices are falling, as the price achieved on a property is more likely to be less than had been expected. You can also claim back on shares and other qualifying investments that are sold at a lower value within 12 months of the death.
More than 5,000 families claimed a refund in the 2022-23 tax year after overpaying, official data shows.
That is up 22 per cent on the previous year.
McCann says: ‘Let’s take the example of someone who dies leaving significant assets, including a house worth £1million. Eighteen months after their death, the executors sell the property for £900,000. They could reclaim the inheritance tax on the £100,000 fall in the house price, resulting in a £40,000 reclaim for the beneficiaries.’
Some links in this article may be affiliate links. If you click on them we may earn a small commission. That helps us fund This Is Money, and keep it free to use. We do not write articles to promote products. We do not allow any commercial relationship to affect our editorial independence.
Industry leaders have said that projects that would deliver more than 100,000 homes across the country have been prevented as a result.
A quarter of those are in “Red Wall” areas like the Tees Valley, Cumbria and County Durham, which the Tories need to hold to win the next election.
Swathes of the South and East Anglia have also been affected, with construction on hold across parts of Norfolk, Hampshire, Somerset and Wiltshire.
Homebuilders have branded the rules disproportionate, with housing contributing to just four per cent of such pollution, most of which comes from agriculture.
‘Serious concerns about the approach’
Labour had initially signalled that it would support the Government’s plans to scrap the EU-era regulations when they were first unveiled by ministers.
Lisa Nandy, the then shadow housing secretary, told the Commons last month her party would “support effective measures that get Britain building”.
But its position shifted after the proposals drew the ire of nature groups including the RSPB, which accused Mr Sunak of abandoning his green promises.
Last week, Matthew Pennycook, the shadow housing minister, said Labour had “serious concerns about the approach the Government have decided on”.
He said Sir Keir would still review the rules “with a view to addressing problematic delays and increasing the pace at which homes can be delivered”.