Examines the French approach to residential commonhold management,the over‐regulation in commonhold management in France and the problemsthat this causes. Considers the…
Examines the French approach to residential commonhold management, the over‐regulation in commonhold management in France and the problems that this causes. Considers the implications of the French system for the introduction of commonhold in the UK. Concludes that UK commonhold management is likely to follow a less highly regulated path than France, having more in common with the legislation in Australia and the USA.
Highlights important policy issues in respect of the proposed commonhold system, and how it may affect long leaseholders and landlords/freeholders. Discusses the College of Estate Management Report 1990, and parts I to IV of the Lord Chancellor′s Consultation Paper on commonhold. Sets out the method, and systems to form and control commonholds, and the mechanism to wind‐up commonholds where required.
Provides some background to new proposals in the UK to introducelegislation which would give existing long leaseholders ininterdependent properties the collective right to…
Provides some background to new proposals in the UK to introduce legislation which would give existing long leaseholders in interdependent properties the collective right to purchase the freehold interest. Sets out to examine the management structure of commonhold properties, with particular emphasis on the dynamics of collective management, in three countries where it is well established: Australia, France and the USA.
Explains the 1987 Report by the Law Commission on combined ownership of land and blocks of flats. Concludes that the Report addresses current (1993) unfair situations. Urges that there must be impetus to adopt the Report. Fears that the issue has been “placed on the back burner”.
This paper aims to compare the law with regard to private property rights and restrictions and public controls in England and the USA, and the theoretical debates that…
This paper aims to compare the law with regard to private property rights and restrictions and public controls in England and the USA, and the theoretical debates that surround them, to understand whether the private land use controls of nuisance and restrictive covenants could have a greater role to play or the public law system of planning is the best way to manage land.
This paper starts by summarising and comparing, firstly, the private laws of nuisance and restrictive covenants and then laws relating public planning, zoning and takings in England and the USA. It then reviews theoretical approaches taken in both jurisdictions to land use restrictions.
The paper concludes that private land use restrictions can only play a limited role in land management in England. Scarcity and cost of available housing necessitate a mechanism by which the state can intervene to remove or modify restrictions to enable alteration and development. The structure of freehold ownership in England and the low take-up of Commonhold as an alternative tenure mean that expansion in the use of private land use restrictions to control the use of land is unfeasible.
The value of this paper is that it seeks to provide insight into the contested relationship between private and public law and the relationship between property law and planning.
The virtual organization is upon us, or so we are led to believe. No longer will we have to worry about finding enough space for so many workstations, as people will be sitting in cyberspace waiting either to send or receive their next communication. It will not matter where in the universe someone is, provided that they can communicate. People will be working in physical isolation, but this does not matter as they can, yes you’ve guessed it, communicate! There is no doubting that communicating is good and absolutely necessary, but it is quality of communication which is needed, not just any old garbled message. Are standards of communication deteriorating? The media by which we are sending messages are improving, of that there is little doubt, but it is the content and usefulness of this content which must be brought to question.
Compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals published by MCB University Press: Facilities Volumes 8‐18; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐18; Property Management Volumes 8‐18; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐18.
Compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals published by MCB University Press: Facilities Volumes 8‐17; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐17; Property Management Volumes 8‐17; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐17.
Index by subjects, compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals: Facilities Volumes 8‐18; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐18; Property Management Volumes 8‐18; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐18.