Saturday 26 July 2014 8.32am
While I can see the sense, logic and fairness of "pepper potting", does it not realistically create a greater issue for all tenures into the future. While the developer and RSL may be able to agree a level of fit and finish which accords with the financial contribution to be made, if the RSL's tenants either do not contribute to the service charge at all or contribute only to a reduced extent, at what point is it made clear to other flat owners that their service charges are not charged on a just and reasonable basis (sq footage or similar). Does it leave matters open to challenge through the LVT when the developer is long gone from the scene.
Increasingly, as developments (inevitably) reach higher into the sky, more services have to be provided at different stages through the building (refuse rooms on each floor etc) involving lower upfront cost but higher ongoing costs. No longer would it be the case (a la Empire Square and other developments along Long Lane
with which I am familiar) that the RSL properties are at ground or 1st floor level with limited recurring costs.
This is an area in which central or devolved government should be providing (cringe) thought leadership to establish possible solutions. The "poor doors" are not appropriate - at least not to the extent that they seem like servants' entrances. Separate services, cores and entrances with limited maintenance obligations may be appropriate but they should be designed so as not to offend or impair dignity.