Fire escape/balcony
Posted: June 3rd, 2021, 11:24 am
I bought a top floor flat about 15 years ago. One of its biggest attractions was a room with French Doors opening onto an 8' x 4' balcony. The balcony is the top landing of a fire escape, but must have been designed as a balcony for the flat or it would surely have just been constructed as a smaller simple half-landing (it even has welded-in supports for window boxes around the perimeter)?
Anyway, through years of being in the hands of appalling management agents and generally poor communication between the leaseholders (I am one of four shareholders in a Residents Management Company) the fire escape has fallen into disrepair, and this has led to disagreement over what should be done. Only my flat and, to some extent the one below (you could climb out of the window onto it) have any use of the fire escape.
One of the other leaseholders wants to remove the fire escape completely and upgrade the flats with "lobbies" to enable use of the internal stairwell as the sole escape route. I am clearly unhappy about this, not only because of the potential loss of the balcony, but also the loss of peace of mind for the occupants in having an alternative route. Plus, I'm not sure how feasible it would be to reconfigure my flat to avoid having an inner room that contravenes the fire safety regulations.
The more popular proposal (with the other leaseholders!) is to repair the fire escape, but for me to cover the cost of replacing the balcony. (I think this means making up the difference between a fire escape with a standard small landing or with a full balcony (with the extra support that entails). Obviously, I don't want double doors leading out to a narrower landing so, if push comes to shove, I will have to agree to this.
I can understand the others' point of view, but I wonder where I stand legally? I bought a flat with a balcony, albeit part of the structure of the fire escape - there seems no doubt that the top landing was designed and built this way. Is there a case for sharing the costs for like-for-like replacement equally?
Any thoughts on the subject would be gratefully received! (I don't believe there is anything in the lease that helps.)
CP
Anyway, through years of being in the hands of appalling management agents and generally poor communication between the leaseholders (I am one of four shareholders in a Residents Management Company) the fire escape has fallen into disrepair, and this has led to disagreement over what should be done. Only my flat and, to some extent the one below (you could climb out of the window onto it) have any use of the fire escape.
One of the other leaseholders wants to remove the fire escape completely and upgrade the flats with "lobbies" to enable use of the internal stairwell as the sole escape route. I am clearly unhappy about this, not only because of the potential loss of the balcony, but also the loss of peace of mind for the occupants in having an alternative route. Plus, I'm not sure how feasible it would be to reconfigure my flat to avoid having an inner room that contravenes the fire safety regulations.
The more popular proposal (with the other leaseholders!) is to repair the fire escape, but for me to cover the cost of replacing the balcony. (I think this means making up the difference between a fire escape with a standard small landing or with a full balcony (with the extra support that entails). Obviously, I don't want double doors leading out to a narrower landing so, if push comes to shove, I will have to agree to this.
I can understand the others' point of view, but I wonder where I stand legally? I bought a flat with a balcony, albeit part of the structure of the fire escape - there seems no doubt that the top landing was designed and built this way. Is there a case for sharing the costs for like-for-like replacement equally?
Any thoughts on the subject would be gratefully received! (I don't believe there is anything in the lease that helps.)
CP