Velux window in an apartment?

Deenie78

I own a second floor apartment in a residential area that has a management company. The apartment itself sits over two two-storey houses, I'm the only person in my stairwell and no-one lives above me - I have access to the attic space which I have had floored for extra storage (management company approved).
The apartment has an open plan living space and already has one Velux skylight that opens in the living room at the back of the building, but would really benefit from a second one for extra light. My question is, is there ever a circumstance whereby a management company would allow something like this (at my own expense)? Can you apply via the AGM or does the fact that I only own the leasehold mean that I won't be able to make this change? I have asked the question and was told no, but wondered if anyone has known of circumstances whereby exceptions are made?

Thanks in advance

Irrespective of what has happened elsewhere, it would have no baring on your situation. This is going to be a decision made by the other unit owners in your development. In apartment buildings, the external walls/roof/common areas are shared.

Samuel T. Cogley

No reason you can't ask anytime no need to be at the AGM.

Deenie78

Thanks for the reply - outside of an AGM, is there an official way to go about asking the other unit owners? I asked the agent and was told "Unfortunately, the roof is owned by the management company so permission cannot be given to install this." That was a few months ago, but it was playing on me and I just wondered if there was a way to get permission if the other units didn't object.

Caranica

There's no way a management company should approve this. The roof isn't just yours. From a structural and insurance point of view it would be a nightmare for the management company. Allowing one unit to permanently alter common property in their sole interest would not be in the interests of all owners.

Deenie78

Deenie78 wrote: »

Thanks for the reply - outside of an AGM, is there an official way to go about asking the other unit owners? I asked the agent and was told "Unfortunately, the roof is owned by the management company so permission cannot be given to install this." That was a few months ago, but it was playing on me and I just wondered if there was a way to get permission if the other units didn't object.

The management company is the other owners. Outside of an AGM, you would have to get permission from each owner individually, probably by writing to them. I would suspect they other owners will insist that you take responsibility for any issues which may arise with the roof afterwards. You would have to consider that carefully.

Gumbo

You have to get management company approval for their, then get planning permission if required. No other way from my experience.

The MC own the roof so even if all other owners agree the MC still have the final call.

Now you could get some quotes and approach the MC with a few other owners of the same apartments and see if a few getting done will force their hand.

Deenie78

I hadn't considered a few aspects of this, such as the headache it would create for the management company from a logistical standpoint.

If you saw the space you'd see where I'm coming from but i guess there might have been reasons from a structural standpoint as to why they only put one window in.

Thanks for the feedback on this - I'll guess I'll just get some better lighting!!

is_that_so

As leaseholder you just own what's inside your own four walls. We allow people replace their own windows as long as they are white but anything else is OMC controlled.

listermint

For you OP


https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=8JrqH2oOTK4

ted1

Caranica wrote: »

There's no way a management company should approve this. The roof isn't just yours. From a structural and insurance point of view it would be a nightmare for the management company. Allowing one unit to permanently alter common property in their sole interest would not be in the interests of all owners.

Mountain , Mole hill. If the work is signed off then it’s not an issue.

Del2005

ted1 wrote: »

Mountain , Mole hill. If the work is signed off then it’s not an issue.

There's thousands of dodgy apartments and homes that have had been signed off which are death traps, the few that have come out are the tip of an iceberg.

Why would an MC allow a possible headache to develop and while the OP may do the job correctly once it's allowed in one apartment it'll open up the development to everyone doing it and then there could be issues.

Deenie78

listermint wrote: »

For you OP


https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=8JrqH2oOTK4

This is deadly!! I think it could work quite well - I tend to ere on the side of caution with my diy projects and not do anything involving electrics but I’m sure I could twist my brother in law’s arm!

Thanks a mil!!

ted1

Del2005 wrote: »

There's thousands of dodgy apartments and homes that have had been signed off which are death traps, the few that have come out are the tip of an iceberg.

Why would an MC allow a possible headache to develop and while the OP may do the job correctly once it's allowed in one apartment it'll open up the development to everyone doing it and then there could be issues.

Everyone ? No just the ones on the top floor. Thousand of dodgy apartments yes, but that’s irrelevant as an engineer signing off a velum window won’t take short cuts.

Del2005

ted1 wrote: »

Everyone ? No just the ones on the top floor. Thousand of dodgy apartments yes, but that’s irrelevant as an engineer signing off a velum window won’t take short cuts.

Once one person is allowed to modify the external appearance of the property a precedence has been set so the lower floors could look for changes.

How do you know that the engineer won't take short cuts? Every trade/profession has cowboys and people usually hire the ones who say what they want to hear. Builders aren't supposed to do the job incorrectly, so if the builder isn't supposed to do the job wrong why do they need to be checked?

ted1

Del2005 wrote: »

Once one person is allowed to modify the external appearance of the property a precedence has been set so the lower floors could look for changes.

How do you know that the engineer won't take short cuts? Every trade/profession has cowboys and people usually hire the ones who say what they want to hear. Builders aren't supposed to do the job incorrectly, so if the builder isn't supposed to do the job wrong why do they need to be checked?

Builders are not part of a professional body. Nor do they require any qualifications at all. Changing the facade of a building is very different than adding a sky light.