Hello and thank you for your question. I will be very pleased to assist you. I'm a practicing lawyer in England with over 10 years experience.
May I ask how the freehold is owned please? Is it owned through a nominee limited company structure or is the freehold simply named in your three individual names on the title?
Three individual names
Thank you. situation such as this involve appreciation of "hats". That is, each of you having to hats - that of freeholder (landlord) and tenant (leaseholder).
There are two approaches by which the above proposal could be achieved - 1) a decision by the three of you jointly as freeholder to develop the property and then go on to sell the property either to one of you as tenant or to a third party on the open market and divide the profit between you. This would require the agreement of all three of you as joint freeholder and should involve the preparation of a joint-venture agreement between you to regulate how you share profits and costs both after and during the project.
Could 2 freeholders proceed if the third freeholder did not want to proceed with the development just by saying that they wish to go ahead?
2) one or more you could seek an application wearing your tenant hat to the freeholder (jointly) for the right to develop the property. The freeholder (jointly) may consider the tenant application and either reject or agree the application and presumably would charge a premium to grant consent in order to share in the profits that would be made. Again all three freeholders would need to agree and any premium that was agreed would be discounted to reflect the individual freeholders interest in the freehold who may be applying as tenant - so for example if one tenant were to apply to the joint freeholders, any premium that was agreed would be reduced by 1/3 to reflect that tenants interest in the freehold as a joint freeholder.
it is not possible for one or more of the freeholders to proceed unilaterally. It is not a question of a majority decision being carried. The consent of all three freeholders would be required in order to proceed. any dissenting freeholder could seek an injunction in costs in respect of any unauthorised development as this would amount to a breach of the lease.
Is there anything above I can clarify for you?
Have I been able to help you with all your questions on the above?
If you have no further questions for now I should be very grateful if you would kindly take a moment to rate my service to you today. Your feedback is important to me. If there is anything else I can help with please reply back to me though
Thanks yes this is v helpful. I suspect I may be back for more advice once I thought through the implications of your response.