Legal wrap: Compulsory purchase, service charges and more EG Legal highlights

Welcome to your weekly round-up of the pick of the content published on EG Legal. This week, we have an update on the government response to the consultation on proposals to cap or reduce the need to pay hope value when land is compulsorily purchased. We also consider the implications of some conflicting county court decisions on how rent-free periods should be treated, as well as providing comment on the effect of the increasing trend towards prioritising aesthetics in planning. Our Legal Notes column deals with an Upper Tribunal decision on enfranchisement, while EG columnist Nicola Muir considers the question: when are service charge costs “reasonably incurred”? Legal news Court of Appeal closes ‘gap’ in telecommunications code Ruling given on the Electronic Communications Code and intermediate leases Legal features Rental levels in lease renewals Kirsty Black and Ben Faulkner consider the effects of conflicting county court decisions on rent-free periods Beauty for the masses? What is the effect of the increasing trend towards prioritising aesthetics in planning? The removal of hope value Tracy Lovejoy and Martha Kent address the latest word on proposals for compulsory purchase reform When are service charge costs ‘reasonably incurred’? Recent decisions shed fresh light on the reasonableness expected of landlords Let it B Corp Simon Lewis outlines some of the practicalities of becoming B Corp certified Legal Notes: Piercing the corporate veil Elizabeth Dwomoh takes a look at an enfranchisement case where the landlords sought to pierce the corporate veil in a claim for compensation for loss of development value Practice points Concurrent lessee to be treated as a party to a code agreement Vodafone v Potting Shed Bar and Gardens Ltd (formerly known as Gencorp (No 7) Ltd) and another Attempts to subvert possession claims with spurious High Court applications identified Lewis v The West Brom and other actions Land registration: registered proprietor entitled to have restriction removed Carlton Vale Ltd v Gapper Case summary Vodafone Ltd v Potting Shed Bar and Gardens Ltd and another Telecommunications – Electronic Communications Code – New agreement Law report Commissioners of HM Revenue and Customs v SSE Generation Ltd Taxation – Capital allowances – Qualifying expenditure For more legal articles and to search our extensive archive, visit EG Legal  To send feedback, e-mail sarah.jackman@eg.co.uk or tweet @EGPropertyNews