Yeah, same. It is incredibly rare here. The only instances I can think of are residences built on Crown (i.e government) or First Nations land.
Charles vetting matters that applied to DoC lands is remarkably problematic, as well as constituitionally dubious I would think. I am not sure that he has that much good will from the public to squander.
Apparently all land in ACT is leaseholdâŚ? Dunno whether thatâs accurate or not, just from a Google search.
I think leasehold land in the UK would still be a minority mind. Majority of flats would be leasehold though.
Lived in Rochester, Kent for a short while, which is just down the road from @SBYM and across the street in Canadian terms. When I was there the entire Rochester High St was owned by two separate people.
HA!
So it is. I had no idea.
Canberra⌠
I jest. Lovely place.
At the same time, the article appears to be people upset that what they bought is exactly what they ought to have known it was at the time that they bought it?
<groan⌠i know i really shouldnât get dragged down>
Was related to this earlier post from your mate klopptimist.
âScrapping an institution revered, respected and envied the world over that generates huge wealth and is a keystone of our culture and history is a very mad left viewâ
Perhaps donât complain and accuse me of whataboutery when I engage you on points that you yourself have specifically referenced.
Do these properties grant a right to extend the lease, or is that also withheld?
Thatâs the one thing I wondered about. Iâll check a bit later.
We bought our house in a housing estate in 2004 but later realised what leasehold meant and in 2007 we had to buy out the English landlords ancestor who owned the land from when it was taken hundreds of years earlier.
Uh oh. Should I be edging slowly out of the door right about now? 
Hope everyone has sent their best wishes
Not at all, tongue in cheek comment from me,but it does point out that aristocracy made their money off ordinary people and are still doing so these days,even though we asked them to leave almost 100years ago.
Agreed, they donât have a particular complaint to my mind.
Leaseholders have the right to buy the property without the consent of the land lord but it needs everyone within that building to agree to it.
Just a majority. But that hasnât always been the case and, as far as I know, nobody (of those referenced in the article) has had a right they once had removed.
Lets talk about ground rents too, sliding upwards!
I had a friend who once got stung by a leasehold issue. He had to pay thousands to lease the land his flat was built on.
