Rely on the most comprehensive, up-to-date legal content designed and curated by lawyers for lawyers
Work faster and smarter to improve your drafting productivity without increasing risk
Accelerate the creation and use of high quality and trusted legal documents and forms
Streamline how you manage your legal business with proven tools and processes
Manage risk and compliance in your organisation to reduce your risk profile
Stay up to date and informed with insights from our trusted experts, news and information sources
Access the best content in the industry, effortlessly — confident that your news is trustworthy and up to date.
With over 30 practice areas, we have all bases covered. Find out how we can help
Our trusted tax intelligence solutions, highly-regarded exam training and education materials help guide and tutor Tax professionals
Regulatory, business information and analytics solutions that help professionals make better decisions
A leading provider of software platforms for professional services firms
In-depth analysis, commentary and practical information to help you protect your business
LexisNexis Blogs shed light on topics affecting the legal profession and the issues you're facing
Legal professionals trust us to help navigate change. Find out how we help ensure they exceed expectations
Lex Chat is a LexisNexis current affairs podcast sharing insights on topics for the legal profession
Printer Friendly Version
This two-part blog examines questions that might arise in relation to structuring a mixed use development as a variation on clean freehold investment structure. The first part of this blog looked at whether, for a buffer lease to be effective, the main structure of the building needs to be included in the demise of the management company lease and, if not included, whether the tenants’ right of refusal would still
In this second part, we ask two further questions: Can we split the demise of the main structure between a management company lease (residential elements) and a long lease (commercial element)? And, if so, would the tenant’s first right of
refusal and right to manage then only apply to the management company lease and the part included in the demise?
Whether the demise of the main structure of the building can be split as above will depend on the layout of the development. That is, are the commercial and residential elements two separate ‘buildings’? We also need to consider appurtenances
to the residential part of the building.
So, what is a building? The Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 does not define ‘building’. The term is not confined to the bricks and mortar of which the building is constructed, but extends to the garden and other appurtenances (expressly or impliedly) included in the demise of a flat to the
tenant. That the building is included within one or more registered titles is irrelevant – the extent of the relevant premises must be ascertained objectively, disregarding the disposal concerned.
Following the decision in Long Acre Securities Ltd v Karet,
it seems that if the blocks of flats on a single estate are sufficiently independent of one another, ie they are structurally separate and have their own dedicated bin stores, garage blocks, gardens, etc, then each will be a separate building for
the purposes of LTA 1987. Extrapolating this to the mixed use content, if the commercial premises are sufficiently structurally separate then they may be regarded as a separate building and as such a long lease, including part of the separate
structure, may be possible. However, Long Acre has been criticised and caution is advised, as further explained in our Practice Notes LTA 1987 – tenants’ right of first refusal,
Exercising the tenant’s right of pre-emption – what is a qualifying building? and LTA 1987 – pitfalls and practical tips.
In these circumstances, would the right of first refusal and right to manage only apply to the management company lease and the part of the building included in the demise? This again depends on the nature and layout of the scheme.
We discussed the first right of refusal above. The right to manage applies to premises if:
Also important is whether the residential element, as contained in the management company lease, are self-contained, or appurtenant property that none of the commercial element incorporates property appurtenant to the residential element.
A self-contained building is one that is structurally detached. A part of a building is self-contained if:
With regard to appurtenant property, the Court of Appeal in Gala Unity Ltd v Ariadne Road RTM Company Ltd,
held that the right to manage extended to the access road and common parts of an estate. This included land over which the tenants of the premises had rights in common with tenants of other buildings, regardless of the fact that those buildings
did not form part of the premises subject of the claim. The wording of the legislation here was clear – there was no requirement that the appurtenant property should appertain exclusively to the self-contained building which is the subject
of the claim to acquire the right to manage.
Further reading on this topic can be found in our Practice Notes The right to manage, The right to manage – what are qualifying premises and The right to manage blocks of flats – establishing the right.
0330 161 1234