Jennifer Slade

Alterations (p.1)

User (p.4)

Insurance (p.7)

Rationale (p.1)

Structure of the clause Structural/non-structural▪ Demountable partitioning

Internal/external

Degrees of control Absolute, Qualified, Fully qualified

Absolute No s19 implication of

consent/reasonableness Statute can override E.g.▪ LTA 1927 Part I – “qualifying improvements”▪ (See p.3)

▪ DDA 1995

Qualified covenants (pp.2-3) L’s consent

s19(2) LTA 1927 Converts qualified alterations covenant

to fully qualified covenant▪ L’s consent not to be unreasonably withheld

Alterations must be “improvements”▪ Lambert v Woolworth

Reasonableness? Remedies

Note (not on handout):

LTA 1988 does not apply to T.’s applications for consent to alter.

T. should amend clause to provide that L.’s consent is not unreasonably withheld or delayed (consider in any event for alienation)

Consequential matters, planning (p.2)

SignsCompensation for T.’s “qualifying

improvements” under LTA 1927 Part I See p.3

Rationale (p.4) Wide/narrow▪ Rent review – REMEMBER ALWAYS TO

CHECK THE USER COVENANT AGAINST RENT REVIEW ASSUMPTIONS/DISREGARDS

Positive/negative drafting▪ “… to use only for…”▪ Keep open covenant?▪ Argyll case – see Workshop 8

▪ “… not to use other than…”

Restrictive vs Wide vs CompromiseUse Classes Order 1987…

amended by (pp.4-5): Use Classes (Amendment)(England)

Order 2005 (21 April 2005) – some example changes:▪ Internet café (A1)▪ A3 =split into=> A3 (restaurants/cafes), A4

(drinking establishments), A5 (hot food takeaways)▪ Nightclub (sui generis)

Note – e.g. if user in 2004 lease is A3 (subject to L’s consent), premises used as restaurant, and T. seeks change to wine bar If reference in user clause to UCO as

enacted at date of lease, then L’s consent not needed; BUT

If reference in user clause to UCO including amendments,, then L’s consent needed since wine bars now A4

UCO Certainty? Shopping centres?▪ “open A1”

Drafting▪ Freeze UCO use at date of lease?

Absolute and qualified covenants (p.5) s19 LTA 1927 does not imply proviso that

L must be reasonable in w/holding consent to change of use

s19(3) LTA 1927 L. cannot require fine, premium or

increased rent for giving consent▪ Unless change of use involves structural

alterations L can require expenses Reasonable sum if causes diminution in

valueLTA 1988 does not apply to user

covenantsAncillary covenants (p.6)

Lease of part/whole (p.7)“Insured risks”Tenant noted on policy/joint namesRent abatement if

damaged/destroyed Damage to property and access thereto Loss of rent insurance and rent

abatement period Full cost Service of notices

See p.8

[NB – review LTA 1954 for next lecture]