Skip to main content
CLOSE

Charities

Close

Corporate and Commercial

Close

Employment and Immigration

Close

Fraud and Investigations

Close

Individuals

Close

Litigation

Close

Planning, Infrastructure and Regeneration

Close

Public Law

Close

Real Estate

Close

Restructuring and Insolvency

Close

Energy

Close

Entrepreneurs

Close

Private Wealth

Close

Real Estate

Close

Tech and Innovation

Close

Transport and Infrastructure

Close
Home / News and Insights / Blogs / Real Estate / 177: Can a landlord reasonably withhold consent to a planning application on the grounds of an increased enfranchisement risk?

The answer is yes, following a recent decision of the Supreme Court in Sequent Nominees Ltd (formerly Rotrust Nominees Ltd) v Hauford Ltd [2019] UKSC 47 (30 October 2019).

Facts of the case

The case concerned a mixed use terraced building arranged over six floors. The lower four floors were used for retail and the upper two floors were residential.

The property was demised under a long lease which allowed the property to be used for either residential or commercial use, without qualification (the user clause), and required the tenant to obtain landlord’s prior written consent to make an application for planning permission (the consent clause).

The tenant applied to the landlord for consent to apply for planning permission to change the use of the first and second floors of the property to residential. The landlord refused consent.

Issue before the court

The court was asked to determine whether the landlord had been entitled to refuse consent to the planning application on the ground that the change of use would increase the prospect of a successful claim for enfranchisement under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967, whereby a qualifying tenant of a house may be able to buy the freehold, thus reducing the value of the landlord’s reversion.

The Supreme Court found that reading the user and consent clauses together, residential use was only allowed so far as it was permitted by planning law, and that given the economic consequences for the landlord of allowing the application, its refusal of consent was reasonable.

Points to take from this decision

  • When negotiating leases, do not view clauses in isolation;
  • Landlords should consider the potential enfranchisement risk at the outset; and
  • A possible loophole (as yet untested in the courts) to circumvent the consent clause – if a planning application were to be made by a third party, and relied on by a tenant.

Related Articles

Our Offices

London
One Bartholomew Close
London
EC1A 7BL

Cambridge
50/60 Station Road
Cambridge
CB1 2JH

Reading
The Anchorage, 34 Bridge Street
Reading RG1 2LU

Southampton
Grosvenor House, Grosvenor Square
Southampton SO15 2BE

 

Reading
The Anchorage, 34 Bridge Street
Reading RG1 2LU

Southampton
Grosvenor House, Grosvenor Square
Southampton SO15 2BE

  • Lexcel
  • CYBER ESSENTIALS PLUS

© BDB Pitmans 2024. One Bartholomew Close, London EC1A 7BL - T +44 (0)345 222 9222

Our Services

Charities chevron
Corporate and Commercial chevron
Employment and Immigration chevron
Fraud and Investigations chevron
Individuals chevron
Litigation chevron
Planning, Infrastructure and Regeneration chevron
Public Law chevron
Real Estate chevron
Restructuring and Insolvency chevron

Sectors and Groups

Private Wealth chevron
Real Estate chevron
Transport and Infrastructure chevron