Recent developments in Property

My hands have been rather tied recently and I have not been able to blog as much as I would like. Fortunately, much has happened in the Property world of late. I thought I would use my return to briefly summarise some of those changes:

Office to residential conversions: The government has passed the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Amendment) (England) Order 2013. This will allow offices and other commercial property to be converted into residential property without express planning permission. The measure is designed as part of the government's wider efforts to streamline the planning system and accelarate economic growth. Nearly all of London's boroughs have sought an exemption to protect their office stock. The problem is that not all commercial property will be suitable for residential development. If changes need to be made to a property (in order to make it suitable for development) then surely express planning permission will still be required? Perhaps the government's plans to stop the planners planning may not be quite successful after all.

Statutory Code between Pubcos and Tenants: pub Tenants on 'tied' Leases have argued that the practice is unfair and anti competitive. Under a tied Lease, a pub Tenant must buy their Beer from the parent company. Contrast this with 'free of tie' Leases where pub Tenants can purchase drinks on the open market. Tied Tenants argue that such Leases are restrictive and have forced up rents. The government has responded by proposing a statutory code to regulate the above practices. Pubcos argue that this runs contrary to the government's general aim of reducing red tape. They assert that Pubcos provide vital assistance to their Tenants in terms of branding, know how etc. This may well be an interesting example of regulation that works in favour of small businesses for once.

Marks and Spencer v BNP Paribas Securities Trust Company- this is the first case where a Tenant has succeeded in recovering rent relating to a period after the break date. The Tenant was required to pay a premium of a year's rent. The Lease contained a clause stating that there would be no recovery of rent on the break date. The Tenant paid the premium and also made other payments (service charge payments etc) that related to the period after the break date. The Tenant was subsequently successful in recovering the payments that had been made. It remains to be seen whether or not this trend will continue. In the meantime, it shifts the balance back in favour of the Tenant. Break clauses have traditionally operated in favour of the Landlord and are strictly construed by the court. This case will provide relief for many commercial Tenants.