Co-living is perhaps a concept traditionally associated with the shoestring lifestyle of students. But what about curated workspaces, well-equipped gyms or perhaps even a trip to the spa – all under the same roof? New flexible living models have already started to spawn across London. In this post, we look at how law and policy are playing catch up as these new products challenge traditional methods of defining land use.
The capital’s leading developers are taking notice of co-living. There is an unwavering desire amongst the world’s transient young population to work in London. However, traditional home ownership aspirations have been replaced by a realism around the cost of buying property in London. The market for new rental products, focussing on access to luxury facilities and large social networks, carries an obvious attraction.
So what happens when co-living models don’t fit within an existing land use category – where a property may be occupied by different types of users, some for only one night and others for perhaps several years? How should these applications be treated by the planning authority, particularly where they address an identified need?
Authors: Matthew Bonye, Partner and Head of Real Estate Dispute Resolution and Rhian Arrenberg, Professional Support Lawyer, Real Estate Dispute Resolution, London
In this post we consider we consider one of the options open to a landlord who wishes to regain possession of a business premises, without having to pay the tenant statutory compensation for disturbance.
When a landlord wishes to regain possession of business premises which are occupied pursuant to a lease which is within the security of tenure provisions in the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (the "1954 Act"), it will usually turn to the statutory ground under section 30(1)(f) to oppose the grant of a new tenancy. Indeed the ground (f) demolition or redevelopment ground seems by far the most obvious when development works are contemplated. The landlord can, however, use one of seven grounds either on their own or in combination, including the much underused ground (d). Ground (d) would, if proved, mean that the landlord would not pay the tenant statutory compensation for disturbance. This is so even if the landlord is also relying on other grounds that do trigger compensation, for example ground (f).