Application for new lease — Respondent opposing application under section 30(1)(f) of Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 on basis that it was intending to carry out substantial building works — Building works consisting mainly of internal alterations, including removal of partition walls — Whether such works amounting to “demolition” or “reconstruction” for purposes of section 30(1)(f) — Appeal dismissed
In 1984, the appellant leased premises from a third party for a term of 20 years, expiring in March 2001. In 1999, the third party granted an option for a reversionary lease of the premises to the respondent. As part of the agreement, the respondent was obliged to refurbish the premises in order to bring them up to a three- or four-crown standard, in accordance with guidelines issued by the English Tourist Board. The comprehensive schedule of works included the creation of a number of new bathrooms, the opening up of new doorways, the installation of a new lift and the removal of a substantial amount of partition walling.
The respondent obtained planning permission, and, in March 2000, notified the appellant that it would oppose the grant of a new lease on the ground that it intended to carry out building works in accordance with section 30(1)(f) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954.
The appellant claimed, inter alia, that the proposed works came within the category of “general refurbishment”, and did not constitute works of “demolition” or “reconstruction” for the purposes of section 30(1)(f), since the majority of the works were internal and did not alter the load-bearing elements of the building’s structure.
At first instance, the judge found for the respondent. The appellant appealed, arguing, inter alia, that the judge had erred in finding that: (i) the removal or the repositioning of the partition walling could amount to structural works; and (ii) the “vast bulk” of the proposed works qualified under section 30(1)(f), when, on his own findings, only a fraction of the overall cost was attributable to structural works.
Held: The appeal was dismissed.
The work was to be considered as a whole, and it was not desirable to analyse each item of work to determine whether it constituted a demolition or a reconstruction of a substantial part of the building.
1. In order for works to constitute “reconstruction”, they should involve the structure of the building. However, that structure could include internal and other non-load-bearing walls, and there was no warrant for the view that “reconstruction” and “construction” required work to load-bearing walls only. Although those parts of the premises that were most affected by the building works were largely non-load-bearing, they did form a substantial part of the structure within the ordinary meaning of the word. If a non-load-bearing wall constituted part of the structure, it was correct to include ancillary works, such as the plastering and the redecorating of that wall, as part of the construction work.
2. Even if much of the work had been excluded on the basis that it was merely redecoration and refurbishment, a bedrock of engineering works were substantial even though they formed only a fraction of the scheme. These works included the installation of a lift shaft, some underpinning and strengthening works to the basement area, and the construction of two conservatories.
The schedule of works therefore qualified under both limbs of section 30(1)(f), in that those works amounted to works of demolition and reconstruction of a substantial part of the premises, as well as being substantial works of construction.
Kelvin Rutledge (instructed by Barnes & Partners) appeared for the appellant; James Thom QC (instructed by Howard Kennedy) appeared for the respondent.
Vivienne Lane, barrister
