Tenants of “live/work” units are not required to work in them, according to a county court ruling on 3 September. A landlord argued that the decision “made a mockery of the planning law”.
Judge Roger Cooke, sitting in Central London County Court, said the term “live/work” was “vague and arguably ambiguous” and should be interpreted broadly to mean “live and/or work”.
The ruling could provide tenants of live/work units in Hackney, north-east London with a means to oppose 375 planning contravention notices issued by the council in July.
The judge rejected a claim by landlord the Bishopsgate Foundation that a leasehold tenant who used his Shoreditch-based “live/work” unit for solely residential purposes could not obtain a new lease under the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993, because his occupation was unlawful.
He said: “The object of such a provision is [to allow] people to live, to work, and, if they want, to live where they work and work where they live.”
Natasha Rees, a solicitor at Forsters, which acted for the leaseholder, said: “The ambiguity of the phrase ‘live/work’ means that the court will probably look at the layout of the premises and the actual use when determining whether a tenant has a right to enfranchise.”
However, David Pearl, chief executive of property investor Structadene, which owns “live/work” units in Hackney, claims that, rather than placing conditions upon the “live/work” user, councils will “be reluctant to grant planning permission”.
A spokesperson for Hackney council said the council would be “taking the decision into account once it had had the opportunity to consider the decision in full”.
