When are buildings “structurally detached” from each other?

The Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 enables qualifying leaseholders of flats to manage their buildings using a right to manage company established specifically for that purpose. The legislation applies to premises that consist of a self-contained building, or part of a building. Parliament provided us with a detailed definition that helps to identify when parts of buildings qualify, but the definition of when a building qualifies is more concise. The legislation states only that a building is self-contained if it is “structurally detached”, leaving tribunals to grapple with the meaning of that phrase. CQN RTM Company Limited v Broad Quay North Block Freehold Limited [2018] UKUT 183 (LC) concerned a mixed-use development around a hotel in Bristol. The hotel had an underground car park that was accessed by a ramp. Part of the ramp ran under a residential block, which rose above it on concrete pillars, but there was there was no load-bearing connection between the block of flats and the hotel. The buildings had been constructed separately and of different materials, and were connected only by weathering materials. Even so, the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) noted that there was “no single visible division” between the properties and ruled that the tenants had not established that the premises were “structurally detached”. The tenants appealed. They argued that there was no need for a visible division. The 2002 Act does not impose any such requirement, and nor did the authorities. So it did not matter if, for example, an upper floor lies above a roadway. After considering the authorities, the Upper Tribunal decided that the words “structurally detached” should be given their ordinary and natural meaning and that it was neither necessary nor helpful to reframe them in different terms. The legislation requires that there should be no structural attachment between the building in respect of which the right to manage is claimed and another structure. So a building can be structurally detached even though it touches, or is attached to, another building if the attachment is not “structural” (which, in this context, should be taken as meaning “appertaining or relating to the essential or core fabric of the building”). A building will not be structurally detached if another building bears part of its load or if there is some other structural interdependence between them. But, if it is structurally detached, it does not matter what shape it is, or whether part of it overhangs an access road serving some other building. Furthermore, a building can be structurally detached even though it cannot function independently, and despite the existence of a common decorative façade. But, if a structural part of the premises is attached to a structural part of another building, the premises are unlikely to be “structurally detached”. The FTT had seen the buildings for itself and, in a matter which is essentially one of fact and degree, had regarded the car park floor and ceiling as doing more than merely touching. It had decided that there was an integral connection between the buildings because the car park floor and ceiling was a single, composite structure that straddled both buildings. Or, to put it another way, parts of the essential or core fabric of the buildings were attached to each other. This meant that the premises were not “structurally detached”. And that was why the tenants had lost their right to manage claim. Allyson Colby is a property law consultant