In this issue of Property Shapers, we consider several major changes in the law. Some are initiatives of the new-ish Labour Government, and some were set in train by the Conservatives but have been adopted by Labour.
Anna Trafford in our town & country planning team looks at the Government's plans for "Brownfield Passports". National planning policy already prioritises development on brownfield land, in preference to "greenfield" sites (i.e. which are previously undeveloped). A consultation this autumn now proposes expedited planning approvals or "passports" for brownfield applications if they meet certain criteria.
The Times newspaper this month described our planning process as "sclerotic". Some might argue it has been this way for a while. As Anna says in her article, recent research by the Centre for Cities think-tank suggests that even if the next five years break all records for numbers of new homes built, we still won't meet the country's housebuilding targets. Anything that speeds up planning consent for appropriate, well-located brownfield developments should be welcomed.
The previous Government passed legislation allowing local authorities to hold rental auctions for high street shops that are standing empty. We're talking here about units owned by private sector landlords, not owned by the council. The new Government has just brought these rules into force, as Lucy Smith explains in Ready, set, bid: high street rental auctions coming into force.
The council can sign the lease on the landlord's behalf, and override any objections, in order to let to the highest bidder. There's no minimum rent, no scope for landlords to reject an undesirable tenant; and they may be forced to carry out costly works for just a one-year term. Landlords don’t normally leave premises vacant just for fun, if they could get a tenant to pay rent – and business rates. So it'll be interesting to see if local authorities succeed in finding good tenants where professional landlords have failed.
Meanwhile I have been reading the Law Commission consultation on the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, which gives business tenants the right to renew. Back in 1954, commercial rental space was scarce due to wartime bomb damage. The market has changed a lot since then, especially with the rise of the internet and then the pandemic.
It's no surprise that the Law Commission is now asking whether the 1954 Act still serves a purpose. There are detailed pros and cons for keeping the Act, abolishing it or maybe just tinkering with it. I liked this quote from leading barrister Guy Fetherstonhaugh KC in the Estates Gazette:
“The Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 was designed for the post-war era of scarce property and exploited tenants. Is security of tenure really paramount in days when so much of the high street is vacant that the government is bringing in compulsory vacant property rental auctions? And even if our legislators shrink from total repeal, there is much that can be done to oil some of the Act's creaking machinery.”