Developer's fit-out meaning

For more practical, step-by-step guidance on solar projects, including viewpoints from several jurisdictions, consult the textbook also: Solar Power: A Practical Handbook. Negotiating a rooftop lease for solar PV panels When arranging a rooftop lease for solar PV panels, the matters at stake will differ according to the interests of the party you represent. Those issues shift depending upon whether one acts for the landlord, the occupier, or the solar tenant. Here, 'landlord' describes the owner of the freehold or a long lease of the relevant building; 'occupier' means the party in occupation; and 'solar tenant' is the entity proposing to install and own the panels. The solar tenant may equally be the building’s occupier, or could be a dedicated solar developer. A growing number of landlords are fitting solar panels to their properties—either via the same corporate vehicle that holds the building, or through a related solar company. This note addresses rooftop leases and, accordingly, assumes a structure in which the solar tenant is a distinct legal...

This Checklist This Checklist sets out the key information to seek from the client before commencing a development scheme, together with further actions required to support a smooth development project transaction in practice and in documentation across the parties concerned from the outset. A development scheme—for instance, building an office block with third‑party finance—will draw in many parties, including funders, potentially a distinct buyer, the developer, the occupier and the construction team (comprising contractors, consultants and sub‑contractors), see: Structure of a development project—diagram. Consequently, numerous documents must be prepared, negotiated and finalised to regulate the relationships among all of these participants (see Practice Note: Development documents—introduction). It is therefore crucial that adequate particulars are gathered about the scheme at the outset and that lawyers with expertise in the relevant disciplines are engaged, so as to prevent mistakes or omissions in the paperwork. This Checklist offers a launch point for a development project when acting for the developer, and is written with a construction lawyer foremost in mind, but with...

The requirement for planning use swaps can emerge when a planning proposal would diminish residential floor space and the local planning authority (LPA) insists that a linked application is lodged to secure a proportionate re-provision of residential space in a different location. This is ordinarily pursued to ensure an equivalent level of residential provision is secured elsewhere through a connected scheme. Frequently, two distinct developers are engaged in a use swap. One applicant seeks consent for works or a change of use that results in the loss of dwellings (Developer A), whilst another brings forward a connected application to deliver residential accommodation in another part of the area (Developer B). A planning use swap agreement records the basis on which the swap proceeds. For further details, see Practice Note: Planning use swaps. Does the planning use swap agreement include the relevant parties? As an agreement under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (section 106 agreement) is commonly needed before the LPA will...

Section 106 planning obligation flowchart This flowchart explains the process for drafting and finalising a section 106 planning obligation. It sets out the duties of the developer and the local planning authority, and the schedule associated with the granting of planning permission. (PDF version)...

Antitrust Advocate General suggests Google’s refusal to provide third party access to Android Auto platform may breach Article 102 TFEU Advocate General Laila Medina issued her opinion in Case C- 233/23 Alphabet and Others, a national reference from Italy that seeks guidance and clarification on whether Google’s stance of denying third-party access to Android Auto (a mobile app for Android devices) infringes Article 102 TFEU. For context, Google is the developer of Android OS, an open-source operating system for Android mobile devices. In 2015, Google rolled out Android Auto, an app for mobile devices with an Android operating system that allows motorists to use certain smartphone apps via a car’s integrated display. Independent developers are able to produce iterations of their own apps that work with Android Auto by applying templates supplied by Google. Enel X (part of the Enel Group) delivers electric car charging services. In May 2018, it introduced JuicePass, an app which provides a suite of features for charging electric vehicles. In September 2018, Enel X...

R (on the application of Amalgamated Smart Metering Ltd) v Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council [2025] EWHC 97 (Admin) What are the practical implications of this case? The court underscored that allowing extra time to bring a late judicial review is exceptional, not routine. Such extensions are seldom permitted. The court emphasised that any delay must be rigorously justified. Clear, prompt steps and proof of urgency are essential. Equilibrium between private rights and orderly public administration is central. This framework directs the court’s discretion in planning claims. The ruling also distilled two key points for planning judicial reviews issued after the six weeks challenge period. First, it reaffirmed the court’s approach to extensions set out in Thornton Hill Hotel: the claimant must demonstrate they acted with the greatest possible celerity in issuing a claim; and the court must strike a fair balance between the interests of the developer, the claimant, and the wider public interest. The latter public interest enquiry asks whether harm to good administration in planning law weighs...

Wilson and another v HB (SWA) Ltd [2025] EWCA Civ 1360 What was the background? The appellants, Mr and Mrs Wilson, were previous leaseholders of two flats in the Celestia development, Cardiff, a residential scheme completed in 2007 with Redrow Homes (South Wales) Ltd acting as the developer. The respondent, HB (SWA) Ltd, has taken over Redrow’s rights and liabilities. The Wilsons issued proceedings against the defendant seeking damages after fire safety shortcomings and other defects were discovered at the building. The causes of action advanced were breach of contract (breach of implied terms in the leases) and/or breach of the duty owed under section 1 of the Defective Premises Act 1972 (DPA 1972). Their Schedule of Loss set out nine heads of loss, seven of which the Technology and Construction Court (TCC) struck out as too remote or purely hypothetical; see News Analysis: Damages under the Defective Premises Act 1972—what’s recoverable? (Wilson v HB(SWA)). The Wilsons appealed. What did the court decide? The Court of...

This Practice Note summarises several of the principal ways in which a residential flat project can be structured. It provides an overview of alternative leasehold flat arrangements for both developers and purchasers of residential flats. A central issue in residential leasehold developments is securing adequate, enforceable covenants for the repair, maintenance and insurance of the shared parts of the development (that is, the structure, foundations, roof, principal walls, internal and external communal areas and common services). It also addresses how obligations for the common parts are allocated among the key parties. The following structures, and their differing approaches to apportioning responsibility for the shared parts between landlords, management companies and tenants, are considered: developer/landlord retains the reversion and the management role developer/landlord keeps the reversion but outsources management duties developer/landlord keeps the reversion while tenants assume management duties developer/landlord transfers the reversion and management functions to the tenants ‘criss-cross’ or ‘crossover’ arrangement ‘cat’s cradle’ arrangement This Practice...

Introduction The adoption of sewers is the mechanism by which sewers are vested in the sewerage undertaker or an appointed sewerage company, after which the undertaker meets the cost of maintenance. A sewer adoption agreement (described in this Practice Note as a ‘section 104 agreement’) is the contract that developers or, in Ofwat’s terminology, ‘self-lay providers’ (SLPs) enter into with the undertaker when the developer wishes the undertaker to assume responsibility for sewerage infrastructure they have built so that it becomes a public sewer. A sewer adoption agreement can likewise be used where a section 160 Water Industry Act 1991 (WIA 1991) arrangement exists under which the undertaker agrees to carry out works connected with constructing sewerage infrastructure at the relevant person’s expense. The statutory basis for undertakers to enter such agreements is WIA 1991, s 104. The approach to adopting new sewerage connections currently differs between England and Wales. Procedure for the adoption of sewers England In England, developers may provide their own sewerage infrastructure,...

This Practice Note examines whether a receiver may undertake building works and, in particular, whether the receiver can finish a development left incomplete at the date of appointment. It identifies a range of points the receiver should evaluate before moving ahead with any works and deciding whether to proceed. For ease when considering these issues, and to streamline the discussion, it is assumed that: the developer is a corporate mortgagor of the property; and the mortgagor procures works in the usual way by appointing a building contractor and a professional team of architect, engineers, quantity surveyors and others (collectively, the Professional Team) References to the mortgagor include, where appropriate, the mortgagor acting through the receiver. A receiver in this context means a fixed charge receiver or a Law of Property Act receiver. Receiver’s powers to carry out building works Before a sale is completed, a receiver’s statutory powers under the Law of Property Act 1925 (LPA 1925) are confined to...

This Deed comprising a unilateral undertaking is hereby executed on [ insert day ] of [ insert month ] by: Parties [ insert name of developer ] of [ insert address ] (the Developer); and [ insert name of any additional parties as necessary eg owner, landlord, mortgagee, option holder etc ] of [ insert address of relevant party ] (the Owner/Landlord/Mortgagee etc) TO THE [ insert name ] COUNCIL of [ insert address of Council ] (the Council). BACKGROUND (A) The Council acts as the local planning authority for the purposes of s 106 of the 1990 Act for the area within which the Land lies. (B) [ Set out ownership particulars for the Land ]. (C) The Developer has lodged the Application with the Council and the Council has decided it will issue the Permission, conditional upon this Undertaking being completed. [ The Secretary of State has called in the Application for [ his/her...

Date [ date ] Parties [ name of Landlord ], [ of OR incorporated in England and Wales (company registration number [ number ]) ], whose registered office is at [ address ] [ together with an address for service in England and Wales at [ address ] ] (the Landlord); [ name of Tenant ], [ of OR incorporated in England and Wales (company registration number [ number ]) ], with its registered office at [ address ] [ and an address for service in England and Wales at [ address ] ] (the Tenant); [ [ name of Guarantor ], [ of OR incorporated in England and Wales (company registration number [ number ]) ], having its registered office at [ address ] [ and an address for service in England and Wales at [ address ] ] (the Guarantor) ]...

Note: This clause relies on the defined terms already set out in the Lexis+® UK Precedent Property development agreement: ‘Developer’, ‘Owner’, ‘Property’, ‘Working Day’ and ‘Works’. Further definitions are provided below. 1 Funder’s step-in rights 1.1 For the purposes of clause 1, ‘Funder’ denotes any lending institution to whom the Owner grants a charge over its interest in this Agreement or the Property as security for finance that allows the Owner to meet the cost of: acquiring, clearing and preparing the Property; [and] carrying out the Works[.]...

Pinpointing when a planning permission issued under section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (TCPA 1990) takes effect, in circumstances where works have already begun, is frequently hard to assess. Consents made under TCPA 1990, s 73 constitute a fresh planning permission, leaving the initial permission untouched and unchanged, and enabling the developer to decide which permission it prefers to put into effect in each case...

This Q&A Assumes that the protection cited in this query concerns the safeguard granted by paragraph 2 of Schedule 8 to the Building Safety Act 2022 (BSA 2022). The BSA 2022, Sch 8 makes provision for the payment or otherwise of certain service charge amounts connected to relevant defects in relevant buildings, as set out. In particular, BSA 2022, Sch 8, para 2 states that no service charge is payable under a lease of any premises in a relevant building in respect of any relevant measure relating to a relevant defect where a relevant landlord is responsible for the relevant defect, or is associated with the person responsible for the relevant defect. If it is established that BSA 2022, Sch 8, para 2 applies, no service charge is payable in respect of ‘relevant measures’...