Court of Appeal hands down ruling on meaning of ‘live/work unit’ in planning permission
The term ‘live/work unit’ in a planning permission issued by the London Borough of Southwark meant ‘live and/or work” and not 'live and work’, the Court of Appeal has found.
In AHGR Lyd v Kane-Laverack & Anor [2023] EWCA Civ 428 Lord Justice Dingemans said though that the court’s judgment referred to this case and “it would be appropriate to leave the question of what ‘work’, in a ‘live/work’ development, might mean for an appropriate case in which it matters.
“This is because there might be different answers to the question depending on whether B1 use has been specified for any part of the premises.”
The case brought by freeholder AHGR against Luke and Peter Kane-Laverack, who occupy promises in Bickels Yard, Bermondsey in a mixed development of flats, offices, and one ‘live/work’ unit.
The judge noted: “There were a number of particular features of the grant of planning permission for these premises, which might not be replicated in other 'live/work' units.”
HHJ Johns KC, sitting in the Central London County Court, had earlier held that the lease meant "live and/or work" and this was upheld by Meade J when AHGR appealed to the High Court.
AHGR submitted that the Court of Appeal should place “very considerable reliance” on Southwark’s supplementary planning guidance (SPG) which “made it obvious that ‘live/work’ meant ‘live and work’”.
The Kane-Laveracks said the two judges had been right not to interpret the grant of planning permission in the light of the SPG, but even if they had the term still meant ‘live and/or work’.
Judges had found activities carried out by the Kane-Laverack from 2014 to 2019 satisfied the requirement of ‘work’ but AHGR contended ‘work' meant business activities and this was not what the two men did.
Dingemans LJ said: “Both HHJ Johns KC and Meade J considered that the court should be slow to interpret the planning permission in the light of the SPG which was not incorporated into or referred to in the relevant grant of planning permission.
“HHJ Johns KC and Meade J also found that if reliance was placed on the SPG it showed that this grant of planning permission meant that ‘live/work' meant 'live and/or work’.”
Dingemans LJ said he agreed with the two earlier judges as the phrase ‘live/work’ was ambiguous and the relevant plan showed no sub-division into separate ‘live' or ‘work’ areas, which meant it would be for the leaseholder to determine where to live and where to work.
“Leaving such matters to the discretion of the leaseholder suggests a permissive approach to the phrase ‘live/work' meaning that the leaseholder might decide only to live at the premises, or only to work at the premises, or to do both in parts of the premises at their choosing,” the judge said.
Since a leaseholder might become subject to enforcement proceedings “if it was intended that lawful use of the premises required both living and working, that would be spelled out using language that was clear and unambiguous”.
Lady Justice King and Lord Justice Snowden both agreed with Dingemans LJ.
Mark Smulian
