It’s the law: Licences for alterations: Who can change what, and on what terms

In this edition of ‘It’s the law’ we first take a look at the rules on licences for alterations across all types of property: when a landlord can say no, what a good licence should cover and what to do when the works have already been done.

We then turn to homes, from tenancies and long leases and then on to the particular issues facing registered providers, local authorities and other stakeholders in relation to mixed-tenure and mixed-use blocks.

Download PDF for print

“Most tenants just want to get on with their works. The licence is often an oversight which creates a time pressure. The licence expressly sets out where the compliance obligations sit, how the works interface with the wider building e.g. fire safety, the impact on rent reviews (if applicable) and whether the works need to be reinstated at the end of the term.”

Dan Moan

Partner

Tenants regularly want to adapt the space they occupy, perhaps to fit out a shop, add a mezzanine, put plant on the roof, knock through a kitchen or install a stairlift. Landlords want to protect the building, the value of their interest and, in a block, everyone else who lives or works there – as well as ensuring people can occupy harmoniously during any period of works, given that the landlord is usually the ‘meat in the sandwich’ in any dispute. The licence for alterations is where those interests should all meet and mingle – hopefully happily.

What follows is our plain English take on:

What the lease and the law say about alterations, and when a landlord can say no.
What to put in a licence, and what to do when the works have already happened.
External kit, from extract ducts to EV chargers.
Secure, assured and long leasehold homes, including shared ownership and right to buy.
Building safety in blocks.
Mixed use buildings, and the issues particular to registered providers and council stock.

Authors

Dan Moan

Partner

Marisa Lambkin

Senior Associate

Aoife Murphy

Partner

What is it? Read the lease first Schrödinger’s word: What does ‘reasonable’ mean? Saying yes, properly Rights the lease can’t take away The whole kit and caboodle Better late than never? Home improvements Flats, lofts and roofs Safety first Upstairs, downstairs Bonus point: One size doesn’t always fit all

Nat Cartwright

Senior Associate

Ben Halsey

Knowledge Development Lawyer

What is it?

A licence for alterations is the landlord’s formal consent to works that the lease does not allow the tenant to carry out without permission. It is usually a short deed, supplemental to the lease, that consents to specified works shown on agreed plans and sets the terms on which they are done, maintained and, eventually, removed.

It is a consent, not a variation. A variation is sometimes needed as well, but the two are best kept apart. Once a licence starts changing the rent, the use or the extent of the premises, it is a deed of variation in all but name, often with consequences including for guarantors, SDLT and registration.

It is only the landlord’s consent. Where they apply, planning permission, building regulations approval and the consent of any superior landlord or lender all must be obtained in their own right - although a superior landlord or lender can, and often should, also be joined in as a party to the licence itself.

Read the lease first

If a lease says nothing about alterations the tenant can, in principle, alter its own premises as it likes, subject to an old legal rule called ‘the doctrine of waste’ – equating to a presumption that no works can be undertaken that would permanently damage the landlord’s reversion. However, most leases deal with alterations expressly, in one or more of three ways:

Absolute prohibitions. ‘No structural or external alterations’ means exactly that. The landlord can choose to relax it, but cannot be made to.
Qualified covenants. No alterations ‘without the landlord’s consent’. Statute then adds that consent cannot be unreasonably withheld (see ‘Schrödinger’s word’ below). If the lease itself says that consent will not be unreasonably withheld, it is often called a ‘fully qualified’ covenant.
Permitted works. Demountable partitioning, decoration and minor internal works are sometimes allowed without consent, usually on notice and with plans for the landlord’s records. Striking a balance of efficacy between the interests of the landlord and the tenant.

Proceed with caution

However, you probably won’t be surprised to hear that it’s not that straight forward:

Tenant’s property. The extent of the demise (the tenant’s property) matters as much as the covenant. A tenant can only alter what is let to it, so where the structure, exterior or roof of a building sit with the landlord and are not included in the tenant’s property, works to them need a grant of rights, not just consent. e.g. installing HVAC equipment on a roof or exterior of the building is outside of the demise. And where only part of a building is let, the demise is often limited to the interior: a structural wall running through a shop, for example, is usually excluded, so the plaster may be the tenant’s but the wall is not, and even drilling into it needs the landlord’s agreement.
The precise wording. The three ways in which a lease might approach different categories of alterations, as set out above, is just a summary – the wording of the specific alterations provisions matters greatly and often requires careful drafting and interpretation. For example, in Triplerose Ltd v Patel [2018] UKUT 374 (LC) a covenant not to alter the ‘elevation’ of a building covered all of its external walls, not just the front of it.
Other leases. Before licensing works that a lease prohibits outright, a landlord must also check the other leases in the building. For example, many residential leases contain a ‘mutual enforcement’ covenant, where the landlord promises each leaseholder that, if asked (and usually at that leaseholder’s cost), it will enforce the (same) covenants in the other leases. In Duval v 11-13 Randolph Crescent Ltd [2020] UKSC 18 the Supreme Court held that a landlord bound by that kind of covenant could not (choose to) licence one leaseholder to carry out works which the lease absolutely prohibited, because doing so would break its promise to everyone else.
Satisfaction guaranteed – maybe not. There is a second, less obvious consequence. Allowing works that a lease prohibits outright usually counts as a ‘relevant variation’ of the lease under the Landlord and Tenant (Covenants) Act 1995. Any former tenant or guarantor who remains liable under the lease (for example, under an authorised guarantee agreement) will not be liable for any extra amount that results from it. Such protection, afforded by the former tenant or guarantor’s covenant, is not something that a landlord is likely to want to readily give away.

Schrödinger’s word: What does ‘reasonable’ mean?

Like Schrödinger’s cat, a landlord’s refusal can be both reasonable and unreasonable at the same time, until a court opens the box.

Section 19(2) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1927 automatically adds to every qualified covenant against making improvements a proviso that (the landlord’s) consent is not to be unreasonably withheld, i.e. whatever the lease says. As a reminder, if a covenant is absolute it does not apply. It applies to commercial and residential leases alike (but not to agricultural or mining leases). ‘Improvement’ is judged from the tenant’s point of view, so in practice, most works that the current tenant wants to do will often qualify as an improvement.

Tenants should however still ask for the inclusion of the words ‘or delayed’. This is because, unlike assignment and underletting, there is no statutory duty to decide within a reasonable time. That said, an unreasonable delay can itself be treated as a refusal, so landlords should not sit on applications.

The leading principles for the above come from Iqbal v Thakrar [2004] EWCA Civ 592:

The covenant is there to protect the landlord’s interest in the property, so a refusal must be based on how the works affect that interest (the building, its value or its future letting), not on unrelated issues such as a dispute about arrears.
The tenant must show that the refusal was unreasonable and must make its proposals clear enough for the landlord to decide. For example, a tenant that simply asks to ‘open up the ground floor’, with no plans or structural details, cannot complain if the landlord asks for more information before deciding.
The landlord does not have to be right, as long as a reasonable landlord could have reached the same conclusion. For example, a landlord that refuses a restaurant tenant’s new extract flue because it reasonably fears smell complaints from the flats above can rely on that refusal, even if the tenant’s consultant insists the filters will cope.
A landlord’s consent cannot be refused because of financial loss alone (the answer is to ask for compensation). For example, a landlord worried that knocking two units into one will reduce their value should ask for a payment to cover that loss, rather than simply saying no – although they will rightly consider the structural integrity of the building.
In some cases, a refusal may be disproportionate, given the effect on each party. For example, refusing a new shopfront that the tenant’s business depends on, because of a minor and temporary effect on the landlord, may well be unreasonable.

The court will look at the reasons the landlord actually had at the time, so it pays to give them in writing and, if information is missing, to say promptly what is needed.

A landlord can ask for a reasonable sum for any damage or loss in value, its proper costs (including legal, surveyors’ and engineers’ fees) and, where the works add nothing to letting value, a reasonable undertaking to reinstate. What it cannot do is charge a premium simply for saying yes. Messenex Property Investments Ltd v Lanark Square Ltd [2024] EWHC 89 (Ch) shows both sides of the coin, and that one good reason is enough, even if the others are bad. In this case, unpaid service charge was not a good reason to refuse, but the lack of structural drawings and the tenant’s offer of only a qualified costs undertaking were.

If you are a landlord or a tenant and this all sounds as though it can be hard to know whether a refusal is reasonable, in many cases you would be right! If consent is unreasonably withheld, the tenant can go ahead anyway or ask the court for a declaration. It cannot usually claim damages, though, and going ahead without consent is a real risk unless the answer is obvious, so a negotiated licence or a declaration is usually the safer route. Which brings us neatly to how consent should be documented.

Saying yes, properly

Consent should be given by the completed licence and nothing else. Draft licences and covering letters should not say that consent ‘has been agreed’, because the courts have found it possible for consent to be given in correspondence before the deed was actually signed and delivered (Aubergine Enterprises Ltd v Lakewood International Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 177).

A formal licence, rather than an email or a chat, also gives everyone a record for the future. An assignee or buyer will want to see that the works were authorised, and at the end of the lease the landlord will want to know what was done and what has to be reinstated. Completing the licence as a deed, supplemental to the lease, also helps make sure its ongoing obligations bind future tenants.

A good licence will usually:

Pin down the works by reference to agreed plans and a specification, and lapse if they are not started within a set period (six months is common). If some flexibility is needed, build in a quick process for approving minor changes, with a paper trail.
Not oblige the tenant to do them. Most rent review clauses only disregard improvements made voluntarily, so an obligation gives the landlord an argument that the works should count at review.
Require all other consents first: planning, building regulations, superior landlord and lender. If a superior landlord’s consent is needed, make it a party or require the tenant to obtain it, rather than making your own consent conditional on it. Check the title for restrictive covenants that need a third party’s consent, and make sure any planning conditions will not cause problems for the landlord’s wider estate.
Allocate the statutory roles. The tenant should normally be the sole ‘client’ under the CDM Regulations 2015 and comply with the dutyholder regime that has applied to all building work under the Building Regulations since October 2023.
Control the works: a start date, a longstop date for completion, set hours for noisy works, a schedule of condition of the common parts and a right for the landlord to inspect, at the tenant’s cost.
Cover standards and handover: good workmanship, making good, as-built drawings (with a licence to use the copyright in them), test certificates, an updated EPC where needed and, for larger works, collateral warranties.
Deal with insurance. The landlord’s insurers usually need to know and may impose conditions. No works should start until the insurers have agreed, and the tenant must follow any conditions they impose. Ask for evidence of the contractors’ own insurance too.
Protect the rent and the reversion: the works are disregarded on rent review (otherwise the tenant pays twice: once for the works and again through the rent), the lease covenants extend to them, and the landlord can require reinstatement at the end of the term.
Bind any guarantor to the premises as altered.
Deal with costs. Reasonable costs are normally covered by a solicitor’s undertaking, but insisting on an undertaking for all costs, rather than reasonable ones, is itself unreasonable (Dong Bang Minerva (UK) Ltd v Davina Ltd [1996] 2 EGLR 31).

Also, as a landlord, be careful not to give away more than you mean to. In Faidi v Elliott Corporation [2012] EWCA Civ 287, the landlord licensed a leaseholder’s works, including new wooden floors. The lease required the floors to be carpeted, and the court held that, by approving the wooden floors, the landlord had in effect let the leaseholder off that obligation. The lesson is to check the approved works against the rest of the lease and, where they clash with another covenant, deal with it head on, either by:

Saying expressly that the covenant still applies (for example, that the new floors must still be carpeted).
Agreeing to relax it, ideally in a separate deed of variation.

A general clause saying that the lease continues in full may not be enough.

Rights the lease can’t take away

As with the reasonableness point above, there are other examples of where statute does the tenant’s work for it:

Business tenants’ improvements. Under Part 1 of the 1927 Act a business tenant can serve notice of a proposed improvement and, if the landlord objects, ask the court to certify it as proper. That can override even an absolute prohibition, and a tenant that follows the procedure may claim compensation at the end of the lease. It is rarely used in practice but might instead be relied on to strengthen the tenant’s hand in negotiation. Landlords should diarise these notices carefully: if the landlord does not object within three months, the tenant can go ahead. The landlord can instead offer to do the works itself in return for a reasonable increase in rent. Compensation is capped at the lower of the added value and the reasonable cost of the works (so may be nil if the landlord plans to redevelop), and the parties cannot contract out of it.
Disability. Where a business occupier needs to make a reasonable adjustment under the Equality Act 2010, the lease takes effect as if the alteration were allowed with consent that cannot be unreasonably withheld, although reasonable conditions can be imposed. Homes have their own rule (see ‘Home improvements’). Under the supporting regulations, a landlord that has not replied within 42 days of a written application (with reasonable plans) is treated as having withheld consent, and the matter can then be referred to the county court.
Telecoms. In leases of a year or more, a restriction on installing electronic communications apparatus is generally treated as qualified, so that consent cannot be unreasonably withheld. In deciding whether consent has been unreasonably withheld, the court must have regard to the public interest in access to a choice of high-quality electronic communications services. Operators may also be able to obtain rights under the Electronic Communications Code, notwithstanding restrictions in the lease and, once Code apparatus has been installed, it can be difficult to secure its removal. In blocks of flats, operators can also obtain tribunal-backed rights to install broadband infrastructure where landlords do not engage.
Compliance with laws. Works required by statute, such as fire safety and/or health and safety works, may have to be done anyway, and the lease will normally make them the tenant’s responsibility.

“Most disputes about alterations are not really about the works. They are about the questions nobody asked at the start, including who owns the kit, who maintains it, who has a right to move it (and at whose cost) and who takes it out at the end. A good licence answers those questions before anyone picks up a drill.”

Marisa Lambkin

Senior Associate

The whole kit and caboodle

External kit (air conditioning units, extract ducts, plant, satellite dishes, solar panels and EV chargers) causes more disputes than almost any internal works. It usually sits outside the tenant’s demise, adds weight to the structure and can affect everyone else in the building. As we explained in The whole kit and caboodle, the points to settle are:

Rights, not just consent. Consent to alter the premises does not give a right to put kit on the landlord’s roof or wall. That needs an express right, ideally limited to a designated area such as the roof or a rear flank wall. Unless the lease already grants that right, the landlord does not have to be reasonable about it: the statutory reasonableness test only applies to alterations to the tenant’s own premises.
Whose is it? In HLS Leisure Ltd v Darville & Son Ltd [2025] EWHC 1884 (Ch) a tenant’s ducting that ran into the common parts was held to be within the tenant’s demise, so the landlord was not liable for the nuisance it caused. Such services and other ‘infrastructure’ can quietly extend a demise, as well as the repair, liability and insurance requirements that go along with it, so it is important to say what forms part of the premises and what doesn’t, to avoid any unintended consequences (including a failure for such requirements to be performed by one of the parties).
Lift and shift. Include a right for the landlord to require relevant kit to be moved, temporarily or permanently, for repairs, redevelopment or another occupier. Anticipate arguments about who pays and where it goes.
Noise, smells and access. The need for and scope of specific obligations on maintenance, acoustic and odour control, and access to the kit and the area around it.
The end of the lease. Stating whether the kit must be removed, whether the tenant can take it, and/or whether the landlord would rather it stayed for the next occupier.

Going green

We are increasingly seeing more requests linked to energy efficiency and environmental performance. The lease may already contain detailed provisions on environmental performance but a landlord will be concerned not to damage their environmental credentials by a tenant undertaking sub-standard works etc. In June 2026 the Government said that privately let commercial buildings over 1,000 square metres will need to reach EPC B from 2031 (those premises smaller than 1,000 square metres are exempt and the rating remains E), and private and social rented homes are heading for EPC C by 2030. On 21 October 2026 the Department for Transport also began consulting, until 16 December 2026, on an ‘ability to charge’, which could require landlords and freeholders to decide residents’ requests for EV charge points promptly and not refuse them unreasonably. We are going to see an increase in linkage to environmental performance and sustainability in leases and licences as these provisions are increasingly important to landlords and their lenders.

Better late than never?

Retrospective consent. In the real world, works done without consent are common, especially in flats, and usually come to light on a sale, a remortgage or a survey or other inspection. A retrospective licence regularises them, but the landlord should approach it as if the works had not yet been done. So, inspect, consider asking for the plans, planning permission, building regulations completion certificate, health and safety file and for anything structural, an engineer’s report. The landlord can then usually seek to impose conditions, including putting right any defects.

Forfeiting the right to forfeit. Breach of a covenant not to alter is a ‘once and for all’ breach, so if the landlord waives it (for example, by demanding rent knowing of the works) the right to forfeit for that breach might be lost for good. It is worth noting that, for long residential leases, forfeiture already requires the breach to be admitted or decided by a tribunal or court first. Also, the draft Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill, published in January 2026, would abolish forfeiture altogether (shared ownership leases included) in favour of a court-based ‘lease enforcement claim’ (although many commentators have said that this essentially just amounts to forfeiture in disguise). Watch this space.

In any event, losing the right to forfeit does not mean the works will have been deemed to be (contractually) approved. The landlord may therefore still be able to claim damages, seek an order for the works to be removed or require reinstatement at the end of the lease, but these options narrow the longer it waits to take any enforcement action. That is why a buyer’s solicitor and lender will usually want to be provided with evidence of consent (and of planning and building regulations compliance) and why a leaseholder without it may need to obtain a retrospective licence, or indemnity insurance, before a sale can go ahead.

Home improvements

Tenancies of homes have their own rules, and the type of tenancy matters:

Secure tenants. Council tenants, and housing association tenants whose tenancies began before 15 January 1989, may make improvements with the landlord’s written consent, which cannot be unreasonably withheld (sections 97 to 99 of the Housing Act 1985). The landlord must show that a refusal was reasonable, consent unreasonably withheld is treated as given, and silence for more than a reasonable time counts as a refusal. Consent can be conditional, and the rent cannot go up because of the tenant’s own improvements. Council secure tenants can also claim compensation for qualifying improvements when the tenancy ends, capped at £3,000.
Assured tenants. There is no statutory equivalent, so the tenancy agreement governs these matters. Most registered provider agreements contain an express right to improve with consent modelled on the secure tenancy rules, and some offer compensation too. It is important to have a good idea about what your tenancies say, and that management practice matches the wording – we can assist with auditing such matters and formulating robust policies.
Disability. Where a tenancy allows improvements with consent, the landlord must not unreasonably withhold consent to an improvement needed by a disabled tenant or resident (section 190 of the Equality Act 2010). Even an outright ban may not be the end of the story. In Smailes v Clewer Court Residents Ltd (Cardiff County Court, 2019), a management company that refused to let a disabled leaseholder rearrange her flat, under a lease prohibiting changes to the layout, was held to have breached its Equality Act duty to make reasonable adjustments. As a county court decision it is persuasive only, but the risk is real.
Unauthorised works. Tenant DIY is not just a recharge issue. Boxed-in gas pipes, removed extractor fans, blocked vents and replacement doors can create exactly the hazards that social landlords must now investigate and fix to the timescales set out under Awaab’s Law.

Flats, lofts and roofs

Long leases of flats are subject to section 19(2) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1927 like any other lease (see ‘Schrödinger’s word’ above), but other rules come into play too:

Fees. A charge for dealing with an application for consent is an administration charge, payable only so far as it is reasonable, and the leaseholder can challenge it at the First-tier Tribunal.
Right to manage. Where a right to manage company has taken over, it grants consents under the leases, but must give the landlord 30 days’ notice before approving structural alterations or improvements.
Right to buy leases. In council blocks, and former council blocks now owned by housing associations, the landlord is obliged by statute to keep the structure and exterior in repair (Schedule 6 to the Housing Act 1985) and usually retains ownership of those parts. A leaseholder who removes a load-bearing wall or relocates a bathroom (and its drainage) is therefore altering parts of the landlord’s building as well as their own flat[.][, If those alterations cause damage or defects and the landlord is unable to recover the cost of the remedial works from the leaseholder responsible, the landlord may have to meet those costs itself and seek to recover them through the service charge, potentially affecting other leaseholders in the block.
Shared ownership. Staircasing valuations usually disregard the shared owner’s own improvements, so the provider needs a record of what was done, when and with what consent, to avoid unnecessary arguments further down the line (for example when parties with the knowledge of the facts have moved on).

Up on the roof

Loft conversions and roof extensions contain classic trap(door)s for the unwary. The loft is rarely in the leaseholder’s demise, so the leaseholder needs more land, not just consent. That likely entails a separate lease of the relevant roof space or a variation of the existing lease (be careful how this is drafted as in practice this will operate as a surrender and regrant because it increases the existing demise), a price, the consent of any lender with a charge over the block and revised service charge apportionments. In this context, local authorities would also need to check their disposal powers, including whether a general consent under section 32 of the Housing Act 1985 covers the proposal. We recommend treating the matter as a sale of additional (leasehold) property, not simply a licence.

Safety first

An alterations regime (both in its conception and management) raises some very serious health and safety issues for the landlord and, more particularly, those who occupy the premises. Sadly, as is well-known, in a block one person’s home improvement can easily become everyone else’s fire risk. Works that breach compartmentation (new service holes, recessed downlights, removed internal doors, open plan layouts that change the escape route) are a recurring theme in fire risk assessments of older stock.

Every situation is different, and specialist legal and technical advice will often be needed – when it comes to the effective mitigation and management of such risks, the following are examples of the sorts of points to consider within the consent process:

Higher-risk buildings. In buildings of at least 18 metres or seven storeys with two or more homes, most building work currently needs the Building Safety Regulator’s approval before it starts, including work inside individual flats. In July 2026 the Government said it is minded to move most work within flats into a lighter category, but until then the licence should make BSR approval a precondition.
Residents’ duties. Residents of higher-risk buildings must not create a significant building safety risk or interfere with relevant safety items, and the accountable person for the relevant building needs to know about anything that could affect its safety case.
Fire doors. Flat entrance doors are within the Fire Safety Order and, in buildings over 11 metres, the responsible person must try to check them every year. A leaseholder who swaps a front door for a ‘nicer’ but non-compliant one creates a problem the landlord then has to solve.
Information. Ask for what is needed to keep the fire risk assessment, the asbestos register and, for higher-risk buildings, the golden thread up to date. For example, older council and housing association stock often contain asbestos, so a survey before intrusive works should usually be requested as standard.

“For housing providers and councils, a licence for alterations is now as much a building safety document as a property one. Unauthorised works found ten years later are always harder, and more expensive, to put right than works that were properly consented at the start.”

Aoife Murphy

Partner

Upstairs, downstairs

In a mixed use building (say, a busy restaurant on the ground floor with flats above), consenting to a commercial tenant’s works is never just a deal with that tenant. The homes above and around it have rights too - the following matters provide good examples of this:

Residents’ rights. Residential leases usually include a covenant for quiet enjoyment, and many a covenant to enforce other leases. Licensing works that disrupt residents, or that the commercial lease prohibits outright, can put the landlord in breach (see Duval above, if the enforcement covenant extends to the commercial lease), leaving it open to claims from residents for damages or an injunction to stop the works. So, we recommend a landlord and their advisors check the residential leases before consenting, attach conditions on working hours, noise, dust and access, tell residents what is happening, and take an indemnity from the commercial tenant against any claims.
Extraction and plant. Ducts past bedroom windows and plant on a roof terrace are where complaints start. All relevant parties should therefore be consulted and/or indicate their agreement to the proposed routes, specifications and maintenance plans before consent is given, not after.
Use. Within Use Class E a shop can usually become a restaurant, gym or nursery without planning permission, so the next fit out may look nothing like the last. The alterations and use clauses, rather than planning, may be the landlord’s main control, so, as we emphasise elsewhere in this piece, it pays to take real care over both the decision to give consent and the terms of the licence document that follows. Tying down what can and can’t be done in that user clause is important to protect the quiet enjoyment obligations of a landlord and preserve a harmonious building for all occupiers.
Building safety. Fit outs that cut through the floors between commercial and residential parts need the same care as works in the flats and, in a higher-risk building, may need BSR approval too.
Costs and insurance. In an ideal world, a landlord will tell the building’s insurers about the work, pass any (consequential) extra premium to the tenant and make sure the commercial service charge reflects added plant, so the cost does not quietly land on the residents.

Bonus point: One size doesn’t always fit all

Registered providers and councils rarely deal with one kind of occupier. A single block can house secure or assured tenants, right to buy and shared ownership leaseholders, a shop on the ground floor and a mast on the roof, each with different rights. Three things help:

A written alterations policy for each tenure including what needs consent and what does not, standard conditions, fees, timescales and who signs off on these matters. Consistency is a good watchword in life generally, but it specifically matters for councils and other public bodies as a matter of public law, and the Housing Ombudsman will ask whether a landlord has followed its own policy.
Two hats are not one. A council’s consent as landlord is not planning permission or building regulations approval, and vice versa. Licences and letters should say so and take this into account.
Records. As we have mentioned above, landlords should keep a register of consented works by property. It feeds stock condition data, fire risk assessments and the golden thread, supports recharges and staircasing valuations, and is one of the first things a buyer will ask for on any future stock transfer or other similar strategic portfolio transactions.

Find out more

Want to find out more? Get in touch. We would be happy to help with a licence, works that have already been done, or an alterations policy for your portfolio.

This document is part of Devonshires’ ‘It’s the law’ series, tailored for people working in development and regeneration. All reasonable precautions have been taken to ensure that the information contained is materially accurate. However, this document is not intended to be legally comprehensive, and no action should be taken on the matters covered without seeking specific legal advice. This edition reflects the position as at November 2026.