4.1 Landlord’s Right to Oppose: Section 47 Redevelopment Grounds
The Legislative Framework
Section 47 of LRHUDA 1993 empowers a landlord to counter a tenant's Section 42 notice for a new lease by asserting an intention to redevelop. Specifically, subsection (1) stipulates that where the tenant's existing lease has less than five years remaining at the date the claim is made, the landlord may oppose the extension if they can demonstrate a genuine intent to demolish, reconstruct, or carry out substantial works on the whole or a substantial part of the premises containing the flat.
The provision is narrowly tailored to balance tenant security with landlord development rights. Under Section 47(2), the landlord must prove that they would be entitled to possession upon the lease's natural expiry and that the redevelopment cannot reasonably proceed without obtaining possession of the tenant's flat. This ties directly to grounds under Schedule 6 to the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, particularly ground (f) for redevelopment, though adapted for residential long leases.
As of August 2025, this section remains operative, with no commencement yet of reforms under the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 (LFRA 2024) that would repeal such opposition grounds. However, professionals should monitor statutory instruments, as LFRA 2024's Schedule 3 envisages removing these defences to facilitate easier extensions, potentially shifting the focus to post-extension redevelopment breaks under an amended Section 61.
Conditions for Successful Opposition
To mount a viable defence, the landlord's counter-notice under Section 45 must explicitly invoke Section 47, detailing the proposed works and evidencing intent. The burden lies squarely on the landlord to satisfy the tribunal that:
- The lease is within its final five years, calculated from the date specified in the tenant's Section 42 notice.
- Possession is required for redevelopment purposes, meaning the works necessitate vacating the flat.
- The redevelopment encompasses the whole or a substantial part of the "premises in which the flat is contained," a phrase laden with interpretive challenges.
Substantiality is assessed objectively, considering the scale of works relative to the building's structure. Minor alterations, such as internal refurbishments without structural impact, typically fall short. Surveyors play a pivotal role here, providing expert reports on the feasibility and extent of proposed schemes, often incorporating architectural plans and cost estimates to underscore genuineness.
If the opposition succeeds, the tenant's claim is defeated, but the landlord must compensate under Section 61(4), equivalent to the premium for the extension. Failure to proceed with redevelopment post-possession can expose the landlord to claims of misrepresentation, emphasising the need for robust planning permissions and funding commitments upfront.
Key Case Law
Judicial interpretation has refined the boundaries of Section 47, offering precedents that inform strategic advice. The seminal case of Majorstake Ltd v Curtis [2008] UKHL 10 clarified the scope of "premises in which the flat is contained" under Section 47(2)(b). The House of Lords held that this encompasses the entire building or structure housing the flat, not merely a subset or the flat itself. In this instance, the landlord sought to convert a loft space above the tenant's flat, but the court ruled that redevelopment must involve a substantial part of the whole premises to justify opposition. Lord Scott's judgment emphasised that partial works, even if significant to the landlord's plans, do not suffice unless they affect a material portion of the building, preventing landlords from using the ground to block extensions for isolated developments.
Earlier authority, such as Cadogan Estates Ltd v Morris [1999] 1 EGLR 59, though primarily on collective enfranchisement under Section 23, provides analogous insights into "substantial works," requiring evidence of economic viability and planning feasibility. In the context of Section 47, tribunals have applied similar scrutiny, as seen in unreported decisions where landlords failed due to vague intentions or lack of concrete timelines.
More recently, cases like those referenced in tribunal reports highlight the evidentiary threshold: in one instance, a landlord's plan to demolish and rebuild an entire block succeeded, bolstered by approved planning consents and relocation offers to tenants. These rulings underscore the importance of contemporaneous documentation, advising professionals to counsel landlords on assembling dossiers that withstand cross-examination.
Practical Insights for Professionals
Advising on Section 47 demands a multifaceted approach. For landlords, early assessment of lease expiry dates is crucial; surveyors should conduct pre-claim building audits to identify redevelopment potential, integrating sustainability considerations such as energy-efficient retrofits that might qualify as substantial works in a post-net-zero era.
Tenants' advisors, conversely, should probe the landlord's counter-notice for weaknesses, requesting disclosure of plans under tribunal directions. In negotiations, leveraging the threat of costs applications under Section 60 can pressure landlords into concessions, particularly where redevelopment intent appears opportunistic.
Thinking beyond traditional boundaries, consider the interplay with emerging trends: in mixed-use developments, Section 47 opposition might dovetail with compulsory purchase powers under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, offering landlords alternative routes to assembly. Moreover, with climate resilience gaining prominence, redevelopment claims could incorporate flood mitigation or green infrastructure, expanding the ground's application in urban regeneration projects.