The Whole Kit and Caboodle - Installing External Kit in Leased Property

Heating, ventilation and air-conditioning or ‘HVAC’ units, satellite dishes, ducting and extractors - there are numerous examples where tenants of commercial property might want to add ‘kit’ to their leased premises, especially when these properties are used as restaurants and takeaways. These additions and any related alterations may affect the structure and fabric of the landlord’s building by adding weight of the equipment on the roof or the walls; but they also potentially impact on other tenants of the building and the quiet enjoyment provisions. There is a risk of potential nuisance around odours and noise emanating from kit which can be especially problematic in the hospitality sector.

It is likely that landlords will see more of these requests linked to energy performance, green leases and any future update to MEEs regulations making installation of kit necessary or desirable for the tenant’s full enjoyment of the building.

So what should the landlord consider on receipt of such requests?

Under most commercial leases, and the Model Commercial Lease itself, the landlord cannot unreasonably withhold or delay consent to proposed alterations/additions to the extent that they fall within the demise of the relevant premises. However, these types of works are outside of the demise (which is ordinarily an internal only space) and therefore an analysis of the rights granted to the tenant under the lease are required. Given the permitted user for those in the restaurant/ F&B sector as well as planning considerations, most modern leases will have contemplated the granting of appropriate rights. However, extra consideration to the nature of the rights granted should be given where a property for a former A3 use for planning purposes is being used for a wider class E use including restaurants. 

Where a tenant wants to put in kit, in most cases the landlord will be willing to grant its consent – in part because the application will have been anticipated at the time the use was granted in the relevant lease. Formal consent can however be caveated to impose specific requirements onto the tenant and allow the landlord maximum flexibility and security should any problems arise.

The landlord will be keen to ensure the fabric of their building is protected and that they have the ability to move and relocate the equipment if they need to undertake repair works and/or redevelop – see more on that below. Or the landlord may simply need to access and maintain the space the within which kit is located. For the tenant, the kit may be essential to allow them to operate their business within health and safety guidance or to maintain an ambient environment. It is usually important for both parties to be able to meet their needs in the most straightforward way.

From a construction standpoint, external installations may require planning permission, structural assessments, and compliance with building regulations. Tenants should anticipate obligations such as noise mitigation, fire safety, and access for maintenance. Coordination with the landlord is essential, especially if works will affect shared areas or require temporary disruption. The landlord may, as part of the design of the building, have allocated a particular area of the building for the kit – roof tops and rear flank walls being common to preserve the aesthetic of the design of the building.

So called ‘lift and shift’ rights can be critical to allow landlord flexibility. These allow the landlord to request that the tenant move the kit to another location, either temporarily or permanently so the landlord can access the relevant area – for example to undertake maintenance and repair to the exterior of the building, or to undertake redevelopment. The landlord may specify a particular location for the relevant plant to be moved to or leave this open ended as the situation dictates. From the tenant’s perspective, the tenant may seek to make the landlord responsible for the cost of removal and relocation of the kit which can be high. Particularly if a decision of choice rather than necessity, fairness dictates the landlord should shoulder the bill. 

The recent case of HLS Leisure Ltd v Darville & Son Ltd [2025] EWHC 1884 (Ch) underscores the importance of understanding the landlord’s demise and how this changes with the installation of kit. The court held that ventilation ducting installed by a tenant, though extending into common parts, was part of the tenant’s demise because it was physically “in or on” the leased premises. This meant the landlord was not liable for nuisance caused by the ducting. The ruling highlights that even partially external fixtures can enlarge the tenant’s demise and the area they are subsequently responsible (and liable) for, depending on lease terms and physical integration.

Both parties should also consider reinstatement at the end of the contractual term. Should the tenant have to reinstate the property, repairing significant changes made to the building? Does the tenant want to retain the kit as it holds value and can be reused or resold? Will the landlord benefit from the kit, or at least some part of it being in place for a future user? Often the best solution is to allow for flexibility and discourse between the parties.

And on that note, if you would like advice on any aspect of redevelopment or licences to alter, please do get in touch with the Commercial Property team here at Devonshires.