Unlocking regeneration: Great Jackson St Estates v Manchester CC

When does a landlord’s “no” stop being reasonable, and start blocking regeneration? 

In this episode, hosts Richard and Lizzie unpack the High Court decision in Great Jackson St Estates Ltd v Manchester City Council, a dispute at the heart of a major Manchester regeneration scheme. 
At the centre of the case was a landlord refusing consent for demolition works under an existing lease. The court found that refusal unlawful, clearing the path for redevelopment to proceed. Crucially, the judgment draws a line between alteration and demolition.  

Richard also explores what it means for developers, landlords, and local authorities navigating restrictive covenants and consent to alteration and demolition.
If you’re involved in urban regeneration, leaseholds or public sector estates, this case is a reminder to exercise caution when refusing consent to alterations, particularly in complex urban regeneration projects.
 
Relevant cases:
Great Jackson St Estates Ltd v The Council of the City of Manchester [2025]   

Training & Free Webinars for Property Professionals:

Would you like to keep up to date with the latest in real estate law? Davitt Jones Bould offers legal training tailored to your organisation’s needs, delivered in person across the UK or remotely. We also run free monthly webinars through for surveyors, solicitors, and property professionals across sectors. To sign up or learn more, visit our events page here or email djb.events@djblaw.co.uk for information and booking. 

This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not intended to provide legal or professional advice. No liability is accepted by Davitt Jones Bould for any reliance placed on its content.

Transcript

Lizzie Collin
What should have been a straightforward step getting consent for demolition turned into a legal roadblock that risked holding up a major Manchester regeneration scheme. The High Court stepped in and the reasoning is worth paying attention to because it goes right to the heart of how far landlords and public authorities can go when refusing consent and when that refusal can become unlawful. In this episode we're going to break down what happened in Great Jackson Street Estates and Manchester City Council. why the distinction between alteration and demolition mattered, and what it means if you're involved in regeneration development or managing public sector estates. Hi, Richard.

Richard Snape
Hello, Lizzie.

Lizzie Collin
Hello. We are here to talk about a High Court case from, well, it's actually from January of this year, but it was previously a ex-tempore judgment. And we've now got the transcripts and the case is called Great Jackson Street Estates Limited and Manchester City Council. And it's all about consent to alteration and demolition. So it's a bit of a familiar case because we've we've spoken about these two parties in the past back in the summer of last year. So do you want to refresh our memories on the background facts?

Richard Snape
It was a Court of Appeal decision that from May of last year. that we did a podcast on at the time. And that's a different argument. So I'm better refreshing memories. It's a place called Park Place, or intended to be a place called Park Place in Manchester, just south of the city centre. And Great Jackson Street Estates are a special purpose vehicle, sort of to go ahead with the development, owned by Wise Group. And they planned, there's got a lot of plans for residential developments there, but they planned 256 storey high, primarily residential blocks of flats with commercial units on the ground floor of each. And 100, sorry, 100, 1037 flats, just imagine that, Lizzie. And the first case, and just to recap, it was all about restrictive covenants. We were a series of restrictive covenants which would basically prevent the development. Manchester City Council had already given planning permission for the developments, but they wanted to then argue, well, so that the restrictive covenants could be enforced. And Great Jackson Street went to the upper tribunal lands chamber under section 84 of the Law of Property Act. to modify the restrictive covenants. And Section 84 basically, Section 84 12 allows you to modify restrictive user or building covenants in leases, but only if the lease was more than 40 years initially and at least 25 years have expired. And that was the case, the leases were originally granted here in 1978 and they've been extended subsequently. which will give rise to a surrender going to be granted lease. But there were basically 99 year leases with just over 60 years left on them. So you qualify within Section 84 most well. And I wanted to argue that, well, A, the covenants of Section 84, one, the covenants primarily prevent reasonable use in London, don't secure any practical benefits of substantial advantage, or that they're obsolete, or that there was no harm to the council in discharging the covenants. And to cut a long story short, you can listen to the previous podcast, but the tribunal refused to modify the covenants and the Court of Appeal basically agreed with that. They said that the fact that you've got planning permission is quite distinct from whether the covenant should be discharged or not. And the council could see it had good reasons to kind of not just physically control, but strategically control the development. and ensure that it went ahead timelessly. That was the first case. So the first round was to Manchester City Council. They won it. So what's the latest? What also happened is they tried to obtain leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. And we're talking about a 350 million pound development site. So you tend to plow a lot of money into it. They were refused leave to appeal to the Supreme Court at the end of October last year. So the next stage is, can they go ahead with a development without the modified covenants? And that's what the High Court decided at the end of January. And shall I tell you?

Lizzie Collin
Please do. What happened?

Richard Snape
They basically wanted to demolish the premises, which were two warehouses, these 1970s warehouses, which have been redundant since 2008. A bit of an eyesore by all accounts. I should have gone there where I was Manchester on Tuesday and had a look at them. I wasn't far away. But there was a covenant, standard covenants in the leases that said there should be no additions, alterations, improvements without the consent of the landlord not to be unreasonably withheld. And there was a user covenant not to use other than as light industrial units or warehousing without landlord's consent, but not to be unreasonably withheld missing on that occasion. And the landlords basically, Manchester City Council refused consent on 10 different grounds. Shall I tell you what the grounds were?

Lizzie Collin
Yes, please.

Richard Snape
Firstly, they tried to argue that You'd be breaching the user covenants because you could only use the premises for light industry or warehousing. And that wouldn't include sort of demolishing and building skyscrapers. Secondly, they said that there was an obligation to keep the premises in repair, so you should repair this, say these redundant warehouses. I think that was a bit of a non-starter. And related to that, it's the law of waste, common law principle. you would be committing your waste, physical damage to the property. And 4thly, they argued that demolishing wasn't the same as altering or having additions to the premises within the covenant. They also argued that Section 84 claimed that they were going to appeal at the time, but they didn't get the ability, the Supreme Court, as I mentioned, refused leave. That would be undermined and their other activities. They argued that they would keep the value of the reversion if buildings were still on it. And they also argued that all the leaseholders were trying to do great Jackson Street was use the, you know, the sort of demolishing as leverage. They also argued that they couldn't show adequate funding. They hadn't given any details of methodology and there were no formal undertakings as to costs. So ten different grounds. And shall I tell you what the High Court said?

Lizzie Collin
Yes. What was the conclusion to all of this?

Richard Snape
Well, they said that demolishing is is altering the premises. This argument that not to demolish doesn't cover alteration, you know, isn't covered by the alterations provisions. was wrong and there was no waste involved in demolishing the premises because you've got an alteration covenant. They also said a repairing covenant to keep the premises in repair couldn't prevent demolishing when you've got a alteration covenant which allowed it subject to consent not to be always to be withheld. And they said also that the user covenants that you can only use for light industrial warehousing didn't mean to say that you had to, it was meant to say that you couldn't use for other purposes so you couldn't demolish. And they said that in terms of protecting the value of the reversion by keeping buildings there, the judge had visited the site and it was a derelict wasteland anyway, which is nice to know. And so it didn't really make any difference. And if you wanted to sort of make sure this site was in some way protecting, just wasn't a gaping hole for years. You could put that in conditions like landscaping and your licence. So for all those reasons, the landlord can demolish the premises, the judge decided. We'll have to see what happens. But Manchester City Council planned 80,000 pounds, the rumour is, of cost, that's what's in the local government lawyer anyway, working against them. So Yep, there we go. You must have good reasons for, well, alteration covenants include demolition. Look, that's altering the premises in many ways. That's it. Excellent.

Lizzie Collin
Thank you very much. Thanks, Richard.