Case No. UKUT-152-(LC)-UTLC-Case-Number:-LC-2021-240

188.None of the remaining provisions raises any profound issues of principle. We determine them relatively briefly on the basis that it is disproportionate to do otherwise.The terms on which the tenant’s rights are granted.189.We have already referred to Schedule 1 part 1, which sets out the rights granted to the tenant, and to the provision that those rights are granted subject to certain conditions which we discussed at paragraph 104 above. Two further paragraphs are proposed by APW and resisted by On Tower.190.The first is a proviso that the tenant shall exercise the rights only for the permitted use and in accordance with “any reasonable regulations” made by the landlord. The leases already contain a user clause and there is no need to duplicate that requirement; and the Tribunal will not give APW licence to introduce unspecified “reasonable requirements” in the future. The clause is to be deleted.191.The second requires the tenant to cause as little inconvenience and damage to the site and to the landlord’s and superior landlord’s property as possible to make it good as soon as reasonably practicable, and to “provide safety method statements and timescales for the Installation which must be agreed by the landlord prior to any of the works being commenced.” The reference to safety methods and risk assessments is to be deleted for the reasons already given; the rest of the clause is a pointless duplication of the tenant’s express covenants (set out at paragraph 48 above) and of the safeguards provided in the Code itself. The clause is to be deleted.Nuisance 192.The draft leases include a covenant by the tenant:“not to permit or do any act or bring onto the Property anything which may constitute a legal nuisance or which may cause injury to the Landlord, Superior Landlord or other users in the vicinity of the Property or cause damage to the Superior Landlord’s Property