For many veterinary practice owners, leasing premises is a pivotal business decision. Whether you opt to lease part of a property (for example, a unit within a mixed-use building) or an entire free-standing property, the form of lease you choose will shape your legal obligations, operating flexibility, fit-out options and costs. Understanding the distinctions between the two options helps you secure a lease aligned with your clinical, operational and financial objectives.
What’s the difference between leasing a part or the whole property?
A lease of part grants exclusive possession of a defined area within a larger building or estate, together with rights over common parts. Boundaries are often defined by internal surfaces and a plan attached to the lease. You typically share entrances, corridors, parking or services and pay a service charge for maintenance of shared areas.
A lease of the whole property grants exclusive possession of the entire building. You control and manage all internal and external areas without service charge obligations to a landlord. However, in most cases you’ll be required to repair the interior and exterior as if you were the freehold owner of the property.
Leasing part can be attractive where you want to minimise fixed costs, start smaller or test a location
Advantages and disadvantages for veterinary practices
Leasing part can be attractive where you want to minimise fixed costs, start smaller or test a location. Service charges and shared services may provide predictable maintenance arrangements. However, there may be limits on the alterations or fit‑out that the landlord permits. Noise, odour and animal welfare considerations may be more complex in multi-let environments, and signage and parking may be constrained.
Leasing the whole offers more potential for control. You can avoid service charge disputes and manage hours of operation to suit emergency or out-of-hours services. The trade-off is higher capital and operating costs, broader repair and compliance responsibilities and potentially longer lease commitments. You also assume full responsibility for external and structural repair, planned maintenance and statutory compliance.
The trade-off [for whole properties] is higher capital and operating costs, broader repair and compliance responsibilities and potentially longer lease commitments
Key legal considerations for leases in England and Wales
For leases of part, expect detailed rights and reservations. Ensure the lease grants sufficient rights for 24/7 access (critical for emergencies, if required), deliveries and clinical waste collections and adequate signage rights. You should review service charge provisions carefully: seek a cap, exclude major structural works and improvement costs and require transparent budgets and reconciliation. You should also confirm the definition of the demised premises and whether internal non-structural elements are yours to repair, with the landlord retaining structural obligations.
For leases of the whole, your repairing covenant may be “full repairing and insuring” (FRI). If the building isn’t in great condition, negotiate a schedule of condition to limit your obligation to keep the property in no worse state. You should confirm who insures and the scope of reinstatement obligations following damage. Further, you should consider rights over access roads, car parks, bin stores and any easements for services. In both scenarios, agree on user clauses broad enough to cover small animal, equine or specialist services you may add, including ancillary retail of pet products.
Hours of operation restrictions, anti‑nuisance clauses and landlord controls on equipment may conflict with emergency services, so build in explicit allowances
Veterinary‑specific risks include planning use and change of use (ensuring the permitted use aligns with veterinary services, including surgical facilities), environmental permits and waste handling for clinical and pharmaceutical waste, controlled drugs storage under security requirements, acoustic and odour mitigation obligations and animal welfare needs such as isolation areas. Hours of operation restrictions, anti‑nuisance clauses and landlord controls on equipment may conflict with emergency services, so build in explicit allowances.
Financial implications of different lease structures
Leases of part often come with service charges and shared utilities. You should seek clear apportionment, audited accounts and metering where possible. Likewise, service charge caps help budgeting. Fit-out costs may be lower initially, but can rise if landlord approvals, specialist penetrations or acoustic works are needed.
Leases of the whole typically have higher rent and rates, but no service charge. You’ll bear all repairs, planned maintenance, compliance costs (such as asbestos management and fire safety equipment) and insurance premiums. You should consider the impact of dilapidations at lease end, and negotiate reinstatement carve-outs for landlord-approved works likely to benefit the property.
Practical tips for negotiation
- Prioritise a head of terms that captures user rights, 24/7 access, parking and delivery rights, waste storage, signage, plant and riser access and service charge caps
- For fit-out, obtain landlord approval in principle to key veterinary requirements
- For leases of part, ensure quiet enjoyment, robust nuisance carve-outs acknowledging clinical activity and carve-outs from service charges for capital improvements
- For a lease of whole, budget for lifecycle costs and plan a maintenance regime
Final thoughts
Choosing between part and whole focuses on control, cost and clinical ambition of your practice. With careful drafting and focused negotiation on veterinary-specific needs, either structure can support a resilient, compliant and thriving practice.
