Search results

1 – 6 of 6
Per page
102050
Citations:
Loading...
Access Restricted. View access options
Article
Publication date: 31 December 2003

Charles Woollam

Some companies see property as a strategic resource that can add value to corporate performance;others view it as a commodity that more often acts as a barrier to core business…

570

Abstract

Some companies see property as a strategic resource that can add value to corporate performance; others view it as a commodity that more often acts as a barrier to core business activities. In both instances, insufficient forward planning often prevents companies from making the most of their property portfolios and avoiding unnecessary costs. This paper looks at how operational property portfolios can be classified according to their strategic significance to the business and, specifically, how occupiers can more closely align property holdings with core business objectives by differentiating between ‘core’, ‘tactical’ and ‘(semi)surplus’ properties. The paper focuses specifically on the topical issue of flexibility, identifying potential costs and considering whether and to what extent short leases and break clauses are worth paying for. It also contains a large number of practical tips for managing real estate liabilities and making assets perform better.

Details

Journal of Corporate Real Estate, vol. 6 no. 1
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 1463-001X

Keywords

Access Restricted. View access options
Article
Publication date: 3 August 2015

Martin Turley and Sarah Sayce

The Government of UK is committed to reducing Green House Gas emissions by 80 per cent based on the 1990 levels, by 2050. In order to achieve this reduction, the UK Government…

1067

Abstract

Purpose

The Government of UK is committed to reducing Green House Gas emissions by 80 per cent based on the 1990 levels, by 2050. In order to achieve this reduction, the UK Government, along with their European counterparts, have implemented various directives and incentives, which progressively and incrementally are intended to move them towards this target. One such directive is the European Energy Performance of Buildings Directive, which sets the policy for achievement. The paper aims to discuss these issues.

Design/methodology/approach

This paper seeks to examine the complexities of these changes when considered against the real world use and operation of buildings, most particularly at lease end. It explores the inter-relationship of landlord and tenant at lease expiry and renewal.

Findings

It argues that the Energy Act regulations might have significant impact on the actions of landlords and tenants; both in advance of and shortly after the lease is determined.

Practical implications

One of the key mechanisms contained within this directive for the reduction in emissions is the Energy Performance Certificate (EPC). An EPC must be produced where a building is being constructed, rented or sold. EPCs rate buildings on their asset energy performance and in conjunction with building regulations are becoming increasingly more stringent to achieve targets. Regulations under the Energy Act 2011, due to take effect from April 2018, will mean that it will be unlawful to let or re-let a building which fails to reach minimum energy performances standards, currently defined as an E rating; further it is intended that the regulations will extend to all lettings from 2023.

Originality/value

This paper looks at the inter-relationship of landlord and tenant at lease expiry and renewal with the proposed directives on EPCs.

Details

Journal of Property Investment & Finance, vol. 33 no. 5
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 1463-578X

Keywords

Access Restricted. View access options
Article
Publication date: 1 October 1909

The use of boron compounds or other preservatives of the nature of drugs in cream is alleged to be necessary mainly for two reasons, namely, long distance transit leading to a…

35

Abstract

The use of boron compounds or other preservatives of the nature of drugs in cream is alleged to be necessary mainly for two reasons, namely, long distance transit leading to a considerable lapse of time between despatch and consumption, and the uncertainty attaching to the disposal of consignments of perishable and valuable material in a fresh or apparently fresh condition.

Details

British Food Journal, vol. 11 no. 10
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 0007-070X

Access Restricted. View access options
Article
Publication date: 1 June 1952

The Attorney‐General has informed the House of Commons that good progress has been made with the preparation of a Bill for consolidating the Food and Drugs Acts. Such a measure is…

43

Abstract

The Attorney‐General has informed the House of Commons that good progress has been made with the preparation of a Bill for consolidating the Food and Drugs Acts. Such a measure is badly needed—for a variety of reasons. First, there are the wholesale amendments made already by the Food and Drugs (Milk, Dairies and Artificial Cream) Act, 1950. Then there is the intensified muddle of the powers and duties of several Government Departments—namely, the Ministries of Food, of Health, of Agriculture and of Housing and Local Government. Further, much of the emergency legislation now in force—including some Food Standard Orders made under temporary powers—cries aloud to be made permanent. And, in addition, various doubtful questions under the existing law might well be resolved. In theory, consolidation Bills are not expected to bring about substantial amendments if these deal with matters of controversy. In practice, such amendments are sometimes made. This was the case when the Food and Drugs Bill of 1938—which was meant to be a consolidating statute—was before the Joint Select Committee of Lords and Commons. For example, a great change was then made, in the teeth of strong opposition, concerning the qualifications of a local authority to become a Food and Drugs Authority. It will not be surprising if the new Bill alters the existing law with respect to the powers of such Authorities to enforce statutory provisions of their own volition—without having to receive the formal consent of a Ministry. In the matter of food standards, while some may be included in an Act of Parliament, many others must obviously continue to be dealt with by statutory instruments. However much the Government may wish to abolish food rationing and control, it is clear that meat, bacon, butter and cheese must for some time remain rationed—and that some Department must continue to have powers to restrict and regulate the sale and composition of foods in short supply, as circumstances may from time to time render such regulation necessary and variable in its scope. Examples which will occur to everyone are sausages and other products containing meat; cream; ice‐cream and other products containing cream; eggs and articles containing them; with the ever‐present possibility of further control of milk and its products at certain seasons of the year. Among the doubtful points to be cleared up is one concerning the definition of meat. “ Meat ” in various statutes has widely different meanings. Recently, the Divisional Court has decided that in the Transport Act, 1947, which has a definition that “meat” means carcases (etc.) of animals, the definition does not cover fish. The Lord Chief Justice was careful to indicate that the Court was not deciding that “whalemeat” was outside the scope of the definition, and added that in the Transport Act “meat” might perhaps include rabbits, poultry and game. There are various decisions on record under other statutes. Thus meat was held in 1905 to be “ any kind of solid food”. In 1915, a Court held that ice‐cream may be meat, and in 1916 another Court ruled that ice‐cream is not meat. Still another difficult question presents itself under S. 14 of the Food and Drugs Act 1938, which requires the registration of premises under for the preparation or manufacture of potted, pickled or preserved food intended for sale, and lays down that “the preparation of meat or fish by any process of cooking shall be deemed to be the preservation thereof ”. Who can say whether for the purpose of this Section bacon is meat? A shopkeeper may find himself in possession of ham or bacon which shows signs of losing its sweetness. So he decides to boil it and sell it as cooked, in order to avoid waste of good food. Is it an offence if his premises are not registered under the Section? I have my own view on this, but do not express it because the whole thing is so doubtful and open to argument. Analysts' fees may perhaps come under consideration. If a private purchaser requires the public analyst to provide a certificate concerning an article said to contain various proportions of several vitamins, must the maximum fee remain at one guinea, as laid down in S. 69 (3) of the Food and Drugs Act? This can hardly be justified, in view of the recent announcement in the “ London Gazette ” that the fee of the Government Chemist for analysing referred samples under the Act is now raised to four guineas. There is hardly any limit to the amount of tidying‐up which might with advantage be tackled in a Food and Drugs Consolidation Bill.

Details

British Food Journal, vol. 54 no. 6
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 0007-070X

Access Restricted. View access options
Article
Publication date: 1 May 1945

The following are portions of a paper, bearing the title as above, which was read before the Royal Society of Arts on April 18th, 1945, by Sir Edward V. Appleton, LL.D., F.R.S.…

34

Abstract

The following are portions of a paper, bearing the title as above, which was read before the Royal Society of Arts on April 18th, 1945, by Sir Edward V. Appleton, LL.D., F.R.S., the Secretary of the Department; Sir Henry Dale, P.R.S., presiding.

Details

British Food Journal, vol. 47 no. 5
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 0007-070X

Access Restricted. View access options
Article
Publication date: 1 December 1949

In this article I propose to deal only with that legislation which is of a permanent nature and is not likely to be repealed or amended for at least some time to come. Ministry of…

33

Abstract

In this article I propose to deal only with that legislation which is of a permanent nature and is not likely to be repealed or amended for at least some time to come. Ministry of Food Orders such as those which deal with price controls will be ignored. Most legislation from the public health point of view is dealt with by the Food and Drugs Act, an Act which consolidated, with a few amendments, some of the legislation relating to foods, drugs, markets, slaughterhouses and knackers' yards. Section 9 of the Act makes it an offence for any person (a) to sell or offer or expose for sale or have in his possession for the purpose of sale or of preparation for sale, or (b) to deposit with or consign to any person for the sale or preparation for sale any food which is intended for but unfit for human consumption. It is a defence, however, to prove that the food in question was not intended for human consumption, or at the time it was fit for human consumption, or he did not know and could not, with reasonable diligence, have ascertained that it was unfit for human consumption. It does not matter whether the meat or other foodstuff was originally consigned by the Ministry of Food or purchased in the open market unless the butcher can avail himself of the special defences just mentioned. An authorised officer of the local authority, who is either the medical officer of health, sanitary inspector or veterinary inspector specially appointed for that purpose by the local authority, may, if such food appears to him to be unfit for food, remove it to be dealt with by any Justice of the Peace, and may then report the matter to the local authority, who may institute proceedings against that person. Every piece of meat or other article of foodstuff seized may be dealt with as a separate offence, and for each offence a penalty of £50 may be imposed. The butcher, therefore, if he has any meat, offal, or other foodstuff which he thinks may be diseased or otherwise unsound, should immediately withdraw it from sale and call in the local inspector. Butchers must be registered under Section 14 of the Food and Drugs Act, 1938 (not to be confused with a licence issued by the local Food Office), with the local authority, if they carry out on their premises the manufacture or preparation of sausages or potted, pressed, cooked or preserved foods. Failure to be registered renders the butcher liable to prosecution A point of interest arises in this connection. Does a butcher who boils down fat become a fat‐boiler and render his business to be classed as an offensive trade? Legally, he does, but in practice, unless he carries it on on a large scale, it is overlooked. A butcher should make himself familiar with the Imported Meat (Marking) Order, 1941, for any butcher who sells imported meat, as nearly every butcher does, makes himself liable to prosecution unless the following provisions are complied with. This Order prohibits the sale or exposure for sale of any imported (chilled or frozen) beef, mutton, lamb, pork, or edible offals, unless a label or ticket bearing the word “Imported” is affixed to every slab, tray or rail which contains such imported meat, so as to be visible to the purchaser. Where a butcher sends or delivers imported meat to another person, the requirements of this Order are complied with if the invoice or delivery note attached to or accompanying the meat has the word “Imported” marked on it. If the meat itself is clearly marked with the country of origin, e.g., New Zealand or Argentina, it is not necessary to specially label the meat, provided the purchaser is present in the shop at the time of the sale. The provisions of the Public Health (Preservatives, etc., in Food) Regulations, 1925–40, prohibit the use of any preservative or colouring matter in any article of food. However, it is provided by the first Schedule to these regulations that sausages or sausage meat may contain 450 parts per million of sulphur dioxide. Butchers whose premises are in Scotland are allowed, during the months of June, July, August and September, to put 450 parts per million of sulphur dioxide in minced meat. Where the article of food does contain preservative, it must bear a label stating that “these sausages, etc., contain preservative”; the letters being not less than ? in. in height, or there must be a notice in the shop to the effect that the sausages contain preservative.

Details

British Food Journal, vol. 51 no. 12
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 0007-070X

1 – 6 of 6
Per page
102050