Director and Head of Commercial Real Estate Danny Schwarz, and Trainee Solicitor Stephen Dodge examine how the ongoing lease renewal dispute between a tenant – the Prince Charles Cinema – and their landlord reveals real estate concerns for many of London’s independent businesses.
Danny and Stephen’s article was published in Estates Gazette, 25 March 2025, and can be found here.
——
From packed showings of cult classics like The Room to raucous singalong presentations of The Rocky Horror Picture Show, Londoners are united by weird and wonderful memories from the iconic Prince Charles Cinema in Leicester Square. However, few visitors would have imagined, while passing through the theatre’s red carpeted corridors, that such a long-standing institution does not own its space.
Like many of London’s independent businesses, the Prince Charles Cinema is a tenant, and is currently suffering the nightmare of all tenants – a bitter dispute with its landlord. However, unlike the horror classics that have played across its screens, the plucky protagonist of this story seems unlikely to make it out alive.
The cinema announced earlier this year that its landlord has all but chosen to force the cinema to close its doors.
Lease renewals and break clauses
In what otherwise might be a standard lease renewal at market rents, the landlord has demanded rents the cinema pays are far above market rates. It has also proposed a rolling break right in the lease, which would allow the landlord to terminate the lease on six months’ notice at any time. The belief is that the landlord, owned by real estate development company Criterion Capital, intends to redevelop the property.
It’s not hard to see why
Already a prime London location, the Prince Charles Cinema is an historic building in an area of high footfall. Despite the theatre’s old-world charm, there are likely scores of rival businesses that would happily swoop in on such a desirable plot.
While break clauses in commercial leases are a part of business included to provide a degree of certainty of term to the parties and to minimise the risk of non-payment of rent, they are typically commonplace in commercial leases. A landlord or tenant may have an option to break on the third or fifth anniversary of their agreement, but that option allows the break to occur only on that specific date, with notice. Sometimes, tenants with break clauses are even rewarded for not exercising that clause with a rent-free period after the break date.
The proposed break clause in the Prince Charles Cinema’s new lease would throw certainty to the wind by allowing the landlord to force out the tenant at any time.
The demand for above-market rents adds a further layer of obfuscation to the negotiations.
The landlord’s break which they can exercise at any time is not in itself a reason for the Prince Charles not stay in occupation. The above market rent is more likely to prevent the cinema from renewing its lease. If the landlord wanted the property vacant, it might have simply elected not to discuss renewal. Unless of course the Prince Charles is protected by the security of tenure provisions of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1954.
A look at the lease
A look at the current lease which is available to view at the Land Registry suggests that the Prince Charles could be in a better negotiating position than reported, given that it enjoys security of tenure under the lease. This means the cinema could serve a notice on the landlord requesting a new lease on the same terms as the existing lease save for the rent and the term of the lease which would both need to be in line with the current market. This would mean that for the landlord to oppose the grant of a new lease it would have to object on one of the prescribed grounds, in this case most likely redevelopment.
The difficulty the landlord would face is that at present its plans to redevelop the property are nothing more than rumours and to oppose a new lease the landlord must show genuine intent, through applying for planning permission, for example
A look at the rent review provisions in the current lease of the cinema hints at another reason the landlord may be wary of statutory renewal proceedings. The lease granted in 1963 contains provisions for rent review every 21 years and capped at £14,000 per annum. This may explain how the cinema has survived this long in Leicester Square. Capped rent reviews are less common in modern leases. Leases also tend to be shorter, and rent reviews usually occur every 5 years, not every 21.
Ultimately, this is all speculation. It is impossible to know the exact status of the negotiations. Unless the Prince Charles has grounds to oppose the proposed higher rents and rolling landlord’s break, there is likely little the cinema can do in this situation.
Despite a petition circulating gathering more than 15,000 signatures at the time of writing, for independent businesses in the entertainment and hospitality sectors who are facing these ‘David vs Goliath’ battles against their larger landlords, there is simply not enough bargaining power.
Silver screens and silver linings
This position is made worse for businesses with unique or novel requirements for their property, such as cinemas.
While the Prince Charles is a unique business with its niche and devout following, cinemas are becoming increasingly less desirable as tenants, due to their relatively low turnover post-pandemic. In areas like Leicester Square, there is an added incentive for landlords to attract businesses with high turnover and higher spend per customer, so that they can charge turnover rents.
There is one silver lining to the storm cloud gathering above the Prince Charles Cinema: the landlord has not yet applied for planning permission to redevelop. A search of Westminster Council’s Planning Portal shows just one entry relating to the property – an approved application to display an unlit sign reading ‘to let’.
So, for now at least, the show goes on.
If you would like to know more about our Commercial Real Estate services, or to get advice about commercial leases, please click here