The Back Door Matters as Much as the Board

By late October, a letting board has less daylight in which to do its job. I want to be able to read it from the opposite pavement and understand which premises are available. Not the whole building, perhaps, but the ground floor and basement. A good board makes that first distinction easy. It tells me somebody has considered the person looking at the shop, rather than simply found somewhere to fasten the agent’s name.

I am wary, though, of treating a tidy board as evidence of a healthy street. It may advertise a difficult property very competently. A faded one may belong to a landlord who would agree sensible terms tomorrow. What interests me is where the board leads: whether the particulars are current, whether there is a usable plan, and whether the person answering the telephone knows anything beyond the quoted rent and approximate floor area.

Acting for occupiers, I have learnt to ask about the back door quite early. Can stock arrive there? Is access shared with the flats above? Does a delivery vehicle have somewhere lawful to stop? A passage visible during a viewing is not necessarily a right the tenant will enjoy under the lease. Nor does an open gate prove that it will remain open at the hour a baker, cleaner or courier needs it.

Knowing what is actually being offered

Older shops often have an awkward relationship with the rest of their building. There may be a staircase behind the counter, a cellar extending beyond the sales area, or a yard used by several occupiers. Before anyone discusses a fit-out, somebody needs to establish the extent of the proposed letting and the rights that go with it. A clear plan is not paperwork for later. It helps a prospective occupier decide whether the premises can work at all.

Repair needs the same attention. A shop can look self-contained while its tenant remains exposed to the cost of work elsewhere through a service charge. Equally, a lease of the whole building may put the roof directly within the tenant’s repairing obligation. The board cannot explain all that. The agent should, however, be able to distinguish what is known from what still needs checking, rather than let an attractive frontage carry an assumption about a manageable liability.

This is where a good instruction from a landlord matters as much as a good agent. Has anyone authorised the removal of old fittings? Is there information about the electricity supply? Will the landlord consider separating redundant upper accommodation from the shop, if access allows? An agent cannot promise answers the owner has not agreed. But identifying these questions early can save a small operator from spending money on a layout that the building or proposed lease will not support.

That tells me something about the street beyond the individual vacancy. Where buildings have been understood and offers prepared properly, there is a better chance of matching a unit to an occupier whose trade fits it. That does not guarantee a letting. Sometimes the honest answer is that a unit cannot accommodate the intended use without expensive work. Finding that out before solicitors, designers and contractors have run up fees is useful work, even when it produces no deal.

I used to give more weight to the number of boards on a walk through a shopping street. I still count them, more or less, but I am less certain what the count tells me. Now I would rather follow one enquiry through. Can I get a plan? Can someone explain the access? Who pays when the roof leaks? A board is a small public sign of a much less visible process. The quality lies in the answers behind it.