Commercial & Offices
An office and retail park, South East England
This is an illustrative scenario for a multi-let office and retail park. The landlord owns the roofs, but tenants consume most of the daytime electricity. This is the classic split-incentive problem, and it often determines whether solar gets built at all.
Illustrative example: this is a composite scenario built from patterns typical of commercial & offices sites — it is not a specific named client, and the figures below are not a promise of what any real site would achieve. We publish it to show how we think through this kind of decision, not as a verified track record.
This is an illustrative example, not a record of a specific client engagement. However, it shows how we typically approach a multi-let estate, rather than stating a verified outcome.
The scenario: three flat-roofed buildings on a single office and retail park. A mix of office and retail tenants occupy them on standard full-repairing-and-insuring leases, with a shared service charge. The landlord owns the roofs and would fund any solar investment. However, the tenants consume the great majority of daytime electricity. As a result, the party paying for the system is not the party seeing most of the saving.
This is the split-incentive problem that stalls a large share of multi-let commercial solar. Since no single route suits every lease, we typically model three routes side by side.
The first route recovers the cost through the service charge, where lease terms allow it. The second has the landlord retain the power and sell it to tenants directly. The third brings in a third-party funder under an on-site power purchase agreement (PPA). As a result, the landlord takes on no capital risk at all.
Roof warranties and access across multiple tenancies add a further layer of coordination. Additionally, we typically need to sequence works around lease events and existing warranty terms, rather than run one simultaneous installation.
Illustrative modelling for a scenario like this usually shows the PPA route removing the split-incentive problem entirely. However, it comes at a cost. The return is lower than outright landlord ownership would deliver, if the incentive gap could be resolved contractually.
Frequently asked questions
Is this a real client result?
No — this is an illustrative, composite scenario reflecting the kind of split-incentive problem common to multi-let estates, not a specific named client or a verified outcome. We use it to show how that split-incentive problem gets resolved in practice, not to promise a specific payback.
What if our lease doesn't allow service-charge recovery for this kind of investment?
That's common. It's usually where a landlord-owned model or a third-party PPA becomes the more workable route, and we model each against your actual lease terms rather than assuming service-charge recovery is available.
Weighing up a similar site?
This scenario is illustrative, built to show how we approach a decision like this one. Your own building or estate will differ in roof space, usage, and grid connection. A feasibility study therefore gives you the real numbers before you commit to anything.