Corporate Property & Lease Optimisation · Data Sheet
Corporate Property & Lease Optimisation — Financial Results
Quantifying the commercial effect of restructuring a fragmented corporate property position: indexed occupancy cost, component-level negotiation and the growth alternative.
Quantitative snapshot
The engagement in figures
Scroll table sideways →
| Measure | Result |
|---|---|
| Linked lease instruments reconstructed | 3 |
| Existing footprint | 2,025 m² |
| Negotiated decision routes | 3 |
| Current first-year cost index | 100.0 |
| Three-year stay index | 93.0 |
| Five-year stay index | 89.3 |
| Three-year modelled improvement | 7.0% |
| Five-year modelled improvement | 10.7% |
| Contractual annual escalation | 10% |
| Negotiated escalation | 5% |
| Growth-option footprint | 3,000 m² |
| Increase in available space | 48.1% |
Existing footprint
Negotiated stay options, lever by lever
Scroll table sideways →
| Commercial lever | 3-year stay | 5-year stay |
|---|---|---|
| First-year total occupancy-cost index | 93.0 | 89.3 |
| Modelled first-year improvement | 7.0% | 10.7% |
| Rent rate per m² | 5.8% lower | 9.7% lower |
| Municipal-cost input | 14.5% lower | 18.0% lower |
| Open-parking rate | 1.5% lower | 1.5% lower |
| Covered-parking rate | 12.1% lower | 12.1% lower |
| Annual escalation | 5% | 5% |
Both options use the same annual cost components for the existing and negotiated positions: rent, municipal cost, open parking and covered parking. The existing 2,025 m² footprint is the common baseline, which is what makes these two routes directly comparable with each other.
Growth / relocation option
The third route is a capacity decision, not a saving
The third negotiated route increased the occupied footprint from 2,025 m² to 3,000 m². It therefore has to be assessed as a capacity and operational alternative rather than compared directly with the stay options on total annual cost.
On the larger premises the negotiated rent per square metre was 9.7% below the existing stated rate on a three-year term, and 13.7% below it on a five-year term. Both carried 5% annual escalation. The package also included three months' rent-free occupation to facilitate laboratory relocation, and space-planning support.
A more expensive total property can still be the better commercial decision if it buys materially more useful capacity on improved unit economics and addresses a genuine operating requirement.
What the numbers demonstrate
The whole occupancy-cost structure was negotiated
The financial result did not come from one headline rental discount. The five-year route shows it clearly: a 9.7% reduction in rent per square metre was accompanied by an 18.0% reduction in the municipal-cost input, a 12.1% reduction in covered-parking rates, and the reduction of contractual annual escalation from 10% to 5%.
That is materially different from asking a landlord for a lower rent.
Calculation and evidence note
The historic working presentation contained a later saving-per-annum table that did not reconcile cleanly against the individual annual cost components recorded elsewhere in the source material. For publication, the underlying rent, municipal and parking inputs were recalculated and normalised: 100.0 is the current stated annual occupancy components, 93.0 the negotiated three-year stay model, and 89.3 the negotiated five-year stay model. The unreconciled historic totals are not published.
The source record establishes that the property position was reconstructed, alternatives were negotiated and the rationalisation exercise was completed. It does not contain the signed replacement lease, option-selection approval or a post-implementation invoice series. These results are accordingly described as negotiated, modelled and decision-ready — not as realised, implemented or achieved cash savings.