Michelmores’ Corporate team has advised the leading Cerebral Palsy charity, Paces Sheffield on its bond offer which is currently being promoted by Triodos Bank and was launched on their crowdfunding website in June. Investors are invited to support the specialist school which offers life-changing skills for children with Cerebral Palsy and other neurological motor disorders. The bond offer will raise capital to support the charity’s ambitious growth plans including a new premises which will enable the school to increase its capacity by 75%.

The team has also advised Mama Bamboo on its EIS share offer, likewise listed on Triodos’ website. Mama Bamboo’s award winning sustainable baby products are made using 100% compostable bamboo fibre and the company is the only UK nappy brand to be B-Corp certified. The company aims to raise over £500,000 to support the marketing and technology required to accelerate sales growth. As an early stage and growth company, Mama Bamboo’s share offer qualifies under the EIS tax relief scheme, as assured by HMRC in May.

Corporate partner, Alexandra Watson led the Michelmores team with support from Adam Quint and Jess Hopkins.

Alex said:  ‘It was a pleasure to support both Paces Sheffield and Mama Bamboo to bring their investment opportunities to market on the Triodos website. The response from investors has already been positive and we look forward to continuing to monitor the individual offers and seeing the progress made in the corresponding growth plans.’

The valuation of rural mast sites under the Electronic Communications Code (“New Code”) has been under the spotlight again with a new decision from the Upper Tribunal in the case of ON Tower UK Limited v JH & FW Green Limited [2020].

The site in question was let on a contracted out 1954 Act lease with provisions which allowed the operator to share and upgrade the site, subject to “payaway” terms to the landlord.

The landlord accepted that the operator had the right to a New Code agreement but the issues in contention were:

• What equipment can the operator install;
• Should the operator’s right to upgrade equipment be limited;
• Should the operator’s right to share the site be limited; and
• What is the correct rent taking these 3 issues into account.

Equipment

The operator wanted freedom to add equipment to the site, whereas the landlord wanted to maintain the status quo, having taken a careful inventory of current equipment.

The landlord was willing to allow sharing and upgrading, but only on a strict interpretation of para 17 of the New Code, so that the changes had to have a minimal adverse impact on the visual setting and impose no additional burden on the landowner (burden meaning an additional adverse effect on enjoyment of the land or loss, damage or expense).

However, these New Code rights only form the statutory skeleton for the agreement between the parties. They are restricted rights and if any meat was to be added to these bones it had to be by way of negotiation or direction of the Upper Tribunal.

The operator’s position was that they were in the business of providing the infrastructure for broadband and mobile phone connections. Upgrading and sharing without limitation was essential, because technology and the market were moving quickly and unpredictably. This concern was exacerbated by the Court of Appeal’s decision in Compton Beauchamp[1] where it ruled that an operator cannot go back to the Tribunal for additional rights once an agreement is imposed.

The landlord had obvious concerns about the roll out of 5G, which requires larger and noisier equipment. Given the operator’s desire to go beyond the basic statutory right, the Tribunal had to consider the evidence from both parties.

The operator acknowledged that the 5G roll out would require a new mast, but argued that the South Downs National Park status of the site would act as a sufficient control.  The landlord stated its concerns about additional traffic, security risks, disturbance, visual appearance and radiation.

The Tribunal had to engage in a balancing exercise to determine the terms of the agreement. Under the New Code it may (not “must”) grant a New Code right, providing that the relevant conditions were met. These conditions are set out in paragraph 21 and are that the prejudice caused to the landlord must be able to be compensated by money and be outweighed by the public benefit that will ensue from the grant of the right. Further, New Code rights are not absolute and may be the subject of terms to ensure that the “least possible loss and damage is caused by the exercise of the code right.”

In exercising this discretion the Tribunal were not convinced that the site’s appearance would change drastically with the upgrade to 5G given its small size (70 sq ft), although acknowledged the other concerns of the landlord were relevant, albeit exaggerated. In any event, disturbance, noise and access issues were addressed in the proposed new lease, so any breach would entitle the landlord to damages or, where necessary, injunctive relief. The Tribunal did not, therefore, see a need to modify the rights to cause the least possible damage to the landowner arising from the grant of upgrading rights, which go beyond the basic terms of paragraph 17.

Site sharing

The Tribunal then had to consider the right to share the site.  This could not be done on the same basis, as sharing is not a New Code right; the Tribunal has discretion to grant a right to share on such terms as are appropriate to ensure that the least possible loss and damage is caused to the landlord. A balance has to be struck between enabling the operator to share the site in order to provide a high quality telecommunications service and the objections of the landlord.;

The operator in this case was an infrastructure provider (rather than a network operator) so its equipment (masts, cabinets and other equipment) were passive. The operator had to be able to share with any network operator or it could not continue its business.  The Tribunal decided the landlord’s objections were not well founded, so granted the operator an unrestricted right to share. The paragraph 17 conditions were not required, given the same safeguards of planning law and lease terms explained above.

Consideration & Compensation

The Tribunal confirmed the approach taken in the Islington[2] case, where any compensation for predictable loss and damage was included in the assessment of consideration, to avoid inevitable subsequent claims. This does not stop a landowner making later claims under paragraph 25, but a second bite only exists for those litigating and is not available if a deal is reached by agreement.

The Tribunal continued in assessing consideration by adopting a framework previously used in the Hanover[3] and London and Quadrant[4]cases:

1. Assess the alternative use value of the site, which would be the rental value of its current use or of the most valuable non-network use. This process would be heavily influenced by location and be a matter of evidence in each case;
2. Add a rental value to reflect any additional benefits conferred on the operator – in Hanover, the site was protected by a manned security gate; and
3. If the letting would have a greater adverse effect on the willing lessor, than the alternative use, on which the existing use value was based, then this should be reflected by a rental adjustment.

This case was the first one arising on a lease renewal, as opposed to a new agreement for a previously undeveloped site. The operator’s expert determined a rental value of £500 p.a. after carrying out the 3 stage process, with half the value attributed to stage 3, to reflect a rolling break clause after 5 years and a right to enter other landlord’s property.

Comparables

Comparable evidence of other rural sites on similar lease terms was also considered by the expert.  Of these 23 renewal agreements, 16 of them contained caveats which made clear that the operator in each case was agreeing a rent higher than that which would be determined by a Tribunal in accordance with paragraph 24 of the New Code.

As such, the expert considered the comparables to be unreliable in terms of arriving at a true paragraph 24 valuation. They were also considered to be too high because they were a blend of consideration and compensation, so the expert deducted the value of what he called an “incentive payment” made by the operators to oil the wheels of commerce.

These deductions were around £1,000 in each case and resulted in rental values of £500 for 16 sites and £1,000 for a further 4, with outliers at greater sums of £1500 and £3,000 for 4 further sites.

Landowner’s expert’s approach

The Landowner’s expert took two approaches to the valuation. The first was market value based on evidence of 15 transactions.  The Tribunal rejected 11 of these, as they were deals that were completed after the New Code came into effect, but implemented terms that reflected the old regime, to which the parties were contractually committed.

The Tribunal pointed out, that in both Hanover and London and Quadrant, evidence of this sort could not be taken as a reliable guide to no-network assumption valuations required by paragraph 24. The expert’s justification for persisting in presenting such evidence was that further research had shown that the rents were, despite the caveat, actually calculated on the basis of the New Code.

This argument was rejected by the Tribunal in terms that thinly disguised its exasperation at having to explain for a third time that such evidence is useless.

The remaining transactions were also not helpful, as they were either 1954 Act renewals to non-Code operators, urban sites or sites with significant alternative use value. The landowner’s expert figure was £5,500 based on these comparables, with an additional £1,500 pa to reflect the grant of access and use of a generator.

The second approach valued the alternative use of the site at £50, with an ultimate consideration of £7,800 pa. This was based on agreements granting access rights to third parties like Network Rail and Northumbrian Water, the granting of non-network benefits by the landowner and compensation to reflect health and safety concerns.

The Tribunal found the evidence presented by the landowner’s expert to be of very little help, with both his proposed valuations being higher than the passing rent. The Tribunal said that this told them that the expert had not accepted or understood the paragraph 24 valuation process.  Under lengthy cross examination the expert remained insistent that his evidence was relevant and the Tribunal fired a clear warning shot in saying that if this happened again, such evidence would be rejected without the need for further cross examination.

Operator’s expert’s approach

In contrast the operator’s expert evidence pointed to the fact that rents of £1500 or above were the norm, ignoring the effect of transitional incentive payments. These were commercial deals struck to avoid the cost of Tribunal proceedings and do not reflect the paragraph 24 reality.

However, the Tribunal considered that the operator was underestimating consideration values and overstating how much was paid as a commercial inducement – a doubling of the consideration was thought to be more realistic.

Tribunal’s approach

Taking the 3 stage approach set out above:

1. The experts agreed a nominal £100 pa alternative use value;
2. Additional benefits conferred on the operator included a right to keep a mast on the site, electric supply, right to enter other property of the landowner and tenant’s rolling break clause after 5 years. The operator said £400, the landowner said £1300 and the Tribunal ruled £600; and
3. Adverse effect on landowner was considered by the Tribunal to be caused by the access rights (to the “heart of a private rural estate”) and the loss of amenity caused by likely replacement of the mast for 5G upgrade purposes. This was valued by the Tribunal at £500, although it stated that if rents of nearby properties were negatively affected, this could form the basis of a subsequent compensation claim.

The cumulative consideration was therefore £1200 pa, which seems right when considered against a comparable put in evidence comprising a consensual deal at £2,500 for a similar wooded site on a rural estate. Compensation was awarded for legal and professional fees. The legal fees were allowed in full but a breakdown of the valuer’s fees was required as the landowner was not entitled to be reimbursed for any litigation related expense.

Our Natural Capital hub contains information and resources written by our team of experts as well as papers and online materials authored by a variety of sources including the UK Government, the UN, Conservation International and the World Forum on Natural Capital.

The International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC) is a global coalition of regulators, investors, companies, standard setters, the accounting profession, academia and NGOs. The coalition promotes communication about value creation as the next step in the evolution of corporate reporting. and in particular promotes Integrated Reporting <IR>.

Their mission is to establish integrated reporting and thinking within mainstream business practice as the norm in the public and private sectors. Their vision is to align capital allocation and corporate behaviour to wider goals of financial stability and sustainable development through the cycle of integrated reporting and thinking. The resources tab includes useful FAQs, and the International <IR> Framework which establishes the Guiding Principles and Content Elements for integrated reporting.

To access this resource please click here: ‘Integrated Reporting Council‘.

If you have any questions about Natural Capital our Agriculture team would be pleased to hear from you: please click here for their full contact details.

To access our Natural Capital hub, please click here.

For Multi Academy Trusts (MATs), a variety of information must be published on its main website as well as each Academy’s website. Whilst some MATs are operating under multiple Funding Agreements, we recommend that you publish everything required under the latest DfE model Funding Agreement as well as the Academies Financial Handbook. This will need to include any charging information.

On the MAT website, an Academy must publish:

• its annual accounts no later than the end of January following the financial year to which the accounts relate
• its current Memorandum & Articles of Association and Master Funding Agreement
• the required information relating to governance structures, including for example the structure and remit of the members, board of trustees, its committees and local governing bodies, and the full names of the chair of each (where applicable)
• information about its Pupil Premium, including for example the amount of Pupil Premium allocation that it will receive during the Academy Financial Year
• if received, information about its Year 7 literacy and numeracy catch-up premium funding
• various details about its curriculum, including for example the content of the curriculum and its approach to the curriculum.

On the individual Academy’s website, you must publish:

If applicable, the Academy’s most recent Key Stage 2 results as published by the Secretary of State in the School Performance Tables:

• average progress scores in reading, writing and maths
• average ‘scaled scores’ in reading and maths
• percentage of pupils who achieving the expected standard or above in reading, writing and maths
• percentage of pupils who achieving a high level of attainment in reading, writing and maths

If applicable, the Academy’s most recent Key Stage 4 results as published by the Secretary of State under the following column headings in the School Performance Tables:

• progress 8 score
• attainment 8 score
• percentage of pupils who achieving a strong pass (grade 5 or above) in English and maths
• percentage achieving the English Baccalaureate
• percentage of pupils continuing in education of training, or moving on to employment at the end of 16 to 19 study
• information about where and how parents (including parents of prospective pupils) can access the most recent report about the Academy published by the Chief Inspector
• information as to where and how parents (including parents of prospective pupils) can access the School Performance Tables published by the Secretary of State.

Finally, and by way of best practice, we recommend that each Academy’s website includes the following information: contact details, admissions arrangements, Ofsted reports, behaviour policies, values and ethos. Whilst this is not a legal requirement for academies, the information is both important and helpful!

The European Court of Justice (“ECJ”) has given a preliminary ruling on the jurisdiction of member states in relation to copyright materials published without the owner’s consent.

The Austrian case of Pez Hejduk v EnergieAgentur.NRW GmbH, Case C-441/13 concerned the use of photographs by a conference organiser on a website and the subsequent option to download these photos by website users. The owner of the photographs did not consent to this and sued the conference organiser for copyright infringement. It was argued that the Austrian Court did not have jurisdiction to hear the case on the basis that the conference’s organiser’s website had a .de domain name and was directed at German, not Austrian users.

The ECJ’s view was that under Article 5(3) of EC (44/2001) Brussels Regulation, proceedings could be brought in any member state where the relevant website was accessible. As set out in Pinckney v KDG Mediatech AG Case C-170/12, this was sufficient to seise the court, an activity did not need to be “directed” to that member state, i.e. through a country-specific, top-level domain name. However, the ECJ did make it clear that the courts where a website was accessible  could only determine damages which had been incurred within their own member states.

This ECJ decision widens the potential jurisdiction further than in previous case law as unlike in Pinckney, there is no requirement for hard copies to have been received to act as proof of damage in a jurisdiction – anyone can log onto a website and download online materials onto their own devices. It is anticipated that we will see an influx of online copyright infringement claims, as a result.

For potential claimants, this decision is likely to be welcomed as it enables claimants to rely on the jurisdiction of their own member state in order to bring a claim. However, where there has been significant damage, it is likely that the claimant would still be well-advised to sue in the defendant’s member state, to enable it to claim all damages, rather than just those in the claimant’s member state.

For website owners, this decision acts as a reminder to ensure that all content displayed and available for download  has the appropriate consents and licences in place.  This decision will be particularly significant for online users with territory-specific rights, who will now have difficulty arguing that they did not directly target an excluded territory. It is now clear that mere “accessibility” of content in an excluded territory could enable a claim to be made.

For more information please contact Charlotte Bolton, Solicitor in the Commercial Disputes & Regulatory team on charlotte.bolton@michelmores.com or on 01392 687745.

The Michelmores 5k Charity Run is returning in 2026, welcoming runners, volunteers and supporters back to Exeter’s Quayside for another lively and community-focused event – and marking a special milestone as the Run celebrates its 25^th anniversary.

Now firmly established as a highlight in the local calendar, the annual Run brings businesses together to promote wellbeing while raising vital funds for Michelmores’ charity partner.

Over its 25-year history, the Michelmores 5k Charity Run has raised more than £400,000 for charitable causes, supporting organisations that make a meaningful difference.

Participants can take part as part of a team or individually, with businesses encouraged to get involved by entering corporate teams or sponsoring the event. Runners of all abilities are welcome, whether aiming for a personal best or simply enjoying the atmosphere of this landmark anniversary year.

As in previous years, there will be a range of prize categories, including:

• Biggest team
• Fastest corporate team (based on the top four fastest runners, mixed-gender)
• Fastest running club (top two runners)
• Fastest male and female runners
• Veteran and youth categories

This year’s event will be hosted by former Exeter Chiefs rugby player, Chris Bentley.

Tim Richards, Managing Partner at Michelmores, comments: “We are delighted that our annual 5k Charity Run is returning in 2026, especially as we celebrate its 25th anniversary. Each year, we bring together our people, clients, families and friends to support an important cause, while also promoting physical and mental wellbeing. The Run is a fantastic example of our culture at Michelmores and the strength of our business community.”

For further details, visit our website.

If your organisation is interested in taking part or sponsoring the 2026 Michelmores 5k Charity Run, please contact the Events team at events@michelmores.com.

Michelmores has advised Greg and Clare Lang, the shareholders of Fire Doors Rite, a specialist fire‑door inspection, maintenance and installation business, on its sale to IDSL Group, a leading UK provider of fire‑door testing, inspection, certification and compliance services, backed by LDC.

The transaction represents a successful exit for the founders and supports IDSL Group’s strategy to build a market‑leading, end‑to‑end fire‑door compliance platform, strengthening its national coverage and enhancing its technical service capability across regulated sectors including commercial, public sector and defence estates.

The Michelmores team was led by Managing Associate Chris Cook in the firm’s Corporate team, alongside Henry Taylor, Hollie Halston and Ellis Arnold. The team worked closely with Greg and Clare Lang throughout the transaction to deliver a smooth and efficient sale process. PKF Francis Clark acted as corporate finance advisers to the sellers, with Chris Bishop and Matt Willmott advising on the transaction.

Greg Lang, co‑founder of Fire Doors Rite, commented:

“This was an important milestone for us, and it was essential to have advisers who understood both the business and our objectives. Chris and the Michelmores team provided clear, practical and commercial advice throughout the process, helping us navigate the transaction with confidence. We were very pleased with the support we received.”

Chris Bishop, Director in PKF Francis Clark’s Corporate Finance team, said:

“We were delighted to help guide Greg and Clare through the financial aspects of the process alongside the team at Michelmores. After all their efforts building a fantastic business over the years, it’s great to have helped achieved a successful exit and we wish them all the best with their future plans!”

Chris Cook added:

“It was a pleasure to advise Greg and Clare on the sale of Fire Doors Rite. They have built a highly respected business with strong technical expertise, and the transaction represents an excellent outcome for them. We worked closely with PKF Francis Clark to deliver a successful result for the sellers.”

This transaction further demonstrates Michelmores’ strong track record of advising founders and shareholders on strategic exits.

Michelmores’ award‑winning Corporate team of 35 specialist lawyers advises clients across the UK, US and beyond on mergers and acquisitions, capital markets, management buyouts, share options, impact investing, energy projects and more. For more information, please visit our website.

From June 2026, all organisations which process personal data must have a clear internal process for handling data protection complaints. This requirement applies to all organisations, regardless of size or sector.

The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has published guidance to help organisations prepare for the implementation of these complaints processes, which will become a legal requirement from 19 June pursuant to section 103 of the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 (DUAA).

The ICO guidance is that organisations must have a process for handling data protection complaints and that there will be “no exemptions” to this position.

The aim of the new process is to make it easier for individuals to raise concerns directly with organisations about how their personal data has been handled, and to resolve issues at an early stage, without the need to involve the ICO unless necessary.

What counts as a data protection complaint?

DUAA provides that a data subject can make a complaint to a controller if there has been any infringement of the UK GDPR or Part 3 of the Data Protection Act 2018. Part 3 covers law enforcement processing, the data protection principles of processing, data subject rights, controller and processor obligations and international transfers of personal data. By way of example, complaints could therefore be about:

• how personal data has been collected or used;
• delays or problems with the organisation responding to a subject access request;
• personal data being shared incorrectly; or
• concerns following a personal data breach.

The ICO makes clear that organisations must accept complaints however they are received, even if they are not submitted through a formal complaints form or designated channel.

What must organisations do?

Under DUAA and the ICO’s guidance, organisations must:

• provide a way for people to make data protection complaints (for example by email, online form, phone or post);
• acknowledge receipt of a complaint within 30 days;
• investigate and respond to the complaint without undue delay, keeping the complainant informed of progress; and
• clearly explain the outcome once the complaint has been concluded.

Organisations are not required to create a brand‑new complaints system – guidance from the ICO is that existing complaints processes can be adapted, provided they properly cover data protection issues.

How detailed does the process need to be?

The ICO has explained that it expects complaints processes to be:

• easy to find, such as being clearly signposted in privacy notices or on websites;
• easy to use, without unnecessary barriers; and
• accessible to everyone; not just customers or employees.

While some elements are mandatory, the ICO recognises that organisations can design a process that is proportionate to their size and structure.

What happens if a complaint goes to the ICO?

Under the new framework, the expectation from the ICO appears to be that individuals will be able to show that they have already raised their complaint with the organisation before the ICO considers acting.

If a complaint is referred to the ICO, the current indications are that the regulator will assess that complaint based on factors such as:

• the seriousness of the issue;
• the potential harm to individuals; and
• whether regulatory intervention is in the public interest

Not every complaint will result in a formal ICO investigation.

When do organisations need to act?

Although the new complaints requirement does not legally take effect until 19 June 2026, the ICO has said that following the guidance now represents good practice and will help organisations demonstrate accountability and readiness.

Organisations should therefore be actively reviewing and updating their existing complaints procedures ahead of June to ensure they meet the new legal requirements

Michelmores has advised Carousel Worldwide, a leading global publisher of calendars and stationery products, on its acquisition of Avonside Publishing, one of the UK’s most established calendar publishers.

The transaction brings together two highly respected names in calendar publishing and supports Carousel Worldwide’s continued international growth strategy. Avonside Publishing’s existing catalogue, including its popular animal and travel calendars, will continue to be produced and distributed under the Avonside brand.

Carousel Worldwide will operate the combined business from its headquarters in Exeter, while the Avonside team will continue to be based in Melksham. Both parties are committed to ensuring a smooth transition for employees, suppliers and customers.

The Michelmores team was led by Managing Associate in the Firm’s Corporate team, Chris Cook, alongside Richard Cobb and Dan O’Sullivan, who provided legal advice to Carousel Worldwide throughout the transaction.

Carousel Worldwide also received tax advice from James Fisher and Ben Herbert of Bishop Fleming.

Chris Cook comments:

“We were delighted to support Carousel Worldwide on this strategic acquisition, which brings together two well-established businesses with a shared commitment to quality and creativity. The transaction reflects the strength of Carousel’s growth ambitions and its confidence in the long-term opportunities within the publishing and gifting sector.”

David Pike, director at Carousel Worldwide adds:

“We are excited to welcome the Avonside team on board and to bring their expertise and titles into Carousel Worldwide’s range. Together we will be even stronger and this enhances our strategy for continued international growth. Chris and the team worked collaboratively with us throughout the transaction to understand our strategic objectives and delivered solutions that kept the deal moving efficiently while protecting our interests. Their approach and responsiveness made them a pleasure to work with on this acquisition.”

Michelmores’ award‑winning Corporate team of 35 specialist lawyers advises clients across the UK, US and beyond on mergers and acquisitions, capital markets, management buyouts, share options, impact investing, energy projects and more. For more information, please visit our website.

Water supply has become a critical issue for residential and mixed-use development. Capacity constraints, increasing regulatory scrutiny and the growth of alternative water providers mean that water can no longer be treated as a routine technical matter to be resolved late in the process.

Securing a lawful and adoptable water supply typically involves a series of interlinked commercial, technical and legal decisions. If not addressed early, these can have a direct impact on programme certainty, cost and plot sales.

Drawing on our recent experience of acting on water adoption agreements and self-lay arrangements, this article considers how developers are currently securing water supply, focusing on three key areas: working with established water companies and NAVs, securing the rights needed to deliver water infrastructure, and the circumstances in which statutory water requisition becomes the default option.

Established water companies and the rise of NAVs

For many sites, engagement with the regional incumbent water undertaker remains the starting point. Where network capacity exists and off-site reinforcement is limited, this route can provide a relatively predictable outcome.

However, the market has evolved significantly with the growth of new appointments and variations (NAVs). NAVs are site-specific water companies which offer an alternative to the regional incumbent. NAV involvement is commonly paired with self-lay providers who design and install the on-site water infrastructure for the development before it is adopted by the NAV.

From a developer’s perspective, NAVs can offer tangible advantages. They are often willing to engage earlier, may be more flexible on design and can offer commercial terms that align more closely with development delivery.

That flexibility should not be mistaken for a lighter legal touch. Water adoption agreements with NAVs frequently require careful amendment before they are suitable for execution. Issues commonly encountered include incorrect identification of developer and landowner parties, uncertainty around ownership and responsibility for installed water apparatus, charging provisions relating to metering and off-site works, and delivery dates and the consequences of delay.

Corporate change within the NAV sector adds further complexity. Rebranding exercises and changes to instructed solicitors can create uncertainty as to which entity is acting, particularly where an application spans a period of transition. Developers should ensure that instructions, cost positions and completion mechanics remain clear throughout.

Self-lay providers and technical approvals

Self-lay arrangements are now well established in the delivery of water infrastructure. Under these models, a third-party provider installs the water apparatus, which is then adopted by the relevant water company or NAV.

Although the technical approval process can feel less formal than that imposed by some incumbent undertakers, legal due diligence remains critical. Even where a certificate of title is not expressly requested, water adoption agreements will typically include warranties confirming that the developer owns or controls the land, that it is free from adverse third-party rights, and that all necessary rights exist to install, inspect, maintain and replace the water infrastructure.

Self-lay providers themselves are also an important stakeholder. While their drafting input is often limited, they will usually want sight of the final form of the adoption agreement. Their approval can therefore affect timing, particularly where changes are introduced late in the process.

Securing easements and rights: a critical path issue

Whatever delivery route is chosen, if the water infrastructure needs to cross third party land, then the ability to secure a water supply in a timely manner may depend on having the necessary rights over that land to lay, use, access and repair those pipes. Water adoption agreements are therefore only the first legal step in a wider process that may include easements or wayleaves for off-site water mains, together with rights for access, inspection and maintenance.

Delays at the adoption stage can have a disproportionate impact on site-wide delivery programme. In recent schemes, delays to and or worst case the absences of water adoption agreements impact on affordable housing and plot disposals.

This reinforces a recurring theme: securing rights is not an administrative afterthought. It is often the first piece of the puzzle and the item most likely to sit on the critical path.

When statutory water requisition becomes the default

Where agreement cannot be reached, or where off-site constraints make negotiated solutions unviable, developers may consider statutory water requisition under the Water Industry Act 1991. While requisition provides a route to secure a water supply, it is rarely quick or inexpensive.

Although water undertakers have statutory powers to lay apparatus across third-party land, there is often reluctance to deploy those powers in practice. Routes are instead adjusted to remain within highways or land where access already exists, which can significantly increase cost and complexity. Requisition is therefore as much a commercial decision as a legal one, and is often pursued in parallel with continued negotiations to secure private rights by agreement.

Key takeaways for developers

• Engage early: water supply strategy should be addressed alongside other primary infrastructure.
• Do not underestimate documentation: NAV and self-lay arrangements still require careful legal scrutiny.
• Secure rights early: water adoption agreements and easements are frequently the critical path item.
• Treat requisition strategically: it can unlock delivery, but it comes with cost and complexity.

As competition in the water sector continues to evolve, developers who understand the available routes, and the legal implications of each, will be best placed to protect programme certainty and site value.