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 [email protected] or on 01392 687745.

The Government has very recently confirmed one of the most significant reforms to Local Government and the planning system in decades. From 1 April 2028, the remaining two-tier council areas in England will be reorganised, reducing 134 local, borough and county councils to just 38 new unitary authorities across 14 county areas.

For developers, landowners and local planning authorities alike, the changes represent a major shift in plan making and decision taking.

What is changing?

Under the reforms, the existing two-tier model of county councils and district/borough councils will be replaced by single-tier unitary authorities responsible for all Local Government functions within their area. This will consolidate multiple planning teams, finance departments and leadership structures into a single authority, with the aim of making services more streamlined and accessible for residents and freeing up funding to reinvest directly into local priorities such as road maintenance and social care.

The Government has made clear that many of the proposed authority boundaries have been designed around economic geography, housing markets and growth opportunities, rather than simply replicating existing council areas. When the changes were announced the now replaced Secretary of State, Steve Reed, said that “these reforms create stronger, more efficient councils that lay the foundations for real devolution and the economic growth that will bring new jobs and opportunities to communities right across England”.

Perhaps most significantly from a planning perspective, each new unitary authority will ultimately prepare a single local plan covering its entire administrative area. This means that over time, planning policy will move away from today’s smaller district-based plans towards broader strategic policies covering much larger geographies. As a result, future housing and employment allocations may not follow historic district boundaries or existing local plan priorities. There will however be a transitional period during which current local plans will continue to operate.

Areas most affected

The changes cover 14 county areas across England. Areas of particular interest include:

Gloucestershire

The county’s seven councils will be replaced by a single unitary authority. The Government has stated that this approach will bring together the Gloucester-Cheltenham growth corridor and the Golden Valley cyber cluster under one authority, potentially creating a more unified approach to growth, infrastructure and economic development.

Devon, Plymouth and Torbay

The existing eleven councils will be reorganised into four unitary authorities. According to Government statements, the proposed structure is intended to better align Local Government boundaries with the area’s economic geography and support housing and infrastructure delivery.

London

London will remain largely unaffected by this national transition because the capital’s 32 boroughs have operated as unitary (single-tier) authorities for 40 years, having been broken into the 32 boroughs in 1965 and those boroughs having taken on these full powers in 1986, following the abolition of the Greater London Council. Therefore, they are already responsible for most Local Government functions within their areas.

Cambridgeshire and Peterborough

Alongside West Sussex, plans for how to reorganise Cambridgeshire and Peterborough have been delayed until October 2026, with the Government saying it needs time to make the right decisions.

The return of strategic planning

These Local Government reforms do not sit in isolation. Alongside the creation of new unitary authorities, the Government is also progressing proposals for Spatial Development Strategies (SDSs), a high-level, long-term planning blueprint that guides land use, housing distribution, and infrastructure across a wide geographic region rather than a single local council.

This signals a return to a more strategic, regional approach to planning.

Neighbouring authorities will be able to collaborate through strategic planning boards to prepare SDSs across wider housing and economic market areas. Together, the new unitary authorities and SDS framework could fundamentally reshape how housing targets, infrastructure priorities and strategic growth locations are identified and delivered.

Key takeaway

For local planning authorities, the challenge will lie in managing the transition from existing district-based policy frameworks to new authority-wide plans, while simultaneously engaging with emerging Spatial Development Strategies and an evolving national planning framework.

Whilst many of the practical details remain to be worked through, one thing is already clear: the planning landscape that developers and local authorities are operating within today could look very different by 2028 and beyond. Those promoting land, preparing planning applications or developing long-term growth strategies should keep a close eye on how these reforms evolve and what they may mean for local plan coverage, housing delivery expectations and future development opportunities.

To discuss the potentially far-reaching implications for housing growth, site promotion and strategic development these changes may have on you or your land, or to discuss the contents of this article further, please visit our webpage and contact a member of our Planning team: Planning Law – Michelmores.

From young Arthur becoming the legendary king, Frodo venturing beyond the Shire to save Middle-earth and Shrek leaving the swamp to rescue Princess Fiona and embrace who they truly are, some of our favourite stories follow a similar pattern.

The narrative structure is known as the Hero’s Journey, where an ordinary person embarks on an adventure, overcomes challenges and returns transformed by the journey. While often associated with myths, sci-fi and fantasy, many real-life challenges follow a similar path, including a legal career.

Looking back at my own path into law, I noticed how it follows similar stages:

1. Call to adventure (deciding to do law)

You decide that you want a career in law. You may be attracted to helping people, challenging yourself, or the continuous learning. Becoming a solicitor can feel like standing at the bottom of a mountain with no clear route to the top.

I often see questions online like, “can I become a solicitor with X grades?“, “is it too late?” or “am I good enough?“. These questions crossed my mind too, but I soon learned that self-doubt creates obstacles before you’ve even begun. In reality, your background and timing matters far less than your commitment to the journey.

2. Meeting the mentor (support network)

Often, the best people you can speak to are the ones who have already walked the path that you want to follow. The people who encouraged me helped me realise that there was no reason why I couldn’t succeed too.

• If you work at a law firm, open up to your colleagues about your journey. Senior members of your team can help you gain experience to bolster your CV, while trainees and NQs can offer practical advice on applications;
• If you don’t work at a law firm, attend open days, careers fairs and networking events. Speaking to current trainees can give you a first-hand account of what the profession is actually like and help you to identify which firms are right for you.

3. Trials and challenges (applications)

Applying for training contracts was a humbling experience! It’s rare for somebody to get it right first time. The only way to improve your applications is with reflection and practice.

My top tips are:

• Tailor every application to the firm you are applying for. You can get a strong feel for the firm by looking at their website, looking at partner profiles to see who their clients are and what work they are doing if they are in an area that interests you, and reading Legal Cheek and Chambers Student;
• Prepare for psychometric tests using free online resources. Check YouTube for videos offering explanations about the different types of tests and to see people taking practice tests.

4. Approaching the cave (assessment centres)

As an introvert, I found group exercises particularly daunting, so I spent the most time preparing for them. There’s an old cliché suggesting that you can volunteer to keep time or take notes, but these are some better ways to show the skills that assessors are looking for:

Listening skills: Praise and build on other people’s ideas;

• Team-working: Refer to people by their names and encourage quieter members to contribute;
• Leadership: Help the group stay focused and encourage them to feel confident in reaching a decision;
• Commercial awareness: You will often be asked to make a business decision, so read the news beforehand to contribute a real-life analysis.

5. The reward (training contract offer)

You finally receive the telephone call with your training contract offer. This moment is long-awaited so you haven’t thought about what comes next!

• If you’re relocating, think about your lifestyle outside of work and where you would like to live. I commute to the Bristol office from Gloucestershire as I enjoy martial arts and there are some great places for training near me
• Our Early Careers and Knowledge teams will provide ample resources to prepare you for your first seat. However, it can be helpful to look at your university notes to refresh your memory of some of the key legal principles
• Connect with current trainees on LinkedIn, introduce yourself and ask them about the seats they have completed. Current trainees are often excited to meet members of the next cohort and share their experiences; this can also provide valuable insight into the culture and day-to-day work of the firm you’ll be joining
• If, like me, you completed the LPC and need to study the SQE2, take a short break before recapping your LPC notes using the SQE syllabus. SQE2 exams are closed book and cover a high volume of content; giving yourself a head start before the course begins means that you can focus on the skills part of the assessment without being completely lost on the knowledge. Check out Alex Peltiez’s blog for more tips on how to ace your SQE2

You don’t need a magical sword, a ring of power or a talking donkey to begin your journey. To be the hero in your own story, all you need is determination to take the first step and the resilience to keep going when the journey gets tough. You shall pass.

As AI and digital infrastructure accelerate, power is a decisive factor in which data centre projects get built. That creates a significant opportunity for energy developers who can combine generation, storage, land strategy and long-term power supply into bankable co-located projects.

Why are data centres on the radar for energy developers?

For energy developers, the UK data centre market is fast becoming a core growth area.

The reason?  The next phase of digital infrastructure will be constrained less by demand for services, and more by access to reliable, deliverable power.

Demand for digital infrastructure is accelerating, particularly with the rise of AI and high-performance computing. At the same time, access to grid capacity is increasingly difficult, connection dates are moving up the board agenda, and developers are looking for credible routes to secure power before committing capital, tenants or land.

This is changing how data centre development is being delivered.

Rather than simply competing for limited grid capacity, developers are increasingly looking at co-located models where data centres are paired with generation, storage and private wire arrangements. For energy developers, this is a natural adjacency: it builds on existing expertise in land assembly, grid strategy, project structuring, revenue certainty and long-term asset optimisation.

The result is a move from standalone renewable energy projects towards power-led digital infrastructure platforms.

What does co-location mean?

For energy developers, co-location has traditionally meant pairing a generating asset with an adjacent source of demand. In the data centre context, this could include solar PV or wind generation located alongside a data centre, BESS to manage intermittency and resilience, private wire arrangements supplying electricity directly behind the meter, or a hybrid model combining on-site generation with grid import and export.

The core objective is to unlock development potential, improve deliverability and enhance value through a more predictable energy supply strategy.

Why are energy developers interested?

1. Offtake certainty

Data centres offer continuous, high-volume baseload demand and long-term operational need. In many cases, counterparties will also have strong covenant strength, particularly where the customer is a hyperscale, cloud or enterprise operator.

That creates the potential for long-term power supply arrangements which reduce merchant price exposure and support more predictable income streams. For investors and funders, that revenue visibility can be highly attractive.

2. Grid constraints are creating new models

Grid access is now a major barrier to deploying both generation and demand assets in the UK. Co-located models can reduce reliance on already congested grid connections, support more flexible import and export strategies, and better align generation and demand timelines. For data centres, private wire structures, BESS and flexible generation can form part of a credible power strategy where traditional grid-led delivery is delayed or uncertain.

3. A route into wider infrastructure platforms

Energy developers have an opportunity to move beyond single-asset energy projects and into integrated energy and infrastructure platforms, working alongside data centre developers, operators and investors. Projects are likely to attract strongest interest where the energy supply strategy is credible, deliverable and aligned with the demand profile of the data centre.

What are the key legal issues?

The opportunity is significant, but co-located schemes bring a different risk profile from a standard clean energy project. The legal structure needs to support not only construction and operation of the energy assets, but also the uptime, resilience and investment requirements of the data centre.

1. Land and site structuring

Instead of planning for a single asset, developers need a multi-use site strategy. Key questions include whether generation and data centre operations should sit within the same vehicle or separate vehicles, whether land rights should be separated or linked to the relevant asset, and how cable routes, substations, access rights and shared infrastructure should be owned, operated and protected.

2. Power arrangements

Power supply will be central to the project structure. The parties will need to address private wire ownership and operation, PPAs between generator and data centre operator, back-up supply, resilience obligations, curtailment risk and the interaction with grid import and export arrangements. The data centre operator will be focused on continuity of supply; the energy developer will need to ensure that those obligations are technically deliverable and commercially bankable.

3. Planning strategy

Co-located developments may offer planning advantages, but they also require a coordinated strategy. Developers will need to decide whether to pursue an integrated or phased planning approach, how generation, storage and data centre uses are treated within planning policy, and how environmental and community considerations are managed across the whole site.

As data centres are increasingly recognised as critical infrastructure, there may be greater scope to position well-structured co-located schemes as strategically important developments.

4. Financing structure

From a financing perspective, co-location introduces additional layers of analysis. Funders will look closely at asset interdependence, revenue certainty, counterparty covenant strength, credit risk, security arrangements and step-in rights. The structure will also need to make clear whether the assets are being financed as an integrated platform or as separate operational assets with linked contractual rights.

5. Operational alignment

Co-located projects require long-term operational alignment. Taking into consideration customer requirements for near-continuous uptime, the documents need to deal with outages, planned maintenance, downtime, performance failures, matching generation output to demand, and the consequences if one part of the project affects the other. These issues are not simply operational details; they go directly to project value and bankability.

What does this mean for energy developers and investors?

The growth of co-located data centres reflects a broader shift in the market. Power is now a critical constraint on digital infrastructure, which means energy developers can play an increasingly important role in unlocking new capacity. Those with experience of complex project delivery, grid risk, long-term revenue arrangements, storage, private wire structures and investor requirements are well placed to move into this space.

The key will be early structuring. The most successful projects are likely to be those where land, power, planning, offtake, financing and operational risk are considered together from the outset. For energy developers, co-located data centres are not just another route to market for power. They may become one of the most important infrastructure opportunities created by the growth of AI and digital demand.

A key element of the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 was to unlock developments otherwise constrained by their potential impact on designated environments. To this end the Act introduced ‘Environmental Delivery Plans’. EDPs set out the conservation measures that will be taken to address the impact of specified types of development on protected habitats and species. The EDPs are to be managed primarily by Natural England. The EDPs will be paid for by developers.

The legislative provisions for financing the EDPs are the Nature Restoration Levy Regulations 2026 (“the Regulations”).

The first draft of the Regulations has recently been published.

How the Levy Operates

Applicability

Natural England can make participation in the EDP mandatory or discretionary. If discretionary then developers will be able to opt into the regime where an EDP provides the mitigation type their development needs to proceed. Natural England will make this clear for each EDP.

Calculation of the Levy

The levy rates (i.e. how much a developer will have to pay towards a specific set of nature restoration efforts) will be calculated individually for each EDP.  For discretionary EDPs this cost, relative to the cost of the developer’s ability to provide their own mitigation will be a key workability aspect of the scheme.

It is up to Natural England to create a charging schedule for each EDP, setting out the index linked Levy rates (which can be changed) whilst paying attention to:

1. The administrative cost of delivering and managing the EDP measures; and
2. the conservation measures and environmental requirements of the EDP area.

Process and payment

Procedurally, the regime borrows heavily from the structure and administrative logic of Community Infrastructure Levy (which has been running for 15 years or so):

1. The developer, defined as ‘liable person’ starts the process by contacting Natural England to request to pay the levy, and if accepted, the developer will receive a ‘commitment to pay’
2. Local Planning Authorities will impose a pre-commencement condition on the planning permission requiring payment of the Levy
3. Once their permission is granted (or if appropriate, prior approval is given), the developer must serve an assumption of liability notice on Natural England. A liability notice calculated according to the permission is served on the developer, detailing payment dates. Natural England confirms receipt of payment to the LPA

The finer details provide for:

1. Transfer of liability (provided notice is given to Natural England) and joint and several responsibility if there is more than one ‘liable person’
2. Payments in instalments (helpful for phased developments) and a duty to return overpayments
3. Enforcement powers ranging from the imposition of surcharges and late payment interest, to warning and stop notices on the development if payments are not made
4. Appeals provisions relate to the enforcement powers, as well as the Levy charge calculated. Unlike CIL, there are no exemptions or reliefs available. There is also no mention of Natural England taking into account the effect the Levy will have on individual schemes’ viability

We expect detailed guidance from the Secretary of State in due course.

What can developers do to prepare?

While the Levy is intended to provide simplified form of environmental mitigation. By opting into the Levy developers effectively cede control over mitigation delivery to Natural England’s strategic programmes rather than finding tailored solutions at project level often delivered over the life of the development.

Unless funding the EDP is mandatory, then unlike CIL developers will have an option to pay the Levy. Developers will not just be considering the Levy cost and cashflow (with instalment payments being a possible option), but also both ease of delivery and ongoing maintenance liabilities of onsite scheme, as well as securing a clean site exit. Clarity on a developer’s best option may not be secured until the permission is granted.

For some sites onsite delivery of mitigation may be physically impossible. For these sites, subject to the cost, choosing to pay the Levy may be the only option to secure planning permission and build-out their development.

Despite what we know so far, the release of further government guidance on the Levy, the EDPs and charging schedules in due course will be vital for developers considering opting into the Levy, meaning anticipatory preparation for it at present is difficult to achieve. Staying ahead of EDPs and Levy will be another important task on developers desks, and we will continue to help with further bulletins and knowledge sharing.

Michelmores has advised Cranford Sports Club on a lease agreement with LED Community Leisure, a not-for-profit Community Benefit Society. This secures the long-term future of the Club and supports the continued provision of sports and wellbeing facilities in the local community.

Cranford Sports Club, a community amateur sports club, had faced financial challenges in recent years, with membership levels declining amid increased local competition. In response, the Club took the strategic decision to grant a lease of its premises to LED Community Leisure, an experienced operator of community leisure facilities.

Under the new arrangement, LED Community Leisure will operate the site, enhancing its facilities and broadening the range of activities available to members. Early indications following completion of the lease are encouraging, with an increase in membership renewals already observed.

The Michelmores team advising on the deal was led by Partner, Richard Walford and Associate, Zilah Nelson, from the Firm’s Transactional Real Estate team.

Richard Walford commented:

“We are pleased to have supported Cranford Sports Club in completing this important agreement. The partnership with LED Community Leisure provides a strong foundation for the Club’s long-term sustainability and continued role as a valued community asset.”

Jill Anderson, one of the volunteer directors, reflecting on the Club’s position and future outlook, added:

“This has been a really important step forward for the Club. Like many community organisations, we have had to adapt to changing circumstances, and securing this agreement ensures that the Club can continue to play a central role in the local community. We are already seeing renewed interest from members and look forward to working with LED Community Leisure to build on this momentum and develop the facilities and activities we can offer.”

The transaction highlights the role of specialist real estate advice in supporting community organisations to adapt and thrive in changing circumstances. Read more about the work that we do here.

In our earlier article, “ICO guidance explained: the new data protection complaints regime from June 2026”, we outlined the new obligation introduced under section 103 of the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 for all organisations to operate a data protection complaints process from 19 June 2026 where there has been any infringement of UK data protection law. Such processes are designed to address, for example, complaints about how personal data has been collected or used by an organisation, the way in which a Subject Access Request has been responded to or concerns following a data breach incident.

With that deadline fast approaching, organisations should now be carrying out final checks that their processes work in practice, and not just on paper.

Complaints can be made in various ways

The guidance from the data protection regulator, the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) makes clear that organisations must accept complaints however they are received, including through channels outside any formal complaints process.

In practice, this means complaints may be received by:

• email or online forms
• telephone or in person
• general enquiry inboxes
• post
• social media or other public platforms

Complaints picked up by customer facing teams, marketing teams or social media managers should be identified and promptly escalated to the relevant team or contact tasked with responding to data protection complaints. Organisations should also be careful to ensure that all social media accounts, email inboxes, and postal addresses are actively monitored. A good process will have clear signposting as to how data protection complaints can be raised with organisations to assist with this. Further, organisations should be careful not to respond to a complaint on social media and should instead request alternative contact information from the complainant as the ICO has highlighted that social media is not a secure form of communication.

30 days to acknowledge

The 30 day timeframe for acknowledging a complaint begins the day after it is received, regardless of the channel by which it was submitted.

The ICO advises that you do not need to acknowledge a complaint within 30 days if it is resolved before the 30-day deadline. However, it is advisable that organisations put in place automated acknowledgements in the form of a text or email to avoid the acknowledgment deadline being missed.

If complaints are made and/or acknowledged in person, clear written records should be kept, particularly where it may not be possible to follow up with an acknowledgement email or text message, in order to stay within the 30 day timeframe.

Identifying complaints early

Complaints may be raised in general or informal terms and may also be mixed with broader service complaints or data subject rights requests. Organisations should have a clear triage process to identify when a complaint engages data protection obligations and ensure it is handled accordingly.

This may mean that any complaint which mentions or references personal information, personal data, or data protection, should be escalated and assessed as to whether it is a data protection complaint and therefore needs to be dealt with under the organisation’s data protection complaints policy, acknowledged within the 30 day timeframe and responded to without undue delay (see below).

It is important that complaints are not dismissed simply because they include minor mention of data protection. If in doubt, those handling the complaints should be trained to contact the complainant and request further information to establish if the complaint can be classified as a data protection complaint.

Acting promptly, not just acknowledging

While complaints must be acknowledged within 30 days, the ICO expects organisations to investigate and respond without undue delay, starting when the complaint is received.

Organisations should have internal processes to enable:

• early triage (ideally within one working day of the complaint being received)
• diary tracking of acknowledgment deadlines
• escalation of urgent or high-risk complaints

Updating notices and communications

The ICO expects organisations to inform individuals of their right to complain, including in privacy notices and when responding to subject access requests.

Compliance requires reviewing not just complaints policies, but also privacy notices, template responses, for example, template data subject access request replies, and website content and customer communications to ensure that they all reference the right to complain.

Record-keeping

Organisations should keep records of complaints, how they are handled and their outcomes, and monitor trends or recurring issues. Complaint logs allow organisations to evidence compliance and identify potential systemic risks.

Putting the complaints process into practice

Compliance is less about introducing new systems and more about ensuring that existing processes capture and respond to complaints wherever they arise, including less obvious channels such as post and social media.

With the deadline approaching, organisations should ensure their processes are operational, documented and understood across the business, not just by legal or compliance teams. Training sessions for all employees are advisable, particularly as complaints can be made in person, and knowledge of the requirements will therefore be needed across organisations.

Key facts:

• The Nature Restoration Levy (NRL) is a levy payable by developers operating within the boundaries of an Environmental Delivery Plan (EDP).
• EDPs may be voluntary or mandatory. They are intended to streamline developers’ route to planning permission, thereby accelerating timescales to build-out.
• An EDP constitutes a suite of conservation measures designed by Natural England (NE) targeting environmental recovery at scale. The measures will be funded by the NRL (and therefore, by developers), with the first EDPs due to target nutrient pollution in sensitive catchment areas.
• Part 3 of the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 (PIA 2025) introduced the framework for EDPs and the NRL, with secondary legislation anticipated to flesh out the details later this year.

NRL and nutrient pollution

We have previously written about the legislative status quo for developers operating in sensitive catchment areas (click here) – namely the requirement for developments to be ‘nutrient neutral’ under The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (Habitats Regulations 2017) (the NN Route).

Under the new regime, where development is caught by an EDP boundary, (assuming that the EDP in question is voluntary) developers will now have a choice. Either, a developer may offset their development via the traditional NN Route, or they may opt to pay the NRL to Natural England.

Should developers opt to pay the NRL, legislative obligations under the NN Route will be disapplied (Schedule 3, Part III, PIA 2025). Developers will therefore have to weigh up the cost and time benefits of each regime once the detail of the secondary legislation is known.

Section 73 PIA 2025 makes it clear that the levy must not make ‘development economically unviable.’ What this means is difficult to assess as there is no detail at this stage as to the likely amount of the NRL or the basis of charging e.g. a per dwelling cost or some other metric. It remains to be seen how pricing might impact the private nutrient credit market.

What does seem likely is that the costs of the NN Route will adjust to track the NRL charging as the presence of a marketplace competitor has the usual effect. If NE apply a standard rate for the NRL then bespoke solutions from individual landowners under the NN Route may be able to undercut the NRL approach. However, it will be for developers to determine which route to take on a case-by-case basis, and the simplicity of a direct payment may well be attractive.

Of interest to developers will be the temporal and spatial benefits afforded to them under the new regime. Rather than engage in negotiations with landowners under the NN Route, developers can simply pay the levy and move forward in the planning process. Mitigation, unlike under the NN Route, need not be in place prior to planning permission being obtained. The levy will fund conservation measures to address the negative effects of development during the ten year lifespan of an EDP.

Furthermore, while conservation measures will be proximate to development (as per the NN Route), there is scope for less proximate measures where a greater contribution to the environmental feature in question can be achieved. These are known as ‘network measures’ (section 63(3) PIA 2025).

A new statutory test: the Overall Improvement Test

The Secretary of State may make an EDP only where it considers the EDP passes the Overall Improvement Test (Section 65(3)) (OIT). To pass the OIT, the suite of conservation measures must materially outweigh the negative effect (defined as the ‘maximum amount of development to which an EDP may apply’) of development on the conservation status of each identified environmental feature. Environmental features will either be ‘protected species’, or ‘protected features of a protected site’ (such as habitat at a European Site or SSSI, for example).

Satisfaction of the OIT is not a one-stop shop. Rather, EDPs are subject to continued assessment and reporting at both the mid and end point of an EDP’s lifespan. Monitoring the effectiveness of conservation measures is therefore required (section 82(1) PIA).

The new regime also makes a nod to the additionality principle. EDPs must include an overview of ‘other measures’ being taken by NE and public authorities targeting similar environmental goals in that area. This will ensure conservation measures do not fund measures that are already being funded – i.e. avoiding ‘double counting’.

How will NE realise conservation measures?

While not set out in the legislation, it is anticipated this will be through land use agreements with landowners and other stakeholders such as environmental NGOs.

Helpfully, public authorities are under a regulatory duty to co-operate with NE under PIA 2025; this might be through the provision of information to NE, imposition of a condition of development, or assistance with the implementation of conservation measures.

What’s to come?

Further detail on the inner workings of the NRL will be set out in the Nature Restoration Levy Regulations and we anticipate further guidance from NE on key issues.