I am a keen reader – but if I’m being honest, I’ve never really been able to commit to any non-fiction (unless it’s a cook book). In the build-up to the start of my training contract, however, my partner noticed how apprehensive I was getting about starting a professional career (I had a previous career in travel) and he challenged me to explore some self-help theory, to see if it could help.

Suffice to say, he was right. The self-help books I’ve read have provided me with multiple tools I’ve put to good use throughout my training contract – and also in my personal life. So much so, that I thought it was worth sharing some of the top tips from my three favourite self-help books because they genuinely have helped me, and could help others entering the legal world. Please take this all with a pinch of salt; I appreciate life is not as simplistic as many of these concepts reduce it to. If even the essence can help someone in a similar position however, then I’m happy!

1. The Secret by Rhonda Byrne

This was a fantastic book on the theory behind the power of positive thinking, and the pseudoscientific (I know, I know) law of attraction. In short, positive thoughts bring positive things to your life, negative thoughts attract negative outcomes. The cynic in me questioned the validity of this concept whilst I was reading (surely positive people are simply more likely to see the positive in any outcome whereas negative thinkers will likely focus more on the negative elements of a situation?) but either way – more positivity in the world is certainly not a bad thing!

The Secret goes on to describe how one can manifest the life they want, by positively preparing for it, and keeping the mind open and curious about the path to get there – not being fixated on a specific route, or focusing on what is lacking in the life that exists before achieving this goal.

What I found the most beneficial however, was the array of practical tools that could support creating a more positive mindset – in particular, positive reframing. The book suggested noticing when your brain is focusing on what you are lacking, and described how to shift that perspective by focusing on what you do have in abundance.

For example, when having a particularly busy work week, I noticed I was mainly talking and thinking about how busy I was and how tired I was. If the book’s theory is to be believed, this would only exacerbate the period of difficulty and attract more to me by focusing on the negatives. So, I tried a reframe as described in the book, focusing on the positives – how incredible it was that I had been given the responsibility to work on this complex matter, how much I had wanted this job and this training contract, and how much fun I’d had the previous week when I had finished work early enough to head to the beach. When my brain kept slipping back into negative loops, or I found myself reaching for negative language to describe how I was, I made a conscious effort to try and list the things I was appreciative of that day – which could have been anything from making a perfect coffee, some beautiful light in my kitchen, or calling my mum in the evening.

I found this the most enjoyable learning from the book. The regular exercise of appreciation – looking around and actively acknowledging how lucky I was to even have the basics of life (safety, warmth, nourishment), and knowing my loved ones were similarly so, I genuinely think was instrumental to me being a bit more relaxed when things were stressful, or I had made mistakes. I know, I know – someone saying “it could be worse” when things go wrong is most of the time wildly annoying, and whilst I agree saying it isn’t necessarily constructive when finding a solution, thinking it has helped me rationalise mistakes or problems, so I can focus more calmly on finding a solution or just getting through it.

I’ve found I’m certainly more resilient, and genuinely just a lot happier in general – not just at work. I can’t say for certain whether this theory works or if it’s the complete reason behind this improvement, but I certainly have found myself having far fewer negative spirals and panicked reactions to problems, and feel more positive, so I’m going to keep it up.

2. Million Dollar Habits by Stellan Moreira

I originally bought this book as I confused it with one written by Brian Tracy who was also the author of ‘Eat that Frog!’ – a book about a self-help concept I was introduced to during my previous career, in which you make sure to confront tasks you don’t want to complete quicky, and don’t avoid them. My old manager used to make sure we swallowed at least one frog a day and it’s really stuck with me throughout my working life. Whether the ‘frog’ is a fiddly HR task I have to complete or a difficult phone call with a client, I know the best way to deal with it is to confront it as soon as possible and get it off my list.

However, the book I actually bought is a 2017 self-help book by Stellan Moreira who presents 27 different habits to support a successful, happy life. In Million Dollar Habits, Moreira argues that habits are the key to success – and understanding how to break negative habits and creative positive habits is a powerful tool in creating the life you want. I read this after ‘The Secret’ and found a fair few overlaps between these concepts but in general it was an interesting and useful read.

The book suggests that a habit is created by a cue, routine and reward. For example, if you randomly check social media during the day, perhaps whilst waiting for your lunch to warm up, the act of standing by the microwave could cue you to think about checking social media. The reward would be the dopamine release social media sites have been designed to trigger.

Therefore, if you always indulge this cue and routinely act on it, then you could create a habit of checking social media whenever you’re making lunch – which could in turn extend to checking your phone every time you step away from your desk. I use this example because after reading this book, and exploring what habits I had, I realised this was a habit I had developed, and I imagine is something that many others with smart phones might relate to.

The book describes that understanding the building blocks that form a habit, also helps you to dismantle it when you have habits you’d like to break. Identifying the habit’s cues, reward and routine, and confronting the root of why this habit developed is essential to breaking it.

For example, for my phone usage I realise the cue of standing up to move away from my desk, had me reaching for my phone. I realised I had likely started this out of a mixture of boredom whilst waiting for my food to cook at lunch, and needing something to look at or occupy my hands whilst in the cafeteria prior to having made friends at the firm. I am now friends with enough colleagues that I shouldn’t really need this crutch – and am certainly busy enough that my brain likely needs a break from a screen when I’m away from my desk. Reward-wise, I know I definitely receive a dopamine hit as my reward, whether that’s from receiving a message from a friend or finding something to buy whilst scrolling!

With that in mind, I am currently on a mission to break the habit, which has extended cutting down my social media use in general. It is definitely not broken yet, but I am getting there! I now keep my phone in my bag and off my desk during the day, so my muscle memory to reach for it is less effective, and I delete Instagram during the working day. I’ve reached the stage where even when I redownload it during the evenings, there are times where I’ll delete it again pretty quickly as I feel more overwhelmed when suddenly exposed to all the noise. I’ve also taken back up the New York times Wordle and Connections games, for moments where I am waiting by the microwave. I am trying to coax myself into being more comfortable just standing and waiting without a phone, but this one is more tough as it can make me feel a little vulnerable and anxious. (When did that begin?!) Trying to break some of my phone habits has made me so much more aware of the subtly sinister way I have become slightly addicted to my phone, which has been the most interesting learning from this book for me.

The book also suggests how you can use these building blocks to create habits that can benefit you and help you towards success – such as working positive affirmations into your routine or creating an exercise commitment.

3. Mindset by Carol S. Dweck

One of the icons of self-help literature – I’ve been intending to read this for years, and am so glad I did prior to the training contract as it really supports learning.

The book focuses around introducing and explaining the differences between a fixed mindset and a growth mindset, suggesting that individuals fall into one of these categories. Those with fixed mindsets have pre-set ideas of ability and value, whereas those with growth mindsets are open to limitless development.

Dweck describes how central to this is how each mentality perceives and reacts to failure. Those with a growth mentality will see the positives in mistakes, learning something from each experience, whereas those with fixed mindsets instead will see mistakes as failures which are to be avoided and feared. The book describes how failures are a key part of success, and if one avoids mistakes, they will limit their own growth in that area. Those who are open to failure, and don’t mind losing in order to gain experience and learn, in turn become more resilient, as well as more experienced in the field in which they are pushing out of their comfort zone.

This was profoundly helpful as a trainee, as I really came to see the role as a two year opportunity to make mistakes. To view these two years mentally –  without billable targets and without client responsibility (under the trusty supervision of qualified lawyers!) – as the safest place to get uncomfortable and be open to making mistakes, hugely helped my confidence in approaching new tasks and getting stuck in. It also really helped me accept the mistakes I made, which was an added bonus, as I could then seek the support to deal with those mistakes effectively and find a solution. I found it really helpful to focus on appreciating the fact that I’d made the mistake and learnt from it whilst still junior enough that the repercussions were minimal.

Again, you may notice some overlaps here with ‘The Secret’ – finding the positive in every situation, including a negative mistake. Regardless, the concept seems to have worked for me, and I think has helped me approach every undulation of this intense learning period with a more positive and resilient mindset.

Contents:

• Judge blocks use of hotel for housing asylum seekers without planning consent
• High Court dismisses an Equality Act based claim against inspector’s decision to uphold demolition of six unlawfully built homes
• Inspector approves 249 homes on allocated site after council refused plan against officer’s advice
• Council allows 1,250 home scheme despite it providing only half of its local affordable housing requirement

Michelmores has advised on the successful incorporation and registration of international charity AuthentiSci Limited as an English charity, following a successful review of an initial rejection by the Charity Commission.

Working closely with Nick Clifton, Senior Research Fellow at the University of Exeter, Michelmores has supported AuthentiSci Limited throughout its incorporation in late 2023 up until its recent registration as a charity. The organisation operates internationally to improve public understanding of science and the importance of accurate scientific reporting in the media. AuthentiSci delivers educational programmes, lectures and outreach activities to equip the public with tools to critically engage with science-based news and information.

AuthentiSci operates in England and Germany and is supported and funded by Lindau Nobel Laureate Meetings and the Max Planck Institute for Gravitational Physics and Stifterverband.

Michelmores provided full legal support throughout the process, including company incorporation, advising on governance structure and charitable objects, and managing the application to the Charity Commission and subsequent review.

The Michelmores team advising on deal was led by Partner in the Firm’s Charities Team, Edward Porter, alongside Senior Associate Victoria Miller.

Nick Clifton commented:

“Michelmores showed unwavering commitment to our mission, helping us navigate complex scenarios with clarity, care and strategic insight. Their expertise not only secured our charity status but enabled us to move forward with greater confidence and capacity to deliver on our international goals.”

Edward Porter commented:

“We are pleased to have played a role in securing AuthentiSci’s charitable status. The work the charity undertakes helps the public to engage with scientific literature and improve public discourse in this vital area.”

This outcome reinforces Michelmores’ track record of supporting purpose-driven organisations with complex governance and regulatory challenges, and is the latest in a number of successful matters involving local and international charities, not for profits and businesses working for a positive future.

Read more on our website or contact Victoria.Miller@michelmores.com

Michelmores has advised sustainable period care brand Grace & Green on its latest investment round, which included backing from the South West Investment Fund (SWIF), Angel Invest Bristol, and Women Angels of Wales and others.

Founded in 2019 by Frances Lucraft, Grace & Green is a certified B Corp that is on a mission to transform the period care sector through innovation, sustainability, and social impact. Since its launch, the brand has established itself as one of the leaders in workplace menstrual provisions, offering a range of high-performing, ethically sourced, and sustainable products that challenge industry norms. The investment comes soon after the business announced its launch into Boots, with its products being rolled out across 150 stores across the UK.

The Michelmores team was led by Partner Harry Trick and Associate Gruff Cartwright, both members of the Consumer Brands team at Michelmores, with support from Oliver Ryder (Trainee).

Frances Lucraft, founder of Grace & Green, commented:

“We’re delighted to have completed this investment round with the backing of such respected partners who share our values and vision. This funding was a vital step forward in accelerating our growth and mission to transform the period and incontinence care category through innovation, sustainability and social impact.

The support from Michelmores has been invaluable throughout this process, the team has been fantastic, guiding us with both expertise and care. We’re excited to now focus fully on scaling the brand, growing our partnerships, and continuing to challenge the norms of the personal care industry.”

Gruff Cartwright commented:

“It’s been a pleasure working with Frances, Richard Boath and the wider Grace & Green team on this exciting milestone for the business. We’re proud to support a brand that’s redefining sustainability in personal care. This deal also reflects the continued growth of our Consumer Brands practice at Michelmores, and we’re excited to support more purpose-driven brands on their journeys.”

For more details on our venture capital and early-stage team, please visit our website.

Michelmores has received continued recognition in the Chambers High Net Worth Guide 2025, underscoring the Firm’s ongoing commitment to excellence in private wealth law, landed estates and high value residential estates, and related specialist areas.

Chambers and Partners has been the leading source of independent legal market intelligence for over 30 years. The guide is based on comprehensive research, including submissions, interviews, and surveys, ensuring its rankings reflect real-world experiences and client satisfaction.

This year, Michelmores Private Wealth Group has maintained its strong standing across several core regions and practice areas, with the following highlights:

• The Firm achieved a new Band 5 ranking for its team in the Private Wealth Law: London category. This jurisdiction is recognised as one of the most competitive and globally benchmarked legal markets and this represents a strong endorsement of the team’s growing presence and capability.
• Dhana Sabanathan remains a key figure in Private Wealth Law: London, increasing her individual ranking to Band 3. James Frampton is newly ranked in Band 5 in the Private Wealth Law: London market for his growing reputation for work with high-net-worth clients with a US connection, in addition to his Band 1 Exeter recognition.
• Dhana leads the team in retaining a UK-wide Band 2 ranking for her work in Family Offices & Fund Structuring, with the wider team being newly ranked in Band 3.
• Christian Massey and Iwan Williams led a successful outcome in the new UK-wide Landed Estates category with Band 1 rankings whilst the team is ranked in Band 2 for this category. Chris and the team are also top ranked for High Value Residential Real Estate across the UK.
• Daniel Eames retains his Band 4 ranking for UK-wide Family/Matrimonial Finance in the Ultra High Net Worth category. This acknowledges his work in complex cross-border family matters, and Philip Barth continues to be ranked in Band 2 for Immigration for High Net Worth Individuals across the UK, highlighting his continued strength in advising international private clients.
• In the South West, the Firm’s Private Wealth Disputes team has achieved a new top-tier Band 1 ranking and three improved Associate rankings across the team, highlighting Michelmores’ strong pipeline of talent in this complex and emotive area of law.
• The Firm’s reputation for Private Wealth Law advice remains strong across the South West. It is top ranked in Exeter and Surrounds, and holds a Band 2 ranking in both Bristol and Cheltenham and Surrounds — demonstrating consistent performance in these competitive markets. Four of the Firm’s partners are top ranked in this area, including Iwan Williams, who has moved up to Band 2 for Cheltenham and Surrounds Private Wealth Law, as well as achieving national recognition in the Landed Estates category.

For more information, please visit our website.

On Monday, 21 July, the Government published draft legislation for inclusion in the Finance Bill 2025-26. This included clauses to implement the proposed changes to Business Property Relief (BPR), as well as Agricultural Property Relief (APR).

Overall, the draft legislation does not contain any major surprises. Disappointingly, the £1 million allowance which qualifies for 100% relief has not been made transferable between spouses as many had hoped. There is also no delay to the commencement date for the new rules, which remains 6 April 2026, despite significant lobbying, including from Family Business UK.

In more positive news, the £1 million allowance will be index-linked (to the Consumer Price Index), but not until 2029/30 (it is frozen until then, like the Nil Rate Band).

The process is that there will now be a technical consultation on the draft legislation, which will run for eight weeks ending on 15 September. It is worth noting that the Autumn Budget is expected to take place in late October or early November, likely whilst the Finance Bill is going through the Parliamentary process, when there is speculation around further tax changes.

The timing is now such that business owners who hold shares that qualify for BPR should review their succession planning strategies as soon as possible. This is also the case for owners of land-based businesses where APR may also be available. There are certain planning opportunities which exist between now and April 2026; however, further tax changes have the potential to limit those, meaning that now is the time to act. Please visit our website for further information on these changes.

Our Tax, Trusts & Succession team has significant experience in advising business-owning and rural land-owning clients on their succession planning and efficient structuring. Please contact Charles Frost or another member of the team to discuss this further.

Michelmores has advised Eastgate, a special purpose vehicle of renewable energy producer Voltalia UK, on its successful £18.9m funding raise from Triodos Bank UK. The loan will support the construction of a new 34MW photovoltaic solar plant near Scarborough, North Yorkshire.

The Eastgate Solar project is being developed without subsidy and, once complete, will feature approximately 62,500 solar panels. The plant is scheduled for commissioning by the end of 2025 and will generate enough clean electricity to meet a significant portion of the energy needs of The Co-operative Group, under a 15-year Corporate Power Purchase Agreement. The agreement will supply around 7.5% of the Co-op’s total electricity consumption across its food stores, distribution centres, and funeral care homes in the UK.

The financing package includes a construction and long-term operating loan of up to £18.9m and a Debt Service Reserve Facility of £1.1m. The transaction demonstrates strong lender confidence in the strength of Voltalia’s UK pipeline and the broader market appetite for well-structured renewable energy projects.

Michelmores advised Eastgate on all legal aspects of the financing. The Michelmores team was led by Managing Associate Danielle Collett-Bruce, from the Firm’s Banking team, with support from Catherine Davis and Sebastian Ombler from the Construction team and Charlie Parker from the Banking team.

Danielle Collett-Bruce commented:

“We are pleased to have supported Voltalia on this significant transaction, which further underlines the strength of its UK renewables portfolio. Eastgate Solar represents another important step in the UK’s transition to clean energy, and we’re proud to have played a part in bringing it closer to operation.”

For more information on Michelmores’ Banking & Finance teams, visit our website.

Stratford Village Development Partnership and others v Triathlon Homes LLP [2025] EWCA Civ 846

Key takeaway

The Court of Appeal has drawn from the recent decision in URS Corporation Ltd v BDW Trading Ltd (see our recent insight on this case here) in terms of how the Building Safety Act 2022 (BSA) is to be applied. In doing so, the Court of Appeal dismissed SVDP’s appeal, finding that:

• it was just and equitable for the First-Tier Tribunal, Property Chamber (FTT) to award a Remediation Contribution Order (RCO); and
• an RCO could be made in respect of costs incurred before section 124 of the BSA came into force on 28 June 2022.

Background – the case being considered by the Court of Appeal

The case of Triathlon Homes LLP v Stratford Village Development Partnership and others [2024] UKFTT 26 (PC) concerned the remediation of cladding defects identified in five residential buildings at the former Olympic Village in Stratford, East London (the Village).

The Village contained residential buildings that were originally developed by Stratford Village Development Partnership (SVDP) (now owned by Get Living plc), providing accommodation to 17,000 athletes and officials during the London 2012 Olympic Games. The Village has since become a large permanent residential estate providing 2,818 homes, including 1,379 affordable homes and houses.

The freehold interest in the Village is ultimately held by SVDP. East Village Management Ltd (EVML) held a headlease over part of the Village, with Triathlon Homes LLP (Triathlon) in turn holding a lease over the blocks that were the subject of this dispute. The repair and maintenance of the structure and common parts of the Village was the responsibility of a respondent in these proceedings, EVML. EVML was co-owned by Get Living and Triathlon.

By December 2017, it had been identified that blocks in the Village had been constructed of the same highly combustible aluminium composite material (ACM) used as cladding at Grenfell. Further investigations also identified that there were serious fire safety defects, relating both to the design and construction of various non-ACM cladding systems. The total cost of the remedial works was stated to exceed £24.5 million, which were being incurred by both EVML and Triathlon.

Triathlon made five applications (one for each of the blocks it owned) to the FTT for RCOs under section 124 of the BSA. In particular, the FTT had to consider whether: (i) Triathlon and EVML could recover costs incurred before section 124 of the BSA came into force; and (ii) the test of whether it was “just and equitable” to make an RCO.

Dealing with the first issue, the FTT considered that it would have been inconceivable that a leaseholder of a flat which had not been remediated by the time the BSA came into force could enjoy its protections whereas a leaseholder who had already remediated the building at their expense would be prevented from seeking an RCO. The FTT therefore concluded Triathlon could recover the costs it had incurred prior to 28 June 2022. Turning to the second issue, the FTT also noted that there was no immediate guidance on how it should decide what was “just and equitable“, but they stated:

“…that the power is discretionary and should therefore be exercised having regard to the purpose of the 2022 Act and all relevant factors, it is not possible to identify a particular approach which should be taken. But the FTT is well used to exercising its discretion by reference to what is just and equitable in other contexts…”

The FTT identified the factors it thought were important in determining whether it was just and equitable to make the order sought. This included considering the policy of the BSA 2022, which is that:

“… primary responsibility for the cost of remediation should fall on the original developer, and that others who have a liability to contribute may pass on the costs they incur to the developer.”

The FTT found that Triathlon was entitled to the RCOs sought, being a sum of £16,031,244.53 payable to EVML for the forecast cost of the “Major Works and professional fees, apportioned between the Blocks“, a sum of £767,438.79 payable to EVML for “other remedial measures“, and a sum of £1,158,358.18 payable to Triathlon for other “additional costs“.

The issues in appeal to the Court of Appeal

SVDP appealed the decision with the hearing taking place between 19 and 21 March 2025. It was agreed that it was right to dispose of this matter at the Court of Appeal, rather than at the Upper Tribunal – in effect creating a leapfrog appeal, to consider whether an RCO:

1. should have indeed been made (i.e. by concluding that it was just and equitable to make such an order); and
2.  can be made in respect of costs incurred before section 124 of the BSA came into force on 28 June 2022.

SVDP argued that an RCO cannot and should not have been made on both accounts.

The Court of Appeal’s Decision

The Court of Appeal delivered judgment on the above issues on 8 July 2025, dismissing SVDP’s appeal, finding on each respective issue that:

1. the FTT was justified in awarding the RCO, expressing a view that it is difficult to see why the public should fund the works rather than the responsible developer and its associates (especially where they continue to own the buildings and can afford to fund the works). Further, the Court was not concerned with Triathlon’s motivation for bringing the proceedings where it had a legitimate interest in ensuring the defects were remediated, both as an owner of a long leasehold interest, and as a landlord to many tenants; and
2. an RCO can be made in respect of costs incurred before section 124 of the BSA came into force. Lord Justice Newey stated at paragraph 160 of the judgment:

“… section 124 of the BSA empowers the FTT to make an RCO “for the purpose of meeting costs incurred or to be incurred in remedying relevant defects (or specified relevant defects)”. Having regard to the definition of the term given in section 120(2), a “relevant defect” may have arisen as a result of work done (or not done) many years before the BSA was enacted and, as the FTT pointed out in paragraph 73 of its decision, section 124 does not expressly impose any other temporal limitation. Nothing said in section 124, therefore, prevents the provision from having retrospective effect.”

Michelmores’ comments

While the government has made public funding available to help remediate higher-risk buildings in England, that funding does not displace the provisions of the BSA, which regulates who is responsible for contributing to the cost of carrying out those remedial works.

Drawing from the recent case of URS, the Court noted that “that a central purpose of the [Building Safety] Act was to hold those responsible for building safety defects accountable“. This included rejecting SVDP’s argument that it should not be liable where responsible parties had changed ownership to fall within SVDP’s corporate structure.

The Court also found that denying section 124’s retrospective effect would result in RCOs being unavailable in circumstances where Parliament expected such relief to be available, and inconsistencies could arise.

It is now expected that the developer/SVDP will pursue the original contractors and professional teams. The prospect is for there to be lengthy legal battles to come and for some contractors involved in high rise developments, the potential of huge liabilities and possibly insolvency. It has been reported that the remedial costs to the whole of the Village could run to over £400m.

This decision will be a welcome addition to those parties who are tasked with the responsibility of carrying out remedial works to higher-risk buildings; but inevitably places risk on developers in terms of the claims it could face. The recent string of building safety cases is establishing a chain of how liability can be attributed, from those directly affected here and now down to those who are historically responsible for the construction of a development (even where ownership of a company has changed).

Should you have any queries or need assistance with any building safety matters, please do not hesitate to contact Ashley Pigott (Partner) or Andrew Pratten (Associate) in Michelmores’ specialist Construction and Engineering team.

It is estimated that 10 – 15% of properties in England and Wales are connected to private drainage and not connected to drainage provided by the local water authority. Almost all of these properties are rural where it is not cost effective for the water authority to connect a property to the mains, however it is possible for new-build properties in urban areas to be connected to private drainage if the local drainage infrastructure does not have capacity for the new-build properties. Due to be based in the South West of England and dealing with a significant number of rural properties, we would estimate that approximately 25 – 30% of the properties that we see involve a private drainage system of some type.

There are three main types of private drainage system:

• Cesspit (the least popular type) which is literally a containment of all waste products which needs to be emptied on a regular basis to prevent overflowing. It is a closed system in that there should be no discharge at all from this system. Timescales for emptying will depend on the volume of the cesspit vs the number of people in the property/ies that it serves but on average it would be common to have to have a cesspit emptied every month or 2,
• Septic tank is an underground container. The tank holds waste products long enough for the solids to settle into sludge at the bottom of the tank while liquids can then drain away. Because liquid waste drains away, septic tanks do not need to be emptied as often since it is only the sludge that needs to be removed. Again, depending on the volume of the tank vs the number of people using it, timescales will vary, but on average a septic tank should be emptied every 1-2 years.
• Sewage treatment plant. The tank cleans the waste product that enters it, so that all waste is broken down to remove all harmful components and clean water is discharged from the plant, removing the need for it to be emptied, although servicing may still be required.

Since 1 January 2015, it has been necessary to obtain building regulations approval for the installation of any private drainage system. The installation of a new system is likely to need planning permission, but the replacement of an existing system may not need planning permission. It would be advisable to check the position with the local authority to establish whether planning permission for a replacement system is required in any given situation.

Since 1 January 2020, it is no longer permitted to connect new septic tanks to drain to watercourses. Any new septic tank system must drain to the ground. Any septic tanks which drained to watercourses need to either have their discharge changed to drain to ground or be replaced with a sewage treatment plant. While all non-compliant drainage systems should have been updated by now, given that the new rules have been in place for over 5 years, in our experience, there are still a number of non-compliant systems in use and the need for this to be resolved still sometimes comes up in conveyancing transactions. It is preferable for a seller to update the drainage system, preferably before putting their property on the market, but certainly before contracts are exchanged.

The Environment Agency have issued general binding rules which have drastically changed the position regarding private drainage over recent years. The rules are different depending on whether the private drainage system drains to a watercourse (such as a nearby stream or river) or drains to ground (such as into your garden or a field) and when the discharge started and are aimed at preventing contamination which could occur to areas near private drainage systems.

The general binding rules can be found on the government website and may be updated in the future. This article reflects the position regarding the rules in place as at 04 July 2025. Please note that there may be additional binding rules depending on when the drainage system was installed.

General binding rules for small sewage discharges (SSDs) with effect from 2 October 2023 – GOV.UK

If all the relevant general binding rules are complied with and can be evidenced, then there is no need to obtain a consent to discharge from the Environment Agency.

If the discharge, or planned discharge does not comply with the relevant general binding rules and it cannot be connected to a mains sewer, then either the treatment system must be changed in order to comply, or there needs to be an application to the Environment Agency for a permit to discharge.

The application for a permit to discharge needs to show:

1. That it is not reasonable to connect to the public foul sewer
2. That the private drainage system does not meet the general binding rules
3. That the private drainage system cannot be changed to meet the general binding rules.

The application fee for a domestic household to discharge up to 5 cubic metres per day is £125.00. Higher fees apply to commercial premises and there may also be an annual fee payable for non-domestic households.

It is a breach of the law to operate a drainage system without a permit when there should be one. The Environment Agency can impose significant fines and even prosecute offenders.

Purchasing a property with a private drainage system

Private drainage systems can serve just one property or a number of properties. They can be located within the boundaries of the property that they serve, or can be located on neighbouring land.

If neighbouring properties are involved (either because the drainage system is shared or because part of the drainage system or soakaways are located on neighbouring land) it is important that the title to the Property contains the necessary rights to access the neighbouring land to avoid issues with drainage, accessing the system to empty it, or other properties contributing towards repairs, maintenance and replacement.

The Property Information Form does not contain many enquiries regarding private drainage systems, and given that the principle in conveyancing in England and Wales is ‘buyer beware’ it is important that solicitors acting for the purchaser raise enquiries to understand the position regarding the private drainage system and how it complies with the relevant legislation. That being said, there are many intricacies with operating a private drainage system, and purchasers should ensure that they obtain a survey by a suitably qualified and experienced private drainage specialist so that they can be satisfied that the private drainage system serving the property that they are purchasing complies with the laws, is working satisfactorily and will not lead to a large repair bill following completion.

On 28 May, the government launched a consultation with regard to improving the implementation of biodiversity net gain (“BNG“) for minor, medium and brownfield development. In this article, we summarise the consultation paper’s proposals for minor development.

For further background and updates on Biodiversity Net Gain, please visit our prior articles here.

What is ‘minor development’?

Minor development represents the majority of planning applications. ‘Minor development’ means ‘small development’ as defined in section 3 (3) of the Biodiversity Gain Requirements (Exemptions) Regulations 2024 (the “Exemptions Regulations“). As cited in the consultation paper, it includes:

• Residential development where the number of dwellings is between 1 – 9 on a site of an area 1 hectare or less, or if the number of dwellings is unknown, the site area is less than 0.5 hectares;
• Commercial development where floor space created is less than 1,000 square metres or total site area is less than 1 hectare;
• Development that is not the winning and working of minerals or the use of land for mineral-working deposits; and
• Development that is not waste development.

What exemptions to the BNG regime currently apply for minor development?

The Exemption Regulations provide for various exemptions from the BNG scheme of which the following are relevant to minor developments:

• De minimis Exemption (Regulation 4); applies to development that (i) does not impact an onsite priority habitat and (ii) impacts less than 25 square metres of onsite habitat that has biodiversity value greater than zero and impacts less than five metres of onsite linear habitat;
• Householder applications (Regulation 5); the government paper cites examples such as ‘home extensions’ and ‘conservatories’; and
• Self-build and custom build applications (Regulation 8); applies to development that (i) consists of no more than nine dwellings (ii) is carried out on a site which has an area no larger than 0.5 hectares and (iii) consists exclusively of dwellings which are self-build or custom housebuilding.

The consultation paper also flags that, where minor development is caught by the BNG scheme, developers may use a simplified ‘small sites’ version of the statutory biodiversity metric tool. This has cost and time benefits; for example, an ecologist is not required to complete it.

So, given the available exemptions, why has a consultation been proposed?

The government is keen to support small and medium sized housebuilders, and it is they who are more likely to build out minor development sites.

The government reports that minor development represents the majority of planning applications – circa 84% in the year to December 2024 — hence the focus on this sector.

Feedback to government on minor development has reported increased costs and steps in the planning process, and increased costs where onsite BNG is not viable. The government has also given examples of BNG adherence resulting in questionable environmental outcomes for minor development. For example, a four-bedroom dwelling on a 900sqm site having to purchase fractional units of mixed scrub from a provider over 200 miles away.

On the flip side, the paper reports figures from the Planning Portal’s ‘Biodiversity Net Gain: The Story so Far White Paper’, which states that, from September – December 2024, 75% of non-householder planning applications claimed the de minimis exemption.

What is the government proposing?

Two ‘options packages’ to tackle the issues facing minor development compliance with BNG:

1. ‘Targeted Revisions’
2. Removing the ‘self and custom build development’ exemption and replacing it with an exemption for single dwelling houses on a site of less than 0.1 hectares with no onsite priority habitat, and where the single dwelling house is the primary purpose of the development.
3. Extending the de minimis threshold. This seeks to address developers having to purchase very small numbers of off-site units at a disproportionate cost. Different thresholds are being proposed from 50 square metres to 250 square metres.
4. Full exemption for minor developments

The government recognises this blanket approach would significantly reduce the amount of habitat creation and enhancement due to the reduced number of developments delivering BNG.

Market consequences are also commented on. Transactions for minor developments represent 80% of off-site transactions to date – Option Two would undermine the government’s ambitions around private investment in nature recovery.

Other touted approaches/options beyond amendments to exemptions?

1. Amending the Biodiversity Gain Hierarchy (“BGH“).

At a high level, the BGH encourages developers to address the adverse effects of development through (i) the creation and enhancement of biodiversity onsite (ii) where (i) is not possible, through offsite credits and (iii) through the purchase of statutory credits, as a last resort[1]. The government paper floats putting onsite and offsite BNG on a level footing, relieving applicants of the requirement to evidence attempted compliance with onsite BNG before their purchase of offsite credits. Statutory credits are to remain a last resort.

2. Amendments to the Spatial Risk Multiplier (“SRM“) for minor development

The SRM incentivises developers seeking offsite credits to ‘buy local’. The consultation paper states that developers require 1.33x more offsite credits when purchasing in neighbouring LPAs, and 2x more units when purchasing from the national market.

One proposal is to disapply the SRM – this would make it easier for developers to source credits, however could have negative consequences for local biodiversity.

Another proposal is to widen the catchment area for ‘local credits’ by aligning the catchment area for credits with local nature recovery strategies as opposed to local planning authority boundaries. This would apply for all development, not just minor development. Again, this may mean offsite habitat delivery is further from the site in question.

Not discussed in this article:

The consultation paper also raises new exemptions in respect of parks, public gardens, playing field developments, development whose primary aim is conservation/enhancement of biodiversity, and temporary development.

The consultation paper also looks at streamlining the small sites metric (and considering whether it could apply to medium development), and BNG in respect of brownfield developments with ‘Open Mosaic Habitat’.

We have not commented on these aspects of the consultation paper.

[1] See section 37A Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 for more detail

The 22nd Michelmores Property Awards took place on 2 July 2025 at Sandy Park Conference Centre in Exeter, celebrating the very best of property development, construction, and regeneration across the South West. This year, the Awards continued to recognise projects that demonstrated outstanding quality, innovation, and sustainability, positively impacting communities and environments throughout the region.

The prestigious title of Building of the Year 2025 was awarded to the Babbage Building in Plymouth. This landmark educational facility at the University of Plymouth is undergoing its third major transformation and now serves the Schools of Engineering and Design & Art, alongside general teaching spaces for the wider university. Architecturally striking, it blends a solid engineering brick base with elegant sky-blue ceramic cladding, forming a key part of the University’s campus park vision. The judges praised the Babbage Building as a beautiful, ambitious, and environmentally leading addition to the campus, recognising its transformative impact.

Gloucester’s Forum development took home the Regeneration Project of the Year Award after transforming a key civic space into a vibrant public and commercial destination. The project was described by the judges as “frankly brilliant”, representing a bold and ambitious step in the city’s ongoing regeneration journey. It’s already beginning to link with other key projects across the area, creating a ripple effect of positive change, while combining functionality, delivering new retail, leisure, and workspace facilities that have reinvigorated Gloucester’s city centre and contributed to local economic growth.

Baytree SEN School in Weston-super-Mare was recognised for its outstanding expansion, designed to provide a safe, inclusive, and stimulating learning environment for children with special educational needs. Incorporating natural light, sensory-friendly spaces, and sustainable building methods, the school reflects the community’s commitment to supporting education for all abilities.

In the residential sector, The Orchards in Sampford Peverell, Devon, received the award for developments of over 36 homes. This thoughtfully planned community prioritises green spaces, connectivity, and energy-efficient homes, offering residents high-quality design and a strong sense of place, reflective of contemporary rural living with excellent access to local amenities. Meanwhile, Broadland Gardens in Plymouth was recognised as the leading smaller residential development, with a sustainable mix of affordable and market homes designed to adapt to the changing requirements of their owners over time and set a new benchmark for flexible, future-proof housing. The judges were particularly impressed by the creative use of modular “pod” extensions, allowing these homes to grow and adapt with their occupants’ changing needs.

The voco Zeal Hotel Exeter Science Park won the Leisure and Tourism Project of the Year Award. The first net zero carbon branded hotel in the UK offers a luxurious and environmentally conscious stay for business and leisure travellers alike. Voco Zeal impressed the judges with its boundary-pushing design and sustainability credentials. From its intelligent façade system with integrated solar panels to its green roof, recycled materials, and EV charging, every detail was carefully considered.

Heritage Project of the Year was awarded to Paternoster House in Exeter for its sensitive restoration and adaptive reuse. Once neglected and suffering from severe water ingress, this historic building in Exeter has been lovingly restored to deliver 29 luxury apartments alongside vibrant ground-floor commercial space. The local, family-run developers took a hands-on approach, overcoming structural challenges with practical solutions and making innovative use of recycled materials throughout including repurposed timber crafted into bespoke furniture.

Bristol’s EQ development claimed the Project of the Year Award for schemes over £10 million. EQ is a state-of-the-art workspace, offering cutting-edge sustainability and premium facilities. The judges praised this beautifully crafted, all-electric office building for its dedication to sustainability and efficient use of space. With thoughtful design and high-quality finishes throughout, EQ sets a new standard for modern workplaces and has delivered significant social value through meaningful engagement with the local community, making it a truly inspiring example of sustainable, people-focused development

Winner of the projects under £10 million category, Pixel (Penzance Creative Cluster), was designed for creatives of all types – the three-storey building comprises shared and private studios, coworking spaces, meeting rooms and a large lounge, event space and gallery. The architects were commended for working sensitively with the site’s history – echoing its past as a reservoir – while delivering a thoroughly modern and accessible facility, complete with smart use of space.

Emma Honey, Head of Real Estate at Michelmores, commented:

“The 2025 Awards have once again showcased the incredible talent and ambition within the South West’s property sector. From pioneering sustainable housing to ambitious regeneration projects, this year’s winners are truly inspiring examples of how the built environment can enrich communities and drive positive change. It is exciting to see innovation and quality at the heart of so many projects.”

These winners were selected from a highly competitive shortlist of finalists that included projects across a range of categories, highlighting the breadth of talent and ambition within the South West property sector.

For more information on the winners and shortlisted projects, please visit the Michelmores Property Awards website.