For many water abstractors, dealing with the Environment Agency (EA) can feel like navigating a complex web of policy, guidance and environmental regulation. Whether you are applying for a new abstraction licence, seeking to vary an existing licence, or responding to concerns about environmental impacts, it is important to understand the legal framework that informs how the EA deals with such issues.

This article is the first in a series exploring the legal framework governing abstraction licensing. We begin by providing an overview of the key legal duties and policy considerations that shape how the EA approaches abstraction licences.

The EA’s general duties

The EA’s principal aim is set out in Section 4 of the Environment Act 1995. When exercising its functions, the EA must seek to protect or enhance the environment as a whole in a way that contributes to sustainable development. The Act also allows ministers to issue guidance regarding the objectives the EA should pursue, and the Agency must have regard to that guidance.

Importantly for abstractors, environmental protection is not the only consideration. The EA is also subject to a number of wider public law duties. For example, it must consider costs and benefits when carrying out its functions, have regard to biodiversity conservation, and take account of promoting economic growth when exercising its regulatory functions.

In practice, this means the Agency is required to balance competing interests. It must protect the water environment, but it must also recognise the importance of water dependent businesses.

The balancing exercise is informed by the Agency’s water resources management functions under the Water Resources Act 1991. These include conserving, redistributing or otherwise augmenting water resources, securing their proper use, and considering minimum acceptable flows and levels. The Agency must also exercise its functions consistently with its wider environmental, conservation, fisheries and recreation duties concerning designated sites and biodiversity.

The interests engaged can differ materially. Consumptive abstractors, including public water suppliers, farmers and industrial users, remove water from the immediate source and may reduce flows or groundwater levels. Non-consumptive users may return water locally but can still alter the timing and route of flows, create depleted reaches or affect fish passage. Angling and fisheries interests are concerned with sufficient flows, habitat quality and migration, while navigation, recreation, conservation bodies, local communities and existing lawful abstractors may also depend on the same resource. The Agency must therefore assess both the volume taken and the practical effect of the proposal within the particular catchment.

The abstraction licensing regime

The principal legislation governing abstraction licensing is the Water Resources Act 1991. Under that regime, water abstraction generally requires a licence from the EA. The EA is responsible for administering that licensing system and determining applications.

When deciding whether to grant, refuse or amend a licence, the Agency must consider a range of factors. These include whether sufficient water is available, whether existing lawful users would be adversely affected, and whether the proposed abstraction would damage the environment.

This often means demonstrating not only a need for water, but also that the proposed abstraction can operate without causing unacceptable impacts on river flows, ecology or other water users.

The Agency may control those impacts through licence terms, including annual and daily quantities, authorised purposes and points of abstraction, seasonal limits and conditions that reduce or stop abstraction when flows or groundwater levels fall below specified thresholds. The Agency must also consider the cumulative effect of the proposal alongside existing abstractions, rather than assessing an application in isolation. Existing licences may be reviewed or varied where abstraction is causing, or risks causing, environmental damage, subject to the statutory framework governing variation, revocation and compensation.

How water availability is managed

At the operational level, the Agency manages abstraction through the Catchment Abstraction Management Strategy (CAMS) and abstraction licensing strategies. These assess how much water is available within a catchment, identify environmental constraints and help inform decisions on new and existing abstraction licences. They are an important starting point for an applicant, although they do not replace the site-specific assessment required for an individual proposal.

Surface-water availability is generally assessed at defined assessment points and against the flow needed to support the ecology of the water body. This can affect whether water is available throughout the year, only at higher flows, or not available for further consumptive abstraction. Groundwater assessment considers the balance between recharge and abstraction, together with links to river, springs, wetlands and other groundwater dependent features. Because surface water and groundwater are connected, pressure in one part of a catchment may constrain abstraction elsewhere.

Catchment management is also relevant to reliability. A licence may authorise a stated quantity yet remain subject to hands-off flow or level conditions, meaning the water will not always be available when the abstractor needs it. Applicants should therefore consider storage, trading, shared or collaborative arrangements and demand management, as well as the headline licensed volume.

Recent years have seen increasing pressure on water resources from climate change, population growth and environmental demands. As a result, abstraction licensing is now closely linked to wider water resources planning.

The EA’s National Framework for Water Resources 2025 sets out a long-term strategy for managing water availability. The Framework emphasises the need to balance water for growth, food production, energy generation and environmental protection.

Of particular relevance to abstractors is the Framework’s recognition that abstraction licences must be assessed against both water availability and environmental requirements. The EA must protect existing water rights and lawful uses while ensuring that rivers, groundwater and protected habitats are not adversely affected.

As environmental standards evolve, abstractors should therefore expect the Agency to place increasing scrutiny on the sustainability of water use, particularly in environmentally sensitive catchments.

River basin management and environmental objectives

Another key influence on abstraction licensing is the Water Environment (Water Framework Directive) (England and Wales) Regulations 2017.

These regulations provide the framework for managing the water environment through River Basin Management Plans (RBMPs). The purpose of the regime is to prevent deterioration in the status of water bodies and to support the achievement of long-term environmental objectives. Public authorities, including the EA, must have regard to RBMPs when exercising relevant functions.

For abstractors, this is significant because decisions about abstraction licences are often influenced by wider catchment objectives identified within these plans. Where a river or groundwater body is under environmental pressure, licensing decisions may reflect the need to improve environmental outcomes or avoid further deterioration.

RBMPs are prepared for river basin districts and set legally binding, locally specific environmental objectives for surface waters and groundwater. They identify the status of water bodies, the pressures preventing objectives from being achieved and the programme of measures intended to address those pressures. For surface water, relevant objectives include preventing deterioration and achieving good ecological status, or good ecological potential for artificial or heavily modified water bodies. For groundwater, the regime addresses both quantitative and chemical status.

Flow is a supporting element of ecological status, so abstraction licensing is one of the regulatory mechanisms used to deliver RBMP objectives. The Agency compares actual and permitted abstraction pressures with the flow conditions required to support river biology. Where abstraction contributes to a failure, or creates a risk of deterioration, this may affect the availability of new water, the conditions imposed on a licence or the review of existing licences. A proposal may also require separate consideration under the habitats legislation where it could affect a protected European site, and under domestic legislation protecting Sites of Special Scientific Interest.

Although closely linked, RBMPs and abstraction licensing strategies operate at different levels. RBMPs establish the environmental objectives for a river basin district, while abstraction licensing strategies assess how those objectives affect water availability and licensing decisions within individual catchments. The EA then applies that framework when determining specific abstraction licence applications.

Fisheries, ecology and other water users

The EA’s responsibilities extend beyond water quantity. It also has statutory duties relating to fisheries.

Under the Environment Act 1995, the Agency has a duty to maintain, improve and develop fisheries. Additional obligations arise under legislation such as the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975 and the Eels Regulations 2009. These duties can be particularly relevant where abstraction may affect fish migration, flow conditions or habitats.

The assessment may need to consider reduced depths and velocities, higher water temperatures, loss of wetted habitat, barriers to upstream or downstream migration and the effect of intakes or associated structures on fish and eels. These issues can arise with consumptive abstraction and with hydropower schemes, even where much of the water is returned to the river. Conditions, screening requirements, bypass flows or other mitigation may be necessary, and the views of fisheries interests, angling bodies and conservation organisations may form part of the evidence relevant to the decision.

Looking ahead

While the abstraction licensing regime can appear complex, the key takeaway is that the EA’s decisions are shaped by a broad legal framework rather than a single piece of legislation. The Agency must balance environmental protection, sustainable development, economic growth, water resources planning and fisheries interests when determining licence applications.

For applicants, the key point is to review the relevant RBMP and abstraction licensing strategy at an early stage, identify any affected users or environmental features, and consider water availability from the outset. It is important not to assume that a non-consumptive abstraction will have no impact, or that a consumptive abstraction can be assessed solely by reference to the volume of water taken. The EA will also consider factors such as the timing, location and pattern of use within the catchment. In our next article, we will look in more detail at abstraction rights and licences.

Michelmores has achieved 85 rankings in The Legal 500 United Kingdom – Solicitors 2027 Edition, comprising 34 firm rankings and 51 individual lawyer recognitions.

The results reflect the breadth of the Firm’s expertise across its Corporate, Disputes, Employment, Private Wealth, Real Estate, Energy and Technology practices. They include five Top Tier practice rankings listed in the South West categories, alongside further progress in London, where Commercial Litigation: Mid-Market moved to Tier 3 and the Firm secured new rankings for Venture Capital and Employers.

Key highlights from the 2027 edition include:

• 34 firm rankings
• 51 individual lawyer recognitions
• 10 Top Tier practice rankings (with 5 explicitly designated South West)
• 2 Hall of Fame lawyers
• 23 Leading Partners
• 13 Next Generation Partners
• 10 Leading Associates

Michelmores’ Top Tier rankings are:

• Corporate and Commercial: Dorset, Devon and Cornwall
• General Crime and Fraud
• Commercial Litigation: Dorset, Devon and Cornwall
• Employment: Dorset, Devon and Cornwall
• Agriculture and Estates (South West)
• Contentious Trusts and Probate (South West)
• Family (South West)
• Personal Tax, Trusts and Probate (South West)
• Commercial Property: Dorset, Devon and Cornwall
• IT and Telecoms (South West)

Together, the results highlight Michelmores’ established strength in the South West and growing recognition in London, supported by continued recognition for its Corporate and Commercial practice in Cambridge.

Tim Richards, Michelmores’ Managing Partner, said:

“These results are a strong endorsement of the quality of our people and the trusted relationships we build with our clients. We are particularly pleased to see recognition across so many of our practice areas.

“The breadth of the results reflects the depth of expertise across Michelmores and our continued commitment to delivering outstanding advice and service to our clients. It is especially encouraging to see our established strength in the South West recognised alongside positive results in London and continued recognition in Cambridge.”

For the full breakdown of Michelmores’ Legal 500 UK 2027 rankings, visit The Legal 500 website.

Those working in UK immigration will be familiar with frequent changes designed to narrow the scope of immigration routes or introduce additional restrictions. It is therefore particularly welcome to see a development moving in the opposite direction.

From 1 July 2026, the Global Talent route was expanded to include a dedicated Design Industry endorsement pathway. Applications are submitted to UKVI and, where endorsement is required, are assessed by the Design Business Association (DBA) on behalf of Arts Council England.

Why this matters for employers

For employers, the practical significance of the new design pathway is that it creates another immigration option for internationally recognised design professionals, without requiring employer sponsorship. Unlike Skilled Worker sponsorship, the Global Talent route does not require the employer to hold a sponsor licence, assign a Certificate of Sponsorship or monitor the individual. This may be particularly helpful for design-led businesses, creative agencies and employers engaging senior creative talent on more flexible or less traditional employment models under sponsor compliance duties.

The route can also offer the individual greater flexibility, including the ability to change roles, work for more than one organisation or undertake self-employed or portfolio-style work. From an employer perspective, that flexibility can be useful where the business wants access to specialist design expertise but does not necessarily need, or wish, to structure the arrangement as a sponsored role.

However, the route will not be suitable for every proposed hire. The application turns on the individual’s external recognition and evidence of achievement, rather than the employer’s recruitment need. Employers should therefore consider at an early stage whether the candidate’s portfolio, awards, media profile, published or distributed work and industry references are likely to meet the endorsement criteria.

Who can apply?

Reflecting the breadth of the design sector itself, the list of eligible disciplines is intentionally non-exhaustive. Examples provided by Arts Council England include:

• Graphic design;
• Brand design;
• Product design and development;
• Furniture design;
• Commercial interior design;
• Exhibition design and display; and
• Service design.

Applicants must be able to show that they have worked regularly in the design field and that they are producing work which has been published, distributed or exhibited internationally. The DBA must judge that work to be outstanding. The work may be produced by the applicant individually, as part of a group, or through a significant contribution to a group’s work.

To avoid overlap with other endorsement pathways, a number of related disciplines are expressly excluded. These include, amongst others:

• Illustration;
• Textile design;
• Fashion design;
• Games design; and
• Costume or set design for film, television and theatre.

Evidence requirements

As with other Global Talent routes overseen by Arts Council England, applicants must provide an up-to-date CV together with supporting evidence demonstrating their achievements and standing within the industry.

Three reference letters

Applicants must provide three letters of recommendation:

• Two letters must be from well-established design organisations, one of which must be based in the UK; and
• The third letter must come either from another established design organisation or from an individual recognised as an expert in the field.

Importantly, the applicant must be able to demonstrate that they have worked with the referees in a professional design capacity. The letters must also comply with the detailed format and content requirements prescribed by Arts Council England.

Ten pieces of supporting evidence

Applicants must also submit up to ten pieces of evidence from the previous five years demonstrating achievement in at least two of the following areas:

• Appearances, exhibitions, publications or distribution of their work;
• Media recognition; and/or
• Awards and industry accolades.

Appearances, publications and exhibitions

Evidence in this category must demonstrate that the applicant’s work has been recognised within the design industry through exhibitions, publications, distribution arrangements or similar activity.

Applicants applying as Exceptional Talent must demonstrate a substantial record of work in at least two countries, whereas Exceptional Promise applicants are likely to be earlier in their careers and must show a developing record of recognised work in at least one country.

Awards

Applicants seeking endorsement as Exceptional Talent must generally demonstrate that they have won at least one international award in the field of design (or made a significant contribution to an award-winning project).

By contrast, applicants applying as Exceptional Promise may rely on having won, been nominated for or been shortlisted for a national or international award.

The guidance contains a non-exhaustive list of recognised awards, including the Red Dot Awards, D&AD Awards, Pentawards and Cannes Lions.

Media recognition

Media recognition requirements also differ depending on the endorsement category.

Applicants seeking endorsement as Exceptional Talent must provide evidence of at least two examples of significant international media recognition from at least two countries.

Applicants seeking endorsement as Exceptional Promise need only demonstrate at least two examples of national or international media coverage from one country.

Practical steps for employers and candidates

Employers should not assume that a strong portfolio or senior job title will be enough. The endorsement application turns on independent recognition, credible referees and evidence that fits the published categories. The strongest applications are likely to be those where the evidence is mapped carefully before the immigration strategy is fixed.

Practical takeaways for employers

The introduction of this new pathway represents a welcome expansion of the Global Talent route, recognising the contribution made by professionals working within the commercial design sector and the value they can bring to the UK economy.

For employers, the new pathway is unlikely to replace Skilled Worker sponsorship for most design hires, but it gives businesses another option where the individual has a strong independent profile in the design industry. It may be particularly relevant when recruiting senior designers, product designers, brand specialists, service designers or commercial design leaders whose work has already attracted external recognition.

As with all Arts Council-endorsed Global Talent applications, success ultimately depends on presenting compelling evidence that aligns closely with the published guidance. Businesses considering this route should assess the strength of the individual’s evidence at the outset and take specialist advice before deciding whether Global Talent, Skilled Worker sponsorship or another immigration route is the most appropriate strategy.

Please see the table below for a summary of the key differences between the Exceptional Talent and Exceptional Promise routes.

Michelmores has advised Triodos Bank UK Ltd on the financing of LEAP24, a rapidly growing provider of fast-charging infrastructure for commercial electric vehicles, supporting the expansion of its charging network across Greater London and the Netherlands.

The new loan facilities will enable LEAP24 to increase access to fast-charging stations near zero-emission zones, helping businesses transition to cleaner transport while reducing operational downtime. 

In the UK, LEAP24 currently owns and operates 11 sites, with plans to expand to 34 locations and 80 DC chargers by the end of 2027. Through its network of strategically located fast-charging hubs, including sites near city centres and business parks, LEAP24 provides charging solutions designed specifically for commercial users, including vans and other larger vehicles.

Founded to accelerate the adoption of electric transport, LEAP24 also offers dedicated overnight charging facilities for businesses, helping to optimise available grid capacity and support fleet electrification.

Michelmores advised long-standing client Triodos Bank UK Ltd on all aspects of the financing. The multidisciplinary team was led by Danielle Collett-Bruce, Managing Associate (Banking), supported by Noah Jefferies, Associate (Banking) and Karen Williams, Partner (Banking). Specialist advice was provided by Ian Holyoak, Partner (Commercial), Tatiana Menezes, Associate (Commercial) and Moya Smith, Associate (Commercial). Michelmores also supported on the real estate aspects of the legal due diligence for Triodos Bank UK Ltd.

Danielle Collett-Bruce commented:

“We are delighted to have supported Triodos Bank on this financing, which will help expand critical charging infrastructure for commercial electric vehicles. Increasing access to reliable charging facilities is a key part of enabling the transition to cleaner transport, and this transaction demonstrates the important role sustainable finance can play in accelerating that shift.”

Alex Stephens, Senior Relationship Manager for Energy and Project Finance at Triodos Bank UK, said:

“LEAP24’s approach to deploying fast-charging infrastructure across Greater London, providing larger charging bays for commercial vehicles and high-usage drivers such as taxi and delivery operators, sets it apart in the market. By locating sites within zero-emission zones, LEAP24 is helping to accelerate the transition to electric transport while contributing to cleaner air and more sustainable urban environments. We are pleased to support a business that is expanding access to reliable, high-speed charging where it is needed most.”

The transaction reflects Triodos Bank UK’s ongoing commitment to financing projects that support the transition to a more sustainable economy and reduce carbon emissions through investment in clean infrastructure.

The August update to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) provides clearer policy direction for renewable energy developments mandating that the English planning system supports the UK’s transition to net zero.

The new look NPPF gives clean energy (and water) their own dedicated chapter, with separate policies for plan-making and decision-making.

But has anything other than format changed? For renewable energy developers, the most immediate changes are set out in the national decision-making policies. These introduce standardised policies for the determination of applications, including those for renewable and low-carbon energy.

Decision making is a balancing exercise; weighing the proposals ‘good’ against its ‘impacts’. Mostly decision makers are free to give such weight to various aspects of a scheme as they see fit. However, as is the case of Policy W3, sometimes the weight to be given is prescriptive. W3 requires decision-makers to give ‘substantial’ weight to the benefits of improving energy security, life-extension and repowering of existing infrastructure of existing sites, and the contribution small-scale schemes and community-led projects can make to reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Repowering gets its own broad definition, helpfully confirming repowering does not need to result in like-for-like replacement, recognising that new infrastructure will be required.

Semantics perhaps, but this ‘substantial’ weight is an enhancement over the ‘significant’ weight that these elements of a project previously attracted. This wording change raises the threshold for assessing planning benefits and should make it harder for decision-makers to refuse renewable schemes unless identified harms clearly outweigh those benefits.

The new NPPF cuts across existing local plan policies that sought to constrain renewable energy development to certain areas. Now a scheme that lies outside a prescribed area is to be determined not against the local plan policies but against the NPPF as a whole. This represents a shift from the previous approach and should give developers greater flexibility where local plan policies are restrictive.

Government has indicated that Planning Practice Guidance (the detailed guidance that sits behind the NPPF) will be updated to provide further guidance on identifying suitable areas for renewable and low-carbon energy.

When it comes to plan making by local planning authorities, we see that Policy W1 strengthens expectations for early engagement between planning authorities, utilities, regulators and infrastructure providers to identify capacity constraints and future infrastructure needs. Development plans must now make provision for renewable and low-carbon energy and grid infrastructure, including stand-alone schemes, and avoid policies that would constrain future operation or expansion.

The policy encourages a more proactive, coordinated approach to planning for clean energy than old NPPF paras 165-169 which focused on positive renewable strategies but did not require early engagement.

We also look forward to the forthcoming spatial development strategies (SDS). These SDSs are to, among other things, set out the type, extent and broad location of strategic infrastructure needed to enable development and are to expressly include the provision of renewable and low carbon energy infrastructure and the electricity network as a whole. The SDSs are intended to coordinate the provision of this strategic infrastructure.

Conclusion

Overall, the new NPPF marks a clear policy shift in favour of renewable energy. It moves further away from recent policy approaches that constrained delivery, particularly the former local support requirement for onshore wind.

By elevating the weight given to renewable benefits, broadening support for schemes outside identified suitable areas and requiring more infrastructure-led plan-making, the Framework should make the planning environment more positive for renewable and low-carbon development.

The updated National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) has now been published, following consultation on the December 2025 draft: National Planning Policy Framework 2026.

The government’s target of building 1.5 million homes during the current parliamentary term continues to put planning reform firmly in the spotlight. The latest NPPF reforms sit at the heart of Labour’s wider reshaping of the planning system: it is a clearer, more directive framework designed to support housing delivery, infrastructure investment and economic growth.

Published on 17 August 2026, the revised NPPF represents the most significant overhaul of national planning policy since the framework was introduced in 2012.

That is largely because the framework is now split between plan-making and decision-making policies, with coded sections covering topics such as housing, Green Belt, settlement growth and infrastructure.

Key changes and headlines at a glance

Strategic planning and economic growth

Strategic planning returns through Spatial Development Strategies (SDSs), introduced by the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025. The new NPPF builds on that statutory framework by adding detail on the content of SDSs and confirming that they must establish a positive, sub-regional framework for investment and growth over a minimum 25-year period.

Local plans are expected to support a broader mix of housing delivery, including allocating at least 10% of housing requirements on sites of one hectare or less and a further 10% on sites between one and 2.5 hectares, strengthening opportunities for SME builders.

Significant weight is given to strategic employment development and sectors aligned with the Government’s Industrial Strategy, including advanced manufacturing, logistics, energy infrastructure, laboratories, data centres and AI Growth Zones.

Housing delivery

The headline here is that homes in existing urban areas close to transport hubs, delivered at high density, are supported. That is largely thanks to new support for residential and mixed-use development within reasonable walking distance of well-connected railway stations, creating a clearer route to development in sustainable, transport-connected locations.

The revised Standard Method remains the basis for assessing housing need and local authorities are expected to plan positively to meet identified need.

The paragraph 11 presumption and tilted balance have been replaced by new national decision-making policies s4 (development within settlements) and s5 (development outside settlements). Now, development within settlements should be approved unless adverse effects substantially outweigh the benefits. Development outside settlements may also benefit from policy support in specified circumstances, including where authorities cannot demonstrate a five-year housing land supply or have Housing Delivery Test results below 75%.

Accessibility and inclusivity expectations have been strengthened, with plans expected to seek at least 40% of homes on major developments to meet M4(2) accessible and adaptable standards, subject to local evidence and viability considerations. Alongside that, the new policy TR4 states that the arrangement of streets and other routes should help create places that are safe, inclusive and attractive for all users.

Following a campaign by members of parliament to introduce consideration of safety for women and girls in the NPPF, the new policy DP3 on public space states that well-designed places should include spaces that are “safe, secure, inclusive, and accessible for all ages and abilities including for groups such as women and girls”.

Green Belt and Grey Belt

The Government has retained its Grey Belt reforms. The definition has been simplified to land that “does not strongly contribute to any of purposes (a), (b), or (d)” — removing the previous reference to footnote 7 and the restrictions it imposed.

The Golden Rules and affordable housing additionality requirements remain, and those are aided by guidance at a new Annex E in relation to Green Belt assessments and grey belt identification. Whilst grey belt land is still actively promoted for development, these changes do not overcome the need for detailed analysis of whether land classifies as such, and the five core purposes of the green belt remain.

Biodiversity and environment

For local authorities requiring developers to go above and beyond on Biodiversity Net Gain delivery whether requiring 20% gains in local plans, or 80-year maintenance requirements in planning obligations, they must now justify those demands with robust evidence.

Protections for National Parks, National Landscapes and other designated landscapes have been strengthened compared with the consultation draft, reinforcing the need to conserve and enhance these areas.

Climate adaptation is embedded more explicitly throughout the framework, with increased focus on flood risk, drought, overheating, wildfire risk, coastal change, green infrastructure and nature-based solutions.

Tree protections remain prominent, but the final position is less expansive than some expected. The December 2025 draft had proposed widening the definition of veteran trees, which some suggested could have captured significantly more trees and materially affected site layouts through associated root protection zones. That change has not been carried through: the final definition remains focused on trees of exceptional biodiversity, cultural or heritage value. Ancient woodland and ancient and veteran trees remain strongly protected, but without the wider scope feared by some. The framework also places greater emphasis on retaining and integrating established trees, hedgerows and natural features into scheme design.

Infrastructure, resilience and growth sectors

National policy strengthens support for renewable energy generation, electricity networks, water supply, wastewater infrastructure and reservoir development, reflecting the Government’s focus on development to support economic growth and resilience.

One of the more unexpected additions is the clearer support for new reservoir development, with water infrastructure now treated as a central growth and resilience issue rather than a more peripheral utilities concern. This is likely to be significant for strategic sites and local plans in areas where housing or employment growth is constrained by water supply or network capacity.

Greater weight is afforded to infrastructure and development that supports economic growth, productivity and strategic national priorities.

What does the new policy mean for developers, and how can they react?

For developers, the direction of travel is clear. The revised NPPF strengthens commitment to housing delivery and economic growth, gives greater support to sustainable and well-connected development, and opens up fresh opportunities for land within settlements, near transport hubs and in locations capable of meeting housing or economic need.

Developers should focus their proposals to support sustainable growth, housing delivery, infrastructure provision and environmental enhancement, whilst ensuring that the impacts of their schemes are adequately mitigated. If sites have previously been constrained by policy or local plan uncertainty, now is the time to revisit your prospects of securing a permission (particularly if they are close to train stations) and seek advice on whether those have now improved.

To discuss how the recent NPPF changes affect you or to discuss the contents of this article further, please visit our webpage and contact a member of our Planning team: Planning Law.

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.