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.

The Supreme Court’s long awaited decision in Iconix Luxembourg Holdings SARL v Dream Pairs Europe Inc and another has now been delivered.

The key takeaway is that practical, real-world and post-sale consumer perception is relevant to the issues of similarity and confusion between trade marks for the purpose of assessing trade mark infringement. This is a really important decision given the role influencers play in promoting “dupe” products as being just like the real thing.

Background

Iconix owns the sportswear brand UMBRO and has held registered trade marks (the UMBRO Trade Marks) for logos on football boots in the UK since 1987.

Since 2018, Dream Pairs has sold footwear branded with a similar logo (“the DP Sign”) in the UK via platforms like Amazon and eBay.

Iconix initiated legal action against Dream Pairs for infringement of its UMBRO Trade Marks under section 10(2)(b) of the Trade Marks Act 1994, a statutory provision which protects trade marks by preventing third parties from using similar signs in relation to identical or similar goods in circumstances where such use creates a likelihood of confusion among consumers.

The High Court initially dismissed Iconix’s claim, holding that the DP Sign and the UMBRO Trade Marks had only a very low degree of similarity, and that no likelihood of confusion existed. The Court of Appeal overturned the decision and found that there was a moderately high similarity and likelihood of confusion, particularly when factoring in the post-sale context, i.e. when the logo is seen on a boot being worn by a person.

Dream Pairs then appealed to the UK Supreme Court.

Legal issues

The Court examined several key questions in reaching a decision:

• How is similarity between marks assessed?

This has always been a “multi-factorial” assessment which recognises, among other things, that in a real world setting consumers rarely see the two brands side by side allowing for a direct comparison. Therefore, similarity is assessed on the basis of the “average consumer’s” imperfect recollection.

Dream Pairs submitted that only intrinsic, direct comparisons of the marks should inform the similarity assessment, with post-sale conditions relevant only to the test for “likelihood of confusion“.

• At what point is confusion is assessed?

There is a large body of case law which makes clear that for confusion to be actionable, it has to be present at the point of sale. This means that “initial interest confusion” is not actionable because by the time the shopper makes the purchase, they have realised that they were not buying the real thing.

In light of the Arsenal v Reed case footballing merchandise case, there has been a growing body of case law finding that post-sale confusion (i.e., confusion occurring after the point of purchase and when the product is seen being worn) can amount to trade mark infringement.

• Legal framework governing trade mark law

The Court also revisited the principles established by the Trade Marks Act 1994, the relevant EU Directives (which have bene transposed into UK law), and guidance from the Court of Justice of the European Union.

Outcome

The Court unanimously allowed Dream Pairs’ appeal, overturning the Court of Appeal’s decision and restoring the trial judge’s original findings such that Dream Pairs was found not to infringe Umbro’s trade marks.

However, the Court rejected Dream Pairs’ argument that post-sale evidence cannot be considered when assessing similarity. It clarified that that realistic and representative post-sale circumstances can and should be considered to establish whether the signs are similar, as this reflects the real‑world way consumers perceive marks on products in use.

The Court also dismissed the argument that only confusion at the point of sale or in a transactional context can amount to infringement. Post-sale confusion that affects the trade mark’s essential functions, including as a guarantee of origin, can also be actionable.

The UK Supreme Court also reflected on the approach taken by the Court of Appeal, noting that the question of infringement is a multifactorial evaluative decision involving facts, law, and judgment. It found that the trial judge in this case had taken a careful and reasoned assessment of the issues of similarity and confusion. Therefore, the trial judge was not wrong to find in favour of Dream Pairs even though the Court of Appeal disagreed. The Supreme Court went on to caution appellate courts against overturning trial judge’s assessments, except in circumstances where it has identified a legal or logical flaw in the trial judge’s judgment.

Comment

This judgment provides some much needed clarification on UK trade mark infringement, particularly around how the courts assess similarity and confusion.

The decision confirms that the realistic context in which a trade mark is viewed, such as on footwear being worn and seen from a range of angles, must be considered when determining similarity and likelihood of confusion. This rejects the approach of taking a strict, isolated side-by-side comparison of marks, and instead aligns with a practical understanding of consumer perception.

With so many products being promoted on social media with influencers commenting on the latest fashions, evidence of how consumers perceive branded products can prove decisive on the question of infringement.

It may also lead to a marked change in the way that businesses develop their branding, to include checks that include visual comparisons from a range of perspectives in the real world.

The court’s approach will be welcomed by brand owners as it will make gathering evidence easier particularly for businesses operating in the fashion or sportswear industries.

The judgment is available to review in-full on the UK Supeme Court’s website.

If you have any questions concerning this decision, please contact Alex Ricketts, Charlotte Bolton or Iain Connor in our Intellectual Property team.

This article is for general information only and does not, and is not intended to, amount to legal advice and should not be relied upon as such. If you have any questions relating to your particular circumstances, you should seek independent legal advice.

Michelmores is a sustainable, forward-thinking law firm. We evolve with changing social and economic demands, adapting our practice and supporting clients in diversifying their business to build and maintain lasting economic resilience.

Commercial opportunities

Over the last five years we have acted for the largest forester and creator of woodland in the UK. We have supported them throughout their expansion into a number of commercial enterprises, including, for example, in-forest concerts, open-air cinemas, off-grid cabin installations and extreme sport experiences. We have also supported their establishment and growth of different environmental service lines, such as nutrient neutrality and Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG). While some of the more tangible commercial opportunities, like large-scale concerts, will be unrealistic for smaller, privately owned forests, there is real scope for (and we have seen forward-thinking clients undertake) diversification of their forests for ecological and profitable gain.

One such client is the Cabilla Valley Temperate Rainforest; a rare temperate rainforest and an official ancient oak woodland.

Cabilla Valley

Cabilla Valley sits in the heart of Bodmin Moor and spans 300 acres of upland hill farm and rainforest valley. The land consists of 100 acres of woodland, including both secondary and ancient rainforest, and 200 acres of degraded grazing land. In January 2023, the owners of Cabilla Valley founded the Thousand Year Trust; a charity dedicated to the restoration of temperate rainforest landscapes and with its mission to catalyse the movement to triple the amount of temperate rainforests in the UK over the next 30 years.

The Thousand Year Trust is supporting research into the true value of temperate rainforests for the benefit of biodiversity, climate and people. To increase engagement with the rainforest and support of the charity, individuals and groups can visit Cabilla Valley overnight, stay in a Koyt cabin and have full access to the 300-acre site. The owners have collaborated with local partners to create unique experiences for visitors.

Supporting diversification

We have the legal expertise to support diversification and growth to ensure the interests of individual landowners are best protected. This could include the incorporation of special purpose vehicles to ringfence risk; clearly written contracts with commercial partners so that the expectations, rights and obligations on everyone involved is understood from the outset (and the risk of disputes are minimised); and the implementation of tax efficient structures. We also have an expansive and growing network of organisations that can provide further support, such as ecologists, land agents, brokers and technology businesses.

Reporting tools

If you are a forester considering diversification but don’t know which areas of your landholding to put to which use, data-rich reporting tools, such as those developed by Map Impact, can help you to make initial decisions on an informed and empowered basis.

Map Impact screens sites using geospatial satellite imagery to help end-users identify which areas of their landholding would best align with early-stage BNG requirements and other nature-based markets. Using UK Habitat Classification, Map Impact maps over 60 different habitat types in detail to identify and analyse ecological characteristics. This detail can inform landholders as to how and where to diverse their holding.

We are always happy to share our expansive network with our clients.

If you would like to learn more about efforts to protect and restore temperate rainforests, please visit Thousand Year Trust.

Update August 2025 – On 26 June 2025, Defra updated its guidance to postpone the introduction of biodiversity net gain (BNG) requirements for nationally significant infrastructure projects (NSIPs) from November 2025 to May 2026.

The Environment Act 2021 (EA) modified the frameworks under both the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 and the Planning Act 2008 (PA) to make Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) a precondition for development consent. However, recognising the timescale and complexity of Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIPs), the government delayed implementation of the changes to the PA, to allow NSIP developers time to integrate BNG into their designs. In November 2025, the changes will take effect, and NSIPs in England will be required to deliver BNG.

Biodiversity Net Gain

BNG is an approach to development that includes creating and improving natural habitats, so that development has a measurably positive impact (‘net gain’) on biodiversity. The aim of BNG is to reverse the UK’s declining biodiversity by ensuring that development not only mitigates ecological harm but contributes to nature recovery.

Biodiversity Gain Statements

From November, the Secretary of State must refuse Development Consent Order (DCO) applications that do not meet the objectives of an applicable ‘biodiversity gain statement’.

A biodiversity gain statement sets out the ‘biodiversity gain objective’ for the relevant development type and requires that DCO applications are determined according to whether the objective is met.

The default objective is that the biodiversity value of a development exceeds the pre-development biodiversity value (of the onsite habitat) by at least 10% and is maintained for at least thirty years.

Biodiversity gain statements must describe whether and how the biodiversity gain objective applies to irreplaceable habitats; must specify evidence required in support of DCO applications; and confirm how biodiversity value should be calculated, with reference to a prescribed metric. Biodiversity gain statements will be found in the National Policy Statement (NPS) for each NSIP category, or published separately where no NPS applies to a development, or the relevant NPS has yet to be updated.

BNG and compulsory acquisition

In its response to a 2022 consultation on implementing BNG, the government addressed uncertainty over whether the new regime would permit compulsory acquisition of land for BNG purposes.

The government stated that it would “consider providing guidance or reference in biodiversity gain statements that outlines the reasonable alternatives developers should explore to deliver net gain before they consider compulsory acquisition of land.” This essentially confirmed the established principle that compulsory purchase should be a last resort. We therefore expect that it will be necessary for NSIP promoters to apply the Biodiversity Gain Hierarchy in site selection, and to make the usual reasonable efforts to reach an agreement on purchase.

The point is made more explicitly in the current NPS for Electricity Networks, which confirms that applicants may apply for DCOs where land is needed to provide “mitigation, landscape enhancement and biodiversity net gain”; and that established DCO principles would apply. This was explicitly relied on in a recent DCO approval, which stated that acquisition “for the provision and maintenance of the BNG elements of the Proposed Development is consistent with policy and guidance”.

Where is the new policy?

If the government intends to honour its commitment to apply BNG to NSIPs by November 2025, we should expect a raft of revised NPSs (or standalone biodiversity gain statements) to be published in the coming months.

The government opened a consultation on three revised NPSs for energy infrastructure on 24 April 2025. The updates consolidate and clarify much of what is published elsewhere but contain no biodiversity gain statements.

What should we be doing now?

Though the changes described above have yet to take effect, the policy is clear that DCO applicants should already be accounting for BNG.

The suite of Energy NPSs published since November 2023 “encourage” applicants to use the latest biodiversity metric to calculate BNG outcomes. The Secretary of State “should give appropriate weight” to BNG and consider what requirements should be attached to any consent to ensure that BNG measures, if offered, are delivered and maintained.

The draft revised NPS (April 2025) reiterates these points, and adds that “where possible”, development proposals should seek opportunities to provide BNG, and the Secretary of State should use planning obligations to maximise such opportunities.

Key takeaways

• In November 2025, amendments to the PA will require DCO applications to meet biodiversity gain objectives set out in biodiversity gain statements.
• The default biodiversity gain objective is that NSIPs deliver an increase in the biodiversity value of the onsite habitat by at least 10%, secured for a minimum of 30 years.
• Land may be acquired for BNG purposes alongside the primary purpose of the scheme, but developers must demonstrate a compelling case, following the ordinary principles of compulsory purchase.
• Though BNG is not yet mandatory for NSIPs, it is clear that DCO applicants should account for BNG while NSIP planning. There is a policy expectation that developers seek opportunities to provide BNG, and the Secretary of State will use planning obligations to support this.

Retirement villages are purpose-built communities that typically offer self-contained homes for purchase, alongside a range of on-site amenities and support services for those who need them. Unlike buying a traditional freehold property, purchasing in a retirement village means becoming part of a larger managed development that often includes communal facilities and lifestyle features.

These villages usually offer a selection of property types—such as apartments, bungalows, and cottages—and are often located in attractive countryside or semi-rural areas. Residents can enjoy a wide range of on-site facilities, which may include restaurants, fitness centres, swimming pools, spas, shops, and hairdressers. Many communities also organise regular events and social activities, helping residents stay engaged and connected. This type of lifestyle can foster a strong sense of belonging and reduce the feelings of isolation that some older adults experience. Additionally, maintenance of shared spaces—like gardens and walkways—is handled by the management team, allowing residents to focus on enjoying their retirement without the burden of upkeep.

For many, moving into a retirement village means being able to live independently for longer, with support available if and when it’s needed. Guest suites are often available for visiting friends and family, making it easier to stay connected with loved ones.

However, all of these benefits come at a cost. It’s essential to fully understand what’s included in your purchase and what ongoing charges may apply. Seeking professional advice is highly recommended. A specialist can guide you through the lease agreement and any related documents, ensuring that you are clear on the terms and comfortable with your decision—avoiding any unexpected issues in the future.

Should you wish to discuss any of the issues raised in this article, please contact Louise Peters.