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.

Michelmores has advised CEO, founder and majority shareholder, Robert McCarthy, on the sale of GOSS Technology Group to AIM traded AdvancedAdvT Limited.

The transaction marks a significant milestone for GOSS Technology Group, a recognised leader in digital transformation in the public sector. AdvancedAdvT Limited is an international software solutions provider for the business solutions, healthcare compliance, and human capital management sectors.

The Michelmores team was led by Corporate Partner Dearbhla Quigley, alongside Chris Smedley, Shafi Choudhury and Oliver Ryder, all from the Firm’s Corporate team, with support from Cathy Bryant (Corporate Tax), Anthony Reeves (Corporate Tax), Rachael Lloyd (Employment) and Philippa Collison (Commercial).

Dearbhla commented:

“We are pleased to have combined our significant experience of both private M&A and London equity capital markets to advise Robert McCarthy on this landmark transaction for GOSS Technology Group. The Michelmores team thoroughly enjoyed working alongside Robert and supporting him throughout the sale process. We look forward to seeing the exciting growth opportunities that this transaction brings for all parties involved.”

Robert said:

“The time was right for GOSS to join a larger group with ambition to drive sustainable growth and meet the evolving needs of the public sector.  The team at Michelmores provided clear, commercially focussed guidance throughout the transaction process which was vital to progressing the transaction in an orderly and timely fashion. I cannot thank them enough for their assistance with this transaction.”   

Michelmores Corporate team is a market-leading practice known for delivering high-quality legal advice on complex transactions across a range of sectors, including technology. The team combines deep commercial understanding with technical expertise to guide clients through mergers and acquisitions (both private and public), disposals, fundraisings, joint ventures, and corporate restructuring.

For more information, visit the Firm’s website.

Under English law, it is possible to choose who inherits your assets following your death by making a will. If you die without having a will in place, there are set provisions known as the intestacy rules which dictate who gets what.

Whilst a will should be regularly reviewed to ensure it still reflects your wishes, this does not always happen. With the forthcoming changes to Business Property Relief (BPR), now is an opportune moment for any business owners to review the arrangements they have in place, in addition to considering any lifetime succession planning they may wish to undertake.

Under the current rules for BPR, 100% relief for inheritance tax can be claimed on death for qualifying business property. BPR is an extremely valuable relief and has been a way to ensure the family business remains intact when passing to the next custodian.

However, from 6 April 2026, the unlimited 100% relief from inheritance tax on qualifying business (and agricultural) property is due to be capped at £1 million per person, with qualifying assets above this value being subject to inheritance tax at half of the standard rate. For many business owners, this will significantly increase the inheritance tax due on their death and may mean that assets will need to be sold to raise funds to pay the tax.

Whilst we are awaiting the draft legislation, it is currently proposed that the £1 million will not be transferable between spouses/civil partners (unlike the nil rate band and residence nil rate band). In other words, if the £1 million allowance is not used and ‘banked’ on the first death, it will be lost.

Depending on how your will is currently drafted, it may be that your estate is not able to use the £1 million allowance on the first death, for example, if your will currently leaves everything to your spouse. Whilst it may be possible to vary someone’s will after they have died, this relies on the surviving spouse having the requisite capacity to do so. The prudent course of action is therefore to review your will now to ensure it is as tax efficient as possible in light of the upcoming changes.

Other important documents to review include partnership agreements and company articles. A partnership agreement, for example, can trump the wishes within your will and so it is important to ensure the documents dovetail to avoid any nasty surprises following your death. We work closely with our colleagues in Corporate/Commercial teams to ensure everything aligns.

If you would like any assistance reviewing your will or are not sure how these changes may affect you, please do not hesitate to contact a member of our Tax, Trusts & Succession team.

Planning documents to be published on planning portals

Most readers will be familiar with determining authorities’ planning portals or registers. Authorities use them to publish details of planning applications and record planning decisions. Authorities are in fact obliged to publish these details along with other decisions and approvals too (by the 2015 Development Management Order).

The requirement to publish  planning applications and applications to discharge reserved matters that are pending determination includes the following are documents, although to date authorities’ standard practice has meant they are typically absent:

• copies of draft section 106 planning obligations and section 278 highway agreements;
• copies of completed 106s and section 278s that have influenced the authority’s decision; and
• variations and discharges of such documents.

Judicial review threat

Following a Court of Appeal judgement in April this year this standard practice poses a clear and present judicial review risk.

The case (R. (on the application of Greenfields (IOW) Ltd) v Isle of Wight Council) considered the planning authority’s determination of a planning application for 473 new homes. The planning committee resolved to grant permission subject to a section 106 dealing with a contribution to highway improvements, an aspect of the development that was of keen interest to objectors. After two years’ of negotiation, this was concluded and the committee resolved again to grant permission. The permission was granted four months later. At no time was the section 106 made available on the planning portal.

The Court found the Development Management Order required that certain documents must be placed on the planning register in the period before an application for planning permission is finally disposed of in order to enable members of the public to know and comment on the terms of a proposed or agreed planning obligation, if they choose to do so (noting that this requirement is not a wider duty to consult).

The planning authority’s non-compliance with this procedural requirement of the Development Management Order was sufficient in this case to cause the Court to quash the planning permission.

It’s not black and white

The judgement was clear that it did not consider any and every failure to comply would invalidate the grant of a planning permission. It is necessary to evaluate the consequences of non-compliance on the facts of the case. Perhaps, despite the absence of publication, the key contents of the section 106 were already in the public domain. Perhaps, reporting in sufficient details of the heads of terms, would  amount to substantial compliance to discharge the publication duty. Perhaps, interested members of the public already had the opportunity to comment on an unpublished draft. Perhaps, there was nothing of contention in the obligations or in the development as a whole.

What is clear is that following the judgement, taking a view on these ‘perhaps’ is not for the faint hearted. Rather, it is better for determining authorities to ensure the engrossment draft section 106 is published before the permission is granted and ideally allow sufficient time for comment (what is sufficient time is still uncertain though emerging practice would suggest to allow between 7 and 14 days before proceeding to section 106 completion).

Managing the risk

Planning decision making is already fraught with judicial review opportunities. This is one more example. Managing the threat already requires the diligence of applicants, planning officers and decision makers.

Now the issue is in the limelight, planning professionals can manage it together. Officers can report on the heads of terms of the planning obligations to committees. Committee meeting minutes can record those terms. The applicant’s lawyers can prompt the authority to publish engrossment drafts and hold completion until they have seen evidence of that publication. Planning performance agreements can identify timely publication as a necessary step. Of course, this will cause delay. But better a week’s delay than a year’s battle through the courts.

Buyers of sites with the benefit of planning permission can build appropriate conditionality into their contracts such that the draft section 106 has to have been published prior to the grant of planning permission. They can request evidence this statutory requirement has been discharged and wait out the judicial review window if it has not (as insuring against this risk may not be supported by the insurance market). Frustrating though added delays might be to the section 106 negotiation process, the downsides could be worse.

As a final cautionary note, there are plenty of seemingly inconsequential statutory requirements in the planning system that are regularly overlooked. They are ignored by all parties as standard practice.

The assessment stages for training contracts and apprenticeship roles can be challenging, and knowing how to prepare effectively is not always straightforward.

In this article, our current trainees share their insights and tips for tackling common themes assessed during the application process. Each trainee has followed a unique path to reach their current position, so their experiences and advice offer valuable guidance, no matter which route you choose to pursue.

• Luke Harper is currently sat in his second seat, Commercial & Regulatory Disputes after competing his first seat in Agriculture. Luke spent three years working as a paralegal before applying for a training contract and joined Michelmores in September 2024.
• Ella Turner is a Graduate Solicitor Apprentice and is currently sat in Corporate for her first seat. Ella graduated last year and spent six months working as a paralegal in Children Law before joining Michelmores in February 2025.
• Ellis Arnold is currently sat in Transactional Real Estate, having completed his first seat in Asset Protection. Ellis spent three years working as a paralegal at Michelmores, before applying internally for a training contract. Ellis started his training contract in September 2024.

How did you stay on top of commercial awareness?

Luke: There is often a misconception as to what commercial awareness is. It is more important to have a commercial mindset, don’t focus so much on current events but instead look at how a legal business operates. Remember that there isn’t an expectation to understand every current event, this is something that comes later when you have more of a specialism and you know what your client needs and subsequently what events you need to understand. It is more important at the application stage to understand how law firms make money. Ask yourself questions such as how do people pay for lawyers, what does the firms pipeline look like and how would you deal with a client coming to you with a legal issue but they don’t have the capacity to pay. An understanding of the legal industry rather than current events is more impressive.

Ella: Every morning, I listen to the financial times daily briefing and read the news headlines. When applying for training contracts, I researched law firm websites and considered what articles they had recently posted, this indicated what current changes were impacting them and their clients most. Applying whilst still at university was also helpful because I could utilise my commercially relevant modules, the day to day teaching I received allowed me to stay up to date with changes in the law.

Ellis: I read the headlines each morning to get a gist of what was happening in the world. This would give me a basic idea of any breaking events that were ongoing. When I could find the time, I would look to read further about specific issues which interested me or where I wanted to find out more information. It is always worth having the thought process of how this might impact businesses (as a law firm is also a business at heart) but also the impact it might have on your potential seats. For example, as a Transactional Real Estate trainee, there is currently a particular interest over the Government’s plan to build £1.5m new homes.

How did you make yourself aware of the sort of work the firm was undertaking?

Luke: The first steps is to look at the firm’s website, as well as legal publications and the rankings for each team. It is also useful to look at which awards the firm is up for and what they have previously won. This will indicate which teams are strong in the firm. There is no expectation to know everything, you just need to demonstrate that you are passionate about the type of work the firm specifically undertakes.

Ella: The firm’s website and recently published articles were a great starting position. Michelmores often acted on the other side when I was working at my previous firm, so this was a great opportunity to gain a strong insight to the type of work they were doing. I was also lucky to have some friends at the firm who I could speak to ahead of any assessments.

Ellis: I was somewhat fortunate in this respect as I was a paralegal at the firm for three years prior to commencing my training contract. This gave me a hands-on insight into the work within the Real Estate team and arguably I was in the best position to find out about the firm’s other initiatives. I think that the publications on firm’s website is a great place to start as we are regularly posting about recent matters and the website itself provides a variety of information about the work Michelmores does.

What research did you carry out to know Michelmores was the right firm for you?

Luke: I knew that I wanted to train at a full service law firm as this would give me an opportunity to experience a variety of areas. Michelmores also struck a good balance between work and social life which was another important factor for me when applying to firms. Websites such as Legal Cheek and Chambers Student are useful before any assessments. It was during in the assessment period that I really realised Michelmores was the right firm for me.

Ella: Michelmores did a lot of marketing at my university (University of Exeter). They always made you feel very comfortable and even partners would make the effort to attend open days and interact with perspective trainees. It was a very relaxed atmosphere during the assessment centre, it felt more like a chat instead of an assessment. I was also looking to train at a mid-sized full service firm with a strong private client sector and I wanted to stay in South West; Michelmores fit these criteria.

Ellis: I was fortunate to be able to work at the firm as a paralegal which confirmed my choice. I appreciate that not everyone will be able to work at the firm before they decide to apply so the next best option is the vacation scheme if you can. This allows you to spend a week within the firm whilst doing your assessments which gives you the perfect opportunity to experience the culture of the firm and speak to people here and understand what they value most about working for Michelmores. On a general note, you need to ask yourself what you want from a law firm; is it a specialism in a specific area? Is it location? Or is it ambition? For me, I was looking for a progressive and ambitious firm with national quality work, but with a southwest location.

How did you make yourself stand out throughout the assessment process?

Luke: I utilised my paralegal experience, this included engaging with clients and counsel directly. Even if you don’t have legal work experience, working in a team or in an office shows you have the skills to engage and be competent. Any previous work that evidences these skills will be very useful. Try to be your authentic self, talk about your interests, try and engage naturally with people and be confident but not cocky.

Ella: I focused on being polite, friendly and tried to come across relaxed. Sometimes it’s helpful to imagine you’ve already got the job and the assessments are just a formality, this will bring out your true personality.

Ellis: I would say that you need to play to your strengths and use your unique experience to your advantage. This allows you to be authentic and genuine with your responses and I believe that this goes a long way, as opposed to trying to be someone that you are not. Everyone has different experiences whether legal or not that they will be able to use to demonstrate the skills required. Don’t be afraid to use your own experience as I am sure there are numerous skills that you can evidence.

What is your #1 top tip for the assessment process?

Luke: Show a genuine engagement with everything you do and that you have a passion to build your knowledge. Going a little bit under the surface to show that level of engagement really stands out.

Ella: Be yourself because if you haven’t been yourself and you get offered a place, it probably won’t be the best place for you. They are assessing how well you will do at this specific firm. It’s not luck that you got the job, it’s luck that you found the right firm.

Ellis: It is a cliché but it leads on from my answer to the last question – be yourself. I personally believe that the best applications come from a place of authenticity.

You don’t need to be wearing a hard hat to know that the construction sector is dealing with more curveballs than ever. Between legal and regulatory changes, new governmental policies and the unstable global economic climate, it has been a bit of a rollercoaster. Recent headlines suggested that the UK was the fastest growing G7 economy in Q1 of 2025, but when you delve into the detail you will see that construction output hasn’t grown at all.  In this article, we explore some of the trends that we have seen more recently affecting our clients, the challenges arising from those trends and what we can do to help.

Uncertainty around Building Safety Levy

Expected to be introduced from Autumn 2026, the Building Safety Levy confers the government the ability to impose a levy on all new residential developments, with some exceptions for internal refurbishments, smaller developments and community facilities.

The levy will be calculated using the internal area of floorspace within developments, with the rates per square metre to be determined by each local authority, accounting for the geographical variation in house prices. Over the next 10 years, the government has set a revenue target for the levy of £3.4 billion in order to fund the remediation of safety defects, a key tenet of the government’s housing commitments.

Importantly, the levy will apply to all developers, regardless of whether the developer had responsibility for historic building safety failures; additionally, the levy will be chargeable on top of  the residential property developer tax. With the government acknowledging in its recent Consultation Response that ‘the levy may have a small impact on housing supply’, it is clear that the levy will impose a financial burden on developers and potentially limit development opportunities, particularly in geographical areas where the levy is considered too costly.

Further, the introduction of the levy coincides with the government’s ambitious targets to deliver 1.5 million more homes by 2029. It is therefore unclear how the tension between the government’s housebuilding targets and the introduction of the building safety levy will pan out; developers will have more answers when the levy regulations reach Parliament later this year. Michelmores will observe any new developments and issue guidance where necessary when further changes are published.

Handback issues on PFI schemes

As of March 2025, there were 540 legacy Private Finance Initiative (PFI) infrastructure projects in England with original asset values of £42bn (estimated to be £105bn in current terms). It is anticipated that there will be a total of around £123 billion unitary charge payments to be made before all projects reach expiry, with a peak number of 61 projects expiring in 2036.

On 1 April 2025, a new National Infrastructure and Service Transformation Authority (NISTA) was formed by the government when it brought together the functions of the National Infrastructure Commission and the Infrastructure and Projects Authority (IPA).  NISTA will oversee the underlying strategy of public-private infrastructure development – central to the government’s 10-year infrastructure plan.

A vast number of project companies are still holding an asset which they must ‘hand back’ to the public authority; in many cases, sooner rather than later, with the majority of contracts expected to expire in the next 15 years. It may be the case that the relevant Project Agreement is left in a drawer and not picked up again until handback is imminent, thus leaving insufficient time to consider the condition of the assets and carry out any necessary work to bring them up to the required contractual standard prior to commencement of the formal handback mechanics at the end of the concession period, and potentially resulting in a right for the public authority to make significant retentions from the project company’s income stream.

The IPA issued its Asset Condition Playbook in March 2025, just weeks before its merger with the National Infrastructure Commission to form NISTA.  The Asset Condition Playbook is intended to provide a practical guide for carrying out asset condition surveys in preparation for contract expiry, against the backdrop of the handback obligations in the underlying project agreement. We have seen a significant increase in the use of consultants acting for public authorities in relation to asset condition surveys, both throughout the term of the project agreement and in preparation for handback.

It will be important for project companies and facilities management contractors to work with the relevant public authority to ensure that appropriate asset condition surveys are carried out in good time to establish the extent of any defects or maintenance issues, allowing sufficient time to rectify them in advance of handback. The Asset Condition Playbook recommends that asset condition surveys are carried out as early as possible but in any event not later than five years prior to expiry of the project agreement, with preparation for the survey commencing two years before that. This is significantly in advance of the timescales contained in most project agreements, many of which require a final asset survey to be carried out just one or two years prior to expiry but the intention is that early involvement of all parties should make the handback process less risky and facilitate a smoother handover of the assets and associated services.

Project companies should also undertake an early audit of project documentation to establish the extent to which there may be gaps in any documentation and information that the public sector will expect to receive to enable it to operate the assets following expiry of the project agreement might be, allowing adequate time to remedy any documents that are missing or incomplete.

If any dispute arises from the project or if there are question marks surrounding termination, Michelmores can provide advice from an early stage up until handback. We are able to work closely with our nationally recognised Projects & Infrastructure team to consider the state of the asset prior to handback, including reviewing the contractual documents and, as far as possible, determining the objective criteria to be applied. We can also assist with the appointment of surveyors and other construction consultants, both in circumstances where there is a mutually agreed joint appointment between the public authority and project company (as envisaged by the Asset Condition Playbook and the handover provisions in many project agreements), or where it may be beneficial for appointments to be made through solicitors, which in turn may allow the resulting reports to be protected by privilege and as a result not be disclosable in future litigation.

Insolvency and the Procurement Act 2023

It is no secret that the rate of insolvency in the construction industry is especially high. Delays in supply chains, a shortage in labour and increasing material costs are only propounded by the general instability of the political-economic climate, resulting in many contractors facing cash flow issues in an already highly competitive sector.

One of the reasons for the introduction of the Procurement Act 2023 is to alleviate some of these problems. Commencing towards the end of February 2025, the Act simplifies the tendering procedures by streamlining the mechanisms involved and confers flexibility on contracting authorities to design their own procedures for the contract being procured. It also widens the transparency obligations of contracting authorities; in turn, this aims to widen the scope of procurement, allowing smaller contractors to tender for more contracts.

It doesn’t stop there; the Act implies into all public contracts (with some exclusions) a term providing that a sum due by the authority must be paid within 30 days from the day the authority is invoiced. It all rather sounds promising, and we hope that these legislative changes help address cash flow and supply chain issues in the Construction industry.

Whilst we hope that the Act is successful in relieving cash flow concerns and lowering insolvency rates, there are other protections that can be sought by parties to help mitigate insolvency risk. Whether you need a hand with drafting collateral warranties, retention bonds, procurement of vesting certificates or general advice in taking protective measures, Michelmores can help.

Modern Methods of Construction

Despite being the poster boys for the government’s housebuilding targets, MMC contractors are facing insolvency at an alarming rate. Findings from a House of Lords Built Environment Committee report suggests that MMC contractors are struggling to actually demonstrate cost savings, one of the cornerstones of the MMC deliverables. In fact, one housing association reported that MMC estimates could be 30-50 percent higher than traditional construction methods.

This has led to a struggle for some MMC contractors generating and securing work streams, with some developers and Registered Providers hesitant to engage with them until they have a visible pipeline of work and have begun to turn a profit. Naturally, the concern is insolvency before any contract between consumer and MMC builder is fulfilled.

Off-site IP issues do not help MMC contractors, nor does the risk averse nature of insurers and lenders – we are seeing insurers restricting the uptake of residential properties for MMC’s due to issues in quality from modular homes being noticed several years later. Whilst the quality problems may relate to older designs and MMC contractor may have made improvements since, until insurers’ concerns are allayed, this will be a live issue in this sector.

If you are an MMC contractor, navigating these issues is no mean feat. Lining up the legals early is key; Michelmores acts for several MMCs across different sectors and we are able to provide creative and customised solutions to the challenges you are facing, depending on your objectives.

Conclusion

The Construction industry is undoubtedly navigating something of a rough patch, but we hope that some of the regulatory and legal changes can help ease some of the symptoms that many are currently facing. The future? Still very much under construction – time will tell how well the sector will stand up against the government’s targets and policies. In the meantime, please do not hesitate to get in touch with a member of our team if you need any Construction related advice.