Digital working has arrived

Over the last few years there have been severe reductions in the numbers of staff at courts, operating behind the scenes. One of the functions of court staff is to create the documentation needed in the issue of legal proceedings and to follow through and record the process to a final court order when everything is completed. So as to try to improve efficiency, a programme of digitising the processes has been implemented and this will gradually extend to all family and civil proceedings. This process has now reached proceedings in the Family Court: from a modest beginning, the system will be extended to cover most areas of legal processes.

Divorce applications (formerly petitions)

One of the first areas to be affected by the new process is the issue of divorce applications (previously called “petitions”). It needs to be emphasised that the grounds on which it is possible to obtain a divorce have not changed but the procedure to do so has.

It is now compulsory for all divorce applications to be issued on-line. There is a standard form for such applications which can be downloaded from the website of the Court Service. That form has to be completed with all the relevant information for the case being started.

Much of the information is what is required by the law so that, for example, the court can be satisfied that it has the jurisdiction (i.e. power) to deal with the case. This is likely to be important if one (or even both) of the parties lives abroad.

Traps for the unwary

Whilst the new system will not create any particular difficulties for solicitors who are aware of the legal requirements, parties who decide to try to represent themselves without a lawyer may very well find that there are potential problems.

The following are merely some of the “traps” that must be avoided:

• The date and place of marriage must follow the precise form of words used on the marriage certificate. A scanned copy of the marriage certificate must accompany the divorce application.
• Details must be included of all “children of the family”. This does not only include the children of the parties to the divorce but to any children of either of them from previous relationships who have been treated as though they were the children of the parties who are now divorcing
• All divorces are now based on the breakdown of the marriage. That breakdown is established by stating in the divorce application which of the five “facts” is relied on. No other grounds can be raised. Brief details of those facts must be given with precise dates where required.
• If the “fact” relied upon is the alleged adultery of the party receiving the application, then a decision will have to be made by the person issuing the application whether or not to name the person with whom the alleged adultery is said to have occurred. This is an important matter because if the third party is named that he/she will have to be served with a copy of the divorce application. Whilst it is understandable that the person issuing the application may well feel aggrieved and that the third party should be named, that is not necessarily the most sensible or practical course to adopt, not least because it might extend the proceedings and make them more expensive.
• The temptation will be to answer “no” on the divorce application to the question about the likelihood of further applications e.g. relating to finance. The reality is that the party issuing the application may need to ask the court to approve a financial settlement, even one agreed between the parties. The reason for that step is that, in practice, parties to divorce proceedings can only be certain that they will not receive unexpected applications relating to finance, possibly many years later, if the court has formally approved an agreement. To get that approval, one of the parties had to issue an application to the court and the person who raises the divorce application cannot do so (at least without the permission of the court) unless the question has been answered “yes”.

Conclusion

In many ways the arrival of the digital age in the implementation of divorce proceedings is a positive step forward. As will be apparent, however, there are dangers that a wrong step could lead at the very least to delays and possible extra expense, but possibly also to the forfeiture of some important legal rights.

One of the concerns of advice groups is that there will be people who are not familiar with computerised systems. For example, in family law, it is increasingly common for those in their later years to be divorced. Such people often do not have computer skills or even equipment. If they cannot obtain help from friends or relatives, they will have no alternative but to take legal advice.

Our recommendation is that legal advice should be taken if divorce is contemplated. This will make it less likely that critical errors are not made in completing the process.

For more information or some preliminary confidential advice please contact Pippa Allsop, Associate in our Family Team, on +44 (0)1392 687747 or email pippa.allsop@michelmores.com

Fracking is frequently seen as a potential solution to safeguarding the UK’s energy supply. However, fracking proposals are always surrounded by controversy and their impact on the locality, especially from an environmental perspective, generates intense debate, motivated by strong views on all sides.

Fracking is the technique used to release and exploit natural gas trapped in shale rock. The process involves drilling into the earth and injecting a high-pressured mixture of water, sand and chemicals to release the gas trapped in the shale rock. The term ‘fracking’ refers to how the shale rock is fractured apart by the high pressure mixture. It has been widely regarded as having transformed the energy market in the US.

In contrast, the fracking industry in the UK remains in its infancy. However, a survey by the British Geological Survey estimated that the total volume of gas in the Bowland Basin shale (covering large swathes of Northern England, the Midlands and parts of North Wales) alone is some 1300 trillion cubic feet. This equates to around 500 years of gas supply for the UK. Shale rock is also prevalent in other areas of the UK, such as South East England and Scotland.

In this update, we examine where we are now in relation to fracking, in the wake of a number of High Court cases, and the further uncertainty instigated by the triggering of Article 50 and compounded by the fallout from the General Election in June 2017.

What is happening on the political landscape?

The Conservative manifesto for the recent General Election maintained their antecedent position to support the advent of fracking as a means of improving UK energy security and stimulating the economy. It pledged to seize opportunities presented by new technology and hailed the discovery and extraction of shale gas as a ‘revolution’ which could help reduce carbon emissions, reduce reliance on energy imports, lower prices for consumers and play a crucial role in rebalancing the UK’s economy.

The manifesto made a number of promises, including legislation to change planning law for shale applications to ensure that non-fracking drilling will be treated as permitted development. It envisaged that major shale planning decisions would be made the responsibility of the National Planning Regime. It also proposed to set up a new Shale Environmental Regulator and make amendments to the previously proposed Shale Wealth Fund, to ensure a greater percentage of the tax revenues from shale gas directly benefit the communities that host the fracking operations.

However, the other mainstream political parties (as well as the DUP and the Green Party) do not share this vision. Labour and the Liberal Democrats both oppose fracking, and in 2015 the SNP implemented a moratorium on fracking in Scotland, while a comprehensive consultation process was carried out (a decision was previously expected in the second half of 2017 on the future of fracking in Scotland). There are also significant obstacles to fracking in Wales and Northern Ireland.

Consequently, for now, given the Election result, it remains likely that there will be continued opposition to any further legislative changes in respect of fracking for the foreseeable future. Indeed, the issue of fracking remained conspicuous by its absence from the Queen’s Speech. Of course, the legislative agenda for the next 18 months is also likely to be dominated by the UK potentially leaving the EU.

Recent case law update

As discussed in the 2016 Winter Edition of Agricultural Lore, there is already a fairly extensive regulatory framework, that governs fracking and has seen it emerge as a prospective energy source for the UK. The emergence of fracking has led to a number of cases where proposed fracking operations have been scrutinised by a Court. We analyse the impact of two recent decisions below.

R (Friends of the Earth Ltd) v North Yorkshire County Council

The case of R (Friends of the Earth Ltd) v North Yorkshire County Council [2016] EWHC 3303 (Admin) provides useful guidance on the extent of a local council’s duties and the Court’s approach to fracking decisions made by local councils.

In May 2016, North Yorkshire County Council granted planning permission for fracking by Third Energy at a site at Kirby Misperton in Ryedale. Following that decision, on 8 July 2016, an environmental campaign organisation, Friends of the Earth and an unincorporated association comprising of local residents, Frack Free Ryedale, applied to the High Court for a judicial review of the planning permission.

In short, the High Court held that the Local Council had properly considered the effect on climate change when considering the environmental impacts of the proposed fracking. It also found that the Local Council had acted lawfully in exercising its discretion in imposing restoration and aftercare conditions, and deciding not to seek a financial guarantee from the fracking operator.

The Court reiterated the planning guidance that a financial guarantee to cover restoration and aftercare costs will normally only be justified in exceptional cases. On the facts, the Court held that the terms of the various planning conditions afforded a considerable degree of protection to residents and that the conditions extended beyond mere restoration to a programme of aftercare, in accordance with the planning guidance. Accordingly, it was not an exceptional case. The Court therefore dismissed the judicial review application.

The general consensus is that landowners should not be held responsible for environmental issues derived from fracking operations on their land. The responsibilities regarding restoration and aftercare of the land should lie with the fracking operator and should be thoroughly addressed in the planning process. Provided that planning authorities adequately consider and secure the restoration and aftercare of a site, through the implementation of appropriate planning conditions, and where necessary, planning obligations, then there is no requirement for a financial guarantee to be provided by the fracking operator. Planning conditions should be written in such a way that, even if the interest of the organisation applying for planning permission was subsequently disposed of, the restoration would still be fulfilled, either by a new operator or by default, the landowner.

Further, in upholding the right of the Local Council to exercise its discretion, the case also indicates that the Courts are concerned only with the legality of the planning authority’s decision; not the merits of the planning permission itself. The Court’s role is to review the way a planning authority reaches its decision, rather than to pass judgment on the planning issues themselves, unless it can be argued that a decision is so unreasonable as to be irrational or perverse. This is a difficult argument to win in Court, as the threshold for irrationality is very high.

R (Preston New Road Action Group) v Secretary of State

More recently, in April 2017, the High Court in R (Preston New Road Action Group) v Secretary of State [2017] EWHC 808 (Admin) dismissed a challenge against a decision in October 2016 by the then Communities and Local Government Secretary, Sajid Javid, granting Cuadrilla planning permission for fracking test drilling in Lancashire.

The decision by the Secretary of State overturned the earlier decisions of Lancashire County Council to refuse planning permission for exploratory developments on a number of sites near Blackpool. The Secretary of State overturned the Local Council’s decisions on the grounds that the Council was wrong to refuse the application due to the visual impact and noise concerns.

A community group, Preston New Road Action Group and a professional clown and campaigner, the ironically named Gayzer Frackman, had applied to the High Court for statutory review of the Secretary of State’s decision under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (a similar procedure to judicial review).

The Claimants based the application on the Secretary of State’s decision being unfair and unlawful, and argued that the decision was fundamentally flawed in its misapplication of planning laws and policy. They also claimed that the Secretary of State did not properly consider the disproportionate effect that fracking on the proposed sites would have on community residents. In addition, the Claimants argued that the plans had not properly considered climate change from the extracted gas being burned. The Court dismissed the applications and refused to grant permission for statutory review on the basis that none of the Claimants’ grounds to be argued were made out in substance.

Unlike the Friends of the Earth decision, the decision of the High Court has been appealed. Lord Justice Jackson has now granted Preston New Road Action Group permission to appeal the High Court’s earlier decision to the Court of Appeal.

The appeal is based on four grounds, namely that the Secretary of State and the Planning Inspector made errors of law by:

• misinterpreting a policy protecting against harm to the landscape
• wrongly applying the National Planning Policy Framework
• denying a fair hearing during the planning inquiry
• using a wildly different test for assessing the impact on the quality of life of those living nearby

A date for the hearing has been set for August. Cuadrilla has confirmed that it will be continuing with operational work at the site. This will include the drilling of two horizontal exploration wells, although the hydraulic fracturing of those wells will not commence before the ruling of the Court of Appeal. Should the appeal fail, the way would be cleared for Cuadrilla to commence the UK’s first horizontal fracking project.

Conclusion

The two cases set a precedent that fracking applications are likely to be approved, as long as environmental concerns are adequately addressed in the planning process. In essence, a local council is responsible, through the planning process, to ensure that environmental concerns, including restoration of the land and impact on climate change, are adequately addressed through the provision of planning conditions, and, if necessary, planning obligations. Both decisions are also a useful reminder of the difficulties of challenging the interpretation of planning policies.

Despite the political hurdles that further fracking legislation faces, it is evident that the current regulatory framework is sufficient to enable the industry to grow. The fracking industry has the Government’s support in moving towards the commercial production of shale gas, but it is likely that, as the industry develops, more challenges, such as those discussed above, will arise.

The growth of fracking operations is likely to affect farmers and other rural landowners in areas of the country where shale rock is prevalent. Where planning permission has been granted for fracking operations to be undertaken, then it would be prudent for both the fracking operator and the landowner to put in place an agreement between themselves that clearly defines their respective obligations; including access, restoration and aftercare, and payment. In particular, landowners should protect themselves against the possibility of becoming liable for restoration works under planning conditions, in the event that the fracking operator is no longer solvent.

A further consideration for agents, landowners and fracking operators, is the adverse impact of protest camps on the land, the local community or the fracking operation, such as the one at Kirby Misperton in Ryedale and Preston New Road in Lancashire. This is particularly a concern for fracking operators, whose ability to raise finance may be harmed by the activities of protest groups.

For more information please contact Ben Sharples on ben.sharples@michelmores.com or 0117 906 9303.

PropTech (short for property technology) aims to utilise technology to allow property service providers to offer more refined and efficient solutions and services. The drivers behind the PropTech movement are accessibility, mobility, flexibility and speed.

PropTech isn’t restricted to one area of Real Estate or one service provider. Any property service provider from live-in landlords to lawyers can benefit from PropTech. For example, landlords can use technology to better market their property, organise viewings and apportion bills; lawyers can use PropTech to assist with data reviews and document production to increase consistency and decrease transaction times.

How is PropTech being used in different areas of Real Estate?

Residential

Residential sales and lettings have been quicker on the uptake of PropTech, probably because of the high level of consumer interaction. Veteran property sites such as Rightmove and Zoopla are widely used and have transformed the way we now search for new homes. Online agents, Purplebricks, spotted a gap in the market and have seen a significant increase in popularity by offering a fixed fee online platform for marketing and selling houses.

Unsurprisingly, given the upheaval and stress involved in buying a house, investors have started backing apps and online providers that make the process simpler. Nested is a start-up that offers sellers a cash deal on their house and then takes over the selling process. If the property remains unsold for 90 days, Nested will lend the seller the money it offered initially (interest free) to enable them to buy a house. Another residential property app, View My Chain, offers buyers, sellers and property professionals the ability to track the key ‘milestones’ in their property transaction. Not only does this provide transparency, View My Chain claim the app leads to lower fall through rates and faster completions.

With it becoming increasingly difficult to get on the property ladder, the residential lettings market is strong. Movebubble is an app that allows users to view property listings in real time so as to avoid seeing properties that have already been rented. It remembers user-preferences to produce better suited results and allows bookings and offers to be made via the app. For those in house shares, Split the Bills will set up your utilities services, split the bills equally between all flatmates, take payment directly from each, and set up one monthly payment for the bills.

Commercial

JLL recently announced that they do not see PropTech as a threat, but as an ‘opportunity to transform their business’. Indeed, many property professionals may soon see their roles change and will have to find new ways to add value to their clients. This is particularly true of transactional professionals, where processes are likely to become standardised and so selling experience will become more valuable.

The trend in Commercial Property, a less consumer facing area of Real Estate, seems to have been to invest in larger, more disruptive technologies. That being said, software that helps commercial landlords and agents manage buildings is proving popular. Liberate Case Management Software has been developed to help automate certain procedures, compile reports on key lease terms, and pre-populate key property documents. Michelmores have invested in this software to add value to our clients, who have live access to a user-friendly platform hosting their data, allowing them to review the report and identify trends and risks. Pooling data in this way allows commercial landlords to manipulate and analyse data in line with its needs. For lawyers, it results in increased accuracy and consistency when drafting documents and has the potential to reduce transaction times.

Smart buildings are a more radical form of PropTech. Smart buildings use sensors and devices to collect data relating to a building’s operation (such as heating, lighting, water usage etc.). This data help owners and investors increase energy efficiency and maximise returns. In the corporate occupier sector this could mean anything from recognising lighting and heating preferences for certain tenants, to assessing how often each desk space is used. In the retail sphere, footfall and consumer behaviour data could help clients plan more effectively in relation to advertising and the use of space.

Development

Drones could become more readily available in construction and development. They could map development sites, record the condition and layout of a site and identify any potential problem areas. For large projects, the mapping and land surveying capability could save time and costs, which can be particularly helpful at site planning stages. In America, Skycatch uses drones to undertake surveys and create 3D models of the construction site, producing interactive maps usable by the professionals working on the project as well as the client. This helps iron out issues earlier, which, given the frequency of projects that run over in terms of time and costs, is said to increase the likelihood of projects being delivered on time and within budget.

The popularity of Virtual Reality will continue to grow as a marketing tool. Given the time and cost saving elements linked to the products mobility, it may be particularly appealing for developers who wish to attract foreign investment. It also allows prospective purchasers/ tenants/ investors a more accurate view of a property that does not yet exist and gives them the ability to identify any modifications or changes that may be needed or desired.

Although the Real Estate sector has been slower to invest in technology than other sectors (such as financial services), PropTech is now starting to take off. Given the increase in investment, property professionals will need to start adapting to ensure they are making the most out of the technology available to better service their clients.

For further information please contact Stephen Newson, Partner in our Real Estate Team.

The new Pre Action Protocol for Debt Claims (PAPDC) is due to come into force on 1 October 2017 and will impact how businesses recover their debts, potentially making it a much more lengthy process. The PAPDC has been developed for use in dealing with volume debt in order to address a perceived imbalance in rising consumer debt. It has been designed so as not to apply to business to business debt.

However, there will be a significant impact on businesses who deal with individuals and to those who contract with sole traders. If your business deals with one of the circa 3.3m sole traders in the UK, you will need to consider the impact that the PAPDC may have on your credit control systems and debt recovery processes.

The changes mean it will be more costly and take more time for creditors to take action against those debtors who ‘won’t pay’ without the threat of court action.

The main changes are:

• the Letter Before Action must include enclosures and additional documents in a specific format
• there is greater risk that debtors could take advantage of the new protocol’s procedures to cause additional cost to the creditor and delay payment by up to 90 days
• the onus will be on Creditors to ensure that debtors have provided all relevant financial information
• creditors will need to give reasons why a repayment plan offered by way of instalments is not acceptable if not agreed
• creditors will need to manage any debt recovery system more closely to ensure the relevant deadlines are met, and that information about how the debt arose is given where required by the PAPDC
• there will be additional costs to a business for:
  • dealing with collating and providing information when requested to do so by the debtor
  • engaging with a small claims mediation service where requested
  • ensuring the debtor has been allowed ‘reasonable’ additional time in order to take independent legal advice.

These additional steps will incur a business cost and could mean that it is more commercially viable to write off a debt than to recover it, especially where there is no likelihood of recovery even after the claim is successful in the small claims court.

Failure to comply

Failure to comply could mean that if you do issue a pre-emptive claim, then proceedings could be stayed until the defects in the PAPDC are rectified; in addition any costs awarded could be limited at the discretion of the judge who may also reduce the amount of any pre-judgment interest recoverable.

How we can help

We have produced a guide to the new PAPDC, outlining the impact this may have on your credit control and debt recovery procedures, as well as providing a checklist of how you can effectively manage the transition to the new system.

Our experienced team would be happy to help with any queries which you may have and would be happy to discuss how we can help you avoid potential pitfalls and support you work towards the change-over to this new system.

Download a copy of our PAPDC guide here

Michelmores is welcoming local charities, based within Devon, to apply to become the Firm’s Exeter office charity partner for 2018.

The Firm will organise various fundraising activities for the chosen charity throughout the year, including the Firm’s largest fundraising event, the Michelmores 5k Charity Run, which in 2016 raised over £26,000 for Exeter-based charity Balloons.

The Firm particularly welcomes charities to apply who are able to support teams of up to 20 staff to volunteer for them on a ‘CSR day’, given to all Michelmores staff.

Michelmores’ Exeter office currently supports Balloons, a charity that provides crucial pre and post bereavement support to children and young people who have lost someone significant in their lives, in Exeter and the surrounding areas.

Applications will be shortlisted by the Firm’s Charity of the Year Committee, with the final shortlist going to a staff vote. The closing date for entries is 29 September 2017.

David Thompson, Partner and Chair of the Charity of the Year Committee commented:

“It has been fantastic to support the wonderful work that Balloons continue to offer to children and young people in the local area.

“We are excited to have the opportunity to offer this support to a new, local charity – and are looking forward to receiving the applications!”

Download your application form

Chinese investment in renewable energy technology continues to run far in excess of other nations. R&D spending alone in 2016 is estimated at $1.9bn, and solar PV deployment is set to exceed 100GW by 2018. By comparison, as of January 2017, deployment in the UK stood at 12.3GW.

China’s ambition to be the dominant force in renewable power is well demonstrated by their latest achievement, a 40MW floating solar PV array in Huainan, in the Anhui province. Floating PV arrays have a variety of advantages including the cooling effects of the water under panels increasing efficiency, reduction in evaporation of water supplies and reducing the use of land which can instead be used for agriculture. Previously, the largest floating solar PV array in the world was a 6.3MW array in the UK.

This is not the first record solar installation in China – the country currently has the largest and second largest PV sites in the world: the 1.5GW ‘Tengger Desert Solar Park’ and the 1GW ‘Datong Solar Power Top Runner Base’ (which is due to expand in two more phases of development to 3GW). Also noteworthy is the Datong Panda Power Plant – a 250 acre site shaped like a panda – which has been designed to help raise awareness and interest in renewable energy amongst China’s youth.

China is particularly challenged by pollution from fossil fuel consumption, as well as increasing demands for energy. Ambitious renewable energy deployment plans stretching to 2020 and beyond, coupled with decommissioning of coal stations are a good start to turning the country’s relationship with fossil fuels around.

Commitment by the Chinese government to this course of action is welcome in the global fight against climate change, and much needed at a time when the USA has taken a step away from international climate change agreements – although, as the US has pointed out, even on current plans China is expecting to continue to increase greenhouse gas emissions until 2030.

Perhaps the developments being made in China will assist the development and deployment of green technologies here in the UK. Whilst the scale of a 1GW+ PV site may not be replicable on the British Isles, a 250 acre PV Friesian might inspire the next generation to push forward to a fossil-free future.

Since July last year, when Ofgem published an open letter on the topic, there has been an increasing likelihood that ‘smaller’ (sub-100MW) embedded generators would see a reduction in the level of embedded benefits they receive from electricity suppliers, in particular for helping them to avoid or reduce the costs of using the transmission network at peak times. The times of high demand in winter, known as the TRIADs, are particularly relevant in this respect. Ultimately, this imposes an additional burden on consumers. Because of changes in the profile of generation, including the growth of renewable energy, the costs for consumers have been rising. Ofgem estimates that the current arrangements would result in a shift of costs from embedded generators to consumers of £650m by 2020/2021. ‘Non-intermittent’ generators, such as gas, diesel, CHP, AD and hydro are likely to be the most affected, although the impact will vary, depending on the individual deals between the generators and the licensed electricity suppliers who receive power from these sources.

On 20 June 2017, Ofgem announced (in outline) its decision to adopt a proposal to address this issue. At this point, further acronyms become unavoidable. The preferred proposal is known as ‘WACM 4’. Through a collaborative process with the industry, 25 proposals were explored for modification of the rules governing the use of the transmission system, known as the ‘Connection and Use of System Code’ or CUSC. 23 of the possible approaches were known as ‘Workgroup Alternative CUSC Modification proposals’ (WACM). The key concern of Ofgem was that the payments received by embedded generators referred to in the consultation as ‘the Transmission Network Use of System (TNUoS) Demand Residual or ‘TDR’ were too high. This, they say, has resulted in a distortion of the sharing of the burden of the costs of the transmission network, to the point where the whole of the electricity market is or might be affected.

In essence, WACM 4 will result in the reduction of TDR, so that it is at the same level as avoided Grid Supply Point (GSP) costs. A GSP is the place where the transmission and distribution networks meet. Ofgem acknowledge that the use of embedded generation can reduce the need to reinforce the GSPs and, therefore, their decision is that the benefit which flows through to embedded generators in future should reflect that reduction in cost.

There is a lack of consensus over the impact of this change but, in broad terms, triad avoidance payments to generators seem likely to drop to around 10% of current levels by 2021 (and, perhaps, to only 5% of the levels of payment which would have prevailed by 2021, if no changes were made to the CUSC).  Figures suggesting overall impacts on the total revenues of renewables generators of between 5% and 12% are being quoted by those affected. On the other side of the coin, Ofgem suggest that the change will save £20 per household per year.

Ofgem appear to have decided against any ‘grandfathering’ of existing generators, so all projects will be subject to the new approach, although this is to be phased in from 2018 to 2020. There is further information yet to come from Ofgem, as well as a wider-ranging review of the costs of the transmission network which is still ongoing.

Ofgem were due to announce their decision back in May, but the election intervened. There are other ‘stalled’ announcements affecting the energy sector which are likely to emerge in the next few weeks from BEIS / Ofgem. Watch this space!

UPDATE:

On 6 October, 2017, the following update appeared on Ofgem’s website:

“Ofgem has been served with a claim for judicial review concerning its decision to approve WACM4 of CUSC modifications CMP264 and CMP265. This decision stands unless quashed by the court. We are defending the claim. National Grid Electricity Transmission plc has been named by the claimants as an interested party to the proceedings.”

Press reports indicate that the claim is backed by a number of generators who have bid for contracts in recent capacity market auctions, who are concerned about the impact on their projected revenue streams.

For further information, please contact Ian Holyoak at ian.holyoak@michelmores.com

The winners of the 15^th annual Michelmores Property Awards have been revealed, celebrating outstanding property and construction projects in Devon, Somerset, Bristol, Dorset and Cornwall, across ten categories.

Congratulations to the Cornwall Energy Recovery Centre (CERC), St Dennis – winner of Sustainable Project of the Year, sponsored by Midas

The CERC, a project managed by Cornwall Energy Recovery, is central to an integrated waste management strategy for Cornwall. It uses innovative methods to reduce and reuse waste, developing facilities to allow for more recycling, composting and energy recovery to take place. The CERC plays an important role in reducing Cornwall’s carbon footprint by recovering energy, both heat and electricity, from the waste left over after recycling and composting, and reducing the reliance on landfill sites.

The winners were announced at an Awards Dinner on Thursday 15 June at the University of Exeter, hosted by comedian and actor Marcus Brigstocke.

View the full list of winning projects

The winners of the 15^th annual Michelmores Property Awards have been revealed, celebrating outstanding property and construction projects in Devon, Somerset, Bristol, Dorset and Cornwall, across ten categories.

Congratulations to Seaton Jurassic, Seaton – winner of Leisure & Hospitality Project of the Year, sponsored by The Samphire Club

Seaton Jurassic, a project submitted by East Devon District Council, is a multi-use, community-led visitor centre. It allows visitors to enjoy an inspirational and educational time-travelling voyage – bringing to life the evolution of the Jurassic Coast, England’s first Natural World Heritage Site. The centre comprises various internal exhibitions, including a specially adapted time-ship and a human-sized rockpool, as well as external wildlife gardens, where habitats representing the wetlands, the harbour, the beach and Seaton Hole can be discovered.

The winners were announced at an Awards Dinner on Thursday 15 June at the University of Exeter, hosted by comedian and actor Marcus Brigstocke.

View the full list of winning projects

The winners of the 15^th annual Michelmores Property Awards have been announced, celebrating outstanding property and construction projects in Devon, Somerset, Bristol, Dorset and Cornwall, across ten categories.

The University of Exeter’s Living Systems Institute was a double winner on the night – taking home the Awards’ most prestigious accolade, Building of the Year, as well as the award for Education Project of the Year. The Institute represents the single largest investment in the sciences by the University, providing state-of-the-art facilities for research into some of humanity’s most severe diseases.

Three Bristol-based projects were also triumphant, with The General, a mixed-use development at the former Bristol General Hospital being named Heritage Project of the Year. Wapping Wharf – Phase 1, on Bristol’s harbourside, won Residential Project of the Year 41 Units and Over.

Meanwhile, the refurbishment of Bristol’s Grade II* listed City Hall took home the award for Public Project of the Year. The remodelling of City Hall is central to Bristol City Council’s efficiency strategy and has generated savings in excess of £72m.

One Research Way, the gateway building to the Plymouth Science Park campus which opened in 1995, was awarded Commercial Project of the Year. The building provides flexible accommodation and facilities for science and technology businesses and was designed to foster collaboration, encouraging users to interact and share ideas.

In addition, the Seaton Jurassic visitor centre was named Leisure & Hospitality Project of the Year. The community-led centre brings to life the evolution of the Jurassic Coast, England’s first Natural World Heritage Site, through various specially adapted internal and external exhibitions.

The John Laurence Special Contribution Award, which spotlights outstanding property and construction professionals in the region, was awarded to Exeter-based Ralph Collison of Alder King for his significant contribution to the property landscape of the South West.

Other winning projects for 2017 include Cedar Court in Rockbeare, near Exeter, awarded Residential Project of the Year 40 Units and Under, alongside the Cornwall Energy Recovery Centre (CERC) in St Dennis, which was awarded Sustainable Project of the Year.

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

“Once again, the standard of entries we received for this year’s Property Awards was outstanding. From a complex heritage project in Bristol to highly energy efficient residential projects on Dartmoor, the range and breadth of projects has been fantastic and has demonstrated the excellence of the property and construction sector in our region. My congratulations go to all of our winners and to all those shortlisted.”

Now in their fifteenth year, the annual Awards, which are sponsored by accountancy, investment management and tax group Smith & Williamson, showcase and celebrate the best of the South West’s property and construction industry.

The winners were announced at an Awards Dinner on Thursday 15 June at the University of Exeter, hosted by comedian and actor Marcus Brigstocke.

The 2017 Michelmores Property Awards winning projects in full:

Commercial Project of the Year, sponsored by Smith and Williamson

• One Research Way, Plymouth Science Park, Plymouth – submitted by HLM Architects and BAM Construct UK

Public Project of the Year, sponsored by Ravenslade

• City Hall, Bristol – submitted by Alec French Architects

Education Project of the Year, sponsored by Atkins

• Living Systems Institute, University of Exeter, Exeter – submitted by BAM Construct UK

Leisure & Hospitality Project of the Year, sponsored by The Samphire Club 

• Seaton Jurassic, Seaton – submitted by East Devon District Council

Heritage Project of the Year, sponsored by Kier

• The General, Bristol – submitted by Hydrock

Sustainable Project of the Year, sponsored by Midas

• Cornwall Energy Recovery Centre, St Dennis – submitted by Cornwall Energy Recovery

Residential Project of the Year 41 Units and Over, sponsored by GVA

• Wapping Wharf – Phase 1, Bristol – submitted by Alec French Architects

Residential Project of the Year 40 Units and Under, sponsored by NatWest

• Cedar Court, Rockbeare, Exeter – submitted by Jameson Homes

The John Laurence Special Contribution Award, sponsored by Interserve

• Ralph Collison, Alder King

Building of the Year, sponsored by Girling Jones

• Living Systems Institute, University of Exeter, Exeter – submitted by BAM Construct UK

Click here to view the shortlist in full

Click here to view photos of the evening

Earlier this month, we saw the second instance of the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) issuing a £400,000 fine, this time on cold-calling firm Keurboom Communications (Keurboom). A previous fine at that level was issued against Talk Talk for security breaches.

Keurbroom breached privacy laws by calling people without their consent, often repeatedly and during unsocial hours. It had even made efforts to hide its identity so that it would be harder for anyone to complain. The ICO wanted to send a very clear message, but the fine is only a sign of potential greater enforcement actions to come.

The Keurbroom Director had been quoted as saying that while he didn’t enjoy receiving cold calls himself and personally found them annoying, it didn’t make them illegal. A few words of warning:

• Firstly, making automatic marketing calls without people’s consent is illegal. Of even greater significance is that company directors are shortly due to find themselves directly responsible and face personal liability, with each director being capable of a fine of up to £500,000 by the ICO. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport originally announced that the Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003 would be amended, to make all directors liable for nuisance call fines. In light of the up-coming election, we understand this change is now likely to take place in the autumn.
• Secondly, under the EU General Data Protection Regulation 2016 (GDPR), which comes in to force here in the UK on 25 May 2018, ICO fines for data protection breaches are set to increase further – potentially extending up to the greater of €20m or 4% of global annual turnover.
• The third (and final for the purposes of this article only!) words of warning are that the ePrivacy Regulation is weaving its way through the European institutions. It has the aim of ensuring even stronger privacy in electronic communications. The regulation will strengthen laws on processing communications content and breaches, which apply extra-territoriality, can also attract fines of up to 4% of worldwide annual turnover.

Ultimately, this fresh wave of new legislation emphasises the Europe-wide aims upholding privacy, security and information rights in the UK’s public interest. Companies and their directors need to be alert to the full extent of the powers that will shortly be extended to the ICO and ensure they are suitably prepared to remain on the right side of the law. Not to do so could be an expensive mistake.

For further insights on Data Protection, please contact Tom Torkar, Partner and head of Technology at tom.torkar@michelmores.com

Organisations with 250+ employees (where ’employees’ includes both casual and other workers/consultants providing personal service) are required to compute detailed gender pay comparison calculations, as at 5 April 2017, and later publicise their gender pay gap stats.

This may have been considered by many as a low priority, vis-à-vis more pressing matters such as managing the challenging exchange rates in overseas supply chains. However, the new Gender Pay Reporting Regulations carry hidden potential longer-term risks, and therefore should be more than a ‘tick box’ exercise.

Employers first need to decide when and how to publicise the calculations, and how they tackle the recommended ‘supporting statement’, to comment on any unhelpful gender pay gap the pay stats highlight. The longstop date for publication is 4 April 2018, and the information needs to be confirmed by an ‘appropriate person’ (eg the CEO) and published on both the Companies, and a Government, websites. Breach of this requirement risks being featured in the ‘name and shame’ tables which the Government are increasingly using to bring ‘rogue employers’ into line.

The main hidden risk is the accelerating demographic changes, with a shrinking talent pool, which will inevitably further-exacerbate the current skills shortages issues for manufacturers. As a result, prospective employees are likely to take greater notice of factors such as gender pay discrepancy, and also the employer’s attitude to such issues, as revealed in their ‘supporting statement’.

More positively, the required pay gap analysis, to produce that statement, provides a great opportunity to both address any unexplained gender pay discrepancies, and also then provide the best spin on the Companies values, and plans to address any unhelpful statistics which might otherwise affect recruitment/retention down the line. There is helpful online guidance from ACAS, on both the detail of the required, complex, number-crunching, but also on how best to analyse & address the results.

This is therefore a topic which should be high on the agenda of your HR team, with strategic input on how the Company wishes to position itself so that it is best-placed to fish for talent in the shrinking talent pool.