The Michelmores and Western Morning News Property Awards are the region’s premier property competition, showcasing the very best in West Country property projects, buildings and firms.

The John Laurence Award for Professional Firm of the Year is sponsored by Interserve Construction. The winners Poynton Bradbury Wynter Cole Architects were announced at a Gala Dinner at St Mellion International Resort on May 8th 2014

Watch what our judges had to say…

Shortlists 2014

Poynton Bradbury Wynter Cole (PBWC) Architects, St. Ives

Poynton Bradbury Wynter Cole Architects are a passionate team of 16 architectural design professionals based in St Ives, Cornwall. Their work is based in the South West, although the firm’s maritime experience extends to marina work in Europe and Lifeboat stations around the coast of the UK for the RNLI.

The majority of the firm’s projects range between £2m and £10m in construction value with the largest scheme in recent years being the £33m campus for Truro and Penwith College in Penzance.  Other significant projects for 2013 have included: the refurbishment of County Hall for Cornwall Council in Truro; a new construction hall for Pendennis Super Yachts in Falmouth; Bodmin Office – a new workspace for Cornwall Council; Porthcressa Regeneration – new build and refurbishment projects on St Marys for the Council of the Isles of Scilly; and Meadow Flats – 26 sheltered accommodation homes in St Ives for the Department of Housing and Community Affairs.

However, for PBWC, perhaps the most significant project of the year was their own new place of work. The practice was established in 1973 and has been based in St Ives since that time. In 2013 the firm celebrated 40 years in business by acquiring a former petrol station in St Ives and redeveloping it to create ‘Atlantic Studio’ their new 21st century headquarters.

The firm has invested in Building Information Modelling and has retrained the whole team to use the innovative 3D BIM design technology. During the year, they employed two new members of staff and saw over £20m of construction projects completed.

PBWC’s entry concludes: “Our location in St Ives and our varied portfolio has allowed us to combine home-grown talent with internationally-sourced specialists to create a highly-skilled studio. We are a working ‘family’ underpinned by a sound understanding of sustainability, adaptation of existing buildings and robust design for extreme coastal environments.”

Awcock Ward Partnership (AWP), Exeter    

AWP is a regional civil engineering consultancy providing specialist development, planning and infrastructure services to the property industry. They started trading in November 2012 with a team of 7 engineers and technicians and since then they have more than doubled in size to a current team of 15.

The firm works closely with developers and house builders, masterplanners and co-professionals to add engineering input from the initial stages of site evaluation and acquisition, through the planning process to detail design.

To demonstrate the breadth of work undertaken during 2013, AWP selected six high profile projects including: the former Belmont Hospital, Tiverton; Premier Inn, Honiton; Millbay Marina, Plymouth; Petroc College, Tiverton; Churchtown, Saltash; and Bideford Marina.

On these projects AWP have either undertaken the engineering assessment (flood risk, drainage strategies, highway access, transport) required to support planning applications, or undertaken the detailed infrastructure design. Over 90% of their work is repeat business or recommendations to prospective new clients from existing clients or co-professionals.

Although a Private Limited Company, AWP operates very much as a ‘partnership’ – a partnership with clients, a partnership with co-professionals and a ‘John Lewis style’ partnership with colleagues who enjoy profit-sharing, half yearly bonuses and a company pension scheme.

Despite being in their first year of trading, the firm has taken on three graduate trainees and three technicians who are undertaking part-time training at Exeter College with AWP paying their tuition fees.

HLM, Plymouth

Comprising architects, landscape architects, urban designers, interior designers, and sustainability advisors, HLM are experienced in a broad range of sectors including education, health, defence, justice, civic, commercial and residential.  The firm is celebrating its 50th year of operation in the UK and opened its Plymouth office in 2009.

Their design ethos is “to achieve optimal design solutions to minimise the life cycle cost of our buildings. We recognise the importance of design quality, sustainability and innovation, and projects are driven by this in pursuit of overall design excellence.”

Standout projects include: Plymouth University Diving and Marine Centre; CFRS Fire Stations and Head Quarters, Hayle and Tolvaddon, Cornwall; Millfield Business Centre, Millfield School, Somerset; and Airbourne Paint Workshop, Bournemouth.

HLM nurtures a ‘family ethos’ and offers healthcare plans, childcare vouchers, life assurance, interest free loans, product discount services and pension schemes. They operate job-share, home-working, staggered hours, career breaks, term-time-only, school-hours-only contracts and back-to-work schemes. Regular staff skills analysis ensures maximum output, minimal waste, job satisfaction and a competitive edge.

The firm is accredited with ISO:9001/14001/18001 Quality Management Systems which they use as benchmarks  to continuously measure and track their service performance.

HLM’s entry also describes how the firm prioritises local resources and projects; conducts a vigorous corporate social responsibility programme such as working with schools and charitable fund-raising, and a range of prestigious awards including the Sunday Times Top 100 Best Small Companies to Work for 2011 to 2013.

Despite opening their Plymouth office during the recession, HLM has doubled the offices target budget in its five years of operation.

LHC Architecture + Urbanism, Exeter

LHC is a large, well-established, architectural, urban design and landscape firm based in the South West, with considerable experience in regeneration, masterplanning, education, housing, commercial, workplaces and refurbishment with a focus on functional, sustainable and beautiful everyday design.

The firm’s unique selling point is their “ability to deliver projects from strategic masterplanning and concept design through to technical delivery, integrating landscape architecture within built environments to provide a holistic approach to design.”

In terms of urban design and landscape, LHC delivered projects including Victoria Gardens, Newton Abbot, Upton Park and Lincombe Woods, Torbay, and a number of successful planning consents for sustainable residential and mixed-use developments in sensitive areas.

In 2013 LHC also completed the South West Energy Centre in Paignton, Eagle House on Exeter Science Park, an 8-lab/classroom block and extension at Kingsbridge Community College Science Centre and the highly-sustainable, purpose-designed School of Animal Husbandry at Bicton College in East Devon.

There were also a wide range of other commercial, residential and refurbishment projects designed throughout 2013.

The firm prioritises referral of work to local and regionally based sub-consultants – surveyors, engineers and ecologists – and procures professional services locally as well as relying upon local supply chains for its goods and services.

LHC is committed to maintaining a reputation for exemplar client care and service quality which is underpinned by ISO9001:2008 Quality Assurance registration.  The firm also enjoys high levels of repeat business from clients such as Yelverton Properties, Cavanna Homes, South Devon College, Kingsbridge College and Clinton Devon Estates.

Poynton Bradbury Wynter Cole (PBWC) Architects, St. Ives

Poynton Bradbury Wynter Cole Architects are a passionate team of 16 architectural design professionals based in St Ives, Cornwall. Their work is based in the South West, although the firm’s maritime experience extends to marina work in Europe and Lifeboat stations around the coast of the UK for the RNLI.

The majority of the firm’s projects range between £2m and £10m in construction value with the largest scheme in recent years being the £33m campus for Truro and Penwith College in Penzance.  Other significant projects for 2013 have included: the refurbishment of County Hall for Cornwall Council in Truro; a new construction hall for Pendennis Super Yachts in Falmouth; Bodmin Office – a new workspace for Cornwall Council; Porthcressa Regeneration – new build and refurbishment projects on St Marys for the Council of the Isles of Scilly; and Meadow Flats – 26 sheltered accommodation homes in St Ives for the Department of Housing and Community Affairs.

However, for PBWC, perhaps the most significant project of the year was their own new place of work. The practice was established in 1973 and has been based in St Ives since that time. In 2013 the firm celebrated 40 years in business by acquiring a former petrol station in St Ives and redeveloping it to create ‘Atlantic Studio’ their new 21st century headquarters.

The firm has invested in Building Information Modelling and has retrained the whole team to use the innovative 3D BIM design technology. During the year, they employed two new members of staff and saw over £20m of construction projects completed.

PBWC’s entry concludes: “Our location in St Ives and our varied portfolio has allowed us to combine home-grown talent with internationally-sourced specialists to create a highly-skilled studio. We are a working ‘family’ underpinned by a sound understanding of sustainability, adaptation of existing buildings and robust design for extreme coastal environments.”

Lawyers from Michelmores’ nationally recognised Marine Regulation Team have successfully obtained marine planning permission (a marine licence) for Phase 1 of the £235 million Brighton Marina Development. 

The overall development includes over 800 homes, a new yacht club and RNLI building, a multi-purpose sports court, children’s play areas, doctors’ surgery, indoor / outdoor community space and a 40-storey tower which will be the tallest building in Sussex. 

Securing the grant of the marine licence has enabled construction work to commence on Phase 1 of a development which has taken 10 years to come to fruition.

Andrew Oldland QC, Head of Marine Regulation at Michelmores said:

“This is an exciting project to be involved in and we are delighted that we have helped to secure the grant of the marine licence for Phase 1.  The licensing application process was complex, not least because the development site is located adjacent to one of the newly designated Marine Conservation Zones of which seahorses are a protected feature.  Despite this we were able to guide the application efficiently through the Marine Management Organisation’s new procedure for dealing with sites located in or near MCZ’s in the face of sustained opposition.”

Generally a marine licence is required for activities such as the construction, alteration or improvement of any works and the removal from the seabed of any substance or object up to the mean spring high tide water mark.  Terrestrial planning permission is required to the mean low water mark or boundary of internal waters.  As Lara Moore, a solicitor in the Marine Regulation Team explains:

“This means that a number of coastal development projects (including those located on tidal rivers) require both a marine licence and terrestrial planning permission.  The interaction between these two regimes can be fraught with difficulty.   It is important to understand fully the processes and requirements of both regimes in order to gain the consents required to carry out development work in such areas in a time effective manner.”

Michelmores nationally recognised Marine Regulation Team is one of only a handful of law practices in the UK able to advise on:

• Marine Licensing and Planning
• Marine Conservation Zones (MCZs)
• The interaction between marine licensing and terrestrial planning permission
• Article 10 Exceptions under the Marine EIA Regulations
• Marine Wildlife Licences

For more information, please contact Andrew Oldland QC at andrew.oldland@michelmores.com

The Supreme Court recently held in the case of Marley v Rawlings that a mirror Will signed by the wrong spouse could be rectified. This raises the question as to whether more claims to uphold or amend wills in similar circumstances may be brought and what the consequences might be for charities in the context of legacy disputes.

The Facts

In 1999 Mr and Mrs Rawlings visited their solicitor to execute their Wills. They prepared mirror Wills which left their Estates to each other and then ultimately to a Mr Marley.  Mr Marley was not a blood relation of Mr and Mrs Rawlings but they regarded him as a son.

At the meeting, the solicitor who drafted the Wills accidently handed the Will prepared for Mr Rawlings to Mrs Rawlings and vice versa. This mistake was not noticed by anyone attending the meeting. Mr and Mrs Rawlings therefore signed each other’s Will making them at face value invalid.

Mrs Rawlings died some years later and at that point the fact that she had signed the Will drafted for Mr Rawlings went unnoticed. Her Estate therefore passed to Mr Rawlings without any dispute.

It was only when Mr Rawlings died that the mistake in respect of the signatures was noticed. The sons of Mr and Mrs Rawlings sought to inherit their father’s Estate under the intestacy rules. Mr Marley commenced legal proceedings with a view to rectifying the Will.

Legal analysis

As set out in the judgment in the Marley case, rectification involves “correcting a written instrument which, by mistake in verbal expression, does not accurately reflect the parties’ true agreement”.

Mr Marley was unsuccessful at first instance on the basis that the Will did not satisfy the formality requirements under Section 9 of the Wills Act 1837 and that it was not open to the Court to rectify the Will. The Court of Appeal agreed that the Will did not satisfy the formality requirements and thus did not consider whether it could be rectified.

In delivering the leading judgment in the Supreme Court, Lord Neuberger formed the view that when interpreting a Will the approach of the Court should be similar to that taken when interpreting a contract. In essence, the Court should endeavour to find the intention of the testator by interpreting the words used in the Will in context.

The principal argument put forward on behalf of Mr Marley was that the Will should be rectified to accord with Mr Rawlings’ intentions, being essentially to sign the Will drafted for him which for the most part mirrored the Will drafted for his wife which he actually signed.

Lord Neuberger considered the objections which might be raised against this argument.  Firstly, it was suggested that the correction of the Will to reflect Mr Rawlings’ intentions might be too extreme a correction to amount to rectification.  Secondly, the counter-argument was raised that the Will might not actually be correctly regarded as a Will at all because the Will as drafted was not signed by the person intended to make it. In addition it was arguably invalid for the reason that Mr Rawlings failed to approve its contents. Thirdly, it was suggested that the rectification of the Will could not be regarded as the correction of a “clerical error” as required by statute.

In respect of the first objection, Lord Neuberger was satisfied that there was a clear case for rectification.  To this extent he referred to and approved the leading judgment in the Court of Appeal, where Black LJ observed, “there can be no doubt as to what Mr and Mrs Rawlings wanted to achieve when they made their wills and that was that Mr Marley should have the entirety of their Estate and that Mr and Mrs Rawlings’ sons should have nothing”.

The second objection that the Will could not actually be properly regarded as a Will was also dismissed for a number of reasons. Lord Neuberger noted that the Will was “unambiguously intended to be a formal Will, and it was, on its face (and was in fact according to the evidence), signed by Mr Rawlings, in the presence of two witnesses, on the basis that it was indeed his Will.”

Crucially the third possible objection was also overcome. It was accepted by Lord Neuberger that the signature error could be regarded as a “clerical error” in broad terms so that it was an error of a sort which was capable of rectification.

Accordingly the Court held that Mr Rawlings’ Will should be rectified to reflect his intention by containing the typed parts of the Will that was actually signed by Mrs Rawlings.

Conclusion

It is noteworthy that Lord Neuberger appears to have widened the scope of “clerical error” as required for rectification.  This may lead to an increase of claims to uphold or amend Wills in circumstances where it might be argued that there was such an error. The true impact of the judgment remains to be seen but charities ought to be mindful of its potential impact in the context of legacy disputes.

The region’s largest corporate charity run is calling for sponsors to boost its fund-raising for Macmillan Cancer Support.

The Michelmores Charity Run, which is now in its 15th year, attracts over 1000 runners and now raises in excess of £30,000 each year for its chosen charity.  The run takes place over a 5K city centre course which starts on Cathedral Yard and finishes at Exeter Castle.

Michelmores Marketing Director Louise Edwards, commented: “It’s the race’s 15th anniversary and to celebrate this fantastic landmark we want to break all fund-raising records, so the more sponsors we can attract, the more money will go to support the wonderful work of Macmillan.

“We are appealing to businesses’ sense of corporate social responsibility but in addition to doing something for the community, there are real promotional and branding opportunities associated with the event.“

The cost of supporting the event ranges from £50 to £1000 and opportunities include a large company logo on the race t-shirt worn by all runners, logo on race numbers, logo on website and invite packs, a banner at the start and/or finish, sponsorship of any one of the six prizes awarded and supplying an item of choice to go in to the runners’ goody bag.

Download Corporate Sponsorship Pack

Michelmores Charity Run takes place on Tuesday 10 June commencing at 7pm. For more details and to register, visit www.michelmores.com/charityrun

Western Morning News. As published: 21 January 2014

Rather than the creation of a new school, satellite schools are designed to allow existing schools to ‘expand’ on to a new site.  Two bids by existing Kent grammar Schools to open a satellite school in Sevenoaks were recently rejected by the Secretary of State.  The bids were rejected on the basis that they would have created new schools.

New grammar schools have been outlawed for decades and whilst England’s 164 existing state grammar schools, including 20 in the South West region can grow to meet additional demand for more places, this must be a genuine expansion.

The frustration over the recent Grammar school bids is that they were both seeking to resolve an issue of demand.  We must question whether it is fair that the current legal system prohibits the creation of new grammar schools when we are living in an era where free schools are being set up all over the country to meet demand for particular types of schools?

If a group were to apply for a grammar free school, they would have no trouble satisfying the demand section of their application which involves proving that there is a shortage of particular school places in their area. Should the two bidders go back to the drawing board and satisfy the ‘expansion’ vs ‘new school’ criteria or should the Government be fighting to change the legal system and allow any new school to be created if it means reducing the demand crisis?

Given the recent press coverage of a reduction in subsidies for onshore wind and solar in favour of offshore wind farms, significant price increases from “Big 6” energy suppliers; the uncertainty created by the spate of policies being announced by different political parties, and amidst the backdrop of the wider electricity market reforms, you would be forgiven for giving the energy industry, including renewables, a wide berth. But regardless of the identity of the next Government, there is little doubt that both renewable energy and energy efficiency measures will remain key parts of the UK’s energy and climate change strategy.

With increasing pressure on the land and agricultural sectors, renewable energy solutions remain an attractive option, despite political uncertainty.

Renewable energy provides an opportunity to increase income, reduce waste, reduce energy costs and importantly provide security of electricity supply. The mainstream renewable energy technologies are wind, solar PV, hydro, biomass and biogas. In addition, ground- and air-source heat systems are becoming quite common, with more exotic possibilities (at least for the UK) of wave, tidal and geothermal power also attracting attention. Green support mechanisms include the Feed in Tariff, ROCs, RHI and LECs, with further financial benefits coming from the potential sale of electricity to the grid, enhanced capital allowances for eligible expenditure and potential business rates exemptions for eligible installations.

There are many ways that the land and agricultural sector can embrace, utilise and capitalise on renewable technologies. You can create your own power, lease your land to a developer or become a developer yourself. Your approach will depend on the different needs of your business, as well as your personal circumstances and the feasibility of any particular technology exploitation in your particular location – for example, you would be more likely to erect a wind turbine on an exposed hillside than you would in a dense valley.

Using biomass as an example, virtually all plant and organic waste can be used to produce heat, power or fuel. Biomass can either be burnt directly to provide heating to single or multiple buildings or to heat water, or it can be converted using anaerobic digestion to generate biofuels for in situ generation of electricity.

Some of the key issues to consider are availability of grid connection, choice of green tariff, funding (whether you will fund yourself, in partnership with a developer, or with bank support), planning consent, tax (such as capital allowances, VAT, business rates and inheritance tax) and business planning, the first of which is considered below. Further articles will follow in the New Year on these topics.

Power to the Grid

In considering the feasibility of a renewable energy project, the availability of a grid connection is a significant factor. The cost and timing of a connection are of significance not only for large-scale projects needing a connection for export only generation; grid can be just as critical for on-site generation projects. Network capacity is playing an increasingly important role, and should be considered at the earliest opportunity by any landowner looking to develop renewable technologies, whether for themselves or with a developer.

Earlier in the year, Western Power Distribution (the largest distribution network operator in the country and responsible for electricity distribution in the South West) said that without expensive investment, the electricity grid would struggle to take any more electricity. It has been suggested that a large proportion of the upgrade cost will need to be borne by developers themselves. The additional costs of upgrading the grid may affect the viability of a significant proportion of planned renewable energy projects.

One option proposed by Ofgem is to increase grid capacity by developers entering into special arrangements with distribution network operators (such as WPD) under section 22 of the Electricity Act 1989. This arrangement would commit the developers to pay their share of the costs (under the current charging rules) once the generating equipment (wind turbine, solar PV etc) has been installed. The developers (typically as part of a consortium) would then be reimbursed within five years if the additional capacity created by this investment is used by other developers.

This suggestion has had a mixed reception; some developers do not see it as their duty to upgrade the electricity network. However, if the renewable energy market remains buoyant, it is likely that more large-scale developers will form consortiums to develop the network, with the aim of recouping their money, particularly if the additional capacity can be used by others.

For those in the land and agricultural sectors based in areas seen as attractive for renewable energy development, it could be that these consortiums may prove more common and provide a relatively cost-effective means of securing continued investment into renewable technologies.

Inspired by my recent attendance at the Law fairs I thought it may be of help to provide a few answers to some general questions that came up time and again. If you would like answers to specific questions about the firm’s training contract, please visit the career section of our website.

I am on a 2:2 and do not think I will be able to get a 2:1. Should I still apply?

Michelmores, unlike many firms, does not have a policy of only accepting graduates with a 2:1 grade or higher. I am informed, however, that the vast majority of successful training contract applicants with Michelmores do have 2:1 grades or above. Unfortunately obtaining a training contract is increasingly competitive and as such firms are able to pick from an ever greater number of graduates who will have 2:1s and above. It is therefore an easy way to reduce the hundreds of applications that all law firms now receive and will make obtaining a training contract more difficult. (If you have genuine mitigating circumstances then this is a different situation and this should be addressed on your application.)

So should you still apply? Yes.

You should, however, do your utmost to show the firm what you have over the applicant with better grades. You need to accentuate your positives. This could be that you have more work experience/ are fluent in a language/ were involved with sports teams etc. Law firms want more than just intellect nowadays and it is up to you to show the firm that they should employ you 2:2 notwithstanding.

N.B. I would also add that personally I do not think this is a question you should raise at a law fair. It does not give a great first impression and is not a good example of highlighting your strengths. I am aware most law fairs are over now, but prior to the next one make sure you read my colleague Kieran’s Top 10 Do’s and Don’ts for Law Fairs.

I do not understand why a firm would ask “what’s your biggest weakness?” what do they want me to say?

I do not think anyone enjoys answering this question, which is why so many firms ask it. It is designed to genuinely make you reflect. We all have areas of weaknesses and areas in which we would like to improve. It is in that manner that you should answer it. Being able to show you are able to reflect, identify a weakness and seek to overcome it is actually a major strength.

I am a mature student and have decided to change career path. Will this be a problem?

No.

It is, however, all about how you use it. The fact that you are a mature student gives you experience which the ‘straight out of university’ graduates will not have. It is for you to demonstrate how this experience can be an asset to the firm.

Please also have a look at my colleague Irina’s post Standing (a bit too far) out from the crowd? for a great personal perspective on not being a ‘typical’ candidate.

Are trainees usually retained at Michelmores at the end of their training contract?

This is an important question and something that is often overlooked. Retention rates are something that I think all future trainees should consider when applying to a firm. I hate to say it but getting the training contract really is just the beginning. The retention rates of firms are often published on websites like ‘rollonfriday’. Try and look at the average figure over the last few years, the occasional dip happens (the recession happened) but consistently low retention rates should be a warning sign.

FYI – Michelmores have had 100% retention rates in 2013, 2012 and 2011.

I hope this was helpful. There were many more interesting questions however these stuck out. If you do have a burning question you would like answered please post a comment and I will try to answer.

Recent developments in mining technology have meant that the extraction of shale gas is now commercially viable. The method used, “fracking”, is controversial and has attracted a lot of publicity. Mark Howard, Head of our Planning and Environment Team, has been looking at the background to this process and some of the issues.

THE NEED FOR UK SHALE GAS

In 2009, 86.5 billion cubic metres of gas was consumed in the UK, this generated almost half of the UK’s electricity and fuelled the majority of residential heating. In the same year almost half of UK gas consumption was from gas imported from overseas. So there are compelling arguments for securing domestically produced gas. Shale gas can potentially meet some of the demand.

It is estimated that the UK could meet around 10% of its current gas needs from shale gas if it is extracted at a commercial rate. The British Geological Survey estimated in 2013, that the potentially recoverable reserves were 74-148 billion cubic metres, which is equivalent to approximately 2 years’ of the UK’s demand for gas. The commercially recoverable resources may be slightly less.

IMPACT OF SHALE GAS EXTRACTION

The process by which shale gas is extracted is by pumping fluid at high pressure into rock which creates fractures which provide paths for the gas to flow into the well to be captured.

In 2010 a developer started extracting shale gas in a location near Blackpool. Shortly afterwards, in the spring of 2011, earthquakes were felt on two occasions in the same area. An investigation was launched and fracking operations were suspended during that time. A report concluded that the earthquakes were induced by the fracking operations, but that there was no reason to suspend operations provided mitigation of the risks were adopted.

This type of seismic environmental impact is clear and obvious, but it is by no means the only impact.

THE ENVIRONMENT

Contamination of Drinking Water

There are concerns about the potential for shale gas to leak into groundwater. In the US a report commissioned by the US Environmental Protection Agency found that fracking had contaminated groundwater and drinking water supplies. There are concerns that the process will cause some of the fluids used in fracking to flow back up over the well, and these may include small amounts of natural gas, salts, metals and naturally occurring radioactive materials. These will need to be treated and disposed of so as to avoid them migrating into groundwater or surface waters.

Impact on Regional Water Resources

A further issue is the quantity of water involved in fracking and the impact this will have on local water resources. Most of the water used in fracking remains in the wells and unlike a lot of the industrial uses of water the water used in fracking cannot be treated and returned to a nearby water body.

The total volumes of water used for fracking are between 9 and 90 million litres, the equivalent to the annual water use of 170–1700 people in the UK. Some in the industry say that comparatively the amount of water used in fracking is less than that of other industries and the levels can be managed. Water can be sourced from the Local Utility Company or, alternatively, the extractor can apply to the relevant regulator if they want to take water from groundwater or surface water. In England they will need to apply to the Environment Agency for an abstraction licence.

Local Air Pollution

Perhaps less obvious, is that fracking gives rise to the emission of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4). But overall it has potential to cut greenhouse emissions.

The emission of CO2 occurs when gas is released from the well, when the well is in the final stages of completion to test recoverability. Burning the shale gas results in CO2 emissions but these emissions are lower than the CH4 that would otherwise have been emitted, thus having a lower global warming potential. It is thought that the extraction of shale gas could be used to a transition to a low carbon economy by displacing fuels like coal.

As might be expected, for such a controversial technology, with such obvious environmental impacts, the regulation of fracking is far reaching and comprehensive.

UK REGULATORY REGIME

The extraction of shale gas is likely to require the following consents:

• Consent from the landowner(s) whose land will be affected by the exploration. Failing that then an application must be made to the Secretary of State.
• Petroleum exploration and development licence. The licences are granted by the Department for Energy and Climate Change on behalf of the Crown.
• Planning Permission. Consent is required from the relevant Minerals Planning Authority, which is commonly the County Council. They may require an Environmental Impact Assessment to be conducted to consider all of the environmental effects. Shale gas extraction will not be considered a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project.
• Environmental Permits. To cover impacts and the operations that will be taking place.

In addition to the regulatory regime that is in place, there is a wider issue. The extraction of shale gas is a matter of such public interest that the Government has needed to take a position on it. The political analysis of fracking has been thorough, lengthy and considered.

UK GOVERNMENT APPROACH

Following a significant amount of formal investigation and debate, the Government is currently minded to pursue the extraction of shale gas, and that is reflected in a number of committee decisions and reports.

In 2011 the House of Commons Select Committee on Energy and Climate Change published their report “Fifth Report: Shale Gas”. The report considered the following:

• Prospects for Shale Gas Extraction
• Risks and hazards associated with Shale Gas
• Potential carbon footprint of large-scale shale gas extraction

It was concluded by the committee that shale gas drilling in the UK should be permitted.

A further report, published in 2013 entitled “The impact of Shale Gas on Energy Markers” concluded that:

• Shale gas exploration should be encouraged because the exact extent of the recoverable resource is unknown in the UK
• The impact of shale gas on gas prices both nationally and internationally is still unknown and government policy should not be drafted on the basis of the cost of imported gas being reduced.
• The extractions of shale gas could impact on the UK’s ability to meet its statutory Climate Change targets. The committee concluded that the Government needed to:
  a) Complete its research into the emission of greenhouse gases. 
  b) Prioritise developing commercial scale carbon capture and storage so that the role of gas in the future can be determined.

So in addition to the technology producing commercial gas, there is also a clear and strong element of research, and a need to determine the likely extent and effect of this mining technology.

Consequently, the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change is prepared, in principle, to consent to new fracking proposals. However, any proposal will need to properly consider the specifics of the proposed site, environmental factors, and the results of the necessary and inevitable public consultation that will need to be conducted.

The industry is still very much in its infancy with only one developer commercially extracting so far. Large scale and widespread fracking in the UK has not yet arrived.

However, shale gas offers an element of energy independence, opportunities to develop into the mining technology market, a range of associated employment, tax revenue, and a possible stepping stone into a low carbon economy.

Fracking is here to stay.

With the reduction in subsidies for large solar pv and onshore wind generation due to take effect from April 2014, the need for flexibility in legal arrangements has become of paramount importance as the profit margins of renewable energy developers are squeezed, and rents payable to prospective landlords decrease.

Onshore wind turbines and solar farms often require an “easement” to provide the legal rights over the route to connect to the national grid; sometimes this will involve a third party landowner.  It is commonplace to enter into an option to take a lease of the proposed array or turbine site, but similar arrangements for easements have been less usual.

The benefits of having an easement under option for a developer are significant.  For a nominal sum, the developer can secure the passage from the prospective site to the grid.  If an option is not exercised (perhaps because planning consent is refused), the cost of securing that option will have been far less than paying in full for an easement.  Of course, effective title and site due diligence should be carried out before entering into the option, to avoid any surprises.

Landowners should welcome the prospect of granting an option.  For the reasons outlined above, the option may not be exercised.  The last thing a landowner will want is to sterilise land that could otherwise be used for agricultural or development purposes.  It is important, therefore, to ensure that the option period is not too lengthy so a developer will not ‘sit’ on the option.  Positive obligations on the developer to seek planning permission and obtain the appropriate grid connection should be included.

Then, once the developer has the necessary planning and other consents, the need for further negotiations should be minimised.

For further information, please contact Ian Holyoak, Head of Energy & Renewables at Michelmores, by telephone on 01392 688 688 or by email ian.holyoak@michelmores.com, or your usual Michelmores contact.

The beginning of December heralds the end of ‘Movember’, when men grow moustaches for 30 days to raise awareness of men’s health issues; particularly prostrate and testicular cancer.

Six staff members at Michelmores supported the cause,  growing a spectacular array of facial hair for charity.  They included (Back row left to right) Phil Willis, Jon Lane, Tom Brearley, (front from left) David Richardson, Ben Howels and Tom Stenner-Evans.

The team, appropriately named ‘Michel-Mos 2013’ once again raised over £1000 for charity, having participated in Movember for the last 4 years.  Team organiser, Tom Stenner-Evans, himself a five time ‘Mo Bro’, commented: “Although it’s a bit of fun, it’s great that we manage to raise so much money for such a good cause.  Despite Movemberbecominga worldwide phenomenon, hardly anyone in Exeter seems to know about it, so I did get a lot of strange looks in town”.

Tom plans to continue the firm’s Movember fundraising next year, and intends to recruit as many new ‘Mo Bros’ as possible for the 2014 campaign, with a particular emphasis on Partner involvement!

In the meantime, a staff vote is underway amongst the 380 employees in the firm’s 4 offices to determine the’ Michelmores Mo King’ for 2013.  Photos, comments, and the opportunity to sponsor the team can all be found on the Michel-Mos 2013 website – http://uk.movember.com/mospace/team

Counterfeiting is the deliberate use of a false trade mark or imitation product which is identical with, or substantially indistinguishable from a registered trade mark or authentic product. The impact of counterfeit goods can be huge and counterfeiters are becoming increasingly proficient at copying packaging, labelling and products causing loss of revenue to businesses, damage to reputation, as well as loss of employment and a wider impact on the economy. The most recent figures issued by the European Commission in April 2013 indicate that counterfeiting causes €200 billion losses to the world economy each year.

However, a recent development in case law in the US may help pave the way for further protection in other jurisdictions. A group of luxury brand owners, Cartier, Chloé, Alfred Dunhill, MontBlanc, Panerai and A.Lange & Söhne were successful in securing a permanent injunction against Trade Key PVT Ltd and SISCOM (”Trade Key”) who collectively operated three websites: tradekey.com, saudicommerce.com and b2bfreezone.com which advertised counterfeit goods. Trade Key argued that the luxury brands needed to submit notice and takedown requests on each infringing item based on the well-known Tiffany v. eBay case.  However, the US District Court for the Central District of California granted summary judgment against Trade Key in early October 2013 for contributory counterfeiting and contributory trademark infringement, and stated that Trade Key had actively promoted and facilitated the sale of counterfeit goods.

This case will send a clear message to other online retailers to ensure that they put appropriate policies in place or risk legal proceedings being issued against them by businesses seeking to combat counterfeiting and protect their intellectual property rights.

This is a positive step forward for businesses in the UK, however  there are a number of practical steps that both retailers and suppliers can take in order to combat counterfeiters, these include:

• Creating and implementing an anti-counterfeiting strategy tailored to the product
• Informing customers of known counterfeit products and where they are being sold
• Monitoring the web to check for sales of the product through unofficial distributors
• Informing customers of any intellectual property rights in the home country of the business
• Routinely modifying packaging to make it more difficult for counterfeiters to keep up with changes
• Using hi-tech/complex packaging i.e. with holograms which is more difficult to copy and reproduce

For further information on the issues raised in this article please contact Tim Richards, Partner, at tim.richards@michelmores.com.

It’s that time of year again.

Law firms will be stepping into recruitment overdrive, splashing out on banners, brochures and novelties in preparation for the various law fairs that will be occurring throughout the country in the next few months, as they compete for the best and brightest.

This is an excellent time for students and other seekers of training contracts to get into contact with the firms they want to work for, or to find out more about those they are unsure of. This guide is based on my own experiences of law fairs both as a student and a delegate, and should help you make sure you get noticed (for the right reasons!) :

Do…

1)    …the research!

Yes, every website, guide, and book says this. But it is absolutely vital! Questions like ‘who are you?’, ‘where are your offices?’ or ‘what are you practice areas?’ are not going to impress anyone. All this information will be on the firm’s website, in their marketing materials or on sites like Chambers or Lex 500. If you come to the fair knowing all the basic information, you can fill any face-time you get with the firm’s representatives with more intelligent, targeted questions which will get you noticed.

2)    …talk to people

There is no point going to a law fair and meekly taking brochures. Law fairs are there for firms to market themselves to you, as much as for you to learn about them. Take this opportunity and try to get a feel of the firm from the delegates – do they like their job? What do they like about it? Do they seem friendly? Are they similar in outlook to you? Obviously everyone will be on their best behaviour and trying to impress, but even so I believe you can tell a lot about a firm by the people it chooses to represent it.

Even if you are not a naturally confident person, making this effort will really help you.

3)    …be realistic

Ok, so those Magic Circle and Silver Circle firms have really nice stalls. But, when you have limited time you are far better spending it on firms that you really want to work at and that match your academic history and interests. Dedicating time to the right firms in this way will ensure that the right people remember you, and that you are able to target your applications to the firms you could actually see yourself working for.

4)    …take it seriously

I have heard people say things like ‘no-one ever gets a job from a law fair’ in the past. Wrong! While no one is going to be handing out a training contract on the spot, it is certainly possible to lay the groundwork to a successful application at an early stage. In my own experience as a delegate, I have taken down the names of promising people to be added to the list of ‘ones to watch’. This may not sound like much, but in a field where there are sometimes hundreds of applicants for every place, it may be the difference that gets you an interview.

5)    …prepare questions

Having done your research, you will know about the firms you want to talk to. This will let you prepare a few questions to ask your targets. I would try to ask things that you want to know about the firm that are unavailable from other sources, or about the experiences of the delegates. It may also be worth preparing a question about how the firm intends to compete with others, or intends to deal with changes such as Alternate Business Structures or the Jackson Reforms. These kinds of targeted, sensible questions will help you to stand out and show that you are switched on.

Don’t…

1)    …turn up scruffy

You should treat a law fair as the first stage of the interview process. This means that while you don’t need to turn up in a three piece suit, taking some care over your appearance and wearing smart-casual or office style clothes will help you put across the right kind of impression. You may prefer Death Metal t-shirts and a plaited beard, but ask yourself if the firm you are approaching is going to think they can put that in front of a client.

2)    …come with a trolley

There are undoubtedly some pretty exciting marketing knick-knacks on offer at law fairs (I have seen memory sticks, smartphone cases and umbrellas!), and of course you will come away with a few bits from the firms you spend a while talking to. But don’t treat the law fair as a free shopping opportunity. No-one will be impressed by your masses of freebies, and going around the stalls to ask for the free things will not get you any closer to a training contract.

3)    …try to show off how intelligent you are

Listing off how many partners you know, how many vac schemes you have had or how many awards you have won is not going to win you any friends. Whilst it may be appropriate to drop certain achievements into conversation, your CV or application form is a much better forum for this. If you focus your time on learning about the firm you have approached, and letting them get to know you a little, you are much more likely to be remembered. Showcasing you as a complete person can’t be done on paper. You should also avoid opening with the question ‘I’m averaging a 2:2 – would you still be interested in me?’. I’m not suggesting that a candidate with a 2:2 wouldn’t get a training contract or be the right fit for a firm, but choosing to reveal this on an opening line is not going to create a great first impression. Get talking first, be personable, win them over – and then slip in the question!

4)    …spend the whole fair talking to one person

Go to law fairs with a list of the firms that you want to speak to and have researched, and make sure you talk to each of them. Even if you are dead set on one firm, try to consider similar firms or even competitors of that firm – it never hurts to know more about the legal marketplace, and broader knowledge (and options) will be necessary if things don’t work out with your first choice.

5)    …be rude

This should go without saying, but unfortunately some people do forget to mind their manners, push in on conversations, talk over delegates, attempt to belittle the firm they are talking to or criticise the practice area of the lawyer they are speaking to. This is not going to do you any favours, so just don’t. Also, delegates tend to be proud of the place they work, so avoid expressions like ‘small firm’ or ‘just a regional firm’, unless the firm describes themselves in that way. Oh, and never tell the firm you are approaching they are a ‘backup option’!

Hopefully these tips will help you navigate law fairs successfully and get a bit more out of them… good luck!