Starter Homes

The government has announced that construction of the first wave of Starter Homes will begin this year in 30 local authority areas, which were selected based on their potential to deliver new homes in line with the government’s objectives.

These areas will receive support from the £1.2bn Starter Homes Land Fund which was established in April 2016 to help with the remediation of brownfield sites in preparation for development. The government has stated that construction on the first sites will begin in the latter part of 2017 with new homes expected to reach the market by 2018.

Starter Homes will be available to first-time buyers between the ages of 23 and 40 with a minimum of 20% deducted from the market price. Under the scheme, house prices will be capped at £250,000 outside of London and £450,000 in the capital and purchasers will not be able resell or rent the property at open market value for five years following the initial sale.

For developers, the benefits of the Scheme include the opportunity to build on cheaper brownfield land, and exception from section 106 agreements and Community Infrastructure Levy charges so that the discount in price is made possible.

Garden Settlements

The second announcement unveiled the locations of 17 sites for new garden villages and towns. Together with the seven garden towns already announced, this has the potential to deliver 200,000 new homes.

There will be 14 new garden villages, each designed to deliver between 1,500 and 10,000 homes, which will have access to a £6m fund over the next two financial years intended to support the construction projects. Additionally, £1.4m of funding has been ring-fenced to assist the delivery of the 3 new garden towns.

The government expects more than 25,000 housing starts in garden villages and towns by 2020. Furthermore, the garden projects will have access to the £2.3bn Housing Infrastructure Fund announced by Philip Hammond in his Autumn Statement last year.

Reality check

Although this government has committed to providing 200,000 new homes by 2020, there are still serious doubts on whether this goal is achievable, given the significant acceleration in the rate of house building required.

These announcements represent a step in the right direction. However, with the government’s Housing White Paper due to be published this month, at this stage we can only hope that more comprehensive and particular details of the initiatives to bolster the housing supply are disclosed sooner rather than later.

Click here to view more information on Starter Home Local Authority Partnerships

Click here to view more information on the Garden Village Locations

Early last year, we featured an article discussing the use of end-to-end encryption, highlighting that there is a general trend in the market towards messaging services adopting this technology. This is partly in response to concerns many of us have about who can access our data. A year later, many mobile app developers (particularly those developing messaging services) are creating apps which proudly proclaim they “protect your privacy”, often by using “industry leading security measures”.

WhatsApp is one of the many messaging services using end-to-end encryption (the basic concepts of which are explained in this article). WhatsApp received a great deal of praise for using this technology, as it was seen as a step in the right direction towards respecting and enhancing its users’ privacy.

Everything is not as it seems

On 13 January 2017, the Guardian revealed that WhatsApp’s encryption technology has a back door (here). This back door enables the encryption keys used by WhatsApp (the vital pieces of digital information which enable your encrypted messages to be decrypted) to be re-generated. This ultimately means that entire conversations can be forwarded on, and viewed by WhatsApp (or a government agency). To be clear, the concern is not that a government agency can now intercept all of your WhatsApp messages, but that such an agency might put pressure on WhatsApp to use this vulnerability to hand them over (as was the case with the recent Apple/FBI iPhone hacking issue).

WhatsApp is also reported as having known about the encryption vulnerability since April 2016, but WhatsApp still states on its website that:

“… your messages are secured with a lock, only the recipient and you have the special key needed to unlock and read them”.

In my view, that this statement remains on WhatsApp’s website despite the encryption vulnerability creates a misleading impression of security.

Current communication trends

At a conference recently, WhatsApp set out its plans to formally offer a commercial messaging service. The messaging App has also “flourished” in international diplomacy situations (see here), with British government officials reported to be using WhatsApp in preference to the government’s own encryption services to communicate. WhatsApp’s messaging service was also used in the recent landmark deal made in Rwanda under which countries including the US, Japan, China and India agreed to phase out the use of HFCs (a key contributor to global warming).

Whilst many people might respond to this news with a short and to the point: “I don’t have anything to hide; I’m not that bothered“, WhatsApp’s increasing use in commerce and governmental negotiations means the messaging data passing through WhatsApp’s service is increasingly commercially sensitive and highly valuable. As the WhatsApp encryption vulnerability as well as the sensitive nature of the data passing through the messaging service is public knowledge, perhaps we will begin to see a migration away from WhatsApp towards messaging services which don’t suffer from the same vulnerability. This seems particularly likely given that current details point to the underlying encryption technology being secure, with the problem lying in WhatsApp’s implementation of that technology.

The recent case of Hibbitt v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (1) Rushcliffe Borough Council (2) [2016] provides some much needed guidance from the High Court on the interpretation of the Class Q permitted development rules, with judicial consideration of the meaning of ‘conversion’.

This case concerned an appeal from the decision of a Planning Inspector who confirmed the decision of the Local Planning Authority (LPA) refusing prior approval to the proposed development.

The appeal involved a basic, open sided, steel framed cattle building measuring 30m x 8m.

Class Q permitted development allows a change of use from agricultural to residential and the associated operations reasonably necessary to convert an agricultural building to a residential one. Class Q only permits the installation or replacement of windows, doors, roofs or exterior walls or connection of relevant services to the extent reasonably necessary to allow the building to function as a dwelling.
National planning policy guidance also has to be taken into account.  There are two relevant points to extract from the guidance. First, Class Q assumes the building is capable of functioning as a dwelling.

In addition, construction of new structural elements is not intended, so the building must have the structural integrity to cope with the works needed to provide for residential use. Guidance cannot bind the court, but it can be taken into account.

The inspector’s decision

The Inspector started with the premise that development rights described in Part Q relate to conversion of a building.  As such, the building must first be capable of functioning as a dwelling.  The Inspector was satisfied with the applicant’s proposal to use structural infill panels to construct walls and a ceiling within the existing frame of the building.  Further, she said that she had no reason to dispute the applicant’s claim that the frame and foundations of the building were structurally sound enough to enable the dwelling to be constructed using the existing frame.

However, the Inspector refused the appeal as the building would not be capable of functioning as a dwelling without the construction of all four exterior walls which goes well beyond what could reasonably be described as conversion.  Notwithstanding the reuse of six steel uprights as the main structural elements of the building and the retention of the roof, the works described would be so extensive as to comprise rebuilding.  The Inspector therefore concluded that the works necessary to create a dwelling from the structure on the site would not fall within the scope of that permitted under Part Q and accordingly would not be permitted development.

The appellant appealed to the High Court.

High Court decision

The Claimants argued:

• there is no need to define ‘conversion’ and the process of turning an agricultural building into a house is, by definition, a conversion;
• the existing building is structurally sound so this is not a rebuild by definition; and
• the administration of permitted development rights requires certainty which would not be achieved if an assessment of what constitutes conversion and rebuilding had to be considered in each case.

The court rejected these arguments and confirmed the decision of the Inspector for the following reasons:

• The concept of conversion is set out in the overarching provisions of Class Q itself and not in Class Q1 which sets out what is not permitted
• Conversion is a different concept to a rebuild, with the latter not being solely restricted to work carried out on a bare site. The test is one of substance as to whether the works reasonably go beyond conversion
• There is no need to define rebuild and conversion within the legislation because it is being applied by an expert audience, who know what these concepts mean and how to apply them in a planning context
• Permitted development must be construed narrowly as it is not intended to be a shortcut for complex cases.  This is a fast track system for genuine conversion of agricultural buildings and if extensive rebuilding is required, then that is a case for full planning permission and not permitted development rights.  An appropriate balance must be struck between the full planning regime and the fast track of permitted development;
• Part Q does not allow for the construction of new structural elements and that again shows a distinction between rebuild and conversion;
• Having an agricultural building as a starting point does not automatically make it a conversion and not a rebuild.  The conversion of a skeletal agricultural building into a dwelling house might involve a great deal of work, which is more akin to a rebuild than a conversion.
• A building might require extensive works to convert it into a dwelling house, but that does not necessarily disqualify it as a rebuild.  The extent of the works would clearly be relevant, but it is not going to be conclusive.

The Inspector was not challenged on her factual finding that the work constituted a rebuild and not a conversion.  This was an appeal on a point of law and it seems to be accepted that the distinction between a rebuild and a conversion is a legitimate planning judgment that is to be made in each case.

Summary

This decision seems to imply that skeletal and minimalist agricultural buildings are going to struggle to get through under Class Q permitted development rights and may require a full planning application.

Anecdotal evidence would suggest varying approaches from different LPA’s across the country. This indicates a lack of consistency in dealing
with such applications. Clearly some success has been achieved in terms of the conversion of very functional agricultural buildings, as opposed to the more traditional stone or brick buildings.  LPA’s may now rely on this High Court decision to apply policy in a much more consistent and rigorous manner.

For more information please contact Ben Sharples, Partner in the Agriculture team on ben.sharples@michelmores.com or 0117 906 9303.

Earlier this month, the High Court held that the St Ives Neighbourhood Plan which requires all new open market properties to be sold as ‘primary residences’ is lawful.

The ruling dismissed a local developer’s argument that the Plan is incompatible with article eight of the European Convention on Human Rights (right to private life) and contrary to the requirements of European Union law to consider reasonable alternatives to the Plan’s policies.

Under the Localism Act of 2011, if a referendum called in relation to a neighbourhood plan receives more than 50% of voters’ support, the policies will carry real legal weight and the local planning authority must bring them into force.

Previously, more than 80% of local residents who participated in a referendum voted in favour of the Neighbourhood Plan with many of the voters citing second home ownership as the key contributing factor to soaring house prices in St Ives. These fears are not without merit as recent statistics produced by the town council indicate that at least 25% of private dwellings in the area are classed as second homes.

Whilst the judgment will be popular amongst residents, there are concerns that the prices of existing housing stock could be pushed up as a result of the restrictions only applying to new build homes. In addition, some developers have expressed concerns that the rules could make development prospects less attractive, which could also lead to upward pressure on house prices.

The ruling will without doubt increase the likelihood that other neighbourhood plans such as the Roseland Plan and The Lyn Plan that have advocated similar policies will become law. Similar restrictions will be able to be put in place by local councils if it can be shown that the high proportion of second homes in their district is having a negative impact on the sustainability of the towns and villages in their local neighbourhood.

It will be interesting to see how the implementation of such neighbourhood policies abides with the salient government ambition to build 200,000 homes per year up to 2020, with yet another constraint on developers in the provision of houses in accordance with free market demand.

For more information please contact Lucy Smallwood, Partner and Head of the Residential Development team on lucy.smallwood@michelmores.com.

Michelmores LLP which has offices in Bristol, Exeter and London has reported a fifth consecutive year of growth as revenue nears £33m.

In the Firm’s audited results for 2015/16, it posted a nine percent rise in revenue in its last financial year, from £30.0m to £32.9m. Net profits have increased by six percent from £5.7m to £6.3m.

The Firm’s international work accounts for 10-15 percent of total revenue.

In May 2016, Michelmores’ London office relocated from Chancery Lane to larger premises at 6 New Street Square to accommodate its growing London team which has grown by 54 percent since May 2014. The move has provided a superior working environment to enable the Firm to continue to expand its presence in London.

The Firm’s Bristol office based at Broad Quay, has also seen strong growth.

Key deals for Michelmores’ Business Group included the sale of Aero Stanrew to TT Electronics as well as the Magic Seaweed sale to SurfStitch.

Recent real estate deals include the sale of New Scotland Yard to The Abu Dhabi Financial Group for £370m and acting on the site set-up and residential development at the former Television Centre at White City.

Meanwhile, the Firm’s Private Wealth team acts for a growing number of individuals, landed estates and families in business in the UK and other jurisdictions.

Eight lawyers were made up to Partner in May 2016, bringing the Firm’s partnership to 69. The total number of staff across Michelmores’ three offices is now 462.

Michelmores’ Managing Partner Malcolm Dickinson said:

“It has been another strong year for Michelmores, and whilst we continue to increase our client base in the South West, we are delighted to see the strong growth of our London and Bristol offices. This sees us competing with many of London’s top firms in terms of expertise and quality of work, which is a key part of our growth strategy.”

Essar Oilfield Services Limited v Norscot Rig Management Pvt Limited (2016)

In a decision that may come as a surprise to many, the High Court has upheld an arbitrator’s decision to allow recovery of a third party funder’s success fee from the unsuccessful party.

The claimant in the arbitration, Norscot Rig Management Pvt Limited (‘Norscot’), had been awarded more than $12m in damages by the arbitrator, Sir Phillip Otton, who also ordered the defendant, Essar Oilfield Services Limited (‘Essar’), to pay Norscot’s costs on an indemnity basis.

Norscot’s costs included a sum of £1.94m, payable by the claimant to its funder, amounting to 300% of the funder’s finance of £647,000. The terms of the funding provided for Norscot to pay either 300% of the funding advanced or 35% of the amount received, whichever was greater.

Recovery of costs under the Arbitration Act 1999

Essar challenged Sir Otton’s decision under s68(2)(b) of  the Arbitration Act 1996 (‘1996 Act’) on the basis that the arbitrator had exceeded his power giving rise to a ‘serious irregularity’. However, according to s59(1)(c) of the 1996 Act, the costs of the arbitration include ‘legal or other costs of the parties’. Under s63(3) of the 1996 Act, the tribunal has discretion to determine the recoverable costs of the arbitration on such basis as it sees fit.

High Court decision

In the High Court, Judge Waksman QC held that the reference to ‘legal and other costs’ in s59(1)(c) was sufficiently wide to permit recovery of the third party funder’s success fee. Accordingly, Sir Otton was entitled to use his discretion to determine that the costs of litigation funding were recoverable from the defendant in this case.

Potential impact of decision

Third party funding has become increasingly popular in recent years with creative solutions facilitating access to funding. In the post-Jackson era, parties in court proceedings have accepted funding in the knowledge that any success fee is not recoverable from opponents; it must instead be paid out of damages received.

The judgment in Essar v Norscot may lead to more parties seeking arbitration clauses in their agreements. Additionally, it could cause other parties, who are most likely to be on the receiving end of a contractual claim, to steer away from arbitration for fear of a substantial costs award.

Funders who offer After the Event (‘ATE’) insurance are likely to view this development as a double-edged sword, as success fee recovery is likely to leave ATE insurers paying this as part of an adverse costs award, unless expressly carved out. This will undoubtedly have an impact on the costs of ATE insurance premiums in arbitration.

With funding costs now recoverable in arbitrations, parties and their legal representatives will have to take extra care to ensure that the agreement reached with funders is reasonable, as it will no doubt be subject to scrutiny by the other side and the arbitrator. It is inevitable in the light of the judgment that more parties will seek to recover their funding costs from the other side in arbitrations.

Finally, it is important to note that this was a case in which the defendant was ordered by the arbitrator to pay costs on the indemnity basis.

The arbitrator was critical of the defendant’s conduct and determined that Essar had intentionally orchestrated a situation in which Norscot was prevented from using its own resources to fund the arbitration. A different arbitrator in a different case could exercise his discretion in another way.

View full transcript of the court’s judgment

This article was published in CITY AM on 9 November 2016

With rising house prices and tighter commercial lending criteria it can be increasingly difficult for young people to buy a first property and get on to the housing ladder. Often the Bank of Mum and Dad will be called upon.

Parents who want to help their children are often uncertain about the best way to provide the funds, the tax consequences and the legal position of boyfriends, girlfriends, sons-in-law and daughters-in-law. For example, many parents are concerned about what would happen to the funds if their children were to divorce, or if the funds are used unwisely.

An outright gift of cash for a deposit is straightforward and relatively tax efficient. So long as the person making the gift survives seven years, the gift will be outside of their estate for Inheritance Tax (IHT) purposes on death. IHT is otherwise charged at 40% on the value of the estate above £325,000. However, an outright gift provides no means to protect this family money on divorce or bankruptcy.

An alternative approach would be for the parents to buy a property for a child to occupy. This arrangement provides asset protection but is not tax efficient. When the property is sold (assuming it has gone up in value) the gain will be subject to Capital Gains Tax (CGT) as for tax purposes it is treated as a second property. For the same reason from 1 April 2016 the higher Stamp Duty Land Tax (SDLT) rate (3% above the standard rate) applies to purchases of second properties.

For IHT purposes there is no gift so the value of the property at the time will remain within the parents’ estates for IHT purposes. If the parent dies and the value of the estate is above the IHT threshold, there will be more IHT to pay. Additionally, where there is insufficient liquid cash in the estate to pay the IHT due, the personal representatives who administer the estate might have to consider selling or mortgaging the property to raise the funds to pay that IHT.

A middle ground between these two possibilities would be for parents to lend the funds, ideally securing the money against the property by placing a charge on the Land Registry title in the same way that a commercial lender would. Usually, a family loan will be interest free.  This approach offers asset protection and tax efficiency for CGT and SDLT but not for IHT as the value of the loan will remain in the parents’ estates.

An approach which can combine the best of both worlds – the asset protection of a loan with the tax efficiency of a gift – is for the parents to gift cash to a trust. The trustees can then lend the money to the children. A gift to trust can be more tax efficient than an outright gift as not only will the funds not form part of the parents’ estates after seven years, but they will also not form part of the child’s estate.

We recently acted for a couple whose daughter was looking to buy a property with her boyfriend.  Both were in their early 20s and they had saved a small deposit between them. However, they were struggling to find a mortgage large enough to purchase a property of the size they wanted.

The daughter’s parents were happy to provide £250,000 towards the purchase but were conscious that this was a significant amount of money and that their daughter’s relationship with her boyfriend was still at a relatively early stage. They were also open to ways to reduce the size of their combined estate from IHT.

Rather than gift the funds to their daughter outright or lend the funds to her directly, the parents gave the cash to a lifetime trust of which the parents were the trustees. From there, the funds were lent to the daughter interest free to allow her to buy the property of her choice with her boyfriend.  The trustees took a second charge over the property to secure the loan.

The gift to trust was made by the mother in this case as the mother was statistically more likely to survive seven years.  So long as she does indeed survive seven years from the date of the gift, the funds will not form part of the parents’ combined estates for IHT, nor the daughter’s. This could save up to £100,000 of IHT. The trust can exist for up to 125 years and so the funds can potentially be used for future generations of the family as well without being subject to IHT. Trusts of this nature are subject to IHT charges every ten years but so long as the value of the loan is less than the IHT Nil Rate Band threshold at the time, there will be no IHT to pay.

The trust structure is also tax efficient for buying and selling the property.  As the house was purchased in the names of the daughter and her boyfriend, the higher rate of SDLT for second properties did not apply.

If the daughter and her boyfriend wish to move in the future, the sale will be free of CGT in the normal way for a principal private residence. The funds will be repaid to the trust and the charge removed at that point. If the parents (in their capacity as trustees) agree, the funds can be lent again on agreed terms to help fund the purchase of a replacement property.

Crucially, the strategy was discussed at a meeting with the parents, daughter and boyfriend at an early stage so that all could agree on what was proposed. The daughter and boyfriend were encouraged to draw up a Declaration of Trust between them to set out their beneficial ownership of the equity.  The daughter’s share of equity was larger to reflect the loan made to her from trust. The Declaration of Trust also set out how the property would be divided were the relationship to end, including provision for each party to have the option to buy out the equitable share of the other.

Regardless of how the funds are provided, where the property is to be co-owned by a partner or spouse it is important to put in a place a Declaration of Trust to ensure the division of the equity of the property, including any provision from parents, is clearly documented at the start.  Similarly, if a child purchases a property in their sole name but occupies with a partner or spouse, a formal waiver of any rights created by virtue of their occupation may be appropriate. In every case it is best to consider the rights of all involved as early as possible to avoid acrimony in future.

The Private Wealth team dealt with advising the family. The boyfriend was included at family meetings but encouraged to take independent legal advice on his position. Once the strategy was agreed, the Residential Conveyancing team dealt with the purchase of the property on behalf of the daughter and her boyfriend.

The terms of the Declaration of Trust can be reviewed in the fullness of time as circumstances change. If the relationship continues and, for instance, the couple were to marry we would suggest that they also consider drawing up a pre-nuptial agreement with the assistance of the Family Team.

For more information please contact Edward Porter, Associate in our Tax, Trusts and Succession team on edward.porter@michelmores.com or +44 (0)117 906 9312

Frequent visitors to the UK need to keep track of the number of days that they are present in the UK, as they could become a UK resident under the statutory residence test and so liable to UK taxation.

Days where you are ‘in transit’ through the UK to another country are not added to your day count under the statutory residence test. A ‘transit’ day is one where you arrive in the UK as a passenger, in the process of travelling to another country, and leave the UK the next day. Provided you do not engage in any activities that are substantially unrelated to your travel through the UK, these days will be regarded as transit days.

HMRC make clear that eating dinner or breakfast in a hotel room would be an activity which would relate to your transit through the UK. In contrast, watching a film at a local cinema or catching up with friends would be regarded by HMRC as being substantially unrelated to your travel through the UK.

HMRC have recently updated their guidance with a further example to show how using social media for work related purposes can lead to a transit day counting as a day of residence in the UK for the purpose of statutory residence test.

HMRC give the example of Simon, a lawyer who lives in France but works internationally. He flies to Canada on a business trip via the UK. He flies into Gatwick Airport on Tuesday evening and flies from Heathrow to Canada at 2 o’clock on Wednesday afternoon.

Simon coincidentally spots a colleague from his London office while he is waiting for his bus to Heathrow. They catch up over coffee talking about their families and recent holidays. In the evening Simon uses social media to look at his colleague’s holiday photos and then exchanges a few emails with him about them. As the meeting was entirely by chance and did not involve any work related issues, the day Simon arrived is treated as a transit day and will not count as a day he was present in the UK.

In contrast, if Simon had discussed work with his colleague from the London office and subsequently used social media to update his boss on the discussion with his colleague, then these acts would be regarded as being unrelated to Simon’s transit through the UK. Therefore, the first day he arrived in the UK would be counted as a day where he was present in the UK for the purposes of the statutory residence test.

Anyone travelling through the UK should therefore take note of the guidelines provided by the HMRC, in order to ensure that they do not accidentally engage in any activities regarded as substantially unrelated to their travel through the UK. This could result in these days being subject to UK income tax and capital gains tax.

For more information please contact James Frampton, Associate in our Tax, Trusts and Succession team on james.frampton@michelmores.com or 01392 687505

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 Commercial Project of the Year with a Value Under £5million category  is sponsored by Torbay Development Agency and Eagle House, Exeter was announced as the winner at a Gala Dinner at St Mellion International Resort on May 8th 2014.

More about what the judges had to say…

Shortlist 2014

Eagle House, Exeter Science Park

Nominated by Eagle One Limited/LHC Architecture + Urbanism

Project Value: £2m

Eagle House is the first of seven buildings expected to form the Phase 1 ‘cluster’ of the much anticipated Exeter Science Park.  It is the new headquarters of developers Eagle One/Blue Cedar Homes and was commissioned to fulfil the group’s corporate expansion plans with a speculative element being ‘pre-let’ prior to the building’s completion.

The building is “business-like and contemporary” but its impact is “bigger than its scale”.  For the success of the wider Science Park scheme, there was a need for a ‘flagship’ development that supports this emerging ‘science-based’ community, encouraging new start-ups, nurturing local skills and encouraging further relocation of organisation such as the Met Office.

Eagle House is a ‘gateway’ building representing the start of the Science Park and acting as a catalyst for the scheme as it gains momentum.

The building aims to provide, at a viable cost, high-quality, sustainable and flexible commercial offices. The prominent site selection and contemporary design sets the standards to which the rest of the Science Park will aspire and by meeting the requirements of BREEAM ‘Excellent’ and best practice from the British Council of Offices, it sets the tone of innovation and confidence that underlines the Park’s aims.

It provides a low-demand and carbon-saving environment without impacting on the building-users’ ability to control and tailor their own environments and it exploits the sloping site and views across the Clyst Valley and Exe Estuary dealing sensitively with the impact on the landscape.

Haven Banks Outdoor Education Centre, Exeter

Nominated by Midas Construction Ltd/NPS South West Ltd

Project Value: £4.5m

Opened by HRH The Earl of Wessex in July 2013, the Haven Banks Outdoor Education Centre on Exeter’s quayside provides a world-class facility for over 25,000 young people and adults in the region to use every year for outdoor adventure activities.

This outstanding facility was funded by Devon County Council using proceeds from the sale of Exeter Airport but is being run by Exeter College as part of a pioneering partnership arrangement.

The centre is set to increase take-up of outdoor adventure activities in the region creating a contemporary hub for young people and adults from Devon and across the South West, as well as spearheading a major rejuvenation of Exeter’s historic canal side quarter.

The feel of traditional warehouse architecture has been preserved amidst a potpourri of interesting shapes and forms dominated by the 23-metre high steel climbing tower complete with spiral staircase.  There is also an indoor rock form caving system, 7-metre high rock faced climbing walls, a 45-metre long pontoon fronting the canal, changing facilities for 120 students, 5 training rooms and a wet meeting room.

Granite paved open space and an upgraded canal side footpath provide public access and there is cleverly designed facilities access including access to boats.  In addition to caving, climbing and powerfan “free fall” descent, other activities include sailing, kayaking and canoeing, windsurfing, raft building, bell-boating, orienteering, archery and team building.

The judges felt that this was an “optimistic building” which “motivates people to be more adventurous”. The result is a highly innovative approach to creating an education and training facility, designed to encompass the diverse needs of a wide range of users from students to professionals.

Headland Hotel, Newquay

Nominated by Lilly Lewarne Practice Ltd

Project Value: £4m

Originally part of a wider development concept, which included a subterranean dining room and conference centre, new external swimming pool and tennis courts, the Headland Hotel’s new spa got underway in September 2011 after the necessary planning and Listed Building consents were obtained.

Two construction phases were programmed around the hotel’s peak Easter, summer and Christmas seasons – practical completion being achieved in December 2013 when Cornwall’s only ‘5 Bubble’ spa officially opened and was  brought into full use in January 2014.

The considerable investment in providing a luxury spa experience which includes a stunning reception area, consultation area, spa lounge, treatment rooms, heated pool, saunas, aromatherapy showers and a fully equipped state-of-the-art gymnasium, hides the huge challenge of creating a basement level facility, reinstating the landscaped embankment and utilising the volume beneath to create useable spa floor space and plant room.

The extension was then finished with a turfed roof melding with the natural landscape setting. As most of the accommodation is beneath the embankment with little opportunity for views out, the subterranean theme was emphasised in the ‘rockpool’ pebble wall finishes and contrast of naturally top-lit light wells to spa areas and more subdued lighting of the new indoor pool.

The judges recognized the considerable obstacles overcome by the architects and contractors on this project and acknowledged the wider contribution developments of this scale make to the tourism led economy as well as the business itself.  It is already attracting new markets and has created sustainable jobs.

PZ360, Penzance

Nominated by Mounts Bay Trading Ltd (MTBL)

Project Value:  £250,000

The PZ360 project started in July 2012 with the aim of refurbishing the ‘ugly’ and unloved Penlowarth building, a 1960’s reinforced concrete office block in the centre of Penzance which housed an Inland Revenue office until 2006.

The building was acquired by MBTL in 2012 with the aim of securing full building occupancy through active management and investment in the building fabric, its facilities and its tenants.

The six-storey building includes 17,000 sq ft of self-contained offices from 315 to 6,600 sq ft and is the largest private sector commercial building in Penzance. As the tallest building in the town, it commands a unique 360⁰ panoramic view over Mount’s Bay, which is now symbolized in the building’s new name.

In order to arrest declining occupancy and to attract new tenants, it was essential to improve the image of the building starting with a new contemporary front entrance, more vibrant interior with better business facilities and new branding.

PZ360 is now one of the best located and specified business space destinations in West Cornwall providing modern, flexible, technology enabled town centre accommodation at reasonable rents with a particular focus on providing space to micro-businesses and SMEs.

With the help of Community Interest Company, Workhubs Network, MBTL was successful in attracting a Regional Growth Fund grant to support the conversion of the fourth floor at PZ360 into The Workbox, a facility providing homeworkers and micro businesses a place to work from, network in, hold meetings and events and give presentations.

PZ360 is now home to several businesses, employing some 200 people on site and making a considerable contribution to the local economy in terms of job creation and consumer spend.  Tenants benefit from Superfast Broadband and the thriving, buzzing community of like-minded people the new workplace environment at PZ360 has created.

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 Commercial Project of the Year with a Value Over £5million category is sponsored by Summerfield Developments and The Research, Innovation, Learning and Development Centre, Exeter was announced as the winner at a Gala Dinner at St Mellion International Resort on May 8th 2014.

More about what the judges had to say…

Shortlist 2014

The Research, Innovation, Learning and Development Centre (RILD), Exeter

Nominated by Interserve Construction Limited

Project Cost: £27.5m

The state-of-the-art Research, Innovation, Learning and Development Centre (RILD) is a partnership between the University of Exeter Medical School and the RD&E NHS Foundation Trust with the aim of streamlining the medical research process and enabling testing and analysis under one roof. It also provides a forum for students, researchers and clinicians to come together and ensure that medical research is relevant for the needs of the NHS.

The close links between the University and the Trust will mean that the single centre approach, from medical research through to training and development, will ensure that patients get the best service possible. Students and staff within both organisations can be updated on the current best medical practice. The training facilities for all staff have been expanded with improved facilities to allow continuing professional development throughout individuals’ careers.

As well as top quality research and post graduate education facilities, the building houses the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) which will amass data from clinical trials of 10,000 subjects enabling researchers to analyse the information and to seek answers on some of the rarest healthcare issues facing society. Local, national and international communities and scientists will benefit from this building.

The judges felt that these new facilities represent a real asset for Exeter helping to attract high-end jobs as well as improve the standard of healthcare, research and discovery. The new building enables researchers to test patients, analyse samples, design and carry out case studies and communicate with clinical colleagues all under one roof, putting Exeter right at the heart of healthcare innovation world-wide.

The judges also commended RILD’s low carbon footprint, ‘brave design’ and its ‘dramatic’ interior design.

Sainsbury’s Penzance

Nominated by Stride Treglown Limited

Project Cost: £15m

The aim of the project was to redevelop the former Heliport brownfield site and improve the gateway to the town centre providing new employment opportunities to the local residents of Penzance.

The store currently employs 271 people with up to 200 staff on site each day benefiting local accommodation providers, restaurants and entertainment venues.  The customer footfall is 21,000 per week and the store is currently trading 20% over budget.

In addition to in-store retail, the Goods online facility enables customers with restricted mobility/ travel arrangements to get their groceries delivered in the local area. Sainsbury’s are anticipating the need to increase the number of vans to reach a wider audience by the summer 2014.

The judges were impressed by the elevated balcony of the customer cafe to the south east corner of the site with its large external seating area and stunning views towards Mounts Bay. The canopy and undulating roof are dramatic features that protect customers from the weather, provide an elegant and stylish look for the building and emphasise its intended role as a gateway landmark.

The palette of materials used on the building including local granite stone for the elevations of the building as well as Gabion retaining wall reflects buildings in the town centre. The sympathetic landscape scheme also used large granite rocks of the type found along the adjacent foreshore to Long Rock Beach.

The project which engaged with the community in a wide range of initiatives achieves its objectives and, in the judges view, has created “more than a typical supermarket”.

University Technical College (UCT), Plymouth

Nominated by BAM Construction Limited

Project Cost: £9m

UTCs are a new concept in education offering 14-19 year olds the opportunity to take full time, technically-oriented courses of study. They are equipped to the highest standard, sponsored by a university and offer clear progression routes into higher education or further learning in work.

This Plymouth City Council project is unique to our region and is aimed at providing an extra educational dimension for young people enabling the South West to grow its own skilled workforce within the next generation.

UTC combines national curriculum requirements with technical and vocational elements. Its curriculum is heavily influenced by local and national employers who also provide support and work experience for students particularly in the engineering and marine industry sectors.

30 to 40 local industries ranging from global corporations to family businesses are already embracing this new concept and offering the students first hand opportunities to understand the real world of manufacturing and engineering, work placements, internships as well as real world projects to tackle. This is expected to result in smarter, more employable students.

Built on the site of a former failed school in Devonport, the design and equipping of the 7 unique workshops at UTC has been transformational. No other educational establishment in the SW region compares in terms of space, layout, access functionality and equipment.

The judges acknowledged the success of this project in terms of local resident support and employer engagement.  It tackles the problem of skill shortages head on and, by “investing in tomorrow’s technologies”, has created an “optimistic environment”.

Victoria Advent House & Victoria Beacon Place, Cornwall

Nominated by Victoria Offices

Project cost: £5.6m

Serviced offices are not a new concept in large city centres but bringing the idea to rural Cornwall is and was only feasible due to the central location of the existing Victoria Commercial Centre just off the A30.

Victoria Commercial Centre has been used by hundreds of businesses and start-ups over many years but the idea of serviced offices in Cornwall has allowed new businesses to emerge from spare rooms and garages into a workspace where they can engage with like-minded businesses and present a professional image to clients and colleagues.

Built with a £3.1m ERDF Convergence Funding towards the £5.6m project cost, flexible working space for over 300 people is being provided with available support including telecoms, fibre broadband and office furniture helping start-ups to be up and running in the minimum time. Businesses also benefit from being able to expand or scale down on workspace depending on their needs, without delays or incurring costs.

The project also offers conference and training facilities enhancing its attraction as the centre of business in the centre of Cornwall and was 25% let within weeks of opening.

Built on a Brownfield site on the edge of a well-established industrial estate, the development has had minimal impact on the local environment and has not reduced the space available for agriculture or residential development.  The use of natural materials and colours in the external appearance gives the buildings a ‘refreshing appearance’ which are appropriate to their surroundings.

The buildings boast considerable environmentally friendly features which have achieved a BREEAM Excellent standard including passive characteristics such as extensive insulation achieving exceptionally low energy use, natural ventilation, natural daylight and solar shading. Functional elements include occupation-controlled and daylight-reactive lighting, biomass boiler and PV array, along with extensive energy metering and monitoring.

Where have the last 6 months gone? I can’t believe as I’m sat here writing this blog I only have three more days left with the Projects team before heading back to Bristol to do my final seat in Private Client. I think even more frightening and exciting is the fact that in 6 months’ time I will be a qualified solicitor!

As my last blog, (A change of scenery and a trip to HOYS!) focussed on the PFI/PP side of the department, I thought I would give you a little insight into what the Education team do, particularly as the majority of my seat has been working alongside them.

The team currently acts for over 130 education institutions including maintained schools, church schools, academies and free schools, as well as innovative Multi-Academy Trusts. The majority of the team’s workload is academy conversions and the establishment of free schools. Often the academies and free schools then join a Multi-Academy Trust.

Both academies and free schools have to be set up as companies limited by guarantee so I have been responsible for the company incorporations which often have to be completed within a specific time frame. This has meant that I have had to draft the necessary company forms, Articles of Association and Memorandum of Association. I have also had the opportunity to draft other documentation that is needed as the conversion progresses, such as the Funding Agreement and Commercial Transfer Agreement.

In any seat you can expect to be given a fair amount of legal research and I have been lucky enough to have produced research notes that have ended up being used in articles and as legal updates on our website, such as the legal update on the procedure for banning a parent from school premises.

As regular readers will be aware, Michelmores expect their trainees to get heavily involved in marketing and during this seat I was definitely thrown in at the deep end. I have been responsible for ringing target clients to try to arrange meetings for members of the team in the hope that they instruct Michelmores. Believe me; I probably sat staring at my phone for half an hour before plucking up the courage to make the first call! After you have done a few it really does get easier and the team seem to think  that I am very good at this – something I would never have dreamed as being one my skill sets.

Alongside this I have been successfully arranging informal meetings with clients the firm has acted for and have been along to a number of these. It has been great to see different academies and free schools thriving and to see first-hand how their new found freedoms are being utilised, particularly as prior to starting this seat I didn’t have a particularly positive opinion of academies as I associated them with failing schools.

I can honestly say I have thoroughly enjoyed my time down in the Exeter office and the time spent down here has been invaluable.

But….on a lighter note….what am I going to do without the gym??? Perhaps that could be the next development for the Bristol office, or perhaps that is wishful thinking!!

Lola Becker interviews David Howe, our Head of Property. He joined Michelmores from Clifford Chance and became a partner in 1990. He specialises in development and regeneration work, joint ventures, construction contracts and professional appointments. He is widely recognised as a leader in his field, however we are taking 5 minutes out of his busy schedule to ask our formidable questions…

Why did you choose Michelmores?

It was about a hundred years ago, I can’t possibly remember! It was a long time ago; I wanted to move out of London. I’d done a job with Bond Pearce in Plymouth, so I went to have a look at them as they seemed quite a reputable outfit. I arrived in what looked like a war zone (or a reconstructed war zone) and thought I can’t possibly live here and got blown in to Exeter on the way back to London and thought this looks a better alternative. I looked at the various firms that there were in Exeter and thought that Michelmores looked the best of a bad bunch really. Jim Michelmore bought me a pint. I think that was the clincher.

Why did you choose your area of law?

I couldn’t do anything else really! There’s a bit of a joke there, at Clifford Chance where I was, if you were too thick to do anything else you did Property. I did it because it would have made me much more portable outside of the City and I liked doing land law at the College of Law; that was my strong subject. I’m sure it’s very intellectually challenging and all of that, but those were the pragmatic reasons.

What has been the highlight of your career at Michelmores?

I think it was probably doing the Child Support Agency deal in Plymouth for EBC Group plc. We were opposite the Rotch Property Group ( Tchenguiz’s company- and for anyone who doesn’t knows about property they don’t come much bigger) doing a 100,000ft2 office prelet to the Secretary of State..We exchanged the Development Agreement on the evening before my son was born!. I was the grand age of 32,. Things happened much earlier then, so it’s been downhill ever since really. Both my children arrived on a Saturday. I can’t pretend they are so organised these days.

What advice would you give to trainees in the current climate?

Well I don’t know, what is it: ‘work hard and fear God’? (That’s not my quotation, that’s Mr Glanville Williams). I’m not sure I have any advice for trainees, these days they’re all very bright and more than capable of making their own way, and know far more what’s good for themselves than I can possibly tell them.

If you weren’t a lawyer what would you be?

Goodness knows. I’d probably be a property developer. There was a great joke at University that I was going to be an insurance broker as it was thought to be the most boring job in the world, but I don’t know, dealing with risk would be quite fun. I would have gone into insurance if I hadn’t been laughed at so much! You’ve sold out to Mammon in any of these things really; you’ve sold out on your principles.

If you were a biscuit, which would you be and why?

I’m very hard-centred I think, so something nutty. One that you’d break your front teeth on I think, so probably a ginger nut.