The shortlist for the prestigious Michelmores Property Awards 2025 has been unveiled, showcasing the best property, construction, and development projects across the South West of the UK. The Awards, which celebrate excellence and innovation, bring together professionals from the region to highlight the outstanding achievements in the property sector over the past year.

Now in its 22^nd year, the Michelmores Property Awards continue to champion the most sustainable, impactful and creative developments. This year’s shortlist, which includes 10 high profile projects from Bristol, Somerset and Gloucestershire, represents a wide range of impressive projects across various categories, from regeneration and education to residential and leisure developments.

The Awards encompass nine categories, and the judging panel comprises esteemed professionals from various sectors within the property industry. The 2025 Shortlist Includes:

Category 1: Project of the Year (under £10m)

• Pixel – Cornwall Council, Kier Construction, Ward Williams Associates, Stride Treglown, Hydrock, Mace
• Sarah Turvill Multifaith Centre – Willmott Dixon
• Space2Work Redruth – The Park – Bauer Group
• Tithebarn Green Local Centre – LHC Design, Devon Contractors

Category 2: Project of the Year (over £10m)

• EQ – BAM Construction
• McArthur’s Yard – Nash Partnership, Guinness Partnership, Hill Group
• Purdown View – Stride Treglown
• The Forum – Reef Group
• The Park – Plymouth Crematorium – Kier Construction

Category 3: Regeneration Project of the Year

• Babbage Building – BAM Construction, University of Plymouth
• Crescent – Kier Construction, CEG
• McArthur’s Yard – Nash Partnership, Guinness Partnership, Hill Group
• Rolle Gardens – Acorn Property Group
• The Forum – Reef Group

Category 4: Education Project of the Year

• Ashcombe Primary School – John Perkins Construction
• Babbage Building – BAM Construction, University of Plymouth
• Baytree School – Rio Architects, North Somerset Council, Willmott Dixon
• Combe Pafford School – Rud Sawers Architects

Category 5: Leisure and Tourism Project of the Year

• SeaSpace – We Are Ease, Dynargh Design, Kay Elliot, Airey & Coles
• The Lookout – DDMH Developments
• The Mole Resort – Savills UK
• voco Zeal Hotel – RED Construction Group

Category 6: Heritage Project of the Year

• Paternoster House – NooKo
• York House – Vistry Group, Bailey Partnership

Category 7: Residential Project of the Year (36 homes and over)

• Gwel Basset – Treveth
• One Lockleaze – Goram Homes
• Quintrell Rise – Classic Builders, Coastline Housing
• Rainbow Way – Classic Builders, Somerset Council
• The Orchards – Edenstone Homes

Category 8: Residential Project of the Year (35 homes and under)

• Broadland Gardens – Clifton Emery design, Plymouth City Council
• Paternoster House – NooKo
• Rolle Gardens – Acorn Property Group
• The Haw Wood – Autograph Homes

About Michelmores Property Awards

The Michelmores Property Awards present some of the South West’s most prestigious accolades, recognising achievements in property development, construction and regeneration. Now in their 22^nd year, the Awards celebrate projects that contribute to the region’s economy and community, with a particular focus on environmental sustainability and innovative design.

The Awards continue to place an emphasis on sustainability, innovation, and the broader positive impact of projects within their communities. With categories designed to capture the diversity and excellence of South West development, the Awards reflect the increasing importance of sustainable and socially responsible architecture.

The Awards Gala Dinner and Ceremony will take place on Wednesday, 2 July 2025, at the Sandy Park Conference Centre in Exeter. For the full list of shortlisted projects and table bookings, visit the Michelmores Property Awards website.

Special thanks to our panel of judges: Iestyn John from Bell Cornwell, Glayne Price of LHC Architects, Nathan McLoughlin from McLoughlin Planning, Jo Davis from Avison Young, Mike Leece OBE, Ron Persaud of Change Real Estate, Lucinda Mitchell from Legal & General, Ajay Sharma from KTA Architects, Thelma Sorensen OBE, Honorary President of South West Women in Construction.

Sponsoring the Awards

The Michelmores Property Awards’ reach extends throughout the region’s property, real estate and construction sectors. Sponsoring the Awards is an excellent opportunity to raise your organisation’s profile in front of this audience and the ideal corporate hospitality opportunity. As a sponsor, you will be part of a bespoke networking event. Your brand will benefit from exposure from a prestigious and well-regarded property-focused campaign that reaches over 1,300 engaged real estate companies in the South West.

Email events@michelmores.com to request a 2025 Awards sponsorship brochure to find out more about our opportunities.

Michelmores is pleased to announced the appointment of Anna Parker who joins its Tax, Trusts & Succession team as a Partner based in the Bristol office.

Anna joins the Firm from Foot Anstey LLP and brings extensive private wealth expertise, including complex estate planning, wealth structuring, and inheritance tax advice for high-net-worth individuals and families. Her practice spans both domestic and international matters, with a particular focus on cross-border estate planning, trusts, and succession planning.

Anna is listed in the Legal 500 rankings for the South West region, where she is noted as a key lawyer in the Private Client: Personal Tax, Trusts, and Probate sector.

Anna comments:

“I am excited to be joining Michelmores at this time of strong growth for the Firm and the Private Wealth group. I look forward to working alongside such a highly regarded team in sector and supporting our clients in navigating the ever-changing private wealth landscape.”

Dhana Sabanathan, Head of the Tax, Trusts & Succession team at Michelmores, adds:

“We are absolutely delighted to welcome Anna to the team. Her private wealth expertise, coupled with her reputation for providing exceptional client service, will be a great asset to our clients.“

“Anna’s appointment further strengthens our commitment to delivering outstanding legal solutions for high-net-worth individuals and families, and we look forward to the valuable contribution she will make to the team.”

Read more about our Tax, Trusts and Succession offering on our website.

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

Since February 2024, ensuring Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) has been a statutory prerequisite for most planning applications in England. Introduced by the Environment Act 2021, the BNG regime requires new developments to deliver a minimum 10% uplift in biodiversity, secured for at least 30 years. The policy was designed to help reverse the UK’s declining biodiversity by ensuring that development not only mitigates ecological harm, but contributes to nature recovery.[1]

Following a phased roll-out for planning permission under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, BNG baselines will be extended to Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIPs) from November 2025 through amendments to the Planning Act 2008.[2] With implementation drawing closer, and much of the underlying policy still in development, it is an appropriate time to take stock of what we know so far, and consider the implications for NSIP planning now.

What is changing in November?

NSIPs were originally excluded from the Environment Bill due to their “fundamentally different characteristics to other development types”.[3] However, following an independent review of the ‘economics of biodiversity’, the Lords committed to bringing NSIPs within the Bill’s scope.[4]

This was achieved by adding provisions which (once implemented) will require the Secretary of State to refuse applications for Development Consent Orders (DCOs) where proposed developments do not meet the “biodiversity gain objective(s)” in any applicable “biodiversity gain statement”.[5]

Due to the scale and complexity of NSIPs, the Government delayed commencement of the new provisions by two years, to provide NSIP developers time to incorporate BNG into their designs.[6]

Biodiversity gain statements – a closer look

At first blush, the biodiversity gain required of NSIPs largely reflects that of developments approved under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The default biodiversity gain objective is that the biodiversity value attributable to a development exceeds the pre-development biodiversity value of the onsite habitat by at least 10%.[7] Likewise, the maintenance period for biodiversity gains will initially be set for a minimum of 30 years,[8] and onsite provision of biodiversity must be favoured over offsite provision or statutory credits.[9]

The NSIP regime differs in the mechanism by which BNG requirements are imposed.

Once enacted, a new Schedule 2A to the Planning Act 2008 will require all applications for DCOs to be decided in accordance with any relevant national policy statement (NPS),[10] which must incorporate a biodiversity gain statement on its first statutory review.[11] Where developments have no associated NPS, or the NPS does not yet provide for BNG, the government may publish a supplemental biodiversity gain statement, subject to consultation.[12]

Primarily, a biodiversity gain statement sets out the biodiversity gain objective for the development type, and prescribes that DCO applications must be determined according to whether the proposed development meets that objective.[13] Biodiversity gain statements must also specify whether and how the objective applies to irreplaceable habitats; specify evidence that must be produced in support of an application; and may confirm how biodiversity value is to be calculated, with reference to a specified biodiversity metric.[14] Though unconfirmed, it has been suggested that Natural England’s Environmental Benefits from Nature Tool and/or Biodiversity Metric 3.0 will be used, initially.[15]

BNG and compulsory acquisition

The Government has responded to uncertainty over whether the new regime will permit DCOs to be used for the purpose of securing BNG. Although its response to the 2022 consultation confirmed that no new compulsory purchase powers would be introduced for this purpose, it did state that the Government (of that day) would:

“…consider providing guidance or reference in biodiversity gain statements that outlines the reasonable alternatives developers should explore to deliver net gain before they consider compulsory acquisition of land.”[16]

This essentially confirmed the ordinary principles of compulsory purchase, that it should be used as a last resort. We expect it will be necessary to show that the promoter has  applied the Biodiversity Gain Hierarchy in site selection, as well as made all of the usual reasonable efforts to reach an agreement on purchase.

The point was made more explicitly in updates to the Government’s CPO Guidance (October 2024), which states that “it may be necessary for an acquiring authority to acquire land for BNG purposes”, and refers to the usual conditions for compulsory purchase (e.g. the compelling case in the public interest).[17] Though the CPO Guidance relates to the BNG regime under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, it indicated that the Government does not intend to create a separate standard for compulsory land acquisition for BNG purposes.

This is reflected in the NPS framework for energy NSIPs. The Overarching NPS (EN-1) states that applicants may seek to acquire land where it is needed to provide “mitigation and landscape enhancement”, with applications to be considered under established DCO principles. The NPS for Electricity Networks (EN-5) adds BNG to the list of legitimate bases for acquisition,[18] and was explicitly relied on in a recent decision approving acquisition of land for this purpose. The decision stated that compulsory acquisition “for the provision and maintenance of the BNG elements of the Proposed Development is consistent with policy and guidance”.[19]

Where is the new policy?

Despite assurances that a biodiversity gain statement would be consulted on in March 2024 and finalised in September 2024,[20] no draft statement has been published. If the Government intends to honour its commitment to apply BNG to NSIPs by November 2025, we should expect to see a raft of revised NPSs (or standalone biodiversity gain statements) published in the coming months.

The Government opened a consultation on three revised NPSs for energy infrastructure on 24 April 2025.[21] The updates are helpful, in that they consolidate and clarify much of what is published elsewhere, but contain no biodiversity gain statements. The overarching NPS for Energy confirms that statements will be published separately for NPSs that are already under review. It is not yet clear how this sits with the Government’s announcement in December that “all relevant” NPSs will be updated by summer 2025.[22]

What should we be doing now?

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

The suite of Energy NPSs published since November 2023 “encourage” applicants to use the latest biodiversity metric to calculate BNG outcomes, which “should be presented in full as part of their application”.[23] Meanwhile the Secretary of State “should give appropriate weight” to BNG, and consider what requirements should be attached to any consent to ensure that BNG measures, if offered, are delivered and maintained.[24] The draft revised NPS (April 2025) reiterates these points, and adds that “where possible”, development proposals should seek opportunities to provide BNG, and the Secretary of State should use planning obligations to maximise such opportunities.[25]

Voluntary adoption of BNG – Bramford to Twinstead

The principle that BNG measures “if offered” must be delivered and maintained was borne out in the recent DCO for the Bramford to Twinstead Reinforcement Project.

The National Grid sought consent to reinforce the transmission network between the existing Bramford substation and Twinstead Tee. As part of its application, the National Grid offered to deliver a 10% uplift in biodiversity, in line with a voluntary commitment within its 2021-2026 Environmental Action Plan. The Secretary of State’s Decision Letter (Sept 2024), while noting that BNG was not yet mandatory for the application, supported this proposal, granting compulsory purchase powers to obtain the land needed for the National Grid’s BNG commitment, and requiring that it submit written evidence to demonstrate how the 10% increase would be delivered.

Another lesson to take from this project is that applicants must clearly distinguish between BNG proposals from other proposals for habitat mitigation, reinstatement and compensation.

Key takeaways

• In November 2025, amendments to the Planning Act 2008 will require DCO applications to meet biodiversity gain objectives set out in biodiversity gain statements.
• The default biodiversity gain objective is that NSIPs deliver an increase in the biodiversity value of the onsite habitat by at least 10%, secured for a minimum of 30 years.
• Land may be acquired for BNG purposes alongside the primary purpose of the scheme, but developers must demonstrate a compelling case, following the ordinary principles of compulsory purchase.
• Though BNG is not yet mandatory for NSIPs, it is clear that DCO applicants should account for BNG while NSIP planning. There is a policy expectation that developers seek opportunities to provide BNG, and the Secretary of State will use planning obligations to support this.
• Voluntarily adopting BNG may strengthen an application, but developers must clearly distinguish BNG from other environmental measures, and must evidence the proposed biodiversity gains.

If you need assistance with any of the issues raised by this article, Michelmores has a wealth of experience in land acquisition law, and all aspects of environment, property, planning and strategic land use. Please get in touch with  Mark Howard, Fergus Charlton, Helen Hutton, or Adam Corbin, who will be happy to help.

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

[1] For a detailed overview of BNG, see our Ben Sharples’ contemporary article, “BNG: the basics”.

[2] Environment Act 2021, s 99, Sch. 15(1); Planning Act 2008, ss 103(1A), 104(3) and 105(3)-(4), Sch. 2A.

[3] Defra, Net Gain – Summary of Responses and Government Response (July 2019), p 5.

[4] HL Deb 7 July 2021, vol 813, col 1351; The Dasgupta Review: Government Response (July 2021), paras 2.11-12.

[5] Environment Act 2021, s 99, Sch. 15(1). Planning Act 2008, ss 103(1A), 104(3) and 105(3)-(4); Schedule 2A.

[6] Defra, Consultation Outcome: Government Response and Summary of Responses (Feb 2023), Para 4.3.

[7] Planning Act 2008, Schedule 2A(3)(2).

[8] Defra, Understanding BNG (Feb 2023); DESNZ, Draft: Overarching NPS for Energy (EN-1) (Apr 2024), para 5.4.40.

[9] For more on the Biodiversity Gain Hierarchy, see our articles on Dealing with BNG Land Acquisition Agreements and off-site BNG solutions available to developers.

[10] Planning Act 2008, s 104(3).

[11] Schedule 2A, s 9(2). NPSs must be reviewed at least once every five years (Planning Act 2008, s 6).

[12] Schedule 2A, s 10.

[13] Environment Act 2021, Sch. 15, s 5; Planning Act 2008, Sch. 2A, s 2.

[14] Schedule 2A, ss 7, 8 and 4, respectively.

[15] DESNZ, Draft: Overarching NPS for Energy (EN-1) (Apr 2024), fn 103).

[16] Defra, Consultation Outcome: Government Response and Summary of Responses (Feb 2023), Para 4.3

[17] MHCLG, Guidance on the compulsory purchase process (Oct 2022, updated Jan 2025), paras 212.1-4.

[18] DESNZ, NPS (EN-1), para. 4.1.8–4.1., and NPS (EN-5), para. 2.6.6 (Nov 2023, updated Jan 2024).

[19] DESNZ, Secretary of State Decision Letter (Bramford to Twinstead) (12 Sept 2024), paras 6.15-15.

[20] Defra, The Biodiversity Net Gain Statutory Instruments – explained (Nov 2023), para 3.

[21] DESNZ, Planning for new energy infrastructure: 2025 revisions to National Policy Statements (Apr 2025).

[22] The Prime Minister’s Office, Plan for Change: Milestones for mission-led government (Dec 2024), p 25.

[23] DESNZ, Overarching NPS for Energy (EN-1 (Nov 2023, updated Jan 2024), para. 4.6.7.

[24] DESNZ, Overarching NPS for Energy (EN-1 (Nov 2023, updated Jan 2024), paras. 4.6.3, 5.4.44.

[25] DESNZ “NPS for Energy 2025 Update: Appraisal of Sustainability (Main Report)“, (April 2025), p 136.

Michelmores is delighted to announce its outstanding success at the Probate Industry Awards 2025, recognising the Firm’s expertise, dedication, and excellence within the probate sector.

At the awards ceremony held recently, Michelmores secured several top honours:

• Wills and Probate Paralegal of the Year awarded to Georgie Lennan, acknowledging her exceptional skill, professionalism, and contribution to the firm’s probate practice.
• Highly Commended in the Rising Star of the Year category for Gemma Shepherd, recognising her promising career trajectory and commitment to delivering outstanding client service.
• Contentious Probate Provider of the Year, highlighting the team’s expertise and success in managing complex and contentious probate matters.

These accolades build on Michelmores’ reputation as a leading provider of probate services in the UK, showcasing the Firm’s ability to combine deep legal knowledge with personalised client care. The recognition of both individual talent and team excellence underscores Michelmores’ commitment to setting industry standards and achieving the best outcomes for clients.

As the probate landscape continues to evolve, Michelmores remains committed to innovation, client focus, and professional development to ensure it stays at the forefront of the industry. Read more on our website: Disputed Wills & Estates.

On 17 and 18 February 2025, the Supreme Court heard the appeal in the case of C G Fry & Son Limited v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities & Somerset Council, a landmark case on the issue of nutrient neutrality. Having observed the hearing from the public gallery whilst seconded to Natural England, I have provided a summary of how the proceedings unfolded while we await the Court’s final judgment.

Background to the case

The case concerns whether the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (the Habitats Regulations) required an “appropriate assessment” before a local planning authority decided whether to discharge conditions on the approval of reserved matters, having previously granted outline planning permission without this, for a major development of housing on land close to a protected site.

For more information about the history of this case, please see our previous articles covering the High Court case and the Court of Appeal case.

Appeal to the Supreme Court

In November 2024, C G Fry & Son Ltd was granted permission to appeal to the Supreme Court. The hearing took place over 1.5 days on 17 and 18 February 2025 before Lord Reed, Lord Sales, Lady Simler, Lord Hamblen and Lord Stephens. C G Fry & Son Ltd (the Appellant) was represented by Lord Banner KC. The Appellant’s appeal was in relation to two Grounds:

• Ground 1: that the Court of Appeal had erred in their construction of the Habitats Regulations. The Appellant submitted that the Respondents’ interpretation of the Habitats Regulations strayed from a purposive interpretation into “re-writing” the law, which was the responsibility of the government and the legislature rather than the Court. The Appellant also submitted that, in any event, the Appellant’s interpretation was not in conflict with the purpose of the legislation, and existing case law did not preclude the Appellant’s approach.
• Ground 2: the Appellant’s alternative argument was that the habitats legislation did not apply in law to the site (a Ramsar site), so the matters in question were legally irrelevant to the discharge of conditions, and government policy and the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) could not make these issues legally relevant.

The Secretary of State (the First Respondent) was represented by Sir James Eadie KC and Richard Moules KC. The First Respondent’s submissions in relation to Ground 1 included the submission that the Habitats Regulations were designed to transpose the EU Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC), whose purpose was to set out appropriate steps to avoid the destruction of habitats and enshrine the “precautionary principle” of environmental law. Sir James Eadie KC submitted that, if the Habitats Regulations were interpreted as narrowly as they were by the Appellant, this would be contrary to the purpose of the Directive and would be untenable.

Somerset Council (the Second Respondent) was represented by Luke Wilcox, who made short submissions in furtherance of the First Respondent’s more substantial submissions.

While these were not referred to in the hearing, the Supreme Court also granted permission for written interventions from the Wildlife and Countryside Link,[1] a coalition of environment and wildlife organisations in England, and also from the Office for Environmental Protection (OEP), who have published their written submissions in respect of Ground 1 on their website.[2]

Significance of the case

Lord Reed acknowledged at the conclusion of the hearing that there were plenty of issues for the justices to consider ahead of providing their judgment. The Supreme Court’s decision to allow written submissions from the OEP and the Wildlife and Countryside Link demonstrates the significance of this case and suggests that the Court recognises the wider implications for society and the environment beyond the facts of this case.

While this case relates directly to nutrient neutrality, the OEP’s written submissions warn that the arguments raised by the Appellant “have implications going far beyond nutrient neutrality” and would result in a “serious weakening” of the environmental protections afforded by the Habitats Regulations for protected sites. If local planning authorities could not require an appropriate assessment before discharging conditions on the approval of reserved matters, the OEP warns that competent authorities “would be compelled to agree to a project that has not been assessed and might well fail an assessment were one to be undertaken”, which would produce a result “at odds with ensuring environmental protection and the purpose of the Habitats Regulations”. Lord Banner KC’s submissions at the hearing indicated that, if this outcome was in line with the correct reading of the legislation, this would be “tough” and Parliament would need to update the legislation if they sought a different outcome.

Despite this case also having wider implications, the issue at the heart of it is the apparent conflict between nutrient neutrality obligations and the delivery of housing and infrastructure. The judgment will be given against the backdrop of the government’s efforts to resolve this conflict and achieve their commitment of building 1.5 million homes and advancing 150 major infrastructure project decisions by the end of this Parliament.[3] As part of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, the government issued a policy paper on 15 December 2024 inviting views on their proposed new approach to development and nature recovery – this acknowledged that the current approach in relation to nutrient neutrality can be burdensome, and included proposals for Delivery Plans covering specific areas rather than multiple project-specific assessments.[4] The government’s view is that its reform can deliver a “win-win” for development and the environment. It will therefore be interesting to see whether C G Fry’s appeal, regardless of the outcome, contributes to further legislative reform in the context of nutrient neutrality.

We intend to provide an update on this judgment when it is handed down. In the meantime, further information about the case and recordings of the hearing sessions can be found on the Supreme Court website.

[1] Supreme Court grants permission for charity to intervene

[2] OEP publishes written submissions in Habitats Regulations Supreme Court case | Office for Environmental Protection

[3] Plan for Change – GOV.UK

[4] Planning Reform Working Paper: Development and Nature Recovery – GOV.UK

In our previous article here, we reported on the growing use of commercial unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) operations and looked at some of the legal issues involved. The widespread innovation of new UAV operations across the UK raises a number of questions for landowners in relation to issues such as overflying rights, trespass and nuisance and rights to privacy.

The announcement

This month the UAV industry has taken a step further towards greater commercial drone operations through the UK Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) and Ofcom announcement of the dedication of 978MHz as a radio frequency available for airborne transmission of UAV applications.

Greater autonomy for UAVs

The latest changes follow the CAA in November 2024 enabling new rules giving drones with much greater freedom to fly beyond visual line of site (BVLOS) restrictions. One of the big new beneficiaries of the new policy is the National Grid Electricity Transmission who will be able to use UAVs to conduct aerial surveys of grid infrastructure such as pylons and cables much more efficiently.

These latest changes are steps towards the CAA achieving its road map for the establishment of routine BVLOS operations across the UK by 2027. A market report provided by Business Gateway for the Scottish Government estimated the UK commercial drones market will grow rapidly to £2.2bn by the end of 2027.

The impact

Greater uptake in UAV usage is likely to result in more widespread issues for landowners and with legal enforcement. UK law enforcement agencies have already referred to preparations for new penalties and Unmanned Aerial Vehicles CAA and Ofcom announce new radio frequency for transmission controls on drone violations with a more rigorous set of exclusion operating restrictions around sensitive sites such as airports and military sites.

Conclusion

Whilst the opening up of UAVs creates new legal issues and risks for landowners, at the same time it presents opportunities. Commercial businesses looking to employ UAVs will have a requirement for new operating sites and locations. Many existing commercial premises will be unsuitable due to their existing planning or constrained legal rights.

As we have seen with telecoms and solar, there is likely to be a level of competition amongst commercial UAV operators to create hubs and networks of site locations.

It is set to be a busy time in employment law, with the most significant package of reforms in a generation expected over the next two years. We highlight below two key developments: the introduction of neonatal leave from April 2025, and a wider roadmap of changes under the Employment Rights Bill (ERB) anticipated from 2026 onwards.

Neonatal leave from 6 April 2025

From 6 April 2025, eligible employees will have a new statutory right to take up to 12 weeks’ neonatal leave without having to use existing leave.

Key points for employers:

• Entitlement arises where a child is admitted to hospital within 28 days of birth and remains in care for at least seven days.
• Leave is a day-one right – there is no qualifying period.
• Leave is in addition to other family leave (e.g. maternity, paternity or adoption leave).
• Statutory Neonatal Pay (SNP) is paid at the same rate as statutory paternity or shared parental pay (but only payable where the employee has 26 weeks’ service and meets earnings thresholds).
• Where multiple births occur, a maximum of 12 weeks applies across all children.

Employees taking neonatal leave will benefit from similar protections to those on maternity leave, including:

• Right to return to the same (or a suitable alternative) role.
• Protection from detriment and automatic unfair dismissal linked to their leave.
• In certain redundancy situations, priority access to suitable alternative roles.

Rural businesses should prepare for the introduction of neonatal leave and consider their internal family leave policies, provide suitable training for managers and ensure that payroll is ready to administer SNP where an employee is eligible.

Employment Rights Bill: roadmap of wider changes

Looking ahead, a raft of reforms under the ERB are expected to come into force from autumn 2026 onwards. These include several changes of note for agricultural employers:

1. Unfair dismissal rights from day one. The qualifying period to bring an ordinary unfair dismissal claim will be removed, although there will likely be a ‘light-touch’ dismissal procedure required during the first 9 months.

Implications: Managers will need to be cautious when dismissing new starters. Early documentation, robust probation processes and consistent reviews will be key.

2. Fire-and-rehire restrictions. Employers will be restricted from dismissing and re-engaging employees to force through contractual changes unless facing genuine financial distress.

Implications: This may limit flexibility for employers needing to respond quickly to seasonal or market changes. Contract reviews and early engagement with staff will be essential.

3. Sexual harassment reforms. Employers will be required to take ‘all reasonable steps’ to prevent workplace harassment, including by third parties.

Implications: Policy updates, staff training and a clear complaints process will be essential. This is especially relevant where employees interact with clients or the public (e.g. at farm shops or events).

4. Changes to collective redundancy thresholds. Redundancy thresholds will apply across a business, not per site.

Implications: For larger, multi-site operations, this may increase the chance of triggering collective consultation obligations.

5. Further changes to be aware of include:

• Flexible working requests: employers must give a reasoned refusal based on statutory grounds.
• Time limits for bringing tribunal claims set to extend from three to six months.
• Introduction of rights for zero-hours workers (including guaranteed hours in certain cases).
• Reforms to family leave, including enhanced protection for returning parents and earlier rights to paternity leave.

Although the changes are not coming into force immediately, early preparation will ensure that your organisation is ready for the more employee-focused legal framework on the horizon.

On 20 February 2025, the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) handed down its judgment in Vodafone Limited v Icon Tower Infrastructure Limited and AP Wireless II Limited (Vodafone v Icon).

This case provides important guidance on the strict application of the termination provisions in the Electronic Communication Code (Code).

Background

The Claimant, Vodafone Limited (Vodafone), sought to renew its existing code agreement for a mobile communications site at Steppes Hill Farm.

However, the First Respondent and site provider, Icon Tower Infrastructure Limited (Icon), who had recently purchased the freehold from the Second Respondent, AP Wireless II (UK) Limited, sought the termination of the agreement and the removal of Vodafone’s apparatus.

The Preliminary Issues Icon sought to rely on the following three termination grounds within the Code:

1. Substantial breach: Icon alleged that Vodafone had substantially breached the existing agreement between the parties. In particular, it was alleged that Vodafone had breached the alienation provision (no assignment, transfer etc.) as a result of its relationship with Cornerstone Telecommunications Infrastructure Limited (Cornerstone)

2. Redevelopment: Icon presented the Tribunal with their plan for proposed works to the Vodafone site and a small parcel of neighbouring land (the Orange Site), some of which had already been completed. Icon claimed that their plan demonstrated an intention to redevelop the land which could not be achieved without the removal of Vodafone’s apparatus.

3. Public benefit (Paragraph 21 test): In accordance with paragraph 21 of the Code, a Tribunal can only grant Code rights where:

• the prejudice caused to the site provider by the imposition of the Code agreement is capable of being adequately compensated by money; and
• the public benefit likely to result from the imposition of the Code agreement outweighs the prejudice to the site provider.

Icon’s case was that neither limb of this test was satisfied.

The Upper Tribunal’s Decision

The Upper Tribunal held that Icon failed to establish any of the termination grounds and, therefore, Vodafone were entitled to renew the existing agreement. More specifically:

1. Substantial breach: There had been no breach of the alienation provision as Cornerstone managed the site as Vodafone’s agent.

2. Redevelopment: Icon could not demonstrate the requisite intention to redevelop the land. Broadly, this was because:

• Some elements of the works had already been completed. The Tribunal adopted a literal interpretation of the term ‘intends’, concluding that a person cannot intend to carry out works that have already been completed.
• The proposed demolition of the masts could not constitute redevelopment. The Tribunal clarified that ‘redevelopment’ requires the construction of something new.

The Tribunal also clarified that:

• ‘Neighbouring land’ is capable of including land which is not actually adjacent to the code agreement land. It is a question of proximity to be determined on the individual facts of each case.
• For the redevelopment ground to apply, the site provider must demonstrate an intention to commence the redevelopment work within a reasonable time of the Code agreement coming to an end.3.

3. Public Benefit (paragraph 21 test): To determine the first limb of the paragraph 21 test, the Tribunal assessed whether a renewal of the Code agreement would cause Icon reputational loss. Icon had constructed a new mast on the Orange Site pursuant to planning permission requiring the demolition of Vodafone’s apparatus and, therefore, if the existing agreement was renewed, they would be unable to use the new mast lawfully. Following a detailed analysis of historic case law, the Tribunal held that no reputational loss would occur. The only loss would be a financial one (i.e. a failed investment) which could be adequately compensated by money.

The Tribunal held that no reputational loss would occur. The only loss would be a financial one (i.e. a failed investment) which could be adequately compensated by money.

On the second limb of the test, the Tribunal considered the cost implications to the public of enabling Icon to terminate the agreement. Paragraph 24 of the Code governs the amount of rent payable by an operator. By terminating the agreement, Icon would be able to force Vodafone to migrate to their new mast and, without the limits of paragraph 24, charge higher, unchecked, open market rates. The Tribunal concluded that it was in the wider public interest to ensure that operators benefit from the protection of paragraph 24 as this guarantees the availability of mobile communication facilities to the public at a competitive price.

Comment

The Tribunal adopted a strict interpretation of the termination provisions in this case which is a welcome result for operators. However, site providers can take some comfort from a few small victories in the judgment, such as the broad interpretation of neighbouring land for the purposes of development and clarification on when development work should commence for the purposes of exercising the termination provisions in paragraph 31 of the Code.

Rachael Lloyd’s article first appeared in CIPD’s People Management, published here on 7 March 2025.

Individual consultation

An employer considering making redundancies must consult with affected employees when proposals are at the formative stage and when consultation can still make a difference to the outcome. Employers must approach the consultation process with an open mind and be capable of influence – this is not a tick box exercise.

The employer must provide affected employees with adequate information and time to consider the proposed redundancies, and then listen and consider the affected employees’ responses to the consultation.

Individual consultation will usually involve at least a couple of meetings with each affected employee. This allows the employee to consider and respond to the employer’s proposals, the employer time to consider the employee’s responses, and then for the employer to confirm its outcome.

The individual consultation process will usually involve providing employees with the opportunity to:

• suggest alternatives to avoid redundancies;
• comment on the pool and selection criteria;
• challenge provisional selection assessment;
• consider alternative employment;
• raise issues/concerns regarding the process.

During individual consultation, allow employees to express their views both on issues which are particular to them and which are common to the group as a whole.

There are no minimum timescales for how long individual consultation should last, but very short consultation periods suggest consultation was not carried out adequately.

Both the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) and Court of Appeal have recently grappled with the issue of individual redundancy consultation. In De Bank Haycocks v ADP RPO UK Ltd, the EAT found that a small-scale redundancy process (involving two dismissals) was unfair because there had been ‘no general workforce consultation’ about the redundancy proposal. This was concerning to employers as it appeared to introduce a new obligation to consult the workforce in all redundancy exercises of any size.

However, the appeal court overturned this decision, finding the EAT had been wrong to suggest that, for smaller-scale redundancies in non-unionised workforces, it was a requirement for employers to conduct general workforce consultation.

Collective consultation

Where an employer proposes to make 20 or more employees redundant at one establishment within 90 days or less, they must collectively consult with appropriate representatives of the affected employees.

Collective consultation will happen with a trade union if recognised union; if no union is recognised, the employer will consult with an appropriate standing body of representatives, or elected employee representatives (note: there are prescriptive rules for the election process).

Where fewer than 100 redundancies are proposed, consultation must start at least 30 days before the first dismissal takes effect. Where 100 or more redundancies are proposed, the minimum consultation period is 45 days.

The process starts with the employer providing statutory information to the representatives (such as the reasons for the redundancies, the numbers, the proposed method of selection etc). Consultation must then be undertaken with a view to reaching agreement on ways and means of avoiding the dismissals, reducing the number of dismissals and mitigating their consequences.

It is crucial that the representatives understand the matters which are subject to consultation and are able to express their views on those subjects, with the employer considering those views. Similar to individual consultation, the consultation should happen at the formative stage by providing enough information and time for representatives to respond, and then the employer listening to those responses with a willingness to be persuaded.

Collective consultation is not a substitute for individual consultation. Even when collective consultation is necessary, an employer must still consult with individual employees (but this process may be curtailed/shaped by the preceding collective consultation).

Upcoming changes

Labour’s Employment Rights Bill (ERB) will introduce a number of changes to collective consultation. The headline points to note are as follows:

• Originally, the ERB proposed removing the wording ‘at one establishment’ from the collective consultation obligations, which would have meant that all redundancies across the entire business – even if they were at different sites – would have counted towards the collective redundancy thresholds. However, the latest amendments to the ERB will not remove the wording ‘at one establishment’, so that rule will remain the same. This is good news for employers.
• However, the ERB proposes introducing an additional threshold for redundancies over multiple establishments. Details of the threshold will be set out in further regulations, but are likely to  be either a set number over 20, or a percentage of the workforce. This is likely to mean that more multi-site redundancies will meet the threshold for collective consultation.
• The amended ERB proposes including a provision that, during collective consultation, the employer does not need to consult all employee representatives together or try to reach the same agreement with all of the representatives. This is likely to be particularly relevant for redundancies across multiple sites.
• The amended ERB proposes an increase of the cap on protective awards in collective redundancy situations, from 90 to 180 days, to encourage employer compliance. The consequence of this could be very costly for employers.
• Further guidance for employers on collective consultation processes will be produced in due course.

Complying with consultation requirements is a crucial part of a fair redundancy process. The changes under the ERB will result in more redundancy situations being caught by the collective consultation rules, which will likely increase legal risk. Coupled with the increase in protective awards, this could mean that employers not only risk facing more claims, but those claims may become more complex and expensive.

The recent TCC judgment in John Sisk and Son Limited (Sisk) v Capital & Centric (Rose) Limited (C&C) has demonstrated the importance of clear and consistent contract drafting, particularly in relation to the incorporation of contractors’ “schedules of derogation” or “schedules of clarification”.

Sisk v C&C – Background

Sisk and C&C entered into a JCT Design & Build Contract 2016 (as amended) (the Contract) on 20 May 2022. The works to be carried out included the design and construction of two new residential buildings, repairs and refurbishment of two listed mills and two further existing buildings together with external and other associated works. The dispute centred around which party was contractually responsible for the risks associated with the existing structures on the site and the ability of those structures to support the proposed works

A dispute was initially referred to adjudication to consider two issues: first the ground condition; and second the existing structure. The Adjudicator found in C&C’s favour, ruling that the responsibility for ground conditions and the existing structure was solely Sisk’s risk.

As a result of the Adjudicator’s decision, Sisk issued Part 8 court proceedings, seeking declaratory relief in connection with the allocation of risk under the Contract.

Risk allocation for the existing structures was set out in clauses 2.42.1 to 2.42.3 of the amended conditions. In summary, Sisk was stated to be responsible for risk in relation to the existing structures and ground conditions. However, clause 2.42.4 read “this clause 2.42 shall be subject to item 2 of the Clarifications“. The definition of Clarification was “the clarifications headed ‘Contract Clarifications’ contained within Volume 2, Appendix 2.9 of the Employer’s Requirements”. The Judge focused on this definition and whether there were any inconsistencies in the contract documents. The Judge ultimately disagreed with the Adjudicator’s decision that Sisk was solely responsible for the existing structures and ground conditions.

In particular, the Judge noted that the electronic version of the Contract included two clarification documents, the ‘Contract Clarifications’ and the ‘Tender Submission Clarifications’. Whereas, the paper version of the Contract only included one clarification document, the ‘Contract Clarifications’. The Judge had to determine what documents had been included within the Contract and what fell within the definitions of Clarifications.

This question had substantial implications on the parties’ liabilities. This was because item 2 of the Contract Clarification document provided that “the Employer is to insure that existing buildings/works”, whereas item 2.1.02 of the tender submission clarifications conversely stated that C&C would procure insurance “in line with JCT Option C”.

TTC judgment – pre-contractual negotiations

Both parties submitted evidence of pre-contractual negotiations to support their respective positions. The Judge, however, generally prohibited the parties from relying pre-contractual negotiations. It was considered that “evidence of pre-contractual negotiations is admissible to establish that a fact was known to both parties”. In this case, “any admissible evidence would need to be directed either to a particular known fact or to the general object of the contract”. The Judge decided that they had no proper basis to have regard to the pre-contractual negotiations as admissible evidence of the issues in dispute.

TCC judgment – Which contract documents?

The Judge also had to address the issue of what documents formed the Contract. C&C argued that the Contract definition of “Clarifications” included both the Contract Clarifications and the Tender Submission Clarifications. The Judge, however, rejected this argument, stating “…Section 2.9 referred to a Clarifications Document, not to a Contract Clarifications Document. The contract definition refers expressly to “the clarifications headed “Contract Clarifications” contained within Volume 2, Appendix 2.9 of the Employer’s Requirements”… this can only be referring to the specific contract clarifications worksheet which is “within” the Clarifications Document, rather than to the whole workbook…”

TTC judgment – Clarification definition

In light of the above, the dispute hinged on the fact that “contract clarification two” stated that “the Employer is to insure the Existing buildings/works. Employer also to obtain warranty from Arup with regard to the suitability of the proposed works. Employer Risk”. The Contract failed to provide definitions of Existing Structure Risk or Employer Risk. While it was difficult to see what risk had been allocated to C&C in the absence of sufficient definitions, the Judge objectively concluded that that C&C had accepted the contractual risk associated with the suitability of the existing structures, and that this risk solely fell on C&C, rather than Sisk.

Difference in ‘incorporating’ and ‘referring’ to a document

In this case, the conditions of contract were amended such that clause 2.42.4 was to be subject to the ‘Clarifications’, being contained within the Employer’s Requirements, a contract document. In the comparable matter of Workman Properties Ltd v Adi Building & Refurbishment Ltd [2024], the contract stated that Adi had examined the Employer’s Requirements and had agreed to accept full responsibility for any design. The Court had to consider whether paragraph 1.4 of the Employer’s Requirements meant that Workman had warranted to complete the design to the end of RIBA Stage 4, and whether this was capable of overriding Adi’s obligations. The Court concluded that the Employer’s Requirements were “nowhere near sufficient to require the other unequivocal contract provisions to be read as so heavily qualified”. The Employer’s Requirements therefore did not override the contractual terms here, and Adi remained responsible for ensuring the design was sufficient and adequate for construction.

In Workman, the contents of Employer’s Requirements were not capable of overriding conditions of contract. In Sisk, however, the fact the Employer’s Requirements had been directly referenced in the conditions of contract meant that the opposite was true (i.e. that the Employer’s Requirements outranked the conditions). Readers should note that simply incorporating a contract document within the contract may not have the intended impact, as opposed to expressly referring to the contract document in the conditions. Parties should therefore consider how the contract documents are to be utilised and referred to, and whether an order of precedence clause should be deployed to properly record the parties’ intentions with regard to the contract documents, especially where there may be inconsistencies between documents.

Michelmores’ comments – learning points

These cases highlight important learning points that parties should be mindful of when drafting definitions and incorporating documents into contracts:

• Construction contracts are commonly made up of agreements signed by the parties, which often refer to a set of underlying ‘contract documents’. The contract documents can include specifications, drawings and other particulars that will help define the scope of a party’s obligations. The terms of the contract should clearly identify and incorporate those documents. The parties should also check that any definitions contained in the contract documents align with the express terms of the contract. This can be particularly relevant where a party is using standard form contracts, such as a JCT contract, where pre-existing definitions may not match bespoke specifications and schedules.
• Should a dispute arise as to the interpretation of a contract, Judges may not readily consider pre-contractual negotiations between the parties, as this can only be done in limited circumstances. All information should therefore be included within the terms or in the relevant contract documents. This will minimise the risk of a dispute arising, or there being a need to refer to pre-contractual negotiations to resolve any dispute.
• Parties need to ensure that risk allocation and responsibility is clearly allocated. Where carve-outs are being used, no matter how limited, it is essential the accepted risks are clearly and correctly recorded. This is reinforced by the Judge’s comment that “the bespoke provisions illustrate how negotiations and agreements of such issues can lead to a final contract position of some complexity”. Such mistakes can cause unwanted headaches with the ‘losing’ party suffering additional unexpected costs and liabilities.
• Proper consideration should be given to the procurement and drafting of contracts. Contracts should be drafted with appropriate oversight (including legal input where necessary) which can help minimise the risk of such disputes arising. A modest expense up front in getting the drafting correct can avoid a costly mistake down the line.

Should you have any queries or need assistance with contract drafting or any dispute, please do not hesitate to contact Anna Wood (Partner) or Andrew Pratten (Associate) in Michelmores’ specialist Construction and Engineering team. With thanks to Charlotte Pottow (Trainee Solicitor) for her contributions to this article.