Developer

In 2021, the Government proposed to raise the minimum energy efficiency standard to C by 2027 and B by 2030.

The Government is yet to confirm whether it will implement the original plans for commercial properties. Developers will want to know whether existing property is exempt under the proposed changes and may consider undertaking works to improve their EPC rating in the long term.  They will also want to know the standard to which they must construct new properties.

The original proposals were abandoned for residential properties but a new consultation was launched on the proposal to raise the minimum energy efficiency standard for domestic (residential) properties. The proposals include revised metrics for calculating asset ratings and would require that from 2028, all new leases need to comply with the new higher standard; and by 2030, all leases need to comply with the higher standard. The consultation closes on 2 May 2025.

Improving the energy performance of privately rented homes: consultation document (HTML) – GOV.UK

LURA gives local authorities powers to arrange for a rental auction to be carried out in respect of qualifying high-street premises, with the objective of improving the high streets. The Local Authorities (Rental Auctions) (England) and Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Amendment) Regulations 2024 came into force on 2 December 2024 and lay out the steps the Local Authority must take if it wants to auction a lease of a vacant High Street property.

The Government hopes the auctions will improve the areas in which the vacant premises are situated. It will however likely take many local authorities time to implement the regulations.

Please see this article for more information ‘Fair Warning’ for the High Street 

The Law Society Consultation on climate risk and conveyancing closed on 31 October 2024. The Law Society published its response on 8 January 2025.The Law Society confirmed that it will develop a new practice note, to be published in May 2026, addressing some of the common challenges Law Society members have identified when considering how climate change may impact the sale of a property. The Practice Note intends to cover:

• Understanding climate risks for properties in the UK and what solicitors need to be aware of.
• Solicitors’ duties; and
• The advice which should be given if / when climate change poses a significant risk

The Levelling Up and Regeneration Act 2023 (“LURA 2023”) included requirements for disclosure of contractual rights over land in England and Wales.  Secondary legislation will determine how the information will be requested but the requirements for disclosure will include key information such as the type of agreement, the parties involved, the date of the agreement and details of the solicitors involved in the transaction. This will impact certain land agreements including option agreements, conditional contracts and promotion agreements.  The Government consulted on draft regulations seeking views on the implications of collecting and publishing information on contractual control agreements. The consultation closed in March 2024.

Potential disclosure requirements in relation to contractual control agreements will mean that parties to such documents will have to supply more potentially sensitive commercial information. This will also cause further administrative steps for developers and their advisers to correctly file information in line with regulations.  If information is not provided or false information is given knowingly or recklessly, this could constitute a criminal offence under LURA 2023 which carries a maximum of 2 years imprisonment and an unlimited fine.

This article provides more information on the proposals – Government consults on more transparent picture of controls on land

In a recent letter to the Chair of the Land Registry board, Matthew Pennycook MP confirmed he would like to see rapid design and delivery of the systems to collect and publish contractual control agreements.  This is the first indication that the new government will proceed with these proposals.  There were no details of timing.

As also mentioned in the Disputes section, the Government has set out plans for commonhold reform in its new white paper to bring the system of long leasehold flats to an end.  Commonhold White Paper: The proposed new commonhold model for homeownership in England and Wales – GOV.UK

Commonhold is an alternative management structure to the long leasehold system which allows occupiers to own the freehold of individual flats in a building with the common parts of the building being jointly managed by the flat owners through a commonhold association.  It was first introduced in 2002 but has not been widely adopted.  The White Paper proposes changes aimed at reinvigorating the tenure including:

• New rules to give more flexibility which will help commonhold to work for all types of developments, including mixed-use buildings and shared ownership homes;
• Greater security for mortgage lenders by protecting the solvency of commonhold associations by making public liability insurance mandatory, greater availability of reserve funds and oversight of commonholders to approve annual budgets to keep costs down;
• Improve management of commonholders with new rules for appointing directors, clear standards for repairs and mandating use of reserve funds;
• Amended rules will mean more democracy in agreeing the annual budget and clarity with safeguards for changes to “local rules” which relate only to a particular commonhold building.  This will allow homeowners to prioritise what is important for their building;
• A Code of Practice will be released to set out how costs should be apportioned and increase transparency;
• The Government will strengthen regulation of managing agents, who will now report to the common holders who will be able to hire or fire managing agents.

Later in 2025, the government aims to consultations on a ban of new leasehold flats and on regulation of managing agents.  They are also looking at simplifying conversion of a building from leasehold to commonhold.

Last year the Law Society introduced a new form TA6 (5th edition) property information form to reflect guidance from the National Trading Standards Estate and Letting Agency Team on material information which estate agents need to market a property.  Following feedback, the form was non-mandatory, and the Law Society held a consultation.

They have decided to replace it with two forms – a TA6 (6th edition) and an optional material information form.  There will be a transition period in which a range of approaches will be compliant before the new forms become mandatory for CQS members in March 2026.

On 12 December 2024, the Government released the final version of the revised National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) which sets out government’s planning policies for England. This is a key part of the reforms intended to unlock development and drive growth.

Key points of note:

• Green and grey belt rules retained: Green belt development only allowed in exceptional circumstances. The sequential test states that green or grey belt land must be considered in the following order when forming development plans:(1) Previously developed land in sustainable locations

  (2) Grey Belt land in sustainable locations which is not already previously developed

  (3) Other sustainable Green Belt locations.

• Planning decision-takers must presume in favour of sustainable development: The updated NPPF has retained the requirement that decision-makers presume sustainable development where relevant development policies are not available or out of date. Decision-takers are also given more room to presume sustainable development in areas with housing need, as the updated NPPF explicitly states that “out of date” includes where a five-year supply of housing cannot be demonstrated in a LPA area, or where housing delivery fell below 75% of applicable housing requirements in a LPA area.
• Brownfield land proposals explicitly stated to be acceptable in principle.
• 5 Year Housing Supply Requirement on LPAs Stands: Restoration of requirement for all local authorities to continually demonstrate a 5-year housing supply still stands.
• Standard Method of Calculating Housing Need Only Method Allowed: Housing need confirmed to only be calculable in accordance with the standard method which uses existing housing stock levels as a baseline. No other methods allowed (including the previously used method which relied on projections made in 2014 and allowed for an uplift of 35% in the UK’s 20 biggest cities/urban areas).

Key updates not included in the previously published (July 2024) draft:

Increased detail on the exceptions which apply to Green Belt development restrictions: The July 24 NPPF draft stated some exceptional types of development which are “not inappropriate” in the Green Belt provided that such developments preserve the Green Belt’s openness. However, these exceptions were largely limited to industrial functions (e.g. engineering operations) and the provision of nationally significant infrastructure (local transport infrastructure, affordable housing).

The final publication states other exceptions, by outlining that the development of homes, commercial and other types of developments in the Green Belt may be “not inappropriate” in some circumstances, including:

1. where grey belt land is included in the development (and where surrounding Green Belt land is not undermined), and
2. where there is a demonstrable unmet need for the type of development proposed.

Increased buffer to housing supply required from some LPAs: If any of the following applies, affected LPAs will need to include a buffer of 20% on top of the 5-year housing supply requirement:

• • there has been significant under delivery of housing in a local authority area; or
  • a local authority’s housing requirement is more than 5 years old (due to being found not to require updating); or
  • a local authority’s housing requirement has been adopted in the last 5 years but is 80% or lower than the housing need figure that applies to the authority

On 11^th March 2025, the government’s new Planning and Infrastructure Bill received its first reading in the House of Commons. The Bill had previously been announced in the King’s Speech on 17 July 2024.

The government states that the bill has five overarching objectives:

1. Delivering a faster and more certain consenting process for critical infrastructure
2. Introducing a more strategic approach to nature recovery
3. Improving certainty and decision-making in the planning system
4. Unlocking land and securing public value for large scale investment
5. Introducing effective new mechanisms for cross boundary strategic planning

As part of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill 2024/25, the government are seeking targeted NSIP reform with an emphasis on streamlining the process and removing barriers to delivery. This is to help the government reach its target aim of at least 150 Development Consent Orders (DCO) during the current Parliament.

The Bill aims to achieve this in a number of ways:

Updates to National Policy Statements

National Policy Statements provide policy guidance on how NSIP applications are prepared and determined. Under the current system they are taking a long time to update meaning that some of the provisions are out of date by more than 10 years which fails to capture technological, sector and policy developments. Under the new Bill they will need to be updated every 5 years and there will be routes to make changes outside of the 5 yearly cycle where required.

Flexibility on Consenting Routes

The Secretary of State will have the power to direct projects out of the NSIP regime on a case-by-case basis where an alternative consenting route may be more suitable.

Streamlining Consultation

• Changes will be made to enable more concise consultation reports
• The acceptance criteria in the Planning Act 2008 will be changed to enable the Planning Inspectorate to require corrective action ahead of examination (rather than having to withdraw/reject an application).
• The requirement to consult category 3 persons (those who might have a relevant claim under the Compulsory Purchase Act) will be removed. Instead, they will be notified at acceptance stage.
• A new duty will be introduced for statutory consultees and Local Authorities to have regard to guidance.
• The disincentive to engage in the DCO process between acceptance and preliminary meetings will be removed for statutory consultees, Local Authorities and those affected by compulsory acquisition.

Judicial Review

• The Bill removes the paper permission stage for Judicial Reviews of NPSs and DCOs.
• The right to appeal will be removed for cases deemed totally without merit at the oral permission hearing at the High Court.

Under the new Planning and Infrastructure Bill 2024/25, the government is looking to introduce reforms to planning fees so that they better cover the cost of the LPA processing and determining a planning application (their ‘development management service’). The current estimated funding shortfall is £362 million based on government spending data for 2023/24.

Under the new Bill, the Secretary of State will have the power to sub-delegate the setting of planning fees to LPAs. The fees will be ringfenced to the costs of the LPA of determining the application and cannot be used for cross-subsidisation of other services. The Secretary of State will have the power to intervene where fees appear excessive or unjustified.

LPAs across the country may therefore set different fees for the same type of application. However, the government intends to maintain the same fee ‘categories’ for comparison purposes.

Planning decisions in England are currently the responsibility of planning committees (i.e. councillors) however they can choose to delegate their decisions to planning officers (employees of the local authority).

To ensure national consistency, under the new Planning and Infrastructure Bill 2024/25 there will be a national scheme of delegation that will dictate which decisions are to be made by planning committees and which are to be made by officers.

Committee members will also be required to undertake mandatory training before they can make planning decisions.

In a recent decision of the Court of Appeal on 10^th December 2024, the court provided clarity on the scope of section 73 planning permissions in a case that found against the solar farm developer who had sought to change the size and location of the substation after the original planning permission had been granted.

Section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 can be used to vary the conditions of planning permission after it has been granted, usually where various details about the site have changed over time. However, a central feature of section 73 is that it is used to vary the conditions of a planning permission and not operative part (the main description of the permitted development). In fact, a section 73 application stands as its own separate planning permission, with developers entitled to choose which permission to implement, as a section 73 application does not supersede a previous application.

The developer in the case had obtained full planning permission in 2017, and the operative part of that permission included in its description reference to a ‘substation’ in accordance with the approved plans, which included a drawing detailing a 33kV substation. Consequently, this 33kV substation was understood to form part of the main ‘operative’ part of the planning permission. The developer later sought to vary the conditions using section 73, introducing a new 132kV substation and omitting reference to the original substation. A challenge was brought against the council’s decision by a local resident, Mrs Chala Fiske, that section 73 had been mis-applied. The High Court agreed with Mrs Fiske, stating that section 73 could not be used to make fundamental changes to a planning permission. Test Valley Borough Council consequently appealed to the Court of Appeal resulting in this judgement.

The judge in the case dismissed the appeal on the basis that the developer had sought to use section 73 to alter the operative part of a full planning permission and that this was not possible under the legislation. Consequently, because the developer had chosen to specify the inclusion of the 33kV substation in its description of the development, it was not possible to retrospectively change this.

Crucially, the judge also confirmed that it is possible to make both substantial and fundamental changes under section 73, as long as they do not alter, or conflict with, the operative part of the planning permission. This has provided much needed clarification to the legal position, as the High Court decision in Fiske stood in contradiction to other recent judgements, such as Armstrong v Secretary of State for Levelling-Up, Housing and Communities [2023] EWHC 142 (KB), by asserting that substantial changes could not be made to a planning permission using section 73. This recent Court of Appeal decision confirms that substantial changes are permittable, providing they are not inconsistent with the operative part of the planning permission.

The cautionary tale for developers is to ensure that the description of the development when submitting a planning application is as broad and flexible as possible in order to allow greater scope for changes down the line. Specificity, in this case, could be costly.

It is also particularly relevant for developers to bear in mind that with the increase in development across the country, spearheaded by the new Labour government, they are likely to run into increased opposition from highly motivated local residents scrutinising applications for anything that may be used to de-rail the development. Consequently, to avoid the cost and delay of challenge, the planning process will need to be followed to the strict letter of the law.

The Procurement Act 2023 came into force on 24 February 2025 and applies to all new tender processes commenced on or after 24 February 2024 (existing tenders and contracts will continue to be governed by the relevant procurement Regulations).

The main theme of the Act is that contracting authorities (i.e. central and local government and other public bodies) should be awarding contracts for works, services and supplies (in excess of certain specified thresholds) only following fair and transparent tender processes.

The Act intends to simplify the tendering procedures by streamlining the mechanisms involved and provides that, subject to certain limited exceptions, contracting authorities must “have regard to the National Procurement Policy Statement”.

JCT continues to release its updated suite of standard form construction contracts and ancillary documents. However, we are still awaiting the much-anticipated release of the new Target Cost Contract family of contracts designed to offer the parties more flexibility in relation to project costs. We understand there will be a main contract and a sub-contract.

The Building Safety Levy is one of the ways that the government is seeking to pay for the remediation of building safety defects.

Key points:

1. It will apply to all new “relevant buildings” (regardless of height);
2. There will be some exclusions e.g. for Registered Providers;
3. The Levy will need to be paid before issue of the final building control certificate;
4. If the Levy is not paid, the building control completion certificate will not be issued;
5. It will be calculated per square metre and depending on geographic location e.g. a reduced rate will apply for brownfield sites;
6. We do not yet know the date the Levy will come into force (although we anticipate it will be later this year) but it is expected that any developments already in the building control process when the Levy is launched will not be subject to the Levy.

The Home Builders’ Federation has organised a letter signed by over a hundred house builders calling on the Chancellor to reconsider current Building Safety Levy plans. The main concern is that the levy will hit SME builders the hardest and may inadvertently cause those house builders to go into liquidation and/or fewer new homes to be built.

The Building Safety Levy – what you need to know

This Private Members’ Bill has now had its second reading in the House of Commons. The Bill will require solar photovoltaic generation equipment to be installed on new homes, and to set minimum standards for compliance in line with the UK’s Future Homes Standard policy (aiming to encourage more energy-efficiency and carbon-reduction practices).

If made law, this would mean that the Government can make regulations requiring all new homes built from 1 October 2026 to have solar photovoltaic systems covering an area equivalent to at least 40% of the new home’s ground-floor area. Exemptions would apply for certain buildings (e.g. above a number of storeys) or where buildings already incorporate clean energy measures.

In the recent case of Sky UK Limited & Anor v Riverstone Managing Agency Limited & Ors [2024] EWCA Civ 1567, the Court of Appeal provided some welcome clarification on:

1. What constitutes “damage” in a construction context.
2. Whether insurers are liable post period of insurance (“POI”) for deterioration and damage development.
3. Whether costs incurred investigating potential damage are recoverable, even if no damage is subsequently found.

What is “damage” and when can it occur? The Court of Appeal provides clarification on CAR coverage

In the recent case of 381 Southwark Park Road RTM Co Ltd and others v Click St Andrews Ltd and another [2024] EWHC 3569 (TCC) the Technology and Construction Court handed down the first Building Liability Order (BLO) under section 130 of the Building Safety Act 2022 against an associate of a defendant company which had gone into liquidation. The initial successful claim was brought by leaseholder claimants against the freeholder, a special purpose vehicle that went into liquidation, so the claimaints sought a Building Liabilty Order against an associate company.

The Judge considered that the Court should have regard to the purpose of the Building Safety Act, which is to ensure that the original developer and its group companies do not escape liability for building safety defects simply because of their corporate structure.

After 70 years in force and of prominence in the UK property industry, the Law Commission review of Part 2 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (LTA) was announced in March 2023 and on 19 November 2024 the consultation was launched. Part 2 of the LTA gives business tenants the right to renew their tenancies, also known as “security of tenure”. It applies automatically to most business tenancies unless the parties have specifically opted-out of the provisions before the grant of the lease.

The aim of the review and consultation is to modernise commercial leasehold legislation, as the last significant updates were made nearly 20 years ago. The review intends to create a framework which will be used more widely and will improve the use of commercial space in town centres, taking into account net zero targets.

The consultation paper asks for responses about four possible models for reform by 19 February 2025. The Law Commission plans to then publish a technical consultation based upon the analysis of the first consultation later in 2025.

Please see this article for more information – Standing the test of time? Law Commission review of the LTA 1954

The Renters’ Rights Bill (RRB) is a bill intended to improve and modernise the private rental sector and increase security and stability for residential tenants. It is expected to become law by Summer 2025. The changes intended by the RRB will significantly change the residential rental landscape in England.

The RRB will abolish the ability of a residential landlord to evict a tenant on a “no fault” basis by serving a notice under section 21 of the Housing Act 1988. This will apply to both existing and new tenancies. The change will mean landlords must provide a statutory reason to evict a tenant. Reasons like rent arrears will remain, but the thresholds will be increased.

The RRB will also abolish assured shorthold tenancies (ASTs) and fixed-term assured tenancies of less than 7 years. These types of tenancies will be made periodic (i.e. month to month). The practical effect of this is that tenants will be able to stay in a residential property until they decide to end the tenancy by giving two months’ notice, unless one of the statutory grounds for the landlord to terminate the tenancy is satisfied.

As alluded to, the RRB makes significant changes to the grounds for possession available to landlords, including by: (1) introducing new mandatory and discretionary grounds, (2) altering or removing existing mandatory or discretionary grounds, and by (3) general increasing notice periods and where certain grounds are used, such as new mandatory ground 1A, which will allow a landlord to evict a tenant if they wish to sell a property (or let it for more than 21 years), preventing the landlord from re-letting the property for 12 months from the notice date.

The Bill places significant limits on landlords’ ability to increase rent. Landlords will only be permitted to increase rents once per year on two months’ notice to the tenant. Tenants will also be given increased powers to challenge the rent increase and validity of the notice to the First Tier Tribunal. Rental bidding beyond the levels of rent advertised for a property will also be prohibited, with breaches punishable by financial penalties.

The RRB also requires all private rented sector landlords to register with a new independent Private Rented Sector Landlord Ombudsman, likely for a small annual fee. The Ombudsman will be able to make binding decisions regarding tenant complaints, enforceable using both civil penalties and criminal prosecution. Landlords will also need to register with a new Private Rented Sector Database to let a property and obtain an order to evict a tenant.

These changes will have wide-ranging consequences for landlords and managing agents, with increased administrative burdens and a reduced ability to remove tenants.

Please see this article for more details in the context of landed estates – Renters’ Rights Revamp – Key points for landed estates 

The Government published a Guide to the Renters’ Rights Bill – GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

As also mentioned under Land, the Labour Government has set out its plans for commonhold reform to “reinvigorate commonhold tenure” by making it the default tenure for shared residential flats and mixed-use blocks.

Commonhold is a way of owning freehold properties which have communal facilities. The unit holder owns the freehold interest in their respective unit and is a member of the commonhold association which owns and manages the common parts of the building or estate.

Commonhold ownership has been an available alternative to leasehold ownership since 2002 but has not been favoured in the UK until now. There are approximately 20 commonhold ownership structures currently in use in the UK.

The Commonhold White Paper, published on 3 March 2025, proposes the following:

• A ban on new leasehold flats;
• Enhanced, and more flexible, commonhold framework;
• Reforms to strengthen management and governance of commonhold properties; and,
• Support for existing leaseholders.

A draft Leasehold and Commonhold Reform Bill is expected later this year.

The Bill seeks to improve public safety at large events and premises open to the public. This includes shops, hotels, restaurants, bars and nightclubs, sports venues, hotels, hospitals, places of worship, schools, colleges and universities, bus and railway stations, museums and venues that host entertainment activities.

The Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill 2024 – GOV.UK (www.gov.uk) was introduced to Parliament on 12 September 2024 and is expected to be passed into law later in 2025. It will impose a legal duty on parties responsible for premises and events to implement measures to reduce the risk of harm during terrorist attacks. It will categorise venues into “standard” and “enhanced” premises based on their capacity. The person in control of the premises in connection with its use will be responsible for compliance. The Security Industry Authority will monitor compliance. Non-compliance could be a criminal offence in some instances and will carry the risk of regulatory inspections and substantial fines, from £10,000 to £18 million, or 5% of global revenue for enhanced premises or events.

The Bill is known as Martyn’s Law in tribute to Martyn Hett, who was killed in the 2017 Manchester Arena attack.  This Bill could be relevant to developers who own or develop premises which falls within the criteria in the Bill.

In a recent judgment, the High Court has ruled that MVL Properties (2017) Limited (MVL) was not in breach of Article 1 of the First Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights (A1 P1 ECHR) by opposing the grant of a new tenancy to The Leadmill Limited (Leadmill) under s.30(1)(g) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (LTA).

Leadmill occupied the premises as a nightclub and had gained a distinctive reputation as a music venue in Sheffield. MVL wished to occupy the premises themselves as a nightclub and music venue under a different name.

Leadmill argued that Section 30(1)(g) should not apply to cases where a landlord intends to carry on the same business as the tenant because MVL’s new venue would mislead customers into believing that the new venue was associated with Leadmill’s “goodwill” (an intellectual property right associated with reputation) and this “goodwill” was a “possession” under A1 P1 ECHR.

The High Court decided that Section 30(1)(g) did not breach A1 P1 ECHR and awarded MVA possession of the premises because:

1. While “goodwill” can be a “possession” under A1 P1 ECHR, the tenant must prove and evidence the presence of goodwill; a stated value is not enough.
2. Even if a tenant can prove “goodwill”, the LTA only provides a tenant with a contingent right to renew; therefore, a tenant cannot be lawfully deprived of their “possession”.
3. It is not in the public interest to prevent a landlord from recovering their property.

The High Court’s judgement confirms that tenants who trade on their name and reputation are not entitled to rely on “goodwill” alone to displace the landlord’s statutory right to regain possession of their property, even if the tenant’s business benefits from a notable reputation and longstanding history. The public interest is in maintaining the integrity of commercial property law without eroding its predictability and disrupting a landlord’s right to their property. 

To read more: Goodwill Hunting: MVL Properties v The Leadmill [2025] | Foot Anstey

The Supreme Court have ruled on the correct construction of paragraph 5(4)(c) of Schedule 6 to the Land Registration Act 2002 (“the 2002 Act”), concerning the timing of adverse possession claims.

In October 2019, Mr Brown discovered that his neighbours, Mr and Mrs Ridley (the Ridleys) were constructing a house on part of his land. The Ridley’s sought to be registered as proprietors as they had used this land since 2004 and believed they owned it until approximately February 2018, when they made an application for planning permission.

The Supreme Court had to decide whether the required ten-year period of reasonable belief in ownership must immediately precede an application for adverse possession or if this could be any ten-year period during adverse possession.

The Supreme Court favoured the latter argument, allowing the Ridley’s claim despite their reasonable belief ending 21 months before their application, citing the intention of the 2002 Act to confine adverse possession rights, but not to wholly remove them.

What Brown v Ridley means for adverse possession 

This related judgment addressed the key issues concerning the termination and renewal of agreements under the Electronic Communications Code (the Code) and will be welcomed by operators.

In the first case (the Steps Hill proceedings), Vodafone sought to renew its existing Code agreement at the telecommunications site known as Steps Hill. Following this, the site provider, Icon, sought to terminate the agreement and require Vodafone to remove its equipment.

In the second case (the Pound Hill proceedings), Vodafone sought to renew its existing lease of the site known as Pound Hill under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (the Act).

Icon relied on three of the four possible termination grounds in the Steps Hill proceedings, including;

1. Breach: Vodafone’s allegedly breached the alienation provisions in the existing agreement through its relationship with Cornerstone;
2. Redevelopment: Icon constructed its own mast near the Vodafone site and argued that its redevelopment depended on the termination of Vodafone’s agreement; and,
3. Public Benefit: Icon argued that the prejudice caused by Vodafone’s continued presence outweighed the public benefit (Paragraph 21 of the Code).

In the Pound Hill proceedings, AP Wireless (the landowner) required Vodafone to prove that it was in occupation of the Pound Hill site for the purposes of business to enable renewal proceedings under the Act.

In the end, Vodafone was successful on all grounds, providing clarity on the Code’s termination grounds and asserting that site providers cannot misuse redevelopment arguments to force site removals nor is day-to-day human activity relevant to establish business occupation at a telecommunications site.

From 1 April 2025, all existing communal and district heat networks (i.e. those in existence prior to 1 April 2025) will be deemed authorised. Operators of such networks and suppliers of heat in those networks will be required to register their regulated activities with Ofgem by 26 January 2027.

Heat networks in the spotlight: 2025 and beyond

All new developments, whether they are residential or commercial or an energy project require a connection to the grid to be able to import electricity (and where there is on-site generation) export electricity to the grid. Whether a development is connecting to the distribution system or the transmission system, it will be affected to some extent by the Grid Connection Reform that National Grid has instigated.

The Grid Connection Reform is a process by which applications for new connections are submitted, assessed and managed is significantly amended. Additionally, the existing queue for projects connecting to the transmission system is going to be rearranged.

National Grid is currently working on a modification to the CUSC (Connection and Use of Systems Code), which is intended to implement the plans outlined above. If the modification is approved by OFGEM (which we anticipate will be), then the new process will come into force from June/July 2025.

For more information on how the Grid Connections’ Reform process is progressing see here: Grid connection reform: The big shake-up 

Labour is driving forward investment in clean, home-grown energy production by creating a new publicly owned company, Great British Energy. The Bill aims to grant the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero the authority to officially establish Great British Energy as a statutory company.

The Great British Energy’s first investment has been in the offshore wind space, having concluded a partnership with the Crown Estate in July 2024. It is not currently clear what the Great British Energy’s investment remit is going to be, but it is hoped that investment will be made in less established technologies, such as green hydrogen and carbon capture and storage, both of which are a focus for the Labour Government. Neither of these technologies have attracted the level of private investment that the former Government had anticipated and an investment by a publicly owned company is likely to assuage concerns by private investors as regards the viability of such technologies.

We anticipate that the remit of the Great British Energy, will largely be driven by the output of the National Energy System Operator’s work on the Clean Power Plan 2030. This is expected to be finalised by the end of 2024 and will outline the Government’s plans to deliver a fully decarbonized power system by 2030. The deployment of clean energy projects (both of established and less-established technologies) is likely to provide additional opportunities to those operating within the developer sector to decarbonise their stock.

The Labour Government has expressed its continued support for the Boiler Upgrade Scheme. In the Autumn 2024 Budget the Government has committed £5.8 million of funding to develop England’s first heat network zones in 5 cities (Leeds, Plymouth, Bristol, Stockport, Sheffield and London). Construction is expected to start from 2026. The Government also reaffirmed its plans to introduce secondary legislation as outlined above.

Following the enactment of the Energy Act 2023 (‘Act’), the former government was in the process of consulting on the secondary legislation that will bring the provisions of the Act into force.

So far, OFGEM has consulted on proposed measures that are intended on protecting the end consumers (for instance the tenants of residential buildings), by providing for transparency around pricing and a set of standards that suppliers need to adhere to. OFGEM will have regulatory responsibilities under the proposed new regime.

A lot of the detail is yet to be ironed out, so for now developers are encouraged to: (i) where they own or operate buildings that are connected to a district heat network identify whether they are a “heat supplier” or “operator” in anticipation of these activities becoming regulated and (ii) monitor the developments in this space to ensure that they are well placed to respond to any transitional arrangements that the Government may put in place.

On 7 November 2024, a joint consultation between DESNZ and Ofgem was launched to seek the views of the industry on the practical implementation of the proposed consumer protection framework. On 8 November 2024, Ofgem has also launched a consultation on how it intends to discharge its role as a regulator of heat networks. Both consultations close on 31 January 2024. Developers with an interest in heat networks, are encouraged to actively engage with such consultations.

Due to the complexity of the regulatory landscape and the need to consult on numerous elements of this new market framework, it is proposed that existing heat networks will become regulated from January 2026 onwards. Prior to that date (from April 2025), certain ‘Consumer Advocacy and Advice’ functions will be introduced, allowing consumers access to Citizen’s Advice and the Energy Ombudsman.

For those heat networks that are deemed authorised, the general authorisation conditions will become effective from 27 January 2026 and Ofgem will have powers to take enforcement action from that date.

For more information please read here: Ofgem Consultation: Heat networks regulation: authorisation and regulatory oversight

Since October 2024 there have been the following key corporate governance updates, which will be of relevance to all corporate investors:

• 23 October 2024 – The Institute of Directors published its voluntary Code of Conduct for directors
• 11 November 2024 – The Financial Conduct Authority launched a consultation on the proposed updates to the UK Stewardship Code 2020
• 10 December 2024 – The Companies (Accounts and Reports) (Amendment and Transitional Provision) Regulations 2024 were laid before Parliament
• 18 December 2024 – The UK Sustainability Disclosure Technical Advisory Committee is to recommend UK adoption of IFRS S1 and IFRS S2

Please see our article below for further detail about each of these.

Corporate governance key updates | October 2024 – January 2025

The Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 introduces fraud measures with the aim of improving corporate transparency in the UK.  Developers should be aware of the important changes coming in spring 2025 which are highlighted in this article – Companies House reform: The impact on fraud 

On 1 September 2025 a new Failure to Prevent Fraud offence will come into force. Large organisations will be liable for up to an unlimited fine if they benefit (or are intended to benefit) from the fraud of an employee, agent, subsidiary, or other an “associated person”. The organisation will have a defence if it had reasonable procedures in place to prevent fraud, and recent Home Office guidance issued on 6 November 2024 assists organisations to understand what “reasonable” fraud prevention procedures might look like.

Our own research found that 45% of organisations had a fraud incident in the preceding 12 months, so even though smaller organisations may be out of scope of the Failure to Prevent Fraud offence, the losses, reputational damage and risk that they find themselves facing fraud-based claims brought by third parties are potentially existential.

Please see our article below for further detail: Failure to Prevent Fraud Offence – Home Office Guidance Update

It is important for investors to understand the grounds on which lease renewals may be opposed under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954. The case of MVL Properties v The Leadmill considered a landlord’s attempt to oppose a lease renewal on the basis that it wished to take back the premises itself to run a business similar to the tenant’s business. The tenant challenged this on the basis that it would deprive the tenant of goodwill in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights. The tenant was unsuccessful, and the below article explains the reasons and significance.

Goodwill Hunting: MVL Properties v The Leadmill [2025]

In April 2025, the National Living Wage rate will rise to £12.21 per hour. The 18-20 rate will rise to £10 per hour.

The Neonatal Care (Leave and Pay) Act 2023 will come into force from 6 April 2025, providing parents with a right to up to 12 weeks’ leave and pay when their baby requires neonatal care within their first 28 days of their life (for seven continuous days or more) are allowed to take neonatal leave and pay for up to 12 weeks. This will be a day one right.

This is a Private Members’ Bill. Although unlikely to pass into law, the Bill provide for a statutory definition of bullying at work; to make provision relating to bullying at work, including to enable claims relating to workplace bullying to be considered by an employment tribunal; to provide for a Respect at Work Code to set minimum standards for positive and respectful work environments; to give powers to the Equalities and Human Rights Commission to investigate workplaces and organisations where there is evidence of a culture of, or multiple incidents of, bullying and to take enforcement action.

A second reading is scheduled for 20 June 2025, so watch this space.

Since 6 April 2024, women selected for redundancy have had the right to suitable alternative employment if they are pregnant (and have told their employer this) or if their expected date of childbirth was less than 18 months ago.

The government plans to prevent the dismissal of those returning from maternity leave except in specific circumstances. The details of those circumstances will need to be clearly defined.

Labour plans to review the parental leave system and make parental leave a day one right. It is unclear how far reaching this review and any reforms will be – we await further legislative/regulatory guidance.

The Claimant was employed as a support worker and involved in planning and taking part in lawful strike action. After the strikes ended, she was suspended.

The Claimant complained to the Employment Tribunal, that her suspension amounted to a detriment imposed for the sole or main purpose of preventing her from taking part in trade union activities or penalising her for having done so, in breach of section 146 of Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (TULRCA).

On final appeal, the Supreme Court made a declaration that the failure of s. 146 of TULRCA to provide any protection against sanctions short of dismissal for union members taking part in lawful industrial action is incompatible with Article 11 of the ECHR.

We will keep an eye on legislative developments in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling and await action (if any) from Parliament.

Find out more

This was a Supreme Court decision which overturned the Court of Appeal, restoring an injunction granted by the High Court which prevented Tesco from using “fire-and-rehire” to withdraw a collectively agreed contractual benefit that it had previously described as “permanent”.

Fire and rehire is now a politically and socially sensitive practice which is not advised without careful consideration of wider workplace and press fallout.

This case hit the news in October 2024. The employment tribunal upheld a claim for harassment related to sex brought by the Claimant in relation to an incident in which a colleague admitted an offensive slur related to his baldness and admitted that he had intended to threaten and insult him in doing so. The tribunal found that this conduct was unwanted and that the words had been used with the purpose of violating the Claimant’s dignity and creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for him.

The EAT upheld the tribunal’s decision that comments about an employee’s baldness were harassment related to sex. It held that the tribunal had correctly considered that the context of a remark said to constitute harassment under section 26(1) of the EqA 2010.

This bill put forward by the House of Lords has three core objectives: to grow the economy, improve public services and make people’s lives easier. Suggested measures include paving the way for the ‘smart data’ model to be used in more sectors, establishing a trust framework for digital verification services and placing the national underground asset register on a statutory footing.

On the 4 March 2025 the government made changes as part of its third reading, including changes requiring the Technology Minister to assess whether public authorities are reliably checking the personal data they collect and share for digital verification purposes.

The potentially most significant aspect of the Bill (which is rather under reported) are the “smart data” or “open data” provisions. The aspiration here is to create a replica of the “open banking” / Payment Systems Directive II environment but for “consumer data” more generally.

Anyone familiar with open banking / PSD II will know that the implementation of this regulation was very beneficial for “customers” of data in the fintech sector.

However, preparing for implementation was very onerous for the supply side both in practical terms – cleaning and structuring the data to make it sharable and navigating both the “open data” legal requirements and the (sometimes contradictory) data security / privacy requirements.

The devil will be in the detail of the regulation made under the primary legislation (the legislation provides broad powers for government to make regulation) so at present it is difficult to see how wide ranging these provisions will be, but it has potential to be a very significant regulatory intervention and worth following for its potential impact on anyone processing “consumer data”.

On 21 May 2024 the Council of the EU formally adopted the AI Act which lays down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence. The regulation aims to improve the functioning of the Internal Market and promote the uptake of human-centric and trustworthy AI, while ensuring a high level of protection of health, safety, fundamental rights, and the rule of law against the harmful effects of AI systems. It seeks to harmonise the rules for the placing on the market, putting into service and use of AI systems in the EU, prohibitions of certain AI practices, requirements for high-risk AI systems, transparency rules, as well as rules for general-purpose AI models, market monitoring, market surveillance, governance, and enforcement.

The European Commission has recently published the third draft of code of practice for general-purpose AI. The code is to provide guidance on the EU AI Act rules for general purpose AI (which likely includes most generative AI such as Chat GPT) and is expected to be finalised in May 2025.

Developers situated or operating in the EU that use, develop, distribute or otherwise work with AI applications will need to be cognisant of the AI Act, particularly if they use or intend to use AI systems characterised as being “Unacceptable” or “High” risk (which include real-time remote biometric identification in public spaces and those relating to critical infrastructure). The European Commission hope that code of practice for general purpose AI will go some way to supporting developers in complying with the Act.

Read this article for more information: The AI regulatory outlook for 2024

The ICO has published new guidance to clarify data protection considerations and provide support for organisations to share data responsibly to tackle fraud. The guidance is intended to raise organisations’ awareness of their data sharing requirements and to encourage them to do more to provide timely responses when requested to disclose data to help combat fraud and scams perpetrated on data subjects.

According to the ICO and the Office for National Statistics, fraud is the most frequently experienced crime in the UK, accounting for 39% of all reported crime in England and Wales. Data protection laws are still being wrongly blamed for inhibiting fraud investigations and processing requests from law enforcement agencies for evidence.

According to the ICO guidance, an organisation’s approach to data sharing should include ensuring they:

• conduct a data protection impact assessment (DPIA) to assess the effects of sharing data, either as good practice or when legally required by Article 35 of the UK GDPR;

• establish their responsibilities as a separate or joint controller for the data being shared;

• use a data sharing agreement;

• identify a lawful basis before sharing the data, can demonstrate that it applies and conduct their data sharing in compliance with the data protection principles;

• understand the type of personal data being shared and be alert to the extra protection provided by the UK GDPR if there is any special category data involved; and

comply with people’s rights over any of their data being shared and ensure the means to exercise those rights is accessible and easy to understand for data subjects.

Social media giant Meta has agreed with Claimant that they will not use her data for targeted advertising. The agreement is contained in a settlement to an individual challenge she lodged against Meta’s tracking and profiling back in 2022.

Meta had claimed its “personalized ads” are not direct marketing. The case had been due to be heard in the English High Court on Monday, but the settlement ends the legal action.

Meta has not accepted liability however the settlement indicates there may be a shift by Social Media companies in respect of marketing on their platforms, Commentators are predicting that a pay or consent model may be rolled out by Meta.