Construction and Planning Update – March 2026 – top five

Here are our top five for March:

1. Payer saved by a pay less notice

The Technology and Construction Court heard an application for enforcement of an adjudication decision for payment to a contractor of its payment application of £5,627,575.11, plus interest. One of the issues was whether the payment notice and pay less notice were valid.

The court agreed with the adjudicator that the payment notice was invalid as it did not show the basis on which the sum due (£2,420,516.84) had been calculated:

“One purpose of the payment notice is to identify how the sum said to be due is built up. The parties have agreed what is to be provided. The commercial sense in providing a contractor with that information, so he can see on which elements of the breakdown any disagreement lies, is obvious. To that end, there should generally be no need to look beyond the document itself or, in appropriate cases as in S&T v Grove Developments, documents incorporated by reference. In particular, what is not required or envisaged when considering the validity of such notices is an enquiry into the detail passing between employer and contractor to see if, regardless of the failure to comply with the contractual requirements, the contractor was nonetheless aware of the breakdown.”.

The pay less notice included appendices showing the breakdown of deductions equivalent to the payment notice figure of £2,420,516.84, producing a sum due of nil. The judge put the pay less notice issue like this: “as the pay less notice starts off with the wrong figure, it ends with the wrong balance due and as such, the ability to make the deductions is lost as the notice is invalid”

It was held that the pay less notice was not infected by the invalidity of the payment notice. The contractor should be paid its payment application sum of £5,627,275.11 less the pay less notice deductions of £2,428,614.47, so £3,198,660.64, plus VAT and interest.

Comment: had the payment notice been valid, the payment would have been nil. This case illustrates the prejudice/advantage – depending on which side you represent – of omitting from a notice the basis on which a sum has been calculated and that any argument that a contractor could have delved through communication to find it will not work.

Link to case: Laing O’Rourke Delivery Ltd v Shepperton Studios Ltd [2026] EWHC 612 (TCC) (16 March 2026)

2. Plug-in solar panels

The government has announced that plug-in solar panels will be available in the shops within months. Plug-in solar panels are already widely available in the Europe but were not available in the UK due to safety regulations. According to the announcement: “The free solar power can be used directly through a mains socket like any other device, without an installation cost….”

Having seen pigeons nesting under a neighbour’s solar panels, Jan comments that if you don’t like the idea of installing spikes to deter nesting, consider panel skirting. This can be retro fitted.  There is law relating to clearing active nests. Don’t fall foul of it.

Link: Government to make ‘plug-in solar’ available within months – GOV.UK

3. New Towns

Following our earlier article on Adlington new town the latest update from the Adlington New Town Task and Finish Group is that the Adlington New Town site has been deprioritised but “not cancelled”.

Link: Adlington New Town | Bollington Town Council

4. Consultation on changes to Approved Document B

The consultation on proposed changes to statutory fire safety guidance in Approved Document B, updating external wall guidance and recommending new provision of evacuation lifts runs until 1 July 2026. To register your response please follow the link below.

Link: Review of Approved Document B: Fire Safety – Health and Safety Executive – Citizen Space

The proposed 2026 amendments would introduce new provisions for existing buildings, specialised housing, evacuation lifts and evacuation shafts, smoke control, deck-access balconies, notes on travel distances, materials and fire resistance clarifications, and external wall system performance.

New guidance clarifies duties for building work in existing buildings, emphasising that post-works compliance must not be more unsatisfactory than before. Duty holders should assess wider fire safety impacts of modifications and may need to upgrade modified or existing parts to avoid lowering safety. The new duty requires that all buildings should facilitate evacuation of disabled people. These steps should include assisted-evacuation-capable stairs, evacuation lifts, or firefighting lifts, with refuges possibly within evacuation lift lobbies.

5. Sprinklers in schools in England

There is concern from the industry at the Department for Education (DFE) latest technical guidance for sprinklers systems in schools. Sprinklers will be required only in schools over four storeys or over 11m high and schools with residential accommodation being built under the 2025 DFE Contract. Previously, BB100 (2007) required new schools to be designed and built to include sprinklers unless it could be evidenced that the risk was low and that sprinklers would not be proportionate

The CIC makes the point that fire damage to a school has a major impact on a school and the wider community. The National Association of Head Teachers has historically supported the case for sprinklers in all schools. https://www.naht.org.uk/Portals/0/NAHT%20response%20to%20BB100%20review%202021.pdf?ver=2021-08-18-171834-193

In Wales, sprinklers remain mandatory in all schools.

Link: | Construction Industry CouncilCIC raises concerns to government over new school sprinkler policy | The Association For Project Safety