Construction and Planning Update – May 2025 top five

Here are our top five for May:

1. Planning – Bristol Zoo development

Many Bristolians have fond memories of Bristol Zoo. The judicial review of the planning permission granted for the redevelopment of the old Bristol Zoo site was heard at the beginning of May.

The grounds of claim were that the planning application unlawfully relied on out of date metrics to measure the net effect on biodiversity; adopted out of date criteria to measure carbon dioxide emissions inconsistently with criteria used to measure this impact on other local developments; and unlawfully failed to determine if there would be reduction in the amount of open space when policy stated this should not generally occur unless more or equivalent space be provided.

The Court’s decision has not yet been reached, but we are sure to report upon it when it is handed down.

2. Enforcement of adjudicator’s decision – security for costs

The claimant was engaged as contractor to carry out works under a JCT 2011 D&B Sub-Contract. A dispute over payments due to the claimant under the contract followed its insolvency and determination of the contract. An adjudicator decided the Employer was to pay the claimant £1,551,528.00 excluding VAT and interest within seven days. The Employer did not pay, claiming it was owed monies by the claimant in another contract.

The claimant sought an order from the court enforcing the adjudicator’s decision. The defendant asked for a security for costs order. The court ordered security be paid by the claimant as a condition of enforcing the adjudicator’s decision to a value of £150,000 for the contract and a figure of £400,000 for the second contract dispute.

Takeaway: insolvent and claimant companies ‘of straw’ can expect to be faced with claims for security for costs in most types proceedings, including adjudication enforcement. If the insolvent/poor company cannot provide the security the claim will not proceed. This gives a defendant quite a weapon in its litigation armoury.

Link to judgment: Midas Construction Ltd (In Liquidation) v Harmsworth Pension Funds Trustees Ltd [2025] EWHC 1122 (TCC) (09 May 2025)

3. Solar installations and cyber security

M&S is back online weeks after a cyber attack. One area we may not think of in relation to cybersecurity is solar panel installations. A report commissioned by SolarPower Europe has identified 14 risk areas (3 of which are described as critical) and recommends two key actions to mitigate cyber security threats to digitalised solar systems:

• develop sector-specific cybersecurity standards; and,
• limit inverter control from outside the EU.

The report also proposes treating control over aggregated rooftop solar systems with the same territorial safeguards as the GDPR.

Link to report: SolarPower Europe urges stronger cybersecurity rules

4. Defective premises and civil liability issues in the Supreme Court

On 21 May, the Supreme Court ruled on preliminary issues in a case in which a developer seeks property remediation costs from a consultant. Some takeaways:

• section 1(1)(a) Defective Premises Act 1972 (“DPA”) duties (fitness for habitation on completion) are owed to those who ‘order’ a dwelling and any who ‘acquire an interest’ in the dwelling. The duties are therefore owed to the developer of the dwelling as well as to purchasers of the dwelling;
• a retrospective 30 year limitation period (with limited exceptions), introduced by the Building Safety Act 2022, for claims under the DPA for houses completed before 28 June 2022 also applies to other claims which are dependent on the time-bar applicable to claims under section 1 DPA. To illustrate, if X faces a liability under section 1 of the DPA, X has the benefit of the (up to) 30 year period when bringing related claims against others for negligence and for contribution;
• the developer was entitled to bring a contribution claim against the designer under section 1 Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978 even though there had been no claim presented, judgment given or settlement reached between the developer and any third party; and,
• there is no “voluntariness principle” which makes repair costs irrecoverable if the costs were incurred voluntarily. The application of this principle will be considered on a case to case basis, however.

The outcome is helpful for Developers but is unlikely to be welcomed by consultants or their insurers.
Case: URS Corporation Ltd (Appellant) v BDW Trading Ltd (Respondent) UKSC/2023/0110. The full judgment can be found here

5. Planning and Infrastructure Bill

The Ministry for Housing Communities and Local Government has produced further information relating to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. The impact assessment for the bill is available here.

The most positive estimates of the effect that the bill will have over a 10-year period is for an extra £7,500,000,000 to be added to the economy.

The assessment does not include consideration of amendments tabled at the committee stage for the bill which the government predicts will further boost that figure by another £1 billion over the course of this parliament.