Jo Edwards recognised in eprivateclient’s ‘50 Most Influential 2026’
24 February 2026
News
Forsters is pleased to share that Jo Edwards, Head of Family, has been named in eprivateclient’s prestigious ‘50 Most Influential’ list for 2026, recognising leaders shaping the UK and global private client landscape.
Previously listed in 2023, Jo’s repeat inclusion reflects her exceptional standing in the market, both as a leading family lawyer and as a prominent voice in family law reform.
eprivateclient’s annual ‘50 Most Influential’ highlights individuals whose achievements, leadership and reputation have made a significant impact on the private client sector. Jo’s ongoing recognition reflects her continued dedication to clients, her influential media presence, and her commitment to shaping policy in this evolving area of law.
The full list can be viewed here, behind the paywall.
Data centres formally brought into the NSIP regime: what developers need to know
23 February 2026
News
Members of the Forsters’ data centre team, Alex Greenwood (Commercial Real Estate) and Sophie Smith (Planning), examine the recent changes to the NSIP regime and their impact on the future consenting landscape for data centres in the UK.
The Government has now taken decisive steps to bring data centres within the Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIP) consenting regime. New regulations amending the Infrastructure Planning (Business or Commercial Projects) Regulations 2013 have been laid before Parliament to prescribe data centres as eligible for consideration as NSIPs.
Previously, applications for data centres could only be submitted to local planning authorities under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 regime. The changes give developers of large scale data centre projects the option to request that their schemes be treated as business or commercial projects pursuant to the NSIP framework. If approved, applications are determined through the Development Consent Order (DCO) process by the Secretary of State rather than by local planning authorities.
Background to the regulatory change
Prior to these regulations, even the largest hyperscale data centres were considered under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, often leading to prolonged determination periods and more recently multiple high-profile recovered appeals subsequently granted by the Secretary of State where originally refused at the local decision making level.
In 2024, the Government confirmed its intention to bring data centres into the NSIP regime as part of wider reforms aimed at supporting digital infrastructure and the growth of AI.
On 8 January 2026, the Infrastructure Planning (Business or Commercial Projects) (Amendment) Regulations 2026 were made, formally enabling nationally significant data centre projects to opt into the NSIP route by requesting a section 35 direction pursuant to the Planning Act 2008.
The new regime for data centres
Under the amended Regulations, data centre developers may request that their project be considered “nationally significant” so that it can be determined through the DCO process. Where a section 35 direction is successfully granted by the Secretary of State, an application for a DCO will need to then be submitted in order to obtain the consent to bring the data centre project forward.
Developers are likely to benefit from the NSIP route’s greater predictability and its consolidated consenting process.
What does this mean for developers
While the NSIP regime offers a streamlined route for the largest and most complex projects, uncertainties remain pending publication of the NPS. Developers should carefully assess whether NSIP status is advantageous for their schemes and consider early engagement with the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology.
Putting on our sustainability hats for a moment, the introduction of data centres into the NSIP regime brings new considerations in relation to biodiversity net gain, now a key component of planning considerations for large scale developments. A discussion for another time.
What we do not know
The regulations do not set out any size, capacity or operational thresholds that would automatically qualify a data centre to elect the NSIP route to consent.
Instead, the decision is left to the Secretary of State, who must be satisfied that the project is “nationally significant”.
A National Policy Statement (NPS) for data centres, however, is being prepared. This will, hopefully, set out:
the parameters and thresholds relevant to assessing whether a data centre is nationally significant;
the policy framework guiding the Secretary of State’s decision making; and
other relevant factors that may indicate national significance.
A consultation was expected in February 2026 on a draft NPS but at the time of publication, the consultation has not yet been launched.
Final thoughts
The inclusion of data centres within the NSIP regime marks a significant shift in the UK planning landscape for digital infrastructure. The intention is to offer developers a more structured and nationally focused consenting route, reflecting the growing strategic importance of data centre capacity to the UK economy and the expansion of AI related activity.
However, the absence of a finalised NPS and associated guidance means that key uncertainties remain.
As the policy landscape evolves, staying ahead of regulatory developments will be critical.
Data centres
We understand the drivers underpinning the success of data centre projects
The Chancellor has seemingly confirmed an intention to ease the requirements to deal with bats, newts and other nature laws when undertaking new development and, in particular, in relation to new nuclear power plants. This appears to be despite warnings that it will potentially but the UK in breach of the post-Brexit trade deal.
It is something of a trope that many projects become delayed and significantly more expensive when some form of nature mitigation works are required. Two commonly raised examples that have received a lot of media attention are the fish-protection measures at Hinkley Point which cost around £700,000,000 and the HS2 “bat tunnel” which is now suggested to have increased by another £25,000,000 to £125,000,000. In particular, the Hinkley Point measures have received attention due to being estimated to save only 0.083 salmon and 0.028 sea trout per year. EDF did say that, overall, about 44 tonnes of fish will be likely to be saved per year (which is said to be equivalent to the annual catch of a small fishing vessel) although I am sure others will have higher estimates. Regardless, what this does highlight that nature mitigation measures for infrastructure can be extremely expensive and time consuming. Many people delivering infrastructure that the country vitally needs will be asking whether £700m is a good use of funds, time and energy to save one small fishing vessel’s catch of fish per year. Indeed, such questions have already been raised for quite some time.
What the Government have not yet seemingly opined on, is the exact shape and form the proposed changes would take. We have an increasingly developed Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) market with compulsory BNG requirements for developments of 10 homes or more now. Perhaps, the Government might see this as a useful framework to feed into the proposed changes, creating a system where infrastructure developers can use BNG credits to offset their ecological impact, rather than being slowed down by the need to undertake expensive mitigation works on-site or as part of the infrastructure delivery. I am sure many commentators will criticise this as “greenwashing” or just buying their way out of the environmental damage being caused but, if the BNG credit represents meaningful biodiversity improvement, perhaps this is the compromise that will enable infrastructure projects to move forward without completely losing the environmental angle.
I have heard many people saying that they always pray that their environmental surveys for developments do not reveal that any newts are present. With these proposals, perhaps they will not need to worry about them quite as much.
From city to country
Helping you navigate the perks and quirks of buying a home.
Commonhold may not be a ‘silver bullet’ for leaseholders
12 February 2026
News
Last week, the prime minister announced – via TikTok no less – the publication of its long-awaited draft Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill, a major step towards its manifesto promise of ending the “feudal” leasehold system.
The Bill will seek to cap ground rents on existing long residential leases at £250 a year(reducing to a peppercorn after 40 years), ban new leasehold flats and abolish forfeiture – the process through which leaseholders can lose their home by defaulting on a debt as low as £350. It will also explore moving leaseholders to a commonhold model whereby homes will be owned without any term limitation, and homeowners will control how their buildings are managed.
The pros
The leasehold system has long been lambasted and so the reinvigoration of a more flexible tenure, such as commonhold (this time with some muscle), is welcome.
There are a number of benefits to commonhold, not least the flexibility and autonomy offered. Although the commonhold community statement (the document that essentially replaces the leases) is mostly prescribed, it will sit alongside local rules that can be tailored to individual buildings and amended where necessary, offering a degree of efficient adaptability that should be encouraged.
A uniform system where everyone lives by the same rules is also beneficial from a fairness standpoint, especially if based on a well-drafted commonhold community statement and local rules. The removal of third-party landlords and certain procedural elements, such as the section 20 procedure for major works, should also make management easier.
Just like Australia’s strata title and Japan’s unit-ownership system, leaseholders could even see their property values rise under a commonhold system due to their indefinite ownership, leading to higher property appreciation and greater buyer confidence. So the scope for tangible gain is high.
The cons
That said, a forced moved to commonhold may not be the silver bullet leaseholders are hoping for. It is still a form of communal living and a lot of the challenges leaseholders face under the current system could well persist under a new tenure.
First, commonhold does not offer a fixed contractual position in the same way a lease does and, as such, it can be changed. Although any change will require a vote taken by other commonholders, the group may have very different views, agendas and financial backing. The impact this could have on property values remains to be seen.
Second, the widely lauded concept that commonhold will give homeowners complete control is not strictly true. Budgets will be set by the directors of the commonhold association (the company of which all commonholders will be a member), with commonholders having little input and no right to challenge the reasonableness of maintenance and repair costs. The truth is that directors (rather than the commonholders themselves) will have significant power and authority; and worryingly, directors need not own a commonhold unit.
Third, commonhold probably won’t be cheaper than leasehold. Moving to a commonhold system won’t eliminate the underlying costs of building maintenance and management, it will just shift responsibility for those costs directly on to the owners. While leaseholders will escape ground rent, forfeiture risk and lease extension costs, the commonhold association will need to manage and pay for all capital expenditures, without a freeholder to share the risk or cost.
In cases where a reserve fund is not required in the existing leases, introducing one under commonhold could actually make it more expensive for commonholders on a month-by-month basis. And if a commonhold association has liquidity problems or becomes insolvent, there is no freeholder to step in.
Phased delivery
So how should the government introduce this system effectively to achieve its goals and keep its manifesto promises?
Introducing the new commonhold system in phases seems to be the most workable option, starting first and foremost with new developments. This will make sure that all relevant parties and the wider market understand the structure and can stress-test the mechanics of the system before it is rolled out for wider conversion.
Careful consideration must be given in particular to the legal and practical aspects of how commonhold can be implemented in complex developments, especially in schemes with a mix of residential and commercial space.
Upskilling professionals – such as conveyancers and lenders – will be key to the success of the new model. At present, only a limited number of professionals have had any experience of commonhold, so ensuring a new generation understands the necessary nuances will be essential. In the same vein, regulating the role of managing agents will continue to be important, albeit there is no sign that this is on the horizon.
Finally, arming existing leaseholders with appropriate knowledge of commonhold will be key to its successful implementation; ensuring expectations are managed, not only in relation to the rights that commonhold will afford but also with regards to the responsibilities and shortcomings the new system may bring.
This text first appeared in Estates Gazette on 3 February 2026.
National Apprenticeship Week 2026: Q&A with Ayat Sheikh, Responsible Business Coordinator
12 February 2026
News
To mark the final day of National Apprenticeship Week, we spoke with Ayat Sheikh, who joined Forsters in 2023 as a Responsible Business Apprentice and is now our Responsible Business Coordinator. Ayat shares how the apprenticeship set her up for success, the support she received and her advice for anyone considering a business services apprenticeship.
Can you talk us through your journey from joining Forsters as a Responsible Business Apprentice to becoming the firm’s Responsible Business Coordinator?
I joined Forsters in 2023 as a Responsible Business (RB) Apprentice, which gave me the chance to learn the foundations of the firm’s charity and community, sustainability, and diversity and inclusion work through hands‑on experience. From day one, I was trusted with real responsibilities like coordinating volunteering, supporting our charity partnerships, and helping with events and reporting.
As my experience grew, I took on more ownership across different parts of our programme and, by the time I completed my apprenticeship in 2025, I’d built a solid understanding of our work. I was delighted to stay on as Responsible Business Coordinator, where I now continue to deliver and develop the firm’s RB programme day to day.
What kind of support did you receive during your apprenticeship?
I received support from so many people at Forsters as well as from my training provider, LDN Apprenticeships. My team were always generous with their time and encouraged my learning by explaining new concepts, involving me in projects and giving constructive feedback.
I had regular check‑ins with both my manager and my skills coach at LDN, which helped to connect what I was learning academically with the practicalities of my role. Apprenticeships come with a long list of criteria, so those check‑ins were useful for tracking progress and identifying areas I wanted to develop.
Beyond that, colleagues across the firm were genuinely welcoming, and our Learning & Development team were supportive too. Both I and our HR Apprentice at the time had an apprentice mentor assigned to us who we met every few months for informal guidance. That made a big difference in helping us settle in.
What were the biggest challenges you faced along the way, and how did you overcome them?
Balancing work with the academic side during busy periods was tough at times, but I managed it by being open with my manager and blocking out focus time when needed.
Responsible Business is broad and fast‑moving, so there were (and still are!) moments where I had to learn quickly and adapt. I asked lots of questions and reminded myself it was okay not to know everything straight away, that’s why training and continuous development exist.
How did your apprenticeship help shape your confidence, skills or understanding of responsible business work?
It was the perfect introduction to the world of Responsible Business. My confidence grew as I built relationships across the firm and saw the impact of the work we do. Now, as a Coordinator, I feel equipped not only to support our programme, but to help shape it as well, which has been invaluable.
What advice would you give to someone considering applying for a business services apprenticeship at Forsters?
I’m a big advocate and will always recommend it. It’s a commitment and can feel daunting if you’re starting out as a school leaver, but it’s definitely one of the best decisions I’ve made. I personally took a gap year after my A‑levels to give myself time to explore options and focus on applying, and it paid off. It’s a great way to start your career and grow skills faster than you expect.
If you’re interested in business services apprenticeships, keep an eye on our vacancies.
Inside the apprentice experience at Forsters
Ever wondered what it’s really like to be an apprentice in a law firm?
Cohabitation reform 2026: what unmarried couples need to know now
10 February 2026
News
Modern relationships, outdated laws?
Cohabiting couples represent the fastest-growing family type in the UK, with the number of cohabiting couples rising from 5.5 million in 2014 to 6.5 million in 2024 (per ONS statistics). With the Government expected to launch a consultation on cohabitation law reform in Spring 2026, now is a crucial moment for cohabiting couples to understand the current law and what potential reform may look like.
Our current legal framework remains rooted in the assumption that long-term relationships are only formalised through marriage – and provides protections accordingly. Couples who live together without marrying have no automatic rights if the relationship ends through separation or one partner dies (unless they co-own property together or have made a will naming their partner as a beneficiary). The myth of “common law marriage” persists, but the reality is that no matter how long a couple has lived together, cohabitants have no legal status and are financially vulnerable.
Living together, unprotected: the legal gaps putting cohabitants at risk
The absence of legal protections for cohabiting couples can expose families to real financial risk. When a cohabiting relationship breaks down, the court does not have the same powers as it does for married couples. Judges cannot step in to redistribute property based on fairness or need; instead, cohabitants are left navigating a far narrower and more complicated legal framework.
Where a dispute arises about property rights and ownership, the only route is through complex trusts and property law claims. These cases are notoriously technical, expensive to pursue, and unpredictable in outcome. Yet in a market where London property values are so high, even a small percentage share in a property can be worth fighting over. This means that many separating cohabitants face protracted litigation at precisely the moment they are least equipped to deal with it.
For cohabiting couples with children, a parent can apply to the Child Maintenance Service for child maintenance, and in certain circumstances may seek housing provision, child maintenance or lump sums to meet a child’s needs, under Schedule 1 of the Children Act 1989. However, any provision is primarily for the child’s benefit and rarely provides long‑term security for the caregiving parent. In many cases, a home is made available only until the youngest child turns 18 or finishes full‑time education, at which point the property reverts to the other parent. This can leave the resident parent homeless just as they are starting to rebuild their earning capacity and take steps towards financial independence.
What might cohabitation reform look like?
The public consultation expected in Spring 2026 will play a pivotal role in shaping what rights and responsibilities cohabiting couples will have when relationships end through separation (or when one partner dies).
Reform does not necessarily mean giving cohabitants the same rights as married couples. Under this “assimilation” model – used in countries like New Zealand and Australia – cohabitants are effectively placed on the same legal footing as spouses once they meet a statutory definition of cohabitation, based on factors to do with permanence and commitment.
A distinct scheme for cohabitants is more likely to be under consideration, probably with rights arising after a qualifying period of living together and potentially focused on addressing economic disadvantage arising from the relationship. Such a scheme would be more limited in scope than the financial remedies available on divorce. Possible awards might include contributions to childcare costs to enable a child’s primary carer to work, or short-term maintenance to help the financially weaker party achieve financial independence.
This “difference” model – which already operates in Scotland and Ireland – depends on clearly defining who qualifies as a cohabitant. Laws in these countries set out eligibility criteria, such as minimum periods of living together. In Ireland, for example, the threshold is two years for couples with children and five years otherwise. Definitions such as Ireland’s reference to “an intimate and committed relationship” have proved workable, though some anticipate that formulating a precise definition will prove challenging. Additional criteria to make a claim may be required, such as financial dependency (as in Ireland) or proof of economic advantage and disadvantage arising from contributions made to the relationship, including looking after children (as in Scotland).
Another key question is how much autonomy couples should have in deciding financial outcomes on separation. Should cohabitants be required to “opt in” to any new regime by formally registering their relationship – and so miss out on claims if they don’t? Or should everyone be covered by any new laws by default unless they “opt out” – for example, through a cohabitation agreement? And if an “opt out” regime is settled on, how easy should it be to opt out? Policymakers have not yet indicated which way they will lean, but the choice will shape how widely the reforms apply and how much flexibility couples retain.
Be prepared: pre‑nups and cohabitation agreements
Against this backdrop of unknown but anticipated reform, many couples are taking steps to introduce greater certainty into their personal arrangements. There is a noticeable increase in couples entering into cohabitation agreements, which allow them to set out their intentions around property ownership, financial contributions and what should happen if they separate. Cohabitation agreements offer a bespoke solution at a time when the shape of any new statutory framework remains unknown – and may ultimately fail to reflect a couple’s preferences.
Alongside this, cohabitation reform is likely to sharpen focus on pre‑nuptial agreements. For couples already considering marriage, a pre-nuptial agreement can serve as a powerful tool for “locking in” clarity and certainty. This is particularly significant given the direction of travel towards greater recognition of nuptial agreements more generally, and the expectation that reform in this area is on the horizon.
What should HNW individuals be doing now?
While the precise shape of future cohabitation reform remains uncertain, and the timing of any reform unknown, high‑net‑worth individuals can take steps now to increase long‑term clarity. Acting now – before a new legal framework is introduced – will be more effective than reactive planning once reform is implemented and gives couples the opportunity to have open, constructive conversations about their financial intentions for the future.
Review existing cohabitation agreements Revisit and review any existing cohabitation agreement to ensure it remains fit for purpose and accurately reflects your intentions about property ownership. Any new law is likely to emphasise fairness and meeting needs, especially during a child’s minority.
Consider a cohabitation agreement or nuptial agreement Whether you’re thinking about moving in together, already sharing a home, planning a wedding, or are already married, taking the time to set out your financial intentions can be one of the most positive steps you take as a couple. A well-crafted cohabitation or nuptial agreement can provide welcome clarity – particularly where there is an imbalance of wealth, or there are inherited assets, business interests or complex structures requiring careful protection. If your partner or fiancé(e) suggests a cohabitation or nuptial agreement, it’s important to know this isn’t simply about protecting one person’s wealth. At its heart, an agreement is about autonomy and allows partners to have financial transparency and to decide for themselves what feels like a fair financial outcome. Many couples find the process strengthens communication by encouraging open, honest conversations about expectations and priorities. For more information about the benefits of signing a nuptial agreement, see here.
Revisit wills, trusts and letters of wishes Estate planning documents should be reviewed to ensure they align with your current relationship status, intentions and family circumstances, and to assess how cohabitation reform may affect succession plans.
Review current and future property ownership structures How property is acquired, held and funded, whether personally, jointly, or through trusts or corporate vehicles, should be considered carefully, particularly where a partner is contributing to its value financially or through non-financial support that increases value.
Assess international and cross‑border risks Individuals with global assets or international family ties should seek advice on how different countries treat cohabitation, succession and relationship breakdown. The interaction between English reform and overseas regimes may create unexpected risks – or opportunities – requiring early strategic advice.
Encourage open communication with partners and families Clear, early discussions about expectations, both within the relationship and across the wider family, can reduce the scope for misunderstandings and disputes, and support more effective long‑term wealth planning.
Taken together, these steps enable individuals and families to order their affairs and minimise uncertainty during what may be a significant period of legal transition.
Specialist advice is key
As the legal landscape shifts, specialist advice is essential. Anticipating change, rather than reacting to disagreements once they arise, gives individuals and families the best chance of preserving clarity, autonomy and stability. Effective planning in this space requires an integrated, cross‑disciplinary strategy.
Cohabitation reform cuts across family law, private wealth, tax, property and succession planning. Navigating that complexity requires advisors who understand how these pieces fit together. Firms with broad private wealth capability are uniquely placed to deliver the joined‑up guidance needed to ensure that relationship planning aligns with asset‑holding structures and long‑term family objectives. Thoughtful preparation today means stronger protection, more empowered decision‑making, and a future shaped by the couple’s own intentions.
At Forsters, our specialists bring together deep technical expertise and a sophisticated understanding of complex family and wealth dynamics. We are uniquely placed to guide you through this period of change, and to help secure financial clarity for you and those who matter most. Click here to read more.
National Apprenticeship Week 2026: Inside the apprentice experience at Forsters
9 February 2026
Podcasts and videos
Ever wondered what it’s really like to be an apprentice in a law firm?
Monday 9 February marks the start of National Apprenticeship Week 2026 and to celebrate, Miri Stickland (Head of Knowledge and co-lead of the firm’s Social Mobility Network) sits down with Solicitor Apprentices Rhea Shah and Faysal Hamzat and HR Assistant (and past apprentice) Rose Ward to share what life is really like as an apprentice at Forsters.
In this special podcast episode, they discuss:
Why they chose the apprenticeship route.
Support from family.
Top tips for applications and assessments.
Transitioning into the workplace.
Applications open for our 2027 Solicitor Apprenticeship cohort in September 2026. If you’d like to learn more or register your interest, click here.
For those interested in business services apprenticeships, keep an eye on our vacancies.
Last but not leased? Commonhold to replace leasehold in latest Government plans
2 February 2026
News
HM Government have said in their press release on capping Ground Rents – “New leasehold flats will also be banned and homeownership strengthened thanks to groundbreaking legislation that will give people control over their homes and calls an end to the feudal leasehold system which dates to medieval times”.
This builds on the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 which seems to have already removed the ability to create new leases of houses in S.1 of that Act. This means we might be staring down the barrel of a brave new world without leasehold property.
The question is, what does this mean? It seems likely that, if the legislation goes through, we will see flats becoming part of what the Government is calling “a revamped commonhold model”. This is, essentially, where you have the freehold of part of a building with shared ownership of and responsibility for common areas and services. Interestingly though, as of 30 June 2023, there were only 184 registered commonhold properties (despite being around since 2004); this represents less than 0.01% of the total housing stock. The question, therefore, is: if it is so good, why has it not been used more?
It is likely that this is partly because new build developers would favour a leasehold model. It is, however, also true that many leaseholders have preferred to go down the more well-trodden share-of-freehold route (where you form a company to co-purchase your freehold and give yourself a 999-year lease), some leaseholders actually do not want to have to co-own and manage a building and there is probably some general reluctance towards embracing the unknown.
There are definitely opportunities for leasehold to be reformed. There is a discussion to be had regarding ground rents and there are currently unnecessarily complicated tax issues when extending leases that form part of a share-of-freehold which, if not navigated correctly, can create penal Capital Gains Tax consequences on a surrender and re-grant of an existing lease There is a question, however, over whether removing leasehold altogether is the sensible alternative.
We have lots of case law and societal experience with them, meaning that leases are known entities that have worked in some shape or form for hundreds of years. Just because leasehold’s origins are medieval (as are the origins of many of the UK’s institutions and laws), it does not make them inherently flawed.
We may also see the law of unintended consequences play out, based on a strict reading of the legislation and proposals. For example, families will seemingly no longer be able to create leasehold interests as part of tax planning initiatives, for example,by granting a long lease of a property from one trust to another. It is also going to be interesting to see how the owners of leasehold properties find being responsible for coordinating the maintenance and management of their buildings which, especially on larger buildings, may be much more of a headache than simply relying on a landlord and a service charge.
These are bold proposals from the Government. This may, however, turn into a much more complicated change than they think with consequences that were not anticipated. There is a consultation open until 24 April 2026 but, it is difficult to say what will come out of that and the direction of travel generally is certainly away from a leasehold model.
A quick interesting note to end on is that the truly “feudal” form of land tenure, copyhold, was actually abolished just over 100 years ago by the Law of Property Act 1925. If anyone wants to really know about feudal land ownership, that is the one to look into!
