The quashing of an Inspector’s decision to grant planning permission for a wind farm development has highlighted the special status given by the law to the need to preserve listed buildings and their settings.

Listed buildings have had special protection in the planning system since 1990, when section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act introduced a requirement that when considering a planning application for development that affects a listed building or its setting the decision maker, “shall have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possess”.

In East Northamptonshire District Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government the Council, together with English Heritage and the National Trust, challenged an Inspector’s decision to grant planning permission on appeal for a wind farm development located in the vicinity of a number of listed buildings and Lyveden New Bield, a Grade 1 listed Elizabethan garden.

While the Inspector recognised the statutory test set out in section 66(1) and found that the proposal would cause harm to the setting of a range of designated heritage assets, his view was that, “At its worst, that harm would not reach the level of substantial”.

The judge quashed the decision on a number of heritage related grounds but was especially critical of the failure by the Inspector to recognise that the effect of section 66(1) was that any detrimental impact on listed buildings or their setting should be given “special weight”. Her criticism was that the Inspector had treated the harm to the setting of the listed buildings and the benefits of the proposed wind farm as if they were equal factors and in doing so ignored the special importance that Parliament has placed on the protection of listed buildings by passing section 66(1).

Comment: This case is a helpful reminder that not all material considerations should be treated the same. In the same way as the Development Plan has a special legal significance, so to do those material considerations that have a statutory underpinning. At a time when material considerations such as the strong Government policy support for renewable energy and the National Planning Policy Framework can appear to be sweeping all other material considerations before them, it is important that decisions take proper account of all material considerations in order to avoid possible legal challenge.

The latest workplace absence figures published in 2012 show that musculoskeletal problems such as back, neck, shoulder and knee pain are still proving to be a huge issue for people across the UK, blighting the lives of millions.

The level of pain caused by musculoskeletal disorders can range from mild to severe and can be extremely debilitating, often preventing people from going to work and limiting their everyday activities.

And, although there has been a downward trend in work-related musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) over the last 10 years*, they still accounted for the greatest number of working days lost to ill health in 2012 according to the Office for National Statistics.

Conditions including back pain, neck and upper limb problems were responsible for more than a quarter of all work days lost – the equivalent of 35 million days.

Back pain alone affects more than 1.1 million people in the UK, with 95 per cent of patients suffering from lower back problems. It can affect anyone at any age and most people will suffer from it at some point in their lives

So, how can staff keep on top of musculoskeletal problems to make sure MSDs don’t leave the workforce feeling less than sunny this season?

The general advice for people who suffer back pain[2] is to stay active, try simple pain relief and seek medical help if necessary.

The Health and Safety Executive recommends that employers help staff to identify the cause of an MSD, allowing the employer to review their risk assessment and attempt to rectify the problem.

It is also recommended that staff with back pain and other injuries should be encouraged to come back to work where possible and to keep regular communication between the employee and employer.

Westfield Health’s Chamber Primary Health Plan, which is available to all members of Norfolk Chamber of Commerce, offers a range of benefits to help staff manage MSDs, including physiotherapy, chiropractic treatment, osteopathy and acupuncture.

By using their Westfield Health cover, staff can return to work sooner by avoiding lengthy waiting times and getting aches and pains treated quickly at an appointment time and place convenient to them – minimising disruption to the working day.

And for serious conditions such as hip and knee problems that could require surgery, employees can also be covered by Westfield Health’s new Hospital Treatment Insurance (HTI).

HTI is available to all members of Norfolk Chamber with five or more employees, either as a standalone product or, for more comprehensive cover, it can be used in conjunction with Westfield’s Chamber Plan.

For more information about the Chamber Plan, visit www.westfieldhealth.com/chamber or call 0845 602 1629, available 8am to 6pm, Monday to Friday.

If the never-ending ‘To Do’ list at work seems unachievable and lunchtime means another hurried sandwich eaten ‘al desko’ in the office, then you’re not alone.

According to research, 40 per cent of office workers are under ‘dangerously high’ levels of stress due to a combination of unpaid overtime, unachievable expectations and taking on additional duties for colleagues.*

‘Staff burnout’ is becoming a common problem for nearly a third (30 per cent) of companies, according to the study of HR directors, with 67 per cent of respondents believing workload to be to blame. Long working hours and unachievable expectations were also piling on the pressure for stressed workforces.

Phil Sheridan of recruitment firm Robert Half UK, which commissioned the research, said: “Employee burnout can affect almost any professional, from top boss to rank and file employee.

“Many employees who have been tackling increased workloads while putting in long hours are beginning to lose their motivation at work.”

Symptoms of employee burnout include emotional outbursts, becoming withdrawn and more frequent sickness absence.

Stress is even affecting mealtimes and breaks for some of us, with another recent survey finding half of respondents putting in so much overtime they eat both breakfast and lunch at work – or ‘al desko’ – while ten per cent eat all three of their daily meals in the workplace.

There is some good news, however, with half of the directors surveyed saying they were trying to tackle stress and prevent employee burnout with methods including promoting a teamwork-based environment, reviewing job functions and flexible working options.

There are also proactive steps employees can also take to help themselves when times are tough.

Westfield Health’s Chamber Primary Health Plan, which is available to all members of Norfolk Chamber of Commerce, includes a 24 hour counselling and advice line.

Policyholders can call the 24/7 line and speak to counsellors day or night to access help and support with issues including work-related stress and anxiety, as well as any personal issues affecting them.

The plan also offers access to up to six face to face counselling sessions, including cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT), a form of therapy which focuses on thoughts, images, beliefs and attitudes and how they relate to the way we behave.

For more information about the Chamber Plan, visit www.westfieldhealth.com/chamber or call 0845 602 1629, available 8am to 6pm, Monday to Friday.

Last week, the House of Lords voted again on the Government’s proposed changes to civil liability for employers who breach health and safety legislation.

The Lords had previously voted against Clause 62 of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill, removing civil liability for such breaches but that was overturned in the Commons, and the matter was returned for further consideration by the Lords earlier this week.

The ‘controversial change’ (not much in real life in our opinion) will see an amendment to s47 of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, removing the existing right of an employee to rely on a breach of health and safety legislation, in order to obtain compensation.

The current law provides that where statutory health & safety regulations are not complied with leading to injury or damage, the claimant can seek compensation on the basis of the employer’s breach of those regulations. The changes mean that it will only be possible to claim compensation for accidents which would currently constitute a breach of health and safety regulations where it can be proved by the claimant that the employer has been negligent at common law.

The proposals stem from Professor Lofstedt’s report, “Reclaiming health and safety for all: An independent Review of health and safety legislation” which recommended an overhaul to the regulatory system, including the reduction of (perceived) red tape & the review of strict liability for civil actions.

However, in his progress report published earlier this year, the Government’s approach to civil liability is “more far reaching” than Professor Lofstedt anticipated. Suggestions have also been made that this change will place a heavy reliance on the Health & Safety Executive to ensure compliance, particularly given recent funding cuts (about 35%).

However, those in favour of the change argue that it is not justifiable to hold employers’ liable for incidents outside of their control, which could not reasonably have been prevented and that the change is required to address a perceived and growing “compensation culture”. The Government’s view is that fear of civil suits is causing employers to over implement health & safety requirements and to insist on unnecessarily cautious work practices, both of which are increasing costs and reducing business growth, and stopping people from doing things sensibly- hiring an expensive work platform – when a bit of planning, a well maintained ladder and 2 competent members of staff could have done the job

Concerns have been raised about the impact that the removal of civil liability for health & safety breaches will have on injured parties.

At present, an employer can often defend a civil claim for breach of health & safety regulations on the basis that it has taken all reasonably practicable steps to comply with its duties. There are a few limited circumstances where strict liability applies, allowing an employer no defence if a breach of the relevant regulation is established.

For example The requirements of the Lifting Operations & Lifting Equipment Regulations 1998 (to thoroughly examine lifts/ lifting gear) & the requirement for a Written Scheme of Examination under the Pressure systems (Safety) Regulations 2000 are examples of strict liability, many other requirements have the caveat so far as is reasonably practicable’ which gives business the opportunity to devise a cost/ benefit solution but is obviously open to (mis)interpretation and over zealous enforcement/ action

During the Lords’ debate, the Government argued that the cases that will be most significantly affected by this change are “those which would have previously relied on an absolute or strict liability duty”. This argument appears to be based on the assumption that the issues and evidence to be considered for a claim in negligence will still be broadly the same as those which currently apply in relation to claims brought for a breach of statutory duty where the “reasonably practicable” defence is available, and that therefore the change will not place any greater burden on claimants than they currently face.

However, the removal of strict liability would seem to move the risk of injury through simple misfortune from the employer to the employee, and seems to be a step away from the “no fault” approach to compensation which some have argued for. The Lords’ vote means Clause 62 will be included as part of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill when the bill receives royal assent.

Britain is getting greener. The drip feed of climate change news stories, new-look rubbish dumps and colour-coded bins filling our front gardens has paid off and the amount of rubbish recycled or thrown away by the British has fallen by 15% over the last six years. Recycling has made a big impact, with around half our household waste now recycled. However, there’s also been an overall reduction in the amount of household waste produced, falling in by as much as 7% in some places. Some of this is down to the recession – people spending less equates to less packaging; a stagnant housing market means less moves and fewer attics, cellars and sheds to be cleared. However, one of the most striking trends is the decline in the amount of newspaper being recycled and this correlates directly to the 28% fall in the circulation of British national dailies as we increasingly turn to digital sources for our news. In fact, the latest Reuters Institute Digital Report shows that smartphones now play a big role in news consumption with 28% of their survey sample accessing news via their mobile each week in the UK.

Good New for the Environment? Good news for the environment then? Possibly, but the perception that digital news is somehow ‘carbon light’ compared with newspaper products is wrong. The Guardian has taken the bold step of publishing the carbon footprint for its entire digital media operations and estimates that for providing content for www.guardian.co.uk and www.guardiannews.com this was about 10,000 tonnes of CO2e last year. This is around a third of the company’s current overall carbon footprint and about the same as the carbon emissions of Luxemburg!

Behind this ‘big number’ is the Guardian’s willingness to try and get under the skin of the complexity of the internet and attribute realistic power consumption and CO2e figures to each leg of the ‘news pixel’s’ journey – from the device you read the news on, across the network, to the various datacentres and servers they control around the world and back again. Most revealing is the fact that the vast majority of the energy consumed is by customer devices – Wi-Fi hubs, modems, laps tops and smart phones account for about 86% of the footprint, while the data centres that support them account for single digit percentage points of power usage.

The Guardian covers its report with caveats around the estimates and informed guesses it has had to make about these emissions, however the holistic view of the energy consumed by a pixel of news from the journalist’s typing fingers to the reader does reveal that behind the shift from paper-based news to digital news is an equally important shift in energy consumption from the producer to the consumer.

Related articles: Digital carbon footprint: steps in the right directionhttps://www.guardian.co.uk/sustainability/sustainability-report-2012-digital-carbon-footprint