Member News

Individuals and businesses frequently take advice from professionals such as solicitors, accountants, surveyors and financial advisors. Most of the time that advice assists them in achieving their desired outcome, or places them in a more informed position to make key decisions. Occasionally, however, there is a problem with the advice which has detrimental consequences for the client. If you are faced with that scenario, what redress do you have? Head of Dispute Resolution Katy Kidd investigates.

Is it a case of professional negligence?

You may be entitled to bring a claim against the professional. The fundamental hurdles which you would need to overcome in order to make out a case are set out below.

1. Duty of Care. Firstly, you must establish that the professional owed you a duty of care. This will usually be evidenced by the fact that you instructed the professional to act for you. Alternatively, the duty may arise from the fact that the professional held himself or herself out to have a particular expertise, which you relied upon.

2. Breach of Duty of Care. You must then be able to show that the professional has breached that duty of care by falling short of the standard to be expected of a reasonably competent professional in the same field.

3. Loss. You must have suffered a loss. This could take many forms, for example being unable to effect a family member’s wishes due to their Will being invalid, facing a tax liability you were unaware of, discovering that your new property has suffered from subsidence, or losing money on an investment.

4. Causation. The loss you have suffered must have been caused by the professional’s breach of his/her duty of care.

Are there any other factors to consider?

It is important to remember that each case turns on its own facts. The extent of any duty or breach of it will depend upon the scope of your instructions to the professional, and it can sometimes be difficult to separate out the losses which have been caused by a breach from losses which may have arisen in any event. In cases where you have contributed to the loss by your actions or omissions, the amount of compensation to which you are entitled will be reduced.

What are the time limits?

There is a time limit within which you must start your claim against the professional. In most cases this is six years from the date of the negligence, although there can be exceptions to this.

Are there any alternatives to court action?

Yes there are, although you should remember that these alternative routes will not stop the six year time limit from running.

Most professional organisations will have a formal complaints procedure which may enable the matter to be resolved with them directly. Another option is to contact the professional’s regulatory body (such as the Solicitors Regulation Authority) or any relevant ombudsman (for example the Financial Ombudsman Service).

If those avenues are not successful, you may wish to consider court action. However, it is usually advisable to follow the Professional Negligence Pre-Action Protocol before commencing a claim. This is a court recognised procedure which is designed to encourage the parties to exchange full information about the claim and any potential defence before commencing a claim, so that they can understand the issues which they will face if they embark upon litigation.

Other forms of dispute resolution, such as mediation, are also possibilities. Sometimes your contract with the professional will specify the form of dispute resolution by which any disputes between you should be resolved.

Court proceedings

If it is necessary to pursue your claim through the courts, the proceedings will follow a timetable set down by the court. You will most likely need to give witness evidence in support of your case, and it may be necessary to obtain expert witness evidence from an independent expert.

Funding of the case will be a factor which you will need to discuss with your solicitor. It may be the case that you have insurance in place which will fund the litigation.

If you think you may have a claim against a professional or would like to discuss any of the issues outlined above, please contact Katy Kidd in the Dispute Resolution team on 01603 598000 or by e-mail at kkidd@steeleslaw.co.uk.

Great Yarmouth-based Survival Systems International UK is to open its first service company in Australia – a great boost for the company’s international business and a dream come true for one-time apprentice Sam Dye.

Sam will head up the new business as regional manager following several years working closely with a number of SSI clients in Australia.

“I’ve long had an ambition to live and work in Australia so it could not have worked out better,” said Sam. In 2005, he joined SSI as apprentice, with day release to Great Yarmouth College, and is now senior technician with worldwide experience, at the company’s Gapton Hall base.

The US-owned company has manufactured single-cable launched survival capsules for the offshore oil and gas industry for over 40 years. It provides the equipment, servicing and knowledge to achieve a safe evacuation when an emergency occurs on an offshore installation.

The Australian initiative could not have been timelier for Sam who this year married Jenna who shares his enthusiasm for the continent and has relatives in Australia. They expect to be leaving Bradwell, Norfolk, for their new life, probably in Melbourne, early in 2013.

“It’s a great personal opportunity for me and an excellent start to our new company in Australia. Our long-term goal is to expand our operation across the continent,” said Sam.

George Teece, SSI’s vice-president Eastern Hemisphere operations, said: “Australia has long been a target for our future growth and development and I am really excited about opening another service company for SSI.”

SSI’s Australia office and workshop will create a third international outlet overseen by the Great Yarmouth base, adding to those already in Dubai and Malaysia.

Ian Robotham (Associate Solicitor) and Marija Markovic (Trainee Solicitor) in the Dispute Resolution team at Steeles Law report on the latest development in the “Interest Rate Swap Scandal”.

Update

Since the last report by Steeles Law (click here to view the article), the first major UK mis-selling case in the interest rate swap scandal has been heard in the London High Court.

On Monday 29 October 2012, a preliminary hearing took place between Guardian Care Homes (Graiseley Investment Limited & Ors) and Barclays Bank plc. Guardian Care Homes is claiming approximately £38 million from Barclays over an allegedly mis-sold interest rate swap (hedge agreement) subject to LIBOR that was designed to protect the company from rising interest rates. There are essentially two elements to Guardian Care Homes’ claim, one is the mis-selling of the hedge itself, the other is related to the fixing of LIBOR (in which it is alleged that Barclays’ swaps were increased in price due to the rigging of the LIBOR rates).

At the hearing, Barclays had sought, inter alia, an adjournment of the claim and to resist the inclusion of the LIBOR rigging elements to Guardian Care Homes’ claim for mis-selling. Judge Julian Flaux refused to adjourn the proceedings and granted permission for the LIBOR rigging aspect of the claim to be determined by the Court.

This is the first major UK case of its kind and will be seen as a test case for further claims against banks, being closely watched by thousands of other businesses. The decision by the Court to allow the case to go to trial could potentially lead to several thousands of claims being made by other businesses and individuals against Barclays and other banks involved in selling complex financial products.

After the hearing, Barclays gave this statement:

“The Judge’s decision means these issues will need to be dealt with at full trial in due course.

We understand that Graiseley entered into their swaps with sufficient understanding to exercise their own judgement as to whether the products would meet its business objectives.

They are a significant business which owes Barclays £70 million. We do not believe the case has merit and will defend it.”

Gary Hartland, CEO of Guardian Care Homes gave his response to the Case Management Conference ruling:

“We are delighted that the judge has accepted our pleadings that Barclays should face fraud allegations in relation to attempted Libor-rigging and the aggressive selling of hedging products.

Barclays’ attempt to have this claim thrown out has now been wholeheartedly rejected by the judge.

Despite the fact that our claim has always had the Libor element, Barclays have to date refused to disclose information including the names of senior management involved in attempted rigging.

Mine is a small care home operator, and these products along with the conduct of Barclays throughout this process have had a hugely distressing impact on our staff and residents.

Today is a huge milestone with a trial now going forward to determine whether these financial products should be declared void. Our claim is not just based on mis-selling but on the effect of senior management at Barclays instructing the aggressive selling of swaps while attempting to rig Libor.”

Comments

In our view this could be a landmark case for businesses and individuals affected by the rigging scandal and the mis-selling of complex financial products.

If the case proceeds to a full trial and Barclays loses, it could be disastrous for the banks which would be likely to give many individuals and businesses the confidence to claim for losses that they allege they have suffered as a result of entering into the hedging agreements.

However, just because the Court has granted permission for Guardian Care Homes’ claim to proceed to a full trial does not mean it will succeed in that trial. In fact, the claim itself does have difficulties.

Whilst we can only speculate, we consider that the most likely outcome is that Barclays will try to settle the claim out of Court rather than risk a precedent being set which will be binding in other cases. Further, it is likely that Guardian Care Homes will be receptive to a settlement in light of the challenges it faces in succeeding with its claim.

At Steeles Law we have acted and continue to act for a number of clients involved in disputes with banks including the mis-selling of complex financial products. If you or your business has entered into a hedging agreement, whether that agreement remains in place or not, we would like to hear from you. For a no obligation discussion about interest rate hedging products call us today.

If you require do require assistance please click here for Ian Robotham and Marija Markovic’s contact details.

The Internet is becoming mobile, and by 2016 it is estimated that two-thirds of the workforce will own a smartphone. Smart businesses know that mobile access is the way to customer satisfaction and growth.

Stacey & Partners, a large firm of Chartered Accountants and Registered Auditors have offices and clients throughout East Anglia. The firm has commissioned an accountancy smart phone app from developers, Crosby Associates.

The app, for apple and android includes a range of fifteen helpful tax tables and eight tax savings. It also lists a selection of their most important customer services and the contact page so that people can call the practice at the touch of a button or open Google maps to get directions to their nearest office.

It includes a number of features that Crosby Associates have developed especially for Stacey & Partners. Newly added are the expenses and business mileage log. The expenses section simply lets the user type up the expense, store it and email it to their accountant when they wish to. There’s also an upload facility that allows users to take a photo of a receipt and email it to Stacey & Partners.

The business mileage is a big new feature, it using the handset’s GPS facility to track movements to calculate the distance travelled. It also grabs the starting address and on Apple iOS it can get the destination address upon arrival, along with the date and time that the journey began.

Mark Wallace, Partner based at the firm’s Bury office said: “It is important that we deliver information to clients in an up to date and convenient matter. This phone application is the latest in a line of services we offer to clients, including our on line bookkeeping system and website.”

Lee Carroll, MD of Crosby Associates said: “Use of mobile devices for accessing the Internet is growing at a rapid rate. Manufacturers have shipped more than 472 million smartphones this year alone that doesn’t include the growing market for tablet devices. Basically Internet use is becoming mobile and businesses need to ensure they maximise the opportunities for their customers to access their services. We are seeing more demand for apps and mobile sites from businesses, like Stacey & Partners, who understand this.”

– Ends – For more information contact:-

Mark Wallace Partner 01284 773400 87 Whiting Street Bury St Edmunds Suffolk IP33 1PD

Business in the Community is seeking a new Project Manager to support employability programmes in Great Yarmouth and Lowestoft.

The role is essentially concerned with engaging businesses in Get Ready! and Ready for Work – programmes which aim to help homeless people to find employment and achieve independent living by providing workshops, visits, training and work placements with local employers.

The successful candidate will have strong communication skills and be able to operate credibly at all levels in the private and community sector. The job requires sensitivity to the barriers that vulnerable people can experience in gaining sustainable employment, as well as an understanding of the business drivers and priorities of private sector employers.

Strong project management skills are required, as is the ability to prioritise a demanding workload and be administratively self sufficient.

The role is home-based but it requires travel across the region and occasional attendance at evening and early morning events.

Full job description is attached.

Instructions to apply Applications should be in the form of a full CV and supporting letter outlining how your skills and experience meet the person specification for the post. Ideally, please submit by e-mail, to recruitment@bitc.org.uk . If you don’t have access to e-mail, we accept applications by post to Human Resources Team, 137 Shepherdess Walk, London, N1 7RQ.

Closing Date: 29 November 2012 midnight Interview Date: 11 December 2012

It is now a little over a year since the Bribery Act came into force and there have been few significant reported cases. However, the law remains important and we will undoubtedly see more prosecutions for bribery in the coming years. It is now common practice for businesses to require contractors and suppliers to comply with anti-corruption policies and to have anti-corruption clauses in contracts as standard.

Every business operating in the UK should ensure that they and their staff are aware of this important legislation and that they have in place adequate policies and training to limit their risk of involvement in any bribery or corruption anywhere in the world. It is worth noting that a business can be guilty of the offence of failing to prevent bribery if it does not have in place adequate measures to prevent bribery.

The Serious Fraud Office (SFO), which is responsible for investigating and prosecuting most breaches of the Bribery Act, has recently updated the guidance on its enforcement policy. This, in part, reflects a general change in approach by the SFO which has a new Director General. Two key changes are:

• Facilitation Payments – These are (usually small) payments made to an official to perform or speed up performance of a service. Examples include payments made to an official to speed up the processing of papers or release of goods. It was always clear that such payments are illegal bribes under UK law unlike in the US where they may be permitted.

Previously there was clear acceptance by the SFO and others that in some countries it is difficult to avoid paying these and that the SFO would not prosecute where businesses were taking steps to move towards compliance.

The stated position now is simply that the SFO will prosecute where it believes that there is a reasonable prospect of conviction and that it is in the public interest to do so.

• Self Reporting – Previously the SFO encouraged organisations to self-report potential breaches of the Bribery Act and stated that it would generally seek civil rather than criminal redress for breaches that had been self-reported. This guidance has now been revoked and replaced with the same stated position as above that the SFO will prosecute where it believes that there is a reasonable prospect of conviction and that it is in the public interest to do so.

There is still a role for self-reporting and it may be taken into account in the SFO’s decision as to whether to prosecute alongside other factors relating to the conduct of the business. However, self-reporting provides no guarantee that there will not be a prosecution and any decisions on this will need careful consideration.

These changes do not appear to indicate a significant change in attitude to the Bribery Act but do remove some of the comfort that was provided when the legislation was first introduced.

One area that had caused significant concern for businesses was in relation to corporate hospitality and entertainment. The SFO does repeat the comfort that was given previously with its statement that “Bona fide hospitality or promotional or other legitimate business expenditure is recognised as an established and important part of doing business.”.

For more information on the Bribery Act including access to our online training module please contact James Tarling on 01603 598000 or jtarling@steeleslaw.co.uk.

The School of World Art Studies and Museology and associated partners based at the Sainsbury Centre for Visual Arts offer a variety of Masters level courses. Scholarships and other awards available include:

2 x MA Scholarships offered for the following courses with a value equivalent to Home/EU fees:– MA Cultural Heritage and Museum Studies – MA Cultural Heritage and International Development – MA History of Art – MA Museum Studies

4 x MA Museum Studies Internships are also offered as part of our MA Museum Studies degree. A programme of workplace-based training will be arranged for each Intern who will be expected to contribute to the work of their team as though they were members of staff. The internships cover fees (at the Home/EU student rate) and a bursary of approximately £5,000. One internship is available in each of the following areas:– Curatorial – Collections Management – Education – Marketing/Public Services For further information please visit www.uea.ac.uk/art/pgtfunding or contact the Admissions Team, email: admissions@uea.ac.uk

The Sainsbury Research Unit for the Arts of Africa, Oceania and the Americas (SRU) offers five scholarships for study on its MA programme commencing in September 2013. The scholarships cover fees at Home/EU and Overseas rates.

Applicants are also eligible to apply for the Robert Sainsbury Library Bursary – a programme that gives students an opportunity to train in the SRU’s own specialist library.

The closing date for admission applications is 1 March 2013.

The five SRU scholarships will be offered to applicants on the following MA degree:

• MA Arts of Africa, Oceania and the Americas

The Sainsbury Research Unit is based in the Sainsbury Centre for Visual Arts with its exceptional collections of world art spanning 5,000 years. The SRU is an international centre for the study of the arts of Africa, the Pacific region and the Americas, providing high-quality individual tuition and supervision for postgraduates. It has a specialist research library and excellent study facilities. As part of the School of World Art Studies and Museology and the newly-formed Sainsbury Institute for Art, the SRU contributes to a substantial and lively scholarly community in the Sainsbury Centre. In the latest Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) the School was rated first in the UK for internationally-recognised research. SRU faculty are currently engaged in major research projects.

To find out more about SRU faculty, programmes, facilities and funding, please go to:www.sru.uea.ac.uk

The MA programme provides candidates with detailed knowledge of the visual arts, historical and contemporary, of Africa, Oceania and the Americas. Employing anthropological, archaeological and art-historical approaches, it is suitable as a stand-alone Masters or as a foundation for doctoral research. Emphasis is placed on small-group and individual tuition and the development of research skills. A strong museological emphasis makes this course appropriate for those interested in a career in museum curatorship, a pathway followed successfully by many alumni.

Visit our website for further details on funding, atwww.uea.ac.uk/art/postgraduatescholarships/fundingtaught

Follow the ‘Courses’ link for information about eligible MA degrees and for online application materials. Please indicate on your application form that you wish to be considered for Sainsbury Research Unit funding; all UK, EU and international students are eligible for this award.

Please contact the SRU Academic Secretary, Helen Sibley, on h.sibley@uea.ac.uk if you have questions about the course or the application procedure.

Bigfork were appointed to design and build a new website for Datasquasher, a new mobile app that compresses and tracks your mobile data usage. Our job was to design a website that promotes the key benefits of Datasquasher which includes:

• saving money by reducing your data usage
• faster internet browsing and longer battery life
• safer internet browsing
• monitoring the data you use and save

Website features include an online demo showing how much data you can save on any chosen website. The app is available on the Apple iOS app store and you can trial it for free. See full details at www.datasquasher.com

To see more examples of our work go to the Bigfork Portfolio.

Steeles Law Head of Planning & Environment David Merson looks at the Coalition’s proposals to revise the planning appeal process to: “…make the appeals process faster and more transparent, improve consistency and increase certainty of decision timetables, reducing wasted time and expense for all parties and lead to quicker development where the appeal is upheld”.

The CLG ‘Technical Review of Planning Appeal Procedures’ Consultation document contemplates a number of possible changes to the appeals regime.

It is suggested that the process will benefit from:

1. Ensuring earlier submission and notification of appeal statements to allow early and full disclosure of issues and evidence by amending the rules and regulations to require the appellant to submit their full appeal statement as part of their grounds of appeal on submission of the appeal, and to ensure local planning authorities notify interested parties within one week rather than the current timetable of 2 weeks after they have received notice of a valid appeal.

This would happen at the time the authority submits its questionnaire form to the Planning Inspectorate, a week earlier than is currently the case. Interested parties will then see the key issues at the time that they have the opportunity to comment which will encourage earlier engagement on the key issues. Only in respect of inquiries will the submission of more detail, in the form of proofs of evidence, be acceptable.

In addition it is proposed that parties will have to provide information on the appeal forms of the number of witnesses and the length of time they need to give their evidence. Model appeal forms questionnaires will be revised accordingly and Inspectors will be enabled to hold parties to their forecast time estimates unless the party can demonstrate that there has been a clear change in circumstances which warrant a change. If a party extends their evidence beyond their submitted estimate without adequate reasons then the Inspector could challenge them on their timetable and whether anything new is going to be said. If the party continues beyond the timetable following such challenge other parties could apply for costs if the extended period did not result in evidence being presented that was not previously covered in the written or oral evidence to that point.

2. Securing early agreement on ‘Common Grounds’ upfront to facilitate sharing of documents, narrow the areas of dispute, and focus the parties’ effort on the main issues by bringing discussion on common ground issues to the forward in the timetable. This is to be achieved by amending the Development Management Procedure Order and the Inquiry Rules to require the appellant to table a first draft of a document containing the factual background to the case at the time they make the appeal. The local planning authority would then have until week 5 to negotiate with the appellant a final version of the agreed matters which should then require no or little consideration at the event. If the local planning authority does not signal to the appellant that they disagree with the appellant’s facts then they will be considered to be uncontested by the local planning authority.

3. Ensuring parties are prepared to present their case earlier within tighter Planning Inspectorate timetabling guidelines so that hearings and inquiries are started sooner by shortening the time between the start of the appeal and the appeal event and amending the relevant secondary legislation so that an inquiry determined by an inspector should be held not later than 16 weeks (and for hearing later than 10 weeks) after the starting date unless such a date is considered impracticable.

4. Introducing an expedited ‘Commercial Appeals Service’ (CAS) along the lines of the Householder Appeals Service to deal with appeals on some minor commercial planning applications where the planning issues raised are straight forward, the appeal can be dealt with without the need for further representations, and there is not a significant level of broader community interest.

It is also suggested that there is merit in applying this more transparent legislative process to Advertisement Consent appeals to allow for more consistent administration of the process by the Planning Inspectorate.

The CAS would be an expedited form of the written representations procedure to offer a faster commercial planning appeal procedure for less complex appeals, enabling the Inspectorate to make a decision in 8 weeks. The time period for lodging such an appeal would be reduced to only 12 weeks rather than the usual 6 months. The process would require early identification of such applications so that interested parties could be notified at the application stage that there would not be a further opportunity to make comment should the application go via the expedited appeal route. The Planning Inspectorate would retain the power to determine the appropriate appeal procedure where an individual case was not appropriate for an expedited process.

There would be an element of choice for qualifying commercial appeals and appeals determined by the CAS would be based on the appellant’s brief appeal statement plus the original planning application documentation and any comments made at the application stage (including those of interested parties). It is anticipated that such appeals would include Advertisement consent appeals, Appeals on changes to shop fronts, and Change of use and other minor development that relate to straight forward proposals of under 1000m2.

It is also proposed to improve the certainty and consistency of the process in so far as it relates to a number of other areas such as enforcement, and Listed Building consents etc. The existing rules and regulations will therefore be amended so that the Planning Inspectorate is allowed to determine the procedure (in consultation with appellants and local planning authorities) for other types of appeals, such as Advertisement consent, Listed Building and Lawful Development Certificate appeals. It is also suggested that the rules governing Enforcement appeals could be amended to bring Enforcement hearings and inquiries into line with the procedural changes made in 2009 to planning appeals.

The Coalition will also consider whether its other proposals referred to above should be applied more widely to other appeal proceedings, in particular enforcement appeals. Finally, the rules and regulations that set out the appeals procedures will be brought together into a simple single merged statutory instrument.

5. The issuing of a single streamlined guide to planning appeal procedures setting out national criteria and guidance on appeals and setting expectations for appeal party documentation and evidence together with clarity on any grounds for a submission for an award of costs.

6. Moving to a more transparent online appeals model to fit in with the Coalition’s broader ‘Digital by Default’ agenda to assist the Planning Inspectorate to streamline some of its business processes will mean that appellants will need to be further encouraged to submit appeals on-line.

7. Revising and clarifying the determination criteria for determining the correct procedure for planning appeals and Enforcement appeals so that it is clearly understood what kind of reasons indicate that any particular appeal procedure be followed, thereby reducing the likelihood of challenge and subsequent delay.

In respect of the existing guidance on contentious proposals that have generated significant local interest, the amendment is to make it clear that a hearing or inquiry will be arranged where the local planning authority is aware that there is significant local interest and that: (i) it demonstrably requires that an Inspector hears evidence and / or asks questions of appeal parties, and (ii) where the local authority considers that (and can explain why) there is good reason to expect that it is necessary for the significant public representation to give evidence at an oral event.

8. More bespoke timetables for inquiries will need to be agreed and it is proposed that this process is applied to inquiries forecast to last 3 days or more.

The closing date for responses is 13 December 2012.

Full details of the proposals and consultation can be found here.

If you require further information or advice on any issues raised in this article or any other planning & environmental matter please contact David Merson on 020 7421 1720 or dmerson@steeleslaw.co.uk

Steeles Law Head of Planning & Environment David Merson looks at the Coalition’s proposals to revise the planning appeal process to: “…make the appeals process faster and more transparent, improve consistency and increase certainty of decision timetables, reducing wasted time and expense for all parties and lead to quicker development where the appeal is upheld”.

The CLG ‘Technical Review of Planning Appeal Procedures’ Consultation document contemplates a number of possible changes to the appeals regime.

It is suggested that the process will benefit from:

1. Ensuring earlier submission and notification of appeal statements to allow early and full disclosure of issues and evidence by amending the rules and regulations to require the appellant to submit their full appeal statement as part of their grounds of appeal on submission of the appeal, and to ensure local planning authorities notify interested parties within one week rather than the current timetable of 2 weeks after they have received notice of a valid appeal.

This would happen at the time the authority submits its questionnaire form to the Planning Inspectorate, a week earlier than is currently the case. Interested parties will then see the key issues at the time that they have the opportunity to comment which will encourage earlier engagement on the key issues. Only in respect of inquiries will the submission of more detail, in the form of proofs of evidence, be acceptable.

In addition it is proposed that parties will have to provide information on the appeal forms of the number of witnesses and the length of time they need to give their evidence. Model appeal forms questionnaires will be revised accordingly and Inspectors will be enabled to hold parties to their forecast time estimates unless the party can demonstrate that there has been a clear change in circumstances which warrant a change. If a party extends their evidence beyond their submitted estimate without adequate reasons then the Inspector could challenge them on their timetable and whether anything new is going to be said. If the party continues beyond the timetable following such challenge other parties could apply for costs if the extended period did not result in evidence being presented that was not previously covered in the written or oral evidence to that point.

2. Securing early agreement on ‘Common Grounds’ upfront to facilitate sharing of documents, narrow the areas of dispute, and focus the parties’ effort on the main issues by bringing discussion on common ground issues to the forward in the timetable. This is to be achieved by amending the Development Management Procedure Order and the Inquiry Rules to require the appellant to table a first draft of a document containing the factual background to the case at the time they make the appeal. The local planning authority would then have until week 5 to negotiate with the appellant a final version of the agreed matters which should then require no or little consideration at the event. If the local planning authority does not signal to the appellant that they disagree with the appellant’s facts then they will be considered to be uncontested by the local planning authority.

3. Ensuring parties are prepared to present their case earlier within tighter Planning Inspectorate timetabling guidelines so that hearings and inquiries are started sooner by shortening the time between the start of the appeal and the appeal event and amending the relevant secondary legislation so that an inquiry determined by an inspector should be held not later than 16 weeks (and for hearing later than 10 weeks) after the starting date unless such a date is considered impracticable.

4. Introducing an expedited ‘Commercial Appeals Service’ (CAS) along the lines of the Householder Appeals Service to deal with appeals on some minor commercial planning applications where the planning issues raised are straight forward, the appeal can be dealt with without the need for further representations, and there is not a significant level of broader community interest.

It is also suggested that there is merit in applying this more transparent legislative process to Advertisement Consent appeals to allow for more consistent administration of the process by the Planning Inspectorate.

The CAS would be an expedited form of the written representations procedure to offer a faster commercial planning appeal procedure for less complex appeals, enabling the Inspectorate to make a decision in 8 weeks. The time period for lodging such an appeal would be reduced to only 12 weeks rather than the usual 6 months. The process would require early identification of such applications so that interested parties could be notified at the application stage that there would not be a further opportunity to make comment should the application go via the expedited appeal route. The Planning Inspectorate would retain the power to determine the appropriate appeal procedure where an individual case was not appropriate for an expedited process.

There would be an element of choice for qualifying commercial appeals and appeals determined by the CAS would be based on the appellant’s brief appeal statement plus the original planning application documentation and any comments made at the application stage (including those of interested parties). It is anticipated that such appeals would include Advertisement consent appeals, Appeals on changes to shop fronts, and Change of use and other minor development that relate to straight forward proposals of under 1000m2.

It is also proposed to improve the certainty and consistency of the process in so far as it relates to a number of other areas such as enforcement, and Listed Building consents etc. The existing rules and regulations will therefore be amended so that the Planning Inspectorate is allowed to determine the procedure (in consultation with appellants and local planning authorities) for other types of appeals, such as Advertisement consent, Listed Building and Lawful Development Certificate appeals. It is also suggested that the rules governing Enforcement appeals could be amended to bring Enforcement hearings and inquiries into line with the procedural changes made in 2009 to planning appeals.

The Coalition will also consider whether its other proposals referred to above should be applied more widely to other appeal proceedings, in particular enforcement appeals. Finally, the rules and regulations that set out the appeals procedures will be brought together into a simple single merged statutory instrument.

5. The issuing of a single streamlined guide to planning appeal procedures setting out national criteria and guidance on appeals and setting expectations for appeal party documentation and evidence together with clarity on any grounds for a submission for an award of costs.

6. Moving to a more transparent online appeals model to fit in with the Coalition’s broader ‘Digital by Default’ agenda to assist the Planning Inspectorate to streamline some of its business processes will mean that appellants will need to be further encouraged to submit appeals on-line.

7. Revising and clarifying the determination criteria for determining the correct procedure for planning appeals and Enforcement appeals so that it is clearly understood what kind of reasons indicate that any particular appeal procedure be followed, thereby reducing the likelihood of challenge and subsequent delay.

In respect of the existing guidance on contentious proposals that have generated significant local interest, the amendment is to make it clear that a hearing or inquiry will be arranged where the local planning authority is aware that there is significant local interest and that: (i) it demonstrably requires that an Inspector hears evidence and / or asks questions of appeal parties, and (ii) where the local authority considers that (and can explain why) there is good reason to expect that it is necessary for the significant public representation to give evidence at an oral event.

8. More bespoke timetables for inquiries will need to be agreed and it is proposed that this process is applied to inquiries forecast to last 3 days or more.

The closing date for responses is 13 December 2012.

Full details of the proposals and consultation can be found here.

If you require further information or advice on any issues raised in this article or any other planning & environmental matter please contact David Merson on 020 7421 1720 or dmerson@steeleslaw.co.uk

Norfolk Chamber Gold PatronGreater Anglia has triumphed at the National Cycle Rail Awards 2012. In partnership with Colchester Borough Council and Essex County Council, the operator won the ‘Station Travel Plan Measure for Cycling Award’ for the Colchester station Travel Plan.

Greater Anglia was also highly commended in the ‘Operator of the Year’ and the ‘Best Customer Service’ categories.

In presenting the award and the commendations, the judges recognised that Greater Anglia has implemented a wide variety of cycle-focused enhancements since the franchise began in February 2012, including upgrades to existing facilities, creating a new cycle strategy and making arrangements for special cycling events. These achievements have been delivered in the first 9 months of the Greater Anglia franchise and are the first of a number of improvements the operator is committed to providing in the region.

Measures already in place include an increase in cycle parking across the network bringing the total number of cycle spaces at Greater Anglia stations to 6,000, with schemes at Billericay, Kelvedon and Rayleigh, plus a new secure cycle compound at Manningtree. On-going enhancements include plans to develop new cycle parking initiatives at Cambridge and Chelmsford, a cycle hire scheme at Norwich and a new Plus Cycle hire scheme and additional bike parking at 15 stations.

The ‘Station Travel Plan Measure for Cycling Award’ specifically recognised the Colchester Travel Plan, a partnership project between the local train operator, Colchester Borough Council and Essex County Council. One of 24 pilot schemes nationwide, Colchester was chosen as the award winner because of the sheer scope of the improvements in a range of sustainable access modes – especially cycling. The project has seen a consistent emphasis on cycling, with activities ranging from new cycle stands, increasing cycle parking capacity by 50%, to improvements to cycle routes into the station, as well as awareness campaigns and events. As a result, at least 50% more people now use bikes to travel to the station.

Some of the comments made by the judges in recognising Greater Anglia’s achievements included:

“When awarding the best station travel plan, the judges felt Colchester demonstrated an excellent link to wider transport needs and the local community. Evidence of success is extremely strong and will set the blueprint for successful cycle-rail schemes across the Greater Anglia network and beyond.”

“A great start…the judges were impressed with Greater Anglia’s variety of services, demonstrating a commitment to customer service and an understanding of cycling.”

Ruud Haket Greater Anglia’s Managing Director said “Our National Cycle Rail Award together with the commendations is a testament to the hard work and vision of our team at Greater Anglia, together with that of our partners at Colchester Borough Council and Essex County Council. We are committed to encouraging more people to cycle to our stations, to improve cycle parking and to enhance the station interchange facilities with other modes of transport. We look forward to working with our partners on further projects in the future.”