Member Blog

A few years ago, I heard a speaker at a conference talk about ‘finding out what your people’s purpose is.’ It was a comment which has stayed with me ever since because I believe that if we truly understand our people, really know what drives them, what matters to them, then we will be able to engage, manage and work together much more effectively.

That which drives us, which propels us out of bed in the morning, will vary greatly as we are all uniquely, wonderfully different. But chances are that for many of us, that which matters to us, above all else, isn’t work. That’s not to say that what we do isn’t hugely satisfying and important, and indeed, integral to our being. But, rather there may well be a different motive behind all that we do –  be it our family, our hobby, our charitable interest, or a heartfelt ambition which has no correlation to our day job.

And yet, many employers don’t recognise this and instead expect employees to behave as if their number one priority is work. Some employers will expect their people to prioritise work, and its demands, above all else.

But they are missing the point. Because expecting employees to put work first creates dissatisfaction and demotivation. By creating cultures of long hours, where people are not empowered to bring themselves to work, by encroaching constantly on out of office times, by not giving people space to follow that which matters to them – be that attending a child’s sports’ day or doing voluntary work – creates frustration and ultimately, disengagement.

I am lucky. I love what I do – and in setting up The Engaging People Company, I have been able to marry my personal beliefs with my career. I want to make people happy, be it loved ones, friends, people I meet, people I work with, and myself. But behind that is a far bigger priority, a far deeper purpose – my family. Everything I do, I am doing for them.

And that’s what employers need to understand. And demonstrably too. Employers who get to know their people, understand what drives them, and who demonstrate respect for that which truly matters to the employee will create far better working relationships, leading to greater satisfaction, engagement, and productivity. Employers need to show that they understand what drives people – and empower them to fulfil their purpose, wherever feasible. Managing By Walking About allows employers to understand their people, create a dialogue and engender trust. And once managers understand that purpose, they need to be ready to support and empower their people to fulfil that through their management and engagement.

Employers should never create an expectation that work should be the priority, above all else, in an employee’s life. Because this will only lead to dissatisfaction, demotivation and possibly an employee departure.  

In the recent case of Ball v Ball, three children failed in challenging their mother’s Will on the grounds that she lacked mental capacity and had been unduly influenced by her husband; their father.

There were 11 children in the Ball family in total. In 1991 three of them reported their father, Mr James Ball, to the police for indecently assaulting them whilst they were minors. As a result, Mr Ball was prosecuted, receiving a suspended prison sentence.

Mrs Barbara Ball was reportedly disgruntled when the allegations made by her children were publicised and she was of the opinion that they had been exaggerated. Mrs Ball therefore set about executing a Will which excluded the complainant children from any share of her Estate. The Estate was left to her eight remaining children and to one of Mrs Ball’s grandsons.

Mrs Ball died in 2013 without having made any further Will, leaving an Estate of £157,000. The three disinherited children challenged the Will advancing their claim under three heads at trial:

1.    Lack of Capacity;

2.    Undue Influence; and

3.    Reasonable Provision pursuant to the Inheritance (Family and Dependants) Act 1975.

Lack of Capacity

Testamentary capacity is required when a Will is made, that is to ensure that the testator (the individual making the Will) fully comprehends the nature of the Will and the effect it will have. Challenging a Will on the basis of testamentary capacity is an extremely difficult claim, the starting point for which will be considering the deceased’s medical records, usually together with an expert report.

In this case the children accepted before trial that Mrs Ball had not been suffering from any physical or mental illness but instead based their argument on the view that Mr Ball had told Mrs Ball that he had not committed the above mentioned offences, which led to her disinheriting the children. The three children said that Mrs Ball’s mental state was impaired ‘in the sense that she was misled and… would not have reached those conclusions has she not been misled. Her state of mind was such that her capacity was lacking, because of the serious misapprehension under which she was labouring’.

However, there was evidence to suggest that Mr Ball had admitted to Mrs Ball that some of the allegations against him were true and the Court therefore held that Mrs Ball was not misled, which disposed of the lack of capacity argument.

Undue Influence

In order to establish that the Will was invalid for undue influence, the children would have to prove that Mrs Ball made the Will as a result of force or fear (through actual or threatened injury); or fraud (after being misled by some pretence) or undue influence (where her freedom of choice was overcome with intolerable pressure). Such claims are inherently challenging, not least because the main witness has passed away.

The children based their argument on the sole fact Mrs Ball disinherited them as a result of  their accusations against Mr Ball and she must therefore have been influenced by him. This was rejected by the Judge who found that ‘the evidence shows that her husband was not putting pressure on her, even though I have no doubt that she took his wishes…into account in deciding what to do’. In fact, the Judge found evidence Mrs Ball was the dominant partner in the marriage and that she ‘…was very strong minded, and it was very difficult to change her mind once it was made up’.

This strand of the children’s claim also failed. The Court considered that Mrs Ball was entitled to make the Will she had made and the fact others did not like her choice did not mean that she was unduly influenced.

Reasonable Provision pursuant to the Inheritance (Family and Dependants) Act 1975

The Court also rejected the claim for reasonable provision under the Inheritance (Family and Dependants) Act 1975. In order to succeed here, the children would first have to show that, objectively, the Will did not make reasonable financial provision for them in all the circumstances according to the relevant standard (there is a higher standard for spouses than for other applicants). Due to the fact that this is an objective question, the answer largely turns on financial evidence; it is not necessarily a question of whether the deceased acted reasonably or was morally right or wrong.

In this case the Court found nothing to suggest that Mrs Ball had not made reasonable financial provision for her children and no special circumstances to persuade the Court that Mrs Ball had failed to make reasonable financial provisions for her children’s maintenance. None of the children were considered to live “below the breadline” and they were no worse off than the remaining children and grandson who stood to inherit Mrs Ball’s Estate.

The Judge duly dismissed the claim from the three children and they were not entitled to any financial provision under their late mother’s Will.

Comment

Although this decision may come across as harsh, it serves as a useful reminder of the significant evidentiary hurdles in a claim against an Estate. The Court has no obligation to be sympathetic and it is clear the Court will assess each claim on a careful analysis of the facts and application of the relevant legal considerations.

The Wills & Probate Disputes Team at Leathes Prior recently represented a client in similar circumstances and, despite the reticent stance taken by the Court in Ball v Ball, the team secured a very favourable outcome for our client who received a significant sum on settlement. This therefore highlights that the outcome very much depends on the circumstances of each case and expert advice should always be sought to ensure proper representation.

If you wish to make a claim against an Estate, or need to defend such a claim, please do not hesitate to contact our Wills & Probate Disputes Team who can provide highly specialist advice.

The first half of the year has seen some fairly major changes to the provisions of the Policing and Crime Act 2017, which have been brought substantially into force and with somewhat unusual speed. Some of these ‘urgent’ provisions were brought into force following royal assent on 31 January 2017.

So what are the main changes?

Bail

The rules surrounding bail have been majorly overhauled. Where a case has commenced on or after the 3 April 2017, there is a statutory presumption that a suspect should only be bailed where it is necessary and proportionate to do so. It is therefore likely that bail will only be used where there are grounds to justify an arrest and bail conditions (such as restrictions preventing the suspect from going to certain areas or speaking to certain people) are required.

If a suspect is granted bailed, then the term of such bail must not exceed 28 days in routine cases or three months in Serious Fraud Office cases or those which have been designated as complex. This period can be extended by the Court, or by a Superintendent, or a senior civil servant.

This change is likely to see a significant reduction in the use of bail. The police are now able to take samples without an arrest and searches following an arrest can be carried out before the suspect is released. In addition, the police are now routinely releasing suspects ‘under investigation’. A suspect released under investigation is, in essence, ‘free to go’ and cannot be subject to any conditions (although they will often be provided with a letter which warns of the risks of contacting witnesses or taking other steps which may prejudice the case). The time limits set out above do not apply to suspects released under investigation; a status which can go on indefinitely.

Police officers are required to advise suspects when an investigation has come to an end, but otherwise they are not entitled to receive any information on the progress of the case. If the aim of this provision was to reduce the amount of suspects left in investigative limbo, it seems that this alteration takes one step forward, and two steps back. 

Firearms

‘Blank-firing’ guns are often created as props for film and television, however there has been an increasing trend worldwide in the conversion and use of these guns (and other imitation firearms) by criminal elements who value them for the difficulty law enforcement face in tracing them. This has seen the introduction of a new offence under the Firearms Act 1968 of possessing an article with the intention of using it to turn an imitation firearm into a real one. The tools used to carry out these modifications are not highly specialised and are relatively commonplace, therefore the intention element of the offence is vital. This serves as an important reminder to engineering firms that they should not carry out or offer to carry out these modifications.

Sexual Offences

A new offence has been created of sexual communication with a child. The offence arises when a person aged 18 or over communicates with a person who is under 16 in a way which is sexual or is intended to encourage the other to make a communication which is sexual, and the purpose is to obtain sexual gratification. It is a defence to show that the alleged offender reasonably believed that the other person was aged 16 or over.

“Sexual exploitation” under the sexual offences act has been redefined, with effect from 31 January 2017 to include the streaming of indecent images.

These changes demonstrate the necessity for the law to reflect changes in technology; with smartphones commonplace amongst under 16s, it is vital to ensure that conduct which puts children or vulnerable people in danger does not fall through the legislative gaps.

Harassment

With effect from 3 April 2017, changes have been introduced to the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. The maximum sentences for the offences of putting people in fear of violence, and stalking involving fear of violence or serious alarm or distress, committed after 3 April 2017 have been increased to 10 years imprisonment. If the offences are racially aggravated the maximum sentence is now 14 years imprisonment.

Criminal Finances

Much was made, before the election, about the introduction of Unexplained Wealth Orders. When this section of the Criminal Finances Act 2017 comes into force these orders will allow the authorities to investigate where a person makes a purchase which they do not seem wealthy enough to afford. The move, which follows reports that London is the money laundering capital of the world, was welcomed by anti-corruption campaigners Transparency International.

Certain parts of the Criminal Finances Act 2017, including new offences for ‘relevant bodies’ who fail to prevent the facilitation of tax evasion come into force in 30 September 2017.

Investigatory Powers Act 2016

Little of this statute is yet in force but it will in due course replace the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000.

These changes broadly represent the criminal law catching up with trends and technological advances which are changing the way crime is committed. Whilst changes to the rules surrounding bail may mean fewer people are place on bail pending charge, the increased use of “released under investigation” status means that practically not much has changed.

If you have any questions on anything covered in this article, please do get in touch with our Criminal Defence Team on 01603 610911. 

It is rare that a court case excites both the tabloid and legal presses to the same extent, however that is exactly what happened when Mr Michael Parker (better known by his stage name Michael Barrymore) sued Essex Police following his arrest in relation to the death of Mr Stuart Lubbock.   The facts were these. Mr Barrymore had been for a night out in Harlow. In the early hours of 31 March 2001, Mr Barrymore and eight other people (including Mr Lubbock) returned to Mr Barrymore’s home in Roydon. At 5.45 am, Mr Lubbock (previously an intoxicated but otherwise healthy individual) was found in Mr Barrymore’s swimming pool unconscious and not breathing and he was later pronounced dead. A post mortem examination carried out later that day revealed that Mr Lubbock had suffered severe anal injuries. Two of Mr Barrymore’s guests were arrested on suspicion of Mr Lubbock’s murder, but were not charged. Mr Barrymore himself was arrested for drug offences, for which he received a caution.   On 14 June 2007 (some six years after Mr Lubbock’s death), Mr Barrymore was arrested by Essex Police on suspicion of raping and murdering Mr Lubbock. He was held overnight before being released on bail the next day. On 10 September 2007 the Crown Prosecution Service decided that there was not sufficient evidence to charge anyone with offences relating to Mr Lubbock’s injuries or death.   Mr Barrymore sued Essex Police, alleging that the 2007 arrest was unlawful, and that as a result he had suffered significant damages. Whilst Essex Police admitted that the arrest had been unlawful, they contended that Mr Barrymore was only entitled to receive nominal damages on the basis that he could, and would have been, lawfully arrested but for the delay in attendance of the only officer who had the necessary information to arrest, DC Jenkins.   In order to carry out a lawful arrest a police officer must suspect involvement, or attempted involvement, in the commission of a criminal offence and have reasonable grounds for believing that the person’s arrest is necessary. If an arrest is unlawful, it follows that any detention will be unlawful unless, and until, such arrest is corrected. DC Jenkins had reasonable grounds for such suspicion, however she was caught in traffic. Therefore, DC Cootes carried out the arrest.   Essex Police based their defence on the Supreme Court decision in Lumba v SSHD. In this case it was held that damages for false imprisonment are calculated to “put the claimant in the position he would have been in had the tort not been committed. Thus if the position is that, had the tort not been committed, the claimant would in fact have been in exactly the same position, he will not normally be entitled to anything more than nominal damage” (tort meaning a wrongful act or infringement of a right). Essex Police submitted that, had DC Cootes realised he did not have reasonable grounds he would have called his superiors to obtain such information, or would have waited for DC Jenkins to arrive. On this basis they suggested that Mr Barrymore was entitled to no more than £1.   The Court disagreed. They found that the relevant question was not ‘What would have happened if DC Cootes had had an epiphany about the illegality of his actions?’, but simply ‘What would have happened if DC Cootes hadn’t arrested Mr Barrymore?’. The Court held that if DC Cootes hadn’t unlawfully arrested Mr Barrymore, one of the many other officers present would have, and would have done so unlawfully.   The sum to be awarded is yet to be decided, however it is reported that Mr Barrymore values his claim at more than £2.4 million.   This decision distinctly limits the application of Lumba, and could see substantial damages being awarded in more unlawful arrest and detention cases. Where no officer present at the arrest has sufficient information to have ‘reasonable grounds’ for their suspicion, the claimant in an action for unlawful arrest and detention has grounds to argue their entitlement to substantial damages. This action is now likely to be very attractive for those who believe they have been unlawfully arrested.   If you have any questions on anything covered in this article, please do get in touch with our Criminal Defence Team on 01603 610911.

The question we get asked the second1 most when speaking to clients and potential clients is “how much will my bespoke2 software cost to build?” This is extremely difficult to answer without lots of detail and even then the complexities of software development, the complexity of client requirements and clients changing needs over the course of a project make an accurate estimate challenging.   For this reason, most software development companies shy away from including prices on their website. In fact we checked the websites of a number of our competitors and the closest we found was one who offers a range of fee options from fixed price to a daily rate and a couple who ask for your budget when contacting them for more information. As a client, until you get that first email response, phone call or face-to-face meeting you’re no closer to understanding how much your software will cost. Even then it may be some time before you are any the wiser.   We can’t help you understand how much your project will cost until we speak to you. What we can tell you is how much projects have cost our existing clients. We’ve broken the figures down into the types of services we provide, the minimum project cost, the maximum project cost, the average project costs and where in the range most of the projects sit:   Project Type Minimum Maximum Average (Mean) Most Projects Under Enterprise Software & Mobile Development £3,000 £230,000 £36,000 £40,000 Creative Websites £450 £6,500 £2,500 £1,500 Consultancy £550 £20,700 £3,000 £1,000 * All values are approximate, exclude VAT and are correct as of August 2017   To start investigating how your business problem could be solved with a bespoke application, please contact us for a chat.   __________________ 1 The thing everyone wants to know first is if we can solve their problem. 2 Our software is truly bespoke. We can modify off the shelf software for you, but we don’t consider this truly bespoke.

The Chelmsford team at Pure are taking it in turns to volunteer at lunch clubs organised by local charity Kids Inspire to support disadvantaged children, and their families, throughout the school summer holidays.

Kids Inspire supports young people, and their parents and carers, across Essex who are at educational, social or economic disadvantage. Professional recruitment specialists Pure are long term supporters of the charity and regularly raise money to support the organisation through events such as its annual charity quiz night in the county. When the team investigated further ways in which they could provide support they were invited to become corporate volunteers at its ‘Kids Who Lunch’ clubs.

The clubs have been introduced to help children who would normally receive school lunches and might otherwise miss out on a good meal during the summer holidays. Beyond that, they are also designed to help families who need a helping hand in keeping children occupied over the summer and to provide young people with the chance to make new friends and to learn new things.

Each week, two members of the Pure team are attending the clubs to lend a helping hand during the sessions which include arts and crafts inspired actives, drama and music-themed fun, as well as lunch.

Ellie Punter, Recruitment Administrator at Pure, said: “We were really keen to be able to volunteer with Kids Inspire and the lunch clubs have created the perfect opportunity for us to do so. The charity really appreciates the extra help with setting up, making the food and engaging with the children. The corporate support from ourselves, and other local businesses, has helped to ensure these clubs can take place and provide this support throughout the school holidays. We are all really enjoying being involved. It’s great to see the kids having fun and trying things they have never done before, including eating different kinds of foods.” 

Volunteers and supporters of Kids Inspire play a key role in helping the charity to support disadvantaged young people in turning their lives around and in making a real difference to the lives of vulnerable children

In 2016, Venkat Subramaniam wrote an incredible book called ‘Test-Driving JavaScript Applications’ which, along with JavaScript tools such as Mocha, Istanbul, Prettier and Eslint, have made me fall in love with JavaScript and Node.js (well for UI development anyway). JavaScript isn’t a proper language, right? For a long time I argued not, because the tools weren’t available to develop software with unit tests, static analysis and code coverage. This has changed and now I’m starting to take JavaScript seriously, even beyond jazzing up a web based UI. I’m almost over the lack of static typing.   I’m currently using Express.js, a web framework for Node.js, a lot and Venkat includes a section on testing Express.js routes in his book. They’re a bit like controllers in the Modal View Controllers pattern:   router.get(‘/’, function(req, res, next) {  task.all(function(err, tasks) {   res.send(tasks);  }); });   Venkat’s example test looks like this:   it(‘should register uri / for get’, function(done) {     // …               var registeredCallback = router.get.firstCall.args[1];     registeredCallback(req, res); });   I’ve left out some mocking and other boilerplate for brevity and so that we can concentrate on the one bit I don’t like. Venkat describes the test in full detail in his book.  Take another look at this line:       var registeredCallback = router.get.firstCall.args[1];   What it does is get the second argument for the first get route declared with the router. That’s what is returned by firstCall, the first declared route. So if there is more than one get route declared with the router and at some point you change the order in which they are declared or you declare another get route in-between, the test will break. It’s brittle.   In fact it’s worse. To get the second get route you’d use secondCall and so on. So although it’s probably a very large number, there are a finite number of get routes you can get from the router with this method. For me this rang alarm bells. Google suggested this is the way that everyone is doing it. It appears to be the standard practice. It doesn’t sit at all well with me. I’d much rather be able to look up route in the router by its path. After a while printing all sorts of things to the console to find out the data structures, I was able to develop this:   var rh = {     findGet: function(router, path) {         for (var i = 0; i < router.get.args.length; i++)             if (router.get.args[i][0] === path)                 return router.get.args[i];           return null;     },      // .. };   module.exports = {     execGet: function(router, path, req, res) {         var get = rh.findGet(router, path);         if (get != null) get[1](req, res);     },       // .. };   The findGet function takes a router and the path to test and returns all of the arguments declared for that route or null if it’s not found.  The execGet function uses those arguments to execute the route, meaning that the test now becomes:   it(‘should register uri / for get’, function(done) {         // …           execGet(router, ‘/’, req, res);     });   Which is not only far more expressive, but less brittle and less code per test. It means that the declaration order of the routes for the router no longer matters. Of course similar functions can be added to facilitate testing post, put and delete.   I wanted to write this up as I couldn’t find any other solution with Google. Hopefully it will encourage developers to write more tests for Express routes as they become easier and less brittle.   Click here to read the blog on our site.

Node applications with Express and its companion tools   By Evan Hahn ISBN: 978-1617292422   This is another excellent JavaScript book from Manning. It contains a great introduction to Express.js and I wish I’d read it sooner as it explains a lot of things about Express.js and how to use it, as well as the tools surrounding it and Node.js, which I had previously worked out for myself. If you’re thinking of writing a web application, especially one in JavaScript, I recommend you read this book first.   The book is far from perfect. It could have been a lot shorter. There is a fair amount of repetition and the chatty style makes it overly verbose and irritating in many places.  The author tries to cover too much and goes beyond Express.js unnecessarily in a few places. However, given that, it’s still not a huge book and quite easy to read.   Click here to read the blog on our site.

By Douglas Crockford ISBN: 978-0596517748   Every JavaScript developer with a pre-existing working knowledge of JavaScript should read this book. JavaScript is a powerful and varied language, but it was developed in a hurry and there’s plenty wrong with it. This book outlines the good bits of the language and highlights the bad bits and the bits you should just avoid. There’s also a fair amount about the author’s JSLint project in the appendices.   This book was written in 2008 and probably needs updating. It’s hard going in places and the diagrams did little to nothing to help my understanding. I’ve come away still wondering about new and constructors, but I know I just need to review them again when I need them and it’ll get clearer.  I’m still not sure which function declaration syntax is best, but I’m not sure it matters too much.   Click here to read the blog on our site.

Small Business Advice Week (SBAW) will enter its 14th year this September. Set up to maximise the potential of the UK’s thriving SME industry, this week is here to help the UK’s 4.5 million SMEs thrive in tough times.

Small Business Advice Week

•             4th-10th September 2017

•             Advice from leading experts and businesses

•             Closer look at Grants & Cashflow

Enterprise agency Nwes and NatWest have partnered to host a series of free events in King’s Lynn, Lowestoft and Norwich for aspiring entrepreneurs,

Held on 5th, 6th and 7th September, the theme for Small Business Advice Week 2017 events is growth and productivity.  The week is set to see leading experts and businesses provide all important advice on how SMEs can maximize growth and productivity over the coming year. 

Considering the economic uncertainty created by Brexit, the key partners of SBAW will be discussing valuable recommendations, to boost the confidence of SME’s in how to optimise their enterprises, discussing important issues, such as accounting, an online presence, and security.

In a recent speech, Mark Carney, Governor of the Bank of England offered some words of encouragement to forward-thinking businesses:

“While the most productive companies have continued to innovate, others have become slower at adopting those innovations.  Speeding up the rate of take-up of new inventions and processes… would provide a significant boost to overall productivity growth.” Whilst accumulating popular support from key industry players, SBAW has also gained support from parliament, with former Prime Minister David Cameron championing the event.  

Andy Gray, local Business Growth Enabler for NatWest said:

“New research by Nominet, the official registry for UK domain names, has revealed that Norwich is in the Top 10 most popular cities for entrepreneurs.   I am excited to bring together the wealth of knowledge that exists across Norfolk into  three events to support our business community. 

The collaboration between Nwes and NatWest for Small Business Advice Week 2017 demonstrates the commitment they both have for Norfolk and the surrounding area.”

With 99% of all business in the UK being classified as small or medium, despite international conglomerates continuing to grab the headlines, SBAW is here to champion the unsung backbone of the UK economy.

To find out more and to register visit www.nwes.org.uk/events

Directorzone GRID company interview series: Paul Grenyer, CEO of Naked Element.

• The story
• Innovation
• What’s next?
• GRID co-ordinates and relationships:

The story   Paul Grenyer took the classic route – and one of the best – into entrepreneurship: the company he was contracting for, Aviva, became the first client of his new business, NAKED ELEMENT, in 2012.   After nearly a decade of coding for financial services firms – Lehman Brothers, Barclays Capital and Aviva – he decided to build a business in Norwich, reputedly one of the best parts of the UK to live and work in*.   So what does Naked Element do? It’s a software, web and mobile applications developer that converts inefficient company systems into time- and money-saving software. Most of the applications are for internal commercial and administrative processes and some are public-facing.   Paul is an active figure in the Norwich tech and business scene. In addition to playing an active role in local networks, he is Director of Norfolk Developers which organises software development events and workshops. He is a passionate advocate for apprenticeships and Naked Element walks the talk in nurturing its own apprentices.   Innovation   Naked Element has discovered that what it is really good at is crunching complexity – analysing intricate and laborious processes and building secure, elegant software that keeps on working. In comparison to the traditional software development model, clients like these Naked Element innovations:   BITE-SIZED CHUNKS – the fact that the work is carried out in 2-week iterations (Agile) – allowing for continuous interaction and small, sometimes radical, changes in client requirements; OWNERSHIP …. that the client gets to own the source code from day (or iteration) one; IT WORKS – thanks to the reliability of Naked Element software, which comes from an obsession with robust software, automated testing and continuous measurement.   The plaudits: FOUNTAIN PARTNERSHIP: “Naked Element has saved us 4 weeks’ worth of work per year! The script they built us is saving up to 95% of our processing time. What was taking 20 hours of work is now only taking an hour – a big saving.” IDSYSTEMS: “Despite the vast complexities behind the system, we have received feedback from almost every user that it is the most straightforward, and often the best, system they have ever used. The product delivered by Paul and Naked Element has given us the opportunity to grow the business and keep ahead of the competition.”   What’s next?   Although Naked Element has worked with local companies to date, it has just won new business in London and further afield as it spreads its wings into new geographies and markets.   Given his background in Financial Services, Paul would be interested to get more involved with fintech companies. Having said this, however, Naked Element is sector-agnostic — it’s just hungry for complexity….   GRID co-ordinates and relationships   Founded: 2012 Business: software developer Location: Norwich, NR1 Size: micro enterprise Staff: 4 + contractors   Customers (selection):

• 4itsec – Cyber Security Advisors
• Bluemoon Investigations – Private investigators
• Broadland Radiators – heating and cooling systems
• C A Design Services – design and building data
• Clarke St James – Adwords, social media marketing and SEO
• Create Design – Architects
• Digital Media London/Your media London – lifestyle magazines
• Electrical Testing – Electrical inspection and testing
• Feedmark – Supplements for horses
• Fountain Partnership – Digital Marketing Agency
• ID Systems – Windows and Doors Manufacturers and Installers
• Integro Languages – Translation services
• Luminous PR – Tech PR agency
• Multi Signs – Signage and banners
• Residentially – Chartered surveyors
• Soak Digital – Specialist digital and data design agency
• SQN – Clinical biometrics
• Wantdontwant.com – Second hand office furniture, office desks, chairs and storage
• Water Management Alliance – Group of Internal Drainage Boards

Suppliers (selection):

• Amazon – Hosting
• Cracknell Law – Legal
• Digital Ocean – Hosting
• Farnell Clarke – Accountants
• Hugh J Boswell – Insurance
• Onebyte – Phone Systems
• Premier Links – Hardware
• Redcat Partnership – Health and Safety
• Sandler – Sales Training

Click here to read the blog on our site.   The link to the interview on DirectorZone’s site: https://www.director-zone.com/publish/1562

There’s plenty of development going on right now…and you will have views on how this development may affect your business. If you think a development proposal will affect your business then it is important that you make your voice heard to those making the decisions.

When a planning application is made you have an opportunity to make a representation to the local council about that development. The local planning authority are statutorily required to consider yours and all the other comments they receive about an application. As a planning officer for 15 years I read numerous letters of representation on planning applications. However, these letters did not always convey an opinion about the development proposal.

Based on my experience below are 5 tips to ensure your representation conveys your opinion on a planning application.

1.    Clearly state your opinion

If you think the development will have benefits say so. Likewise, if you think the development will have a negative impact say so. However, do not assume that those dealing with the application will make inferences from what you have written. The points you state in your email will be taken into account when the application is processed, but assumptions about what you may or may not have been inferring will not be considered.

2.    Provide justification for your opinion

Your opinion will have more weight if it is justified or explained. For example, if you think a development will support existing business in the area then say how it will do this? Or If you think a development will cause traffic problems, explain what these traffic problems will be.

3.    Avoid only asking questions

It can be relevant to ask questions, but don’t assume your question conveys your opinion. You may think you are implying something by asking a question, but a question is very often just a sentence seeking clarification about something. By asking a question you are not actually giving your opinion on a matter. You can always telephone or use the duty officer service at the council if you require clarification about what is being proposed.

4.    Be concise

You do not need to write any more than is necessary to make your point. Be clear and to the point, and try not to be repetitive or to contradict yourself. A planning application can attract anything from no comments at all to hundreds of comments, and the planning officer will read all of them.

5.    Only include comments relevant to the proposed development

Your email will be considered as a representation on a particular development proposal. If there are other local matters that are affecting your business direct these to the relevant department. If you include matters in your email that don’t relate to the proposed development this can result in your comments about the development not being successfully conveyed. The planning department cannot normally help with existing issues with other public services, and you may find the points you make about those matters never reach the person responsible for them.

A representation on a planning application is your opportunity to give your opinion on that development proposal. Your email will only apply to that one application and any subsequent appeal. If further applications are made in the future you will need to write again. Your comments will not automatically be carried over from one application to another.

Its important that the planning system hears from all those that want to comment on a proposal. Following the above 5 tips will help you make sure your voice heard. However, if you have concerns about a proposed development near you and would like further advice please contact me at [email protected] .