Skip to content
Menu

Home › FAQs › My reserved matters application is due to be submitted, can I delay this?

My reserved matters application is due to be submitted, can I delay this?

The Business and Planning Act 2020 entered the statute books on 22 July 2020. Section 18 of the Act includes provisions for the extension of the date by which a reserved matters application must be submitted where the original date falls between 23 March 2020 and 31 December 2020. Where the original time limit for the submission of reserved matters is on or after 19 August 2020, the relevant conditions will be automatically read as requiring the reserved matters application to be submitted by 1 May 2021.

Where the original time limit for the submission of reserved matters is before 19 August 2020, an application will need to be made to the LPA for an Additional Environmental Approval (“AEA”), which the LPA must determine within 28 days otherwise the approval is deemed to be provided. The purpose of the AEA is to consider whether the environmental assessments carried out at the time of the original outline determination remain valid and up to date, and where that is not the case, the AEA will be refused. In such circumstances a new planning application will be required where an application is now out of time to comply with the original date for submission of reserved matters.

Related FAQs

What is the Clinical Negligence Scheme for Coronavirus?

The Government has recently passed the Coronavirus Act 2020 in a response to the challenges posed by the pandemic, especially in relation to those facing the NHS during this time of crisis.  NHS Resolution worked closely with the Department for Health and Social Care to draft a clause within the Coronavirus Act providing indemnity for clinical negligence for any coronavirus related activity not currently covered by an existing arrangement.  In order to implement this clause, NHS Resolution has launched the Clinical Negligence Scheme for Coronavirus (“CNSC”).

It is intended that the CNSC will cover new contracts put in place for healthcare arrangements to respond to coronavirus, such as organisations supporting testing arrangements or Independent Contractors making agreements with NHS England and NHS Improvement to release capacity to the NHS.  Membership is not required for this scheme and the contracts entered into will automatically provide indemnity under the scheme.

The CNSC will not replace existing indemnity provisions made under the Clinical Negligence Scheme for Trusts (“CNST”) and it has been confirmed that the new Nightingale Hospitals will be covered by CNST rather than CNSC.  Similarly, NHS Resolution have confirmed that those doctors and nurses returning to practice from retirement, or those joining as students will be covered by the CNST or, where applicable the Clinical Negligence Scheme for General Practice (“CNSGP”).  The CNSC will not cover returning midwives to the profession, but the Royal College of Midwives have confirmed that they will extend all of the benefits of membership including Medical Malpractice Insurance to returning retired midwives.

For more information regarding this please click here.

Last updated on 7th April, 2020

What perceived gaps do you see in the Building Safety Act 2022 (especially in terms of pending consultations and secondary instruments)?Comments on the value of the Martlet v Mulalley judgment in fire safety cases/unsafe cladding cases

The Act was obviously subject to much debate and criticism as the Bill passed through Parliament. It is difficult to properly assess any gaps until after the necessary secondary legislation has been published and comes into force (along with the remainder of the Act), but some of the likely issues include:

  • The impact on the insurance market, and the (lack of) availability and increased cost of insurance in light of the provisions of the Act
  • How the introduction of retrospective claims will affect the market, both in relation to how parties might go about trying to prove matters which are 30 years old, but also the lack of certainty for those potentially on the receiving end of these claims which they previously had by virtue of the Limitation Act provisions
  • Whether the definition of higher risk buildings is correct, or will require some refinement.

The Martlet v Mulalley case provides some useful observations and clarifications, for example that designers cannot necessarily rely on a ‘lemming’ defence that they were simply doing what others were doing at the time, that ‘waking watch’ costs are generally recoverable, and commentary on certain specific Building Regulations. The judgment however made clear that much of the case turned on its specific facts, so it is useful from the perspective of providing some insight as to how the Courts will deal with cladding disputes in future, rather than setting significant precedents to be followed.

Last updated on 13th October, 2022

Alternatives to redundancy toolkit

We have developed a Toolkit to help with these issues. The Toolkit contains:

  • LO1 How to Guide: Lay off and short time working
  • LO2 Letter directing employee to take annual leave
  • LO3 Letter confirming lay off (contractual right)
  • LO4 Letter confirming short time working (contractual right)
  • LO5 Letter proposing lay off (no contractual right)
  • LO6 Letter proposing short time working (no contractual right)
  • LO7 Counter notice disputing entitlement to claim redundancy payment
  • LO8 Script for announcing lay off or short time working (contractual right)
  • LO9 Script for announcing lay off or short time working (no contractual right)
  • LO10 Letter proposing reduction in working hours and pay

The cost of this Toolkit is £500 plus vat. If you would like to find out more about the Toolkit, please speak to your usual Ward Hadaway employment contact, or get in touch one of the contacts at the bottom of this page.

Last updated on 6th May, 2020

Is there anything I can do to try and settle my claim?

There are several options that can be used at this time to try and settle disputes. If it is not possible to settle a dispute via direct discussions between the parties then some form of Alternative Dispute Resolution (“ADR”) might be appropriate. Mediation is the most popular form of ADR. Most people’s perception of mediation is that it needs to be in person but that does not have to be the case.

Mediation can take place online or on the telephone. Most, if not all, ADR providers remain open for business and are quickly changing their business model to ensure that mediations can still take place. Mediation can be arranged at reasonably short notice and certainly so far as the online model is concerned, it mirrors the process that is adopted when parties appear in person. Online mediation allows for joint sessions with the mediator to take place and also for the parties to break out into their respective rooms for private discussions. If a dispute settles at mediation – and the vast majority do – then the agreement reached between the parties is binding and can be enforced.

A group of senior former judges and legal academics have now called for an acceleration in the use of ADR in light of the current circumstances. They have stated that courts should promote “and where appropriate require” the use of ADR. Mediation has particularly seen an increase in growth at this time.

ADR normally results in a quicker outcome than if the matter proceeds in the courts. Due to its conciliatory nature it is a very useful process where parties continue to be in a trading relationship. Contracting parties should also consider building ADR into dispute resolution clauses in their contracts so that in the event there is a dispute the focus is on resolving the dispute as soon as possible before it escalates into litigation.”

Last updated on 31st March, 2020

Freedom to Speak up – a reminder

Has there ever been a more important time for all staff to feel that they are able to raise concerns about their working environment?

It is a pertinent time to remind all staff that they should be able to raise concerns without the fear of repercussions. It is a good time to be reviewing and re-issuing your Freedom to Speak up/Whistleblowing policy to all. Likewise it is a good time to remind all staff that they should not treat others unfairly or detrimentally for raising health and safety concerns.

Both subjecting someone to a detriment because they have blown the whistle or raised health and safety concerns (and dismissing someone for the same) is unlawful.

Last updated on 19th May, 2020