The European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) is the main fund for the European Union’s maritime and fisheries policies for 2014-2020. It is one of five European Structural and Investment Funds intended to complement each other in order to deliver growth and jobs based recovery in the EU.

The scheme is intended to help fishermen in the transition to sustainable fishing, support coastal communities in diversifying their economies, finance projects that create new jobs and improve quality of life along European coasts and make it easier for applicants to access financing.

The EMFF replaces the former European Fisheries Fund (EFF) and has a €6.4bn budget, with additional co-funding provided by Member States who administer the fund locally. It is administered in England by the Marine Management Organisation on behalf of Defra and was opened for applications in January 2016 on a phased basis.

The EMFF: 2014 – 2020

The UK’s Operational Programme incorporates the ‘Union Priorities’ as defined in the EMFF Regulation, aiming to:

1. support adaption to the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) reform to ensure a sustainable and innovative fishing sector (28%)
2. support innovation to help expand aquaculture whilst improving the environmental impact of the sector (8%)
3. support the implementation of the control, inspection and enforcement system of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), in addition to data collection and management (40%)
4. support community-led local development strategies to help fisheries and aquaculture-dependent communities to diversify their economies and bring added value to their fishing activities (6%)
5. foster marketing and production in the sector (11%)
6. implement the Integrated Maritime Policy (IMP) and support an effective marine planning process (3%)
7. there is an additional budget of €12,528,452 (4%) for technical assistance to ensure the efficient administration of the EU funding

The budget itself has been proportionately allocated based on country size. The UK has been awarded €243 million (increasing to a total budget for the UK of almost €310 million following the national co-funding contribution). The UK’s allocation is then further subdivided between England (€92.1 million), Scotland (€107.7 million), Northern Ireland (€23.5 million) and Wales (€19.7 million).

Applications for funding

In the UK, funding will be provided on a phased basis with all of the remaining parts of the scheme opened by the end of 2016. At present there is currently €33 million available in Phase 1. However, the full scheme guidance is already available so that applicants may consider how to apply for funding that is opened later in the scheme.

Phase 1 provides for 6 different grant areas including projects for fishing vessel energy improvements, investment on board fishing vessels, improvements to shore-based facilities, partnerships and information sharing support, projects relating to the marine environment and inland fishing and, finally, support for aquaculture, processing and marketing.

The application process will vary dependent on the amount of funding requested, with applications over £100,000 requiring a panel review involving submission deadlines. However, for projects requesting funding under this limit, applications can be made any time and are assessed on a regular basis.

Ultimately a project must be in line with the overall aims of the EMFF to be considered for funding and each activity should be reviewed against the lists published on the MMO website (for the selection criteria click here).

Those operating within the fisheries, inland waters, aquaculture and maritime sectors are encouraged to take full advantage of the available funding to support growth in the industry and ensure continued, sustainable development.

This article, authored by barrister Nicola Canty, from the Firm’s Marine Regulatory team, has been featured in the September edition of Marine and Maritime Gazette.

Marine Conservation Zones (MCZs) are relatively new additions to other existing Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) in the UK, such as European marine sites (Special Areas of Conservation and Special Protection Areas), Ramsar sites and Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs). Their designation is intended to help the UK meet its international commitments, such as establishing an ecologically coherent and well-managed network of MPAs.

On 21 November 2013, the UK Government designated 27 MCZs in the English inshore (within 12nm) and English and Welsh offshore waters (beyond 12nm), with 5 offshore MCZs covering 8000km2 and 22 inshore MCZs covering around 2000km2 of inshore waters. A second tranche of 23 MCZs (which would cover approximately 10,800km2), was consulted upon in early 2015, with the results due in January 2016. A third consultation on the final tranche of potential MCZ sites is expected in 2016.

The purpose of MCZs is to protect rare, threatened and representative marine flora and fauna, geology and geomorphology.  Different levels of protection are expected to be applied to each MCZ, from the least interventionist measure of voluntary controls up to highly regulated ‘reference areas’, where no damaging activities are allowed. No reference areas have yet been designated.

Obligations on public authorities

The Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 (MCAA) created powers and imposes obligations on the Marine Management Organisation (MMO) (and other public authorities such as Local Planning Authorities in the coastal area, and Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authorities (IFCAs) in relation to fisheries within the 10 IFCA districts from 0 to 6 nm). Under s125 MCAA, the MMO has a duty to exercise its functions to further, or where it that is not possible, to least hinder, the conservation objectives stated for the MCZ in question.

In determining marine licence applications, under s126 MCAA the MMO is also required to consider whether the act is capable of affecting (other than insignificantly) the protected features of the MCZ or any ecological or geomorphological process on which the conservation of any protected feature of an MCZ is dependant. If the MMO identifies such as risk, it must notify the relevant conservation body and will usually have to wait 28 days to determine the licence application to allow conservation advice and guidance to be provided. Conservation advice is provided by Natural England and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) in relation to inshore and offshore waters respectively.

Overview of the MMO’s MCZ assessment procedure

In order to meet this obligation under s126 MCAA, the MMO has introduced a MCZ assessment process into its marine licensing decision making procedures. For complex projects it is expected that the majority of the information required for this assessment would be provided in pre-application. The process introduced by the MMO involves three sequential stages:

1. Screening: all marine licence applications are screened to determine whether the licensable activity is taking place within or near an area being put forward or already designated as an MCZ. If so, the MMO would then consider whether the activity was capable of affecting the protected features of the MCZ as set out in s126 MCAA.
2. Stage 1 assessment: the MMO considers whether there is a significant risk of the activity hindering the conservation objectives stated for the MCZ, and whether the MMO would be able to exercise its functions to further the conservation objectives of the site. If not, the MMO would have to consider whether there were any other means of proceeding with the activity which would create a substantially lower risk.
3. Stage 2 assessment: The MMO will then consider whether the public benefit of the activity clearly outweighs the risk of damage to the environment. If so, the MMO would then consider whether they are satisfied that the applicant will undertake measures to provide equivalent environmental benefit. If not, the application would be rejected.

MCZs proposed in the third tranche, but as yet undesignated, would not trigger this MCZ assessment process. However, evidence supporting the proposal of an MCZ site (together with its proposed features and proposed conservation objectives) would still be considered relevant by the MMO in its decision making.

The Legal professions of England and Wales are steeped in tradition. The long history of the law here is marked in the buildings, attire and institutions which form the legal system. Any law student can attest to the cases and statutes dating back hundreds of years that form the bedrock of the law itself. With so many constants, it is easy for the uninitiated to think of the law as a solid thing of black and white.

But, as those of you reading this will no doubt be aware, is not the case. Whilst the core principles and legislation endure, the law we deal with day to day is a changeable, ever-shifting web of statute, case law and procedure – the Jackson Reforms, the recent decision in Mitchell and annual changes to personal taxation to name a few. Practising lawyers are on the sharp edge of this change, and it is vital that we keep up with developments or risk exposing ourselves to negligence.

For a trainee, this job is both more difficult and more time consuming. We not only have to learn the law applicable to the seat we are in, but we must do so whilst keeping abreast of developments to it. In my experience, this is compounded by frequently being asked to undertake detailed, highly specific research into sometimes quite complicated law – it is often my initial research that forms the basis of the work of more senior lawyers in the teams I work in. If they had to waste time checking poorly informed notes, I would not be popular!

It does not end there! You also need to understand your clients and referrers, how they operate, the markets they work within, economic and political changes and how they impact upon your work area. For some of us this might also mean medical knowledge or an ability to empathise with clients facing enormous personal upheavals. It might even mean becoming well versed in something completely new to you. Previous posts on this blog have cited farming and the timber industry; I have done significant research into charity administration and care homes.  Whatever it is, as a lawyer, you are likely to need to develop a good deal of non-legal knowledge too.

Those of you glad to leave law school behind or looking forward to doing so may well be disheartened at this news… but don’t despair!

Our generation has the greatest access to information in the history of humanity. The internet makes finding material easy, and legal information is no exception. I have found a number of free websites (such as justice.gov.uk) that give access to the law, as well as the paid-for legal information providers that I use almost every day.  Social media platforms such as Twitter and LinkedIn can provide instant, specific news to your smartphone. Set them up right, and you will get a constant stream of current, relevant information specific tailored to your needs. Seriously, this is a game-changer.

Get used to keeping yourself up-to-date. Having a finger on the pulse of the legal world and understanding your clients is essential for the modern lawyer. It will also make your life as a junior lawyer that bit easier.

On Friday 5 August 2016 Michelmores welcomed a group of 50 Chinese business managers and directors to its London office, for a series of talks and workshops focusing on the theme of Chinese investment into the UK.

The visit, supported by the government’s UK Trade and Investment department (UKTI), was led by Michelmores’ Managing Partner Malcolm Dickinson and Head of the Firm’s China Desk Lily Shen and provided an overview of the current UK economic climate and an update on the impact of Brexit to date.

The talks also analysed some of the largest Chinese investments into the UK in recent months, including Hinkley Point nuclear power plant, Sichuan Guodong Construction Group’s investment into Sheffield town centre and the purchase of Wolves and Aston Villa football clubs.

In addition, Michelmores provided industry-focused updates for real estate, led by Partner Paul Paling, technology led by Partner Tom Torkar, UK mergers and acquisitions led by Partner Ian Binnie. Partner Richard Cobb also shared insight into entrepreneurship in the UK, and Lily Shen summarised the key steps to consider for Chinese corporates and individuals thinking about investing in the UK for the first time.

The group were visiting on a week-long trip to the UK to understand more about the UK economy and the opportunities available to investors.

Amongst the Delegation were representatives from the finance and investment, manufacturing, and technology sectors in China, including Taiping Insurance, China Minsheng Bank, CEFC International Limited, Perfect World Network Technology and many more. As part of the tour, the Delegation also visited accountants BDO and UBS bank.

Following the seminar, Michelmores invited the China Delegation to the Royal Automobile Club in Pall Mall for dinner and to experience a taste of traditional British culture.

Michelmores advises a number of Chinese clients across a range of sectors. The Firm also supports YangTze Law, London’s first wholly Chinese-owned law firm, working with Chinese corporates investing in the UK and Europe as well as private individuals.

As a second year student studying law I was fortunate to be able to meet lawyers from Michelmores prior to applying to the Vacation Scheme. I applied knowing that Michelmores has a friendly and approachable culture which is something that I think is necessary when wanting to work somewhere. I would definitely recommend to those who are interested in applying to Michelmores to try and get involved with open days and law fairs as much as possible! It shows that you are really interested in the firm and helps you learn information about it that you can’t find on the website.

The application process was quite straightforward consisting of an application form, followed by a video interview and finally an interview with HR at the Firm’s Exeter office. I was thrilled to be accepted onto the Summer Vacation Scheme after this.

The week is really well organised and very busy – you never feel like you have nothing to do! I was allocated to the Clinical Negligence team which is part of the Private Client department. Personally I have done most of my work experience in commercial departments, therefore it was refreshing to be doing work that was so different. The members of the team all get involved with giving you an insight into the work they do which was very interesting. There was never a moment where I would just be reading through files to pass the time. I was given new tasks regularly on cases that they were working on at the time and so was able to feel involved and that I was actually helpful to the solicitors. The case load in the department is also extremely diverse and this meant that every day I was doing something different, ranging from attending client meetings to drafting proof of evidence documents. I enjoyed every minute spent in the department and would definitely recommend it!

Another element of the Vacation Scheme that is very helpful for aspiring solicitors is the talks that the Firm organises each day from a different department.  This enabled us to get an insight into areas we weren’t able to experience and ask any questions we wanted to. We were also invited to a breakfast talk from Malcolm Dickinson, the Managing Partner.

As with every Vacation Scheme, there are also assessments that we had to do throughout the week. We were set a verbal reasoning test, a written assessment, an article discussion, and last but by no means least an interview with a partner and a member of HR. The interview was an hour and a half and really tested your commercial awareness and competency. We were also set a presentation on the first day which we would present to ten solicitors on our final day and worked on this throughout the week. I think the experience that we were able to gain from these tasks is invaluable and I learnt a lot about the Firm.

Although the week was challenging, we were all made to feel part of the team. The Firm organised a networking lunch with the trainees and also informal drinks one evening to help us get to know more about Michelmores and its people. It was easy to ask any questions that you wanted to – everyone was very happy to help!

To sum up, the week gave me an excellent insight into what working as a solicitor at Michelmores is like and helped me develop my commercial awareness skills further which in the long term will be invaluable for me. I would highly recommend the Vacation Scheme at Michelmores.

The Supreme Court recently considered the extent of an exclusive fishing right owned by prescription (the acquisition of a right through long use or enjoyment), over part of the foreshore located in the Wash, Norfolk in Lynn Shellfish Limited and others v Loose and another [2016] UKSC 14.

It is well established that the landward limit of the foreshore is the mean high water mark, but it may come as a surprise that there is no equivalent consensus in relation to the seaward limit of the foreshore. The Le Strange family had exclusive rights to take cockles and muscles from the foreshore (the “Right”) in an exclusive (or ‘several‘) fishery. Mr Loose had been granted a lease of the Right by the Le Strange family in 1970 and had brought legal action against Lynn Shellfish Limited alleging infringement of this exclusive Right.

Whilst it was common ground that the Le Strange family had a prescriptive Right (within living memory, they had excluded the public from at least part of the area), the area over which this extended was disputed in relation to (1) the seaward boundary and (2) the attachment of previously unconnected sandbanks to the Foreshore.

The seaward boundary

The Supreme Court rejected the argument for a fixed seaward boundary and instead found that the Right would have been exercised over an area which was limited by a shifting low tide mark:

“The Estate has exercised a prescriptive exclusive Right to take shellfish from the foreshore for a substantial period, during which the low water mark fluctuated to a significant extent over time, in circumstances where the evidence clearly established that the only way in which the shellfish were gathered was by individuals walking from the land where the tide was out.” (paragraph 58).

The first issue was whether the relevant area extended to mean low water, mean spring low water or the lowest astronomical tide as the most extreme low water mark. The Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeal’s judgment that in this particular case, the appropriate measurement was the lowest astronomical tide: a rare event which occurs once every 18.6 years and exposes the greatest possible area. The Court also noted that the lowest astronomical tide was an actual rather than an artificial tide mark (such as mean low water and mean spring low water). This was intended to produce the least arbitrary result so as to encompass all parts of the Foreshore which are at any time uncovered by the sea.

The attachment of previously unconnected sandbanks

In addition, as channels had silted up there were various sandbanks that had previously been unconnected to the Foreshore that had since become attached. The second issue was whether the Right extended to a sandbank simply because it had become attached to the Foreshore.

The Respondents argued that their Right extended over the additional sandbanks and had been acquired as the sandbanks had gradually built up over time towards the foreshore (the ‘doctrine of accretion’). However, the Supreme Court did not agree and considered that whilst the silting up of the channel would have occurred over time, there would have been a specific moment when the sandbank suddenly became attached to the foreshore.

Furthermore, since the Magna Carta in 1215, the Crown has not been able to exclude the rights of the public to fish and gather shellfish from the foreshore (the right of piscary) by granting new private rights of fishery. The Supreme Court held that the public would previously have been entitled to fish and gather shellfish from the sandbanks in question before they became attached to the foreshore.

In order to establish that he has obtained a fishery by prescription, a person must show that he has physically enjoyed the fishery ‘as of right’ for the requisite period (i.e. to the exclusion of others). The Court concluded that there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the sandbank had been acquired by the Le Strange family estate by way of prescription so as to exclude the public right to fish. Therefore the appeal was successful in part in relation to this issue.

This article, authored by barrister Nicola Canty and paralegal Abigail Tancock, from the Firm’s Marine Regulatory team, has been featured in the February edition of Marine and Maritime Gazette.

Since our earlier article on Marine Conservation Zones (MCZs) was featured in the September 2015 issue of the Marine & Maritime Gazette, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), has now announced the designation of the second tranche of MCZs, taking the current total to 50 protected sites. This announcement has been heralded by the Government as furthering their objectives of achieving a so-called ‘Blue Belt’ of Marine Protected Areas.

The new sites are relevant not just to the Marine Management Organisation (MMO), but also to the many Local Planning Authorities with catchment areas extending to the shoreline and Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authorities (IFCAs), all of whom have a duty to exercise their functions to further, or where if that is not possible, to least hinder, the conservation objectives of a particular MCZ.

New Sites

The list of new sites covers areas in the North Sea, the South East, the South West and the Irish Sea. It notably includes new MCZ’s for Lands’ End, Dover to Folkestone and The Needles. In addition, a new site has been designated 200 metres from Cromer, Norfolk which will protect Europe’s longest chalk reef providing homes to harbour porpoises, seals and the intermittent basking shark and sunfish. This second tranche of MCZs covers approximately 10,760km2 of seabed and increases the total coverage to over 20% of English waters.

The Government’s plan has always been to designate these sites in tranches to be able to introduce those sites that were supported most strongly by independent scientific advice without undue delay. Some critics consider that the initial two tranches have left a number of large gaps in the United Kingdom’s network of sites, particularly when only 50 sites have been designated to date, against the original 127 MCZ’s envisaged. This has raised concerns that the current numbers of sites do not afford sufficient protection, with the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) also highlighting the need for appropriate management of MCZs to ensure their effectiveness.

The Third Tranche

The final ‘gap filling’ exercise is set to take place in 2017, for designation in 2018. These will be considered from the remaining 127 MCZs originally put forward, although there are a small number of additional sites to be added to this pool.

Whether or not a site is designated will depend on the strength of the evidence that relevant marine flora and fauna, geological features or geomorphology are present. In a region where the evidence does not support its presence, a designation will not be made and importantly, this will not be considered a gap in the network.

Where evidence is weak, stakeholders may wish to offer up new evidence as to the benefits and impacts of the designation of a particular site, although this must be in accordance with Defra’s Evidence Investment Strategy.  Thus, at this stage, it would seem that if there are concerns as to the evidence supporting the designation of a site, it may be possible to submit further evidence in the required format.

Enforcement and monitoring

Once an MCZ has been designated, responsibility for its management falls upon the MMO and, at a local level between 0-6 nautical miles, Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Agencies (IFCAs). The MMO will work together with the local IFCA and agree how to manage the sites located in an IFCA area and those that overlap the 6 nautical miles boundary.

Management options available range from voluntary measures where appropriate, to the granting of byelaws to protect MCZs from activities that may harm them or where a non-compliance issue has been identified. Such byelaws are based on evidence and must help to further the conservation objectives of the site and may even be used to restrict activities on the seashore.

The procedure requires full consultation and it can take as long as 12 months to make a permanent byelaw. However, where an activity which harms the MCZ is identified and where necessary, the IFCA or the MMO may introduce an emergency byelaw where it is urgent and could not have been reasonably foreseen. Similarly, an interim byelaw may be introduced in relation to MCZs which have not yet been designated.

The rules in relation to non-UK domiciled individuals are due to change in April 2017 and we are advising clients in relation to the steps they should take in advance of these changes.

The Government published further responses, draft legislation and explanatory notes on 5 December 2016. While the Government has made it clear that there is further draft legislation to come, the overall scheme of the reforms now seems clear and the Government intends to bring these changes into force in April 2017.

Read more

The EU-US Safe Harbor Framework, used to legitimise transfers of data from the EU to the United States of America (US), was declared invalid by the Court of Justice of the European Union on 6 October 2015. Any business established in the EU that relied on Safe Harbor is now exposed to claims that transfers of data to the US are unlawful.

What happened?

Following the Edward Snowden revelations highlighting the depths of the US surveillance programmes, an Austrian citizen filed a complaint with the Irish data protection regulator. A key point of the complaint was that the citizen’s personal data, when transferred to the US whilst using Facebook, was not being adequately protected as required by European data protection legislation because it was potentially accessible by the US intelligence agencies.

The case, originally filed in 2013, worked its way up to the European level and culminated on 6 October, with the decision publicised with a Court press release stating:

“The access enjoyed by the United States intelligence services to the transferred data constitutes an interference with the right to respect for private life and the right to protection of personal data.”

Press Release, Maximillian Schrems v Data Protection Commissioner C-362/14, 6 October 2015

The US’ self-certification scheme had been in place for over fifteen years and, as at the date of the decision, was relied on by 5,479 US businesses; not to mention the many EU businesses contracting with them).

Why does this matter?

This decision is likely to have a significant impact because European data protection legislation requires that the transfer of personal data from Europe, to a business based in the US (or anywhere else outside of the EEA) only takes place if the business receiving that data can prove it offers an adequate level of data protection.

One of the most straightforward ways a US business was able to prove it had sufficient data protection measures in place was to self-certify on the basis of its country’s Safe Harbor status. US based businesses are now unable to do this.

Following the decision, any UK based business processing, or using sub-contractors to process personal data in the US, can no longer rely on the Safe Harbor to evidence their compliance with the European data protection requirements.

How do I know if my business is affected?

This decision is likely to impact European businesses if they, or their subcontractors:

• outsource services to the US which involve the processing of data;
• use any form of cloud based system which processes personal data in the US; or
• operate a website which keeps user databases in the US.

How can I protect my business?

Relying on a US business’ Safe Harbor status has previously been a highly convenient way of complying with data protection requirements, and many UK and European organisations made use of this. The Safe Harbor exemption, however, has never been the only way to evidence compliance with data protection legislation.

In the absence of the safe harbour, compliance can be secured by, for example, carrying out an independent assessment of a US business’ data protection measures, implementing the EU-approved “Model Contract Clauses” or taking advantage of any other available exemption under the data protection legislation, such as establishing an approved set of binding corporate rules.

In the UK at least, the regulator has recognised the significance of this decision and that it may take “some time” for businesses to ensure they are compliant with data protection legislation. In almost every case though, a sensible first step if you may have been affected by this decision is to contact your suppliers and ask how they intend to remain compliant and then ensure that the appropriate measures are put in place.

At any rate, if there has ever been a time to review your data protection clauses, it is now!

For more information please contact Tom Torkar, Senior Associate in the Technology, Media & Communications team on tom.torkar@michelmores.com or 01392 687626

Michelmores LLP is delighted to have been re-appointed by the Mayor’s Office For Policing And Crime to provide legal services to the Metropolitan Police Service, as well as to over 60 other police and public bodies throughout the country.

Michelmores LLP advised on property/PFI and commercial/procurement issues under the previous framework. This resulted in high-profile instructions of considerable complexity and value, including the £370 million sale of New Scotland Yard and the disposal of the 19 hectare Peel Centre site in Hendon.

With significant additional success in the area of Employment law advice, the new agreement sees the Firm appointed to 3 lots covering respectively:  procurement, contract & commercial, and governance; employment; and property (commercial, residential property and PFI).

The tender process was led by Real Estate Partner Richard Honey who said: “

We are looking forward to building on our relationship with the police service. The team worked incredibly hard to meet the challenging timescales and delivery criteria required to win a place on this prestigious framework.”

“We were particularly pleased that, in the rankings awarded by the Mayor’s Office For Policing And Crime, Michelmores LLP once again topped the list for Property and PFI services and came second for both Procurement & Commercial and Employment advice, despite tough competition from other major national law firms.”

Michelmores LLP is a full-service Top 100 Law Firm with offices in London, Bristol and Exeter.

This article was first published in Solicitors Journal on 12 January 2016 and is reproduced by kind permission

Pippa Allsop asks whether the exam is removing one barrier and replacing it with an economic hurdle

The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) opened a consultation last month setting out its proposals in relation to the solicitors qualifying examination (SQE), a ‘new standardised system for assessing trainees… based on the competencies required to do the job’. The SQE would supposedly manage the current inability to ‘measure the quality of students who emerge from the [training] process’, which for the SRA is a cause of increasing concern.

While welcoming the development of new pathways to qualification, such as apprenticeship and ‘equivalent means’, the SRA says these changes ‘would ensure consistent high standards of entry into the profession.’

One of the criticisms levelled at the plans so far has been that the SQE would give non-graduates access to the profession. Clearly this is in line with improving diversity within the legal profession through lowering the currently extortionate costs of the route to qualification.

Confusingly, the SRA has stated that ‘the standard for qualification will be set at least at graduate level or equivalent’, while also claiming ‘there are likely to be some intending solicitors who are able to demonstrate this level of ability without obtaining a graduate degree’.

It does seem strange to use the measure of ‘graduate’ while also saying that people can achieve the requisite level without actually being one, which to me would indicate the measure of ‘graduate’ does not mean anything. The president of the Law Society, Jonathan Smithers, has argued that ‘a degree-level qualification is essential – academic rigour underpins the commercial success of the profession’.

This point also bridges the second criticism, in relation to whether costs will actually be decreased and diversity improved. The SRA has made it clear that it anticipates employers will still expect a degree and the completion of the legal practice route (around £42,000 of fees altogether), and so the question is, will the SQE simply create another layer of costs involved in the route to qualification? Other commentators have raised the issue of resits and the associated costs of the same, giving those with greater resources an advantage and creating another potential economic hurdle in achieving the SQE’s ‘potential to remove barriers’.

Similarly, there has been criticism of the optional SQE preparation courses, which, if not compulsory, would arguably be hard to achieve funding for. This would result in only those with the available finances benefiting from such courses and would further increase the associated costs involved in becoming a solicitor. On this point, at least, it appears that the potential positive impact on improving diversity in the profession will largely depend on training providers taking a decision to offer cheaper training.

The consultation period ends on 4 March 2016, with any new regulations coming into force no earlier than the start of the academic year 2018/19, and the SRA will be publishing a further consultation on specific proposals for entry requirements for the SQE and pre-qualification work experience in 2016.

While it is unquestionably right that the issue of people coming into the legal profession from diverse routes and backgrounds should be proactively addressed, it remains to be seen whether the SQE is the right tool for the job, or whether, as I strongly suspect, it will be part of the more multi-faceted approach that will ultimately be required.

For more information please contact Pippa Allsop at pippa.allsop@michelmores.com

The British Chamber of Commerce’s (BCC) third quarterly economic survey of 2014 has sent out a cautious note in relation to the economy’s growth rate, and the manufacturing sector in particular. This is reflected in the survey’s comments regarding manufacturing in 2015, which suggest that the share of manufacturing as a total of UK output may shrink further, continuing the downward trend of recent decades.

There are some positive prospects, including those contained in the speech of the BCC Director General John Longworth earlier this month, which highlighted growth opportunities overseas. The Director General’s message is that whilst challenging for businesses, those that do focus on increasing exports grow on average 20% more than businesses that do not export.

There are therefore opportunities for growth, even in the face of the BCC quarterly report, and now may be a good time to consider future requirements for additional space. This is particularly so due to the introduction, on a temporary basis, of a relaxation of restrictions on permitted development rights.

Permitted development rights allow certain types of development to occur without the need to obtain planning permission beforehand, with resulting savings in both time and expense. This is not to be underestimated given the well-publicised criticism of both costs and delays to development brought about by the planning system.

Industrial and warehouse development benefit from a number of permitted development rights. The majority of these had been in force for some time and are well known. They include:

• the erection, extension and alteration of industrial buildings or warehouses (subject to certain parameters)
• the installation of additional or replacement plant or machinery
• the provision, rearrangement or replacement of a sewer, main, pipe, cable or other apparatus or the provision, rearrangement or replacement of a private way, private railway, siding or conveyor
• the provision of hard-standing within the curtilage of industrial building or warehouse or the replacement of such a surface
• the construction of a refuse or cycle store within the curtilage of an industrial building or warehouse

As noted above, the Government has recently relaxed the floor space restrictions on the first of these permitted development rights in order to encourage development. This relaxation will apply to development that takes place before 30 May 2016, hence the need to consider future space requirements now. The remaining numerous restrictions, for example on the height of any new building, remain unchanged.

In the normal course of events, any new building erected under permitted development rights must have a gross floor space of not more than 100 square metres. However, until 30 May 2016 up to 200 square metres of gross floor space is permitted. This is provided the building is not on Article 1 (5) land (land in particularly sensitive locations such as a national park, or an area of outstanding natural beauty) nor is in a site of special scientific interest (SSSI).

In relation to extensions the ‘standard’ position is that the gross floor space of the original building must not be exceeded by more than:

• 10% in respect of developments on Article 1(5) land or 25% in any other case; or
• 500 square metres in respect of development on any Article 1(5) land or 1000 square metres in any other case.

Whichever is the lesser.

In a similar move, until 30 May 2016 the first of these restrictions is relaxed so that the gross floor space of the original building may be exceeded by up to 10% in respect of development on any Article 1(5) land, 25% in respect of development on a SSSI and 50% in any other case. The second limb remains the same.

As touched upon above, the ability to extend a premises or erect new buildings without the need for planning permission is a real advantage, and before starting down the process of applying for planning permission you should always consider whether permission is needed at all, or whether what you require in development terms can be fit around existing permitted development rights.