Author: David Linklater

The recent case of Avocet Industrial Estates LLP vs Merol Limited [2011] EWHC (Ch) has imposed an additional burden on commercial tenants wishing to exercise a break option.

Avocet was a commercial tenant and served a break notice to terminate its lease.

The break right, as is often the case, was conditional and required Avocet to pay all rent and “other sums” due under the lease.  It also had to pay a premium.

The tenant paid the premium by cheque, which was delivered to the landlord one day before the break date.  The tenant had a history of paying rent late and the lease provided that the tenant should pay interest on late payments.
Whilst the landlord had indicated that it wanted interest to be paid, it had not invoiced for interest.  The tenant had dismissed the landlord’s request for interest as “silly”.

The tenant vacated the premises and handed it back on the break date.  The landlord refused to accept that the tenant had validly exercised the break, arguing that the premium was not “paid” when the cheque was received (as it had not cleared), and the interest on late cheque payments should have been paid as well.

The disputed interest was approximately £130.

The Court found that the supply of the cheque meant that the premium had been “paid”, as there was an implied agreement that payment could be made by cheque.

However, interest should have been paid as well and therefore the break notice was ineffective and the lease continued.  This was the case even though the landlord had not invoiced for the interest because the lease stated that interest was “payable” regardless of whether or not a formal demand had been made.

As a result of the failure to pay the £130 interest, the tenant now finds itself in a lease that is does not want, which in theory will result in a liability in excess of £300,000.

The break clause in Avocet was not unusual and the provisions regarding interest are also commonplace.  This scenario will affect tenants who have throughout the course of a tenancy paid any sums by cheque, or been at all late in making any payments to the landlord.

A failure to pay any interest due could therefore potentially invalidate a break.  The key to this is in the wording of the lease and if in doubt, legal advice should be sought.

If you would like more information or advice relating to a specific matter, please do not hesitate to contact David Linklater on 01727 798097 or by email at david.linklater@salaw.com or any member of the Property Litigation Team.

© SA LAW 2012
Every care is taken in the preparation of our articles. However, no responsibility can be accepted to any person who acts on the basis of information contained in them. You are recommended to obtain specific advice in respect of individual case.

Author: Keely Rushmore

Dr Eva Michalak has won £4.5 million in compensation after her bosses mounted a campaign against her when she fell pregnant.

An Employment Tribunal recently awarded the staggering sum of £4.5 million by way of compensation for unlawful sex and race discrimination (a figure which the tabloids have pointed out would be enough to pay 210 nurses for a year). This is thought to be the highest ever discrimination award made in the UK.

Polish born Dr Eva Michalak was employed by the Mid Yorkshire NHS Trust as a consultant.  She claimed that she took maternity leave and on her return raised concerns about payments made to colleagues in her absence (but not to her) which lead to a concerted campaign by the Trust (referred to in the proceedings as the “Get Eva” campaign) to end her employment.  As part of this campaign she claimed that she was subjected to a bogus disciplinary procedure and an unjustified and lengthy period of suspension from 2006 which culminated in her dismissal in 2008.  She said that her dismissal was the conclusion of an extensive process of sex and race discrimination related to the fact that she’d made a protected disclosure and amounted to disability discrimination. The Tribunal accepted her arguments and went so far as it say it was ‘positively outraged’ by her treatment by the Trust and senior employees within it.

It would be fair to say that the case is exceptional. As a result of her treatment by the Trust she developed a chronic and disabling post-traumatic stress disorder, together with depression and anxiety. The Tribunal were told how she was left unable to accomplish the simplest of tasks without oversight and supervision, leading to her husband having to give up work to care for her.  The Tribunal concluded that she would never work again.

Dr Michalak earned just short of £90,000 in her post.  The £4.5 million figure was based on numerous heads of loss, including £30,000 for injury to feelings, £50,000 for psychiatric injury, £170,000 for lost earnings to date, £941,000 for future loss of salary (taking her to retirement age), £666,000 for pension losses, £50,000 for medical treatment, £43,000 for past care and £31,000 for future care. The dismissal had taken place when the statutory grievance and dismissal procedures were in place and therefore the Tribunal had discretion to award a 50% uplift in respect of Trust’s failure to follow the statutory grievance procedure.  The Tribunal said that it would have had ‘no hesitation’ in ordering the full 50% uplift were it not for the amount this would translate to in monetary terms, and instead elected to apply a more modest 15% figure.  A significant portion of the £4.5 million (almost £2 million) was an uplift to take into account the fact that the compensation would for the most part be taxable.  The Tribunal concluded that the Trust and some named respondents were jointly and severally liable to pay the award.

This was certainly an exceptional case but serves as a reminder of the huge potential liabilities that can arise in discrimination cases and the need to ensure that staff receive and understand equal opportunities training.

For more information about Equal Opportunities training, click here.
To read more Unfair Dismissal related articles, click here.

If you would like more information or advice relating to a specific matter, please do not hesitate to contact Keely Rushmore on 01727 798017 or by email at keely.rushmore@salaw.com or any member of the Employment Team.

© SA LAW 2012
Every care is taken in the preparation of our articles. However, no responsibility can be accepted to any person who acts on the basis of information contained in them. You are recommended to obtain specific advice in respect of individual case.

Author: Vanessa James

A former NHS manager, Elliot Browne, has been awarded £933,115 in compensation, succeeding in his Tribunal claim against the NHS for unfair dismissal and race discrimination;  one of the highest payments ever awarded for race discrimination.

The Tribunal found that Mr Browne had been subjected to “systematic discrimination” and “an intimidating environment” from 2007 until his dismissal in 2008 – although the losing Respondent did not see it that way and have appealed the decision.

Mr Browne worked for the Central Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust (“the Trust”) for 34 years, and became the first and only black man to hold the position of divisional director for clinical scientific services with the Trust.

Following the Trust’s concerns regarding budget management and leadership in his department, Mr Browne raised what the Tribunal deemed a “well-founded” complaint of discrimination. He claimed that his singling out for criticism was unfair and discriminatory when compared with his employer’s treatment of white colleagues. Following his complaint, the Trust were found by the Tribunal to have “closed ranks” and began disciplinary proceedings to dismiss him.

As a result, Mr Browne was signed off work with stress and claimed his employer’s treatment had left him close to a breakdown. Mr Browne was supported in his claim by Unite who called for the Trust to “tackle its culture of institutionalised racism.” The Tribunal award compensated Mr Browne for aggravated damages, demonstrating its view that the treatment suffered had a severe impact on his health.

This level of award, whilst unusual, demonstrates the Tribunal’s current view towards claims of discrimination. In the last 2-3 years we have noticed a marked shift in the Tribunal’s approach and the line of questioning used in hearings, which focuses on ‘subconscious discrimination’ to determine whether there is an inherent culture of discrimination within a workplace.

What is also important to understand is that while the Tribunal found that the treatment amounted to race discrimination, the Respondent did not appear to believe they discriminated.  We can also speculate about why the Respondent did not settle the matter before trial if it was in any way apparent to the Respondent or their legal team that they would lose to such an extent.  This shows that spotting the risks of such a case occurring in any organisation is not that straight forward.

Vanessa James is a Partner and Head of the Employment Department at SA Law. Vanessa specialises in discrimination claims, shareholder disputes and employee disputes.

To read more Unfair Dismissal related articles, click here.

If you would like more information or advice relating to a specific matter, please do not hesitate to contact Vanessa James on 01727 798089 or by email at vanessa.james@salaw.com or any member of the Employment Team.

© SA LAW 2012
Every care is taken in the preparation of our articles. However, no responsibility can be accepted to any person who acts on the basis of information contained in them. You are recommended to obtain specific advice in respect of individual case

Author: Chris Cook

In October 2011 the Government announced that the qualifying period for unfair dismissal claims would be doubling. At this time, business secretary Vince Cable said that ’Businesses tell us that unfair dismissal rules are a major barrier to taking on more people’. However, at this time the government did not confirm whether it would affect existing employees (who may already have qualified for unfair dismissal rights) or just new starters.

The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills has now explained that the aim of the policy is mainly to encourage recruitment and it does not believe that it is “appropriate or necessary to apply it to those already in work”.

The Government has confirmed that employees starting work before 6 April 2012 will be able to make unfair dismissal claims after one year’s service. The new two-year period of qualification will only apply to those who commence employment on or after 6 April 2012. As well as giving employers greater confidence to take new people on, it is also hoped to provide more time for employers and employees to resolve their difficulties as well as easing constraints on the employment tribunal process.

To read more Unfair Dismissal related articles, click here.

If you would like more information or advice relating to a specific matter, please do not hesitate to contact Chris Cook on 01727 798017 or by email at chris.cook@salaw.com or any member of the Employment Team.

© SA LAW 2012
Every care is taken in the preparation of our articles. However, no responsibility can be accepted to any person who acts on the basis of information contained in them. You are recommended to obtain specific advice in respect of individual case.

Author: Peter Goodman

“After 14 victories in the last 16 races, including a double at the Le Mans 24 Hours 2009 as part of the ILMC championship won by Peugeot two years running, in 2010 and 2011, the Brand has decided to close its 2012 endurance programme and will not be taking part in the next Le Mans 24 Hours.”

These words hit the press around 3.30pm on Wednesday 18 January.

The news was quite a shock to motorsports fans across the World but their shock was nothing compared to the shock suffered by my client and, to a lesser extent, by myself. Let me back up a bit.

Peugeot has an excellent history in Le Mans type racing and in the last few years they have been the quickest car. Last year they didn’t win Le Mans but they won just about everything else and, to the outsider, all looked great for the Team. There was no hint of a withdrawal.

I have quite a few motorsports clients, both drivers and teams. Some are multi millionaires, some are on the fast track to the glamour and riches of formula One but many are hard working talented drivers who don’t have wealthy or well connected parents or a manufacturer supporting them. One such client, let’s call him client A, has worked really hard against the odds for years, like Robert Bruce’s spider, and was on the cusp of achieving the top rung on the ladder when Wednesday’s news came in.

The timeline is really quite extraordinary. Client A’s manager contacted me last Sunday afternoon. Client A had finally made it after many years of slow progress up the sportscar ladder. A final test in the all conquering Peugeot 908 was to take place in Sebring, Florida. There was every chance that the test would lead to a race seat at Le Mans and possibly also in the new World Endurance Championship. At the very least it would give him a chance to impress one of the two top teams in endurance sportscar racing.

Then there was a delay. So often there is a delay in the world of motor racing. It seems to me that the cars are the only things that work efficiently. There is no shortage of speed but this is usually caused by the last minute panic caused by a failure to plan ahead, and so it was on this occasion!

It was Wednesday afternoon before things started moving. I received the contract at 2.18pm on 18 January. By this time client A had given up waiting for the contract and, being assured that the contract was on its way, he was in the air flying to Florida at his own expense. There was a requirement that he sign the contract upon his arrival. The contract was in French, which didn’t help, but by 3.28 I’d translated it, checked it and given my client’s manager a short and largely favourable report on the contract.

Ten minutes later the news came in! Without warning there’s no programme, no test, no sportscars, no contract, nothing – all terminated just a few hours after the contract was sent out. Extraordinary! Another ridiculous story for my autobiography.

Peter Goodman is an experienced corporate and commercial lawyer.
Peter has particular niche, and many years experience, in sports law in which he once worked as a celebrity manager. He continues to advise a number of sporting celebrities and institutions. He has an international reputation in the field of motor sport, is quoted in the press and has spoken at a number of conferences on many different aspects of commercial law.

If you would like more information or advice relating to a specific matter, please do not hesitate to contact Peter Goodman on 01727 798061 or by email at peter.goodman@salaw.com.

© SA LAW 2012
Every care is taken in the preparation of our articles. However, no responsibility can be accepted to any person who acts on the basis of information contained in them. You are recommended to obtain specific advice in respect of individual cases.

Author: Chris Cook

Michael Gove, Education Secretary, has recently announced that he wants to abandon rules that make it difficult to sack incompetent teachers.

The current situation is that Headteachers are only allowed to monitor teachers for three hours a year, and the process to dismiss a teacher can take at least 12 months, not to mention countless red tape.

Mr Gove is now introducing a requirement for teachers to be assessed every year against rigorous standards, and he also proposes to get rid of pages of ‘unnecessary’ documentation showing guidance on how to deal with staff who do not reach the required standard.

Between 2001 and 2011, only 17 of the 400,000 teachers in England were judged ‘incompetent’ by the General Teaching Council for England (and thereby prevented from applying for another job). With the new legislation, this would change as teachers would have to declare if they have been subject to capability measures.

Rather than taking a year, the whole procedure for dismissing a teacher should now take less than a school term.

As an additional measure of quality control, Mr Gove suggested that parents should go into classrooms to see for themselves the standard of teaching that their children are receiving.

We will have to watch and see if any changes or refinements are made to these proposals, and also observe the effect of these measures once they are implemented in schools.

SA Law’s dedicated Education team regularly assists and advises schools on all legal matters. To find out more email victoria.thomson@salaw.com

If you would like more information or advice relating to a specific matter, please do not hesitate to contact Chris Cook on 01727 798017 or by email at chris.cook@salaw.com or any member of the Education Team.

© SA LAW 2012
Every care is taken in the preparation of our articles. However, no responsibility can be accepted to any person who acts on the basis of information contained in them. You are recommended to obtain specific advice in respect of individual case.

Author: Jacqueline Button

2011 was an inclement year for retailers. Most found trading hard and some were swept away by the storm – including Jane Norman, Habitat and, most recently, Barratts. Retailers expected Christmas to be tough but in fact it was dazzling (to use the BRC’s term). December like-for-likes grew by 2.2% with particular improvements in food, clothing and footwear. Closer analysis suggests that the figure isn’t quite as good as it first appears – remember the snowy weather of last December and the fact that Christmas Eve in 2011 fell on a Saturday – effectively giving retailers another day of Christmas trading. However with stores such as Sainsburys reporting a “record-breaking” Christmas it was certainly a season to be jolly for some.

So with Christmas now behind us what is the outlook for 2012?

Sunny Spells

As mentioned above Sainsburys had a happy Christmas and look to be going from strength to strength. All its figures are up – total sales for the third quarter by 4.5%, on-line grocery trading by 20% and convenience sales by almost 25%. This is very impressive and with a busy year for Diamond Jubilee street parties and Olympic themed barbeques coming up there is no doubt that Sainsburys will be basking in profitability in 2012.

Like Sainsburys, Debenhams had a good Christmas with like-for-likes up by 6.5%. After years in the shadow of John Lewis and House of Fraser they have got the department store formula right and are set fair for 2012.

So diversity is an indication of success (Sainsburys having extended its non food offer) but it’s not essential. Greggs opened 98 new stores in 2011 and plan to open 90 more in 2012. It sold 7.5 million mince pies and 75,000 “giant” ginger bread men in the Christmas period and its cheap but tempting (and unhealthy) offering will continue to appeal to cost-conscious consumers in 2012.

Other retailers likely to enjoy a balmy year include perennial favourites Waitrose and John Lewis and newer but popular smaller retailers such as Cath Kidston and The White Company.

Scattered Showers

Despite the success of Sainsburys and Debenhams , Marks and Spencer, usually capable of weathering any storm, reported a mixed Christmas with sales of general merchandise (particularly home goods) down on the previous year. This isn’t a surprise – beds and sofas aren’t going to be at the top of the list of economically challenged shoppers while a treat from M&S’s food department might be. They will have the same problem in 2012 unless they can offer better value on home goods as they have done quite successfully on clothing.

A surprising victim of the adverse conditions is Tesco whose like-for-likes are down by 1.3% and whose CEO is predicting a year of minimal profit . In addition they have just announced the “temporary” closure of 12 Fresh & Easy stores in the US. Perhaps the message is that diversification is good in a tough climate whilst global expansion might not be.

Also likely to suffer variable weather is Argos who are currently looking at closing stores but who, as a value retailer, should dodge the showers and have a reasonable year.

Mainly Cloudy

I have blogged about the ongoing troubles of HMV and Game before. They have both had a difficult 2011 and there is no sign of a better outlook for them in 2012. Game’s like-for-likes plunged by 15% over Christmas and HMV’s by 8.2%. The trend is simply moving away from buying music, games and technology on the high street when they are so easily available on line. By this time next year one or both retailers may no longer (sadly) be trading.

They’re a different type of retailer but Early Learning Centre suffered store closures over 2011 and its hard to see them reversing this trend in 2012. Their products are available elsewhere so the business is by no means finished yet but its hard to see this year as anything but miserable for them.

Also struggling are Thorntons who were buffeted by gales in 2011 and must expect a gloomy 2012.

Stormy Weather

So who is really going to suffer from the vagaries of the British retail climate? Barratts have (as mentioned above) just gone into administration, La Senza is closing 81 stores and looking for a buyer and Hawkins Bazaar is in administration and looking for a buyer for its remaining 25 stores. Past Times is also on the brink of being drowned in the flood. Its an eclectic mix but there are similarities – large chains, small stores no diversification and products which aren’t what cash-strapped customers want to buy. Whilst administration isn’t always the end of the road for a business some or all of these names won’t be around in a year’s time and, unfortunately, there will be others (whose problems aren’t yet apparent) who will join them.

Overall its hard to see that 2012 will be anything other than tough for the majority and disastrous for a few. The bright spots of the Jubilee, the Olympics, Paralympics and European Cup will help some but not all and for most success (or otherwise) will be as unpredictable as the weather.

Jacqueline Button is a Solicitor in the Real Estate Department and also SA Law’s Retail sector expert. To read previous blogs by Jacqueline, click here.

For further information about our Real Estate or Retail services, or to discuss a particular matter or situation in more detail, contact Jacqueline Button at our St Albans office by email at jacqueline.button@salaw.com or on 01727 798000.

© SA LAW 2012
Every care is taken in the preparation of our articles. However, no responsibility can be accepted to any person who acts on the basis of information contained in them. You are recommended to obtain specific advice in respect of individual cases.

Author: Chris Cook

More and more schools are now choosing to move away from Local Government control and are converting to academy status. The conversion process can prove complex and below we have listed some ‘Top Tips’ to assist you.

Advisors

Select your advisors carefully. Ask your nominated solicitor if they have contacts with local accountants, bankers and other professionals who you may need to use in the conversion process.

Communicate with staff

Staff will, naturally, be concerned about their own personal position in relation to the conversion. It is important to begin consulting with them as soon as possible, to take on board their comments and to keep them informed of any developments. It is also important to liaise with union representatives. During key stages of the process, it is good practice to issue written updates and also to respond to any individual staff queries in writing. If several staff members are raising the same query, consider issuing additional bulletins or updates to keep everyone fully informed.

Assess the trading position

Schools sometimes generate income from trading and/or from hiring out their premises. It is important to note that an academy is restricted as to which activities can be carried out. It may be necessary for a subsidiary company to carry out some of these instead, and you will need to arrange for such a company to be set up. Consider the position early on and keep all of your advisors informed.
Develop a Project Plan

Governors and headteachers need to have a very clear idea as to why the School is considering converting, have gathered as much information as possible (a useful source being from nearby schools which have already gone through the process) and have weighed up all the pros and cons. This will be crucial when submitting the Department for Education (DfE) application and when discussing the proposed project with the governors and teachers. It is also sensible to have a project plan and to include timescales and deadline dates to ensure everyone is working towards the same plan.

Equality Duty (Public Sector)

Governing bodies of schools have a “Public Sector Equality Duty”. During the consultation period, and when a governing body takes the final decision to convert to academy status, the governing body must have regard to the Duty and take steps to demonstrate it. You should consult your legal advisor about this.

Make Lists!

Get organised with title deeds, contracts and HR records

It is important to locate the School’s title deeds at an early stage in order to save time at later stages of the conversion process. Ensure the deeds are checked for any issues with the title.

The location of the title deeds will depend on who owns the land, and the category of the school. If the governing body owns the land, the deeds are likely to be held on the school’s premises or perhaps with a solicitor. Alternatively, if the Local Authority or another third party owns the freehold title, they are likely to be holding the deeds.

Again, to save time later on it is important to ensure copies of all contracts and funding agreements are to hand (for example, this could include lottery funding agreements, etc). These may need to be legally transferred to the Academy. It is also important to have a full staff list to hand and to check that the personnel records have been totally updated.

Insurance

Academies are obliged to procure their own insurance, including for land and buildings. This has to be in place from midnight on the day of conversion. The money will usually be refunded by the DfE but Academies will need to demonstrate that the arrangement is good value for money. Options to consider using include the local authority or a framework provider – or approaching an insurer direct, or through a broker.

Evaluate issues bespoke to the school

It is a sensible idea to identify issues that are bespoke to the school and consider how they may affect the conversion to academy status. Also, consider whether you want any of the existing service providers to be changed. Think about whether it would be advantageous to convert along with another school or schools, perhaps in a collaborative partnership or multi-academy trust. Your legal advisor will be able to provide further information as to the different conversion models.
Set up Working Groups

Whilst some decisions need to be made by the whole Governing body, many others can be delegated to smaller working groups or sub-committees. In order that everyone understands what they need to do, terms of reference should be clearly set out so that the members of the sub-committees know when they need to report back.

SA Law’s dedicated Education team regularly assists and advises schools on all legal matters. To find out more about how we can help schools considering Academy Conversion request the SA Law Academy Conversion Pack by emailing victoria.thomson@salaw.com

If you would like more information or advice relating to a specific matter, please do not hesitate to contact Chris Cook on 01727 798017 or by email at chris.cook@salaw.com or any member of the Education Team.

© SA LAW 2012
Every care is taken in the preparation of our articles. However, no responsibility can be accepted to any person who acts on the basis of information contained in them. You are recommended to obtain specific advice in respect of individual case.

Author: Nathanael Young

In true holiday spirit we have gathered together some tips to ensure your business is fighting fit for 2012. Even Scrooge would approve…

Savings matter for businesses too. Sometimes businesses are in a position to put something aside, but it can be hard to find a suitable account. Shawbrook Bank, launched in October 2011, has introduced a new business bond. The 1 year fixed rate savings bond pays 2.70% gross, guaranteed for 1 year. Shawbrook specialises in offering products to SMEs and therefore allows customers to choose whether the interest is paid gross or net, to suit the tax status of their business.

Almost 50% of businesses are not on the most suitable mobile phone tariff according to Connecting Business. This leads to businesses paying over the odds because they are unaware of the advantages of the right business tariff; make sure you don’t make this costly mistake.

VAT can be reclaimed on a wide variety of products, but did you know that it can be reclaimed on line rental too? This is obviously not possible for those that are on consumer tariffs, but for VAT registered businesses it can significantly reduce bills. Tariffs can also be shared amongst users allowing for line rental per line of around £15.

Intuit, the makers of QuickBooks accounting software, recently tested the knowledge of 155 entrepreneurs. They claim that SMEs suffer because of a general lack of financial knowledge as set out below. So read these next tips carefully…

Never forget legal compliance. 39% of those questioned were unaware of the VAT threshold of £73,000 and 23% did not know the correct definition of VAT taxable turnover. Getting things like this wrong can have a major impact on the cash flow of a business and expose it to crippling penalties. If in doubt, get advice.

Get familiar with accountancy terms. 47% of those tested did not know the correct definition of gross profit and a further 31% did not know how to explain turnover. Not  a great start when you’re speaking to your bank, is it?
Start drawing up a plan. 16-20% of businesses do not have a business plan, although this is essential to keep a business focussed and well funded. If you’re one of the defaulters, make this the first New Year’s resolution on your list.

On behalf of SA Law, we wish you a very Merry Christmas and a prosperous New Year.

This article was written by Head of the SME Team Nathanael Young and Trainee Solicitor Helen Young.

Contact Us
For further information or to discuss a particular matter or situation in more detail, contact Nathanael Young at our St Albans office by email at nathanael.young@salaw.com or on 01727 798000.

© SA LAW 2011
Every care is taken in the preparation of our articles. However, no responsibility can be accepted to any person who acts on the basis of information contained in them. You are recommended to obtain specific advice in respect of individual cases.

Author: Jacqueline Button

Two months ago I wrote (here) about Premier Inn’s plans to open a 125 bed budget hotel at the north end of St Peter’s Street in St Albans. Whilst it is universally acknowledged that the north end of town is letting down the prosperous vibe and smart façades of the area closer to the Cathedral local residents couldn’t agree whether or not the proposed new hotel (which would come with 3 new shop units and a gym) was the right thing for the historic (and somewhat snobby) market town.

Premier Inn’s planning application went before St Albans District Council’s planning committee in October. And was rejected. But Premier Inn were encouraged to submit revised plans which they duly did. The application went before the Committee again earlier this week. And was rejected. Again.

The margin of defeat was very narrow (5 votes to 4) and the Committee Chairman, Councillor John Chambers said he was still keen for Premier Inn to occupy the site and urged them (again) to resubmit their plans.

But why should they? After two rejections is a business going to hope for third time lucky or is it going to look for sites elsewhere? There is no Premier Inn in Hertford, for example, or Berkhamstead. Obtaining architect drawn plans and agreeing a S106 Agreement (which the Council asked for after the first rejection) is time consuming and costly. Why should Premier Inn put more time and money on the line when they may feel they have wasted enough of both already?

Premier Inn have expressed disappointment at the decision and referred to the fact that the development would have provided 90 much needed local jobs. They have not commented as to whether they will try again and there is no time scale for that decision being made. In the meantime the top end of St Peter’s Street gets shabbier and more depressing but the residents and Councillors who feel that a budget hotel would be out of place in the town are presumably happy with that.