Branding Iron Holdings, Inc.’s Post

A core document for Illinois limited worker cooperative associations--I prepared this template a few years ago, and now that I'm looking back at it, I have to say, it's really good. It has notes explaining things about the law and why certain provisions are there, and what they mean. I do appreciate credit if you copy and use it. https://lnkd.in/gibe-Tnn

Highland short term let Planning URGENT Calling all 121 in Badenoch & Strathspey existing STL operators whose planning applications have been lodged and held up in many cases for over a year or not been determined even if just applied before October -anyone who currently is trading WITHDRAW YOUR PLANNING APPLICATION NOW URGENT Fiona Campbell Iain Muirhead #AssociationofScottishselfcatering #ASSC #planningpermission #stlsolutions READ IAiN MUiRHEADS reply to my last post that I have just reposted - Iain is the STL operator behind the successful Judicial Reviews. His advice is withdraw all planning applications NOW Highland intends as I have feared, simply to refuse - we don’t need change of use planning, for all the reasons contained in my posts. Don’t play their unlawful game - WITHDRAW applications immediately to stop being refused. We are all conditioned to do as Authority tells us - this is our business’s that are at stake, our livelihoods The history here is of forked tongue Once withdrawn we can then demand licenses be considered now - the Council cannot lawfully demand we apply for Planning. It will be harder if we allow refusal to unlawfully take place Don’t dilly dally do it NOW

We’ve got BIG news in California! Following recent legislative changes, including Governor Newsom signing SB 740 into law, Total-Western is proactively adjusting its business operations to continue serving clients within the state of California. If you have operations in California, click the link below for the full press release article. #buildingtrades #california #SB740 #industrial #construction #totalwestern

This move perfectly aligns with our growth strategy in California, ensuring skilled labor support, fostering local communities, and advancing our commitment to excellence. Together, we're building a stronger future for our company and the state. #BuildingTogether #CaliforniaGrowth #PartnershipSuccess"

As consultation takes place on key revisions to the NPPF in England, a helpful In Plain English blog by colleagues on what 'grey belt' means. https://lnkd.in/efCgPUTH

In today’s very important court judgement in the case of Lidl Great Britain Limited -v- Closed Circuit Cooling Limited t/a 3CL [2023] EWHC 3051 (TCC), in which my colleagues in the Hill Dickinson LLP #constructionlaw team acted for 3CL, the Technology & Construction Court (‘TCC’) have provided some clarification and guidance to parties on whether the principles established in S&T(UK) Ltd -v- Grove [2018] EWCA Civ 2448 were intended to be confined solely to the actual value of the works, or whether a broader interpretation ought to be applied to, for example, claims for damages brought by the employer. In what must be considered a must read article by those with an interest in the Construction Sector, my colleagues @chriskeating and Matthew Cookson outline some of the key takeaways. https://lnkd.in/ek9WiXdK

THANK HEAVENS THE GOVERNMENT ARE GOING TO CLARIFY PARAGRAPH 226 OF THE NPPF AND THE DEBATE ABOUT 4 YEAR HOUSING LAND SUPPLY Some who are familiar with 5 year supply debates might recall the long held debates about whether you adopt a 'Sedgefield' or 'Liverpool' approach as to whether a housing shortfall should be distributed over a plan period (i.e. favourable to LPAs) or over the immediate 5 year period (i.e. favourable to developers). What fun we barristers had rolling this argument out at every inquiry we fought. The introduction of the standard method has meant that this debate is rarely seen these days (boo!). I feared that a similar ongoing debate was brewing on 5 year supply concerning paragraph 226 of the NPPF and whether this related to a 4 year supply against a 4 year requirement (typically favourable to developers) or a 4 year supply against a 5 year requirement (typically favourable to LPAs). However, rather than this debate being branded 'Sedgefield' or 'Liverpool', this was starting to branded the 'Zack' or 'Chris' approach, in reference to Zack Simons and Chris Young KC, who have posted their opinions and analysis in respect to the debate online. Unsurprisingly, I found both of their approaches to be legitimate and entirely persuasive. I did fear though that I would be obliged to namedrop them at every future appeal in reference to this debate (which would have been the most genius marketing strategy from them if that were the case). This debate flows from the fact that the NPPF's drafting is unclear and thus it does require clarity. Happily, that appears to be on its way from the DLUHC. If I was a betting man, I'd put good money on the DLUHC confirming that the 4 year supply in paragraph 226 is a requirement to demonstrate that you have enough houses for 4 years against a 5 year requirement. That appears consistent with what the intention behind the policy was, despite it perhaps not being entirely consistent with the language used. But we shall see. But, don't worry, there remains plenty for us barristers to argue about on the new NPPF ...

Today, the United States Supreme Court overturned its own 40-year-old decision regarding the role of Federal courts in interpreting Federal statutes. In 1984, in a case known as “Chevron”, the Court held that if a Federal law is unclear as to its meaning, or silent on an issue, the courts must defer to the interpretation of the administrative agency responsible for overseeing the law. Today, the Court changed its mind, holding that “Chevron” deference is no longer applicable, and that courts must exercise their own independent judgment in interpreting statutes and determining if an agency has acted within its authority when promulgating regulations. Of note to employers, this may ultimately result in new interpretations of key Federal employment laws, as courts will no longer have to follow regulations and interpretations by agencies such as the EEOC and Department of Labor, if the courts determine that they are contrary to the meaning of a law or the intent of Congress. The Court's full decision is available here: https://lnkd.in/eQ4vjV_X #Chevron #NoMoreDeference #inconsistenciestocome #DGPERKS

Absolutely Chris Penk MP 'trusted providers' need to be able to get on with the job, we thank you for your work in this space and the much needed work on regulations Andrew Bayly. But, those 'trusted providers' also need to get paid, and paid 'on time'. On the other side (in the unfortunate cases of liquidations) customer deposits are often lost. Payments are terribly unsecured on both sides. The team at IPromise are working hard protecting payments for NZ businesses! #securepayments #fairandsecure #nzsmallbusiness #paymentrevolution

Public contract bidding remains fraught with traps for the unwary—technalities which losing bidders can utilize to successfully challenge awards. Here’s the latest example in NJ… #publicworks #publicbidding #publiccontracts