The use of judgement by commercial property developers

In the UK, as in other developed market economies, commercial property is a multimillion pound industry that makes an important contribution to GDP and employment. Commercial development is a classic example of a high risk / high return business; a fact that is particularly apposite in times of economic uncertainty. Developers clearly take significant risks at various stages of the development process; and they do this in anticipation of the considerable financial rewards on offer. Equally, when their assessment indicates it, the decision will be taken not to proceed. On what basis do they make these decisions? Previous research by the author found that, while formal risk assessment is undertaken by developers, the process is heavily influenced by their risk attitude and ‘judgement’. The research seeks to explore these issues by generating empirical data on developers’ ‘judgement’ and setting them against existing theoretical work. The overall aim of the study is to examine the issue of ‘judgement’ in risk-related decisions in the property development process, and to determine whether this concept can be theoretically explained using existing work on risk, risk attitude and heuristics. The method of enquiry is predominantly in-depth, semi-structured, face-to-face interviews with experienced property developers. At this stage the data has been analysed by a sorting and sifting process to try and find similarities, differences and patterns in the responses. The research has found that property developers essentially believe that they adopt a fairly objective approach to risk related decision making however the use of judgement, intuition and experience was frequently referred to. A preliminary analysis of the data suggests that heuristics play a role in the decision making process. In particular the availability heuristic, confirmation trap and cautious shift heuristic are evident. The work reports on the interim findings of a continuing study, and conclusions are, as yet, provisional, but in terms of its aims, objectives and method the paper gives an insight into an important and little researched issue in the property development industry

Affordable housing definitions and Section 106 contributions in England

This paper examines whether Local Planning Authority definitions of affordable housing provide adequate clarity with which to negotiate affordable housing contributions with private sector house builders. The paper updates Government research, Delivering Affordable Housing through Planning Policy (ODPM, 2002), by systematically interrogating the affordable housing definitions of 51 Local Planning Authorities in England. LPA housing and planning documents were scrutinised in respect of the local definition of affordable housing, whether it conformed to the Governments ‘new’ PPS3 definition, the thresholds set at which the requirement for affordable housing is triggered and the target level at which Section 106 contributions are set. The findings indicate that although Local Planning Authority definitions of affordable housing have improved in terms of their quality, precision and clarity, one in five LPAs still did not provide a concise definition of affordable housing

The accidental plagiarist: an institutional approach to distinguishing between a deliberate attempt to deceive and poor academic practice

There is a distinction in the literature between what is regarded as ‘intentional’ plagiarism involving a deliberate attempt to deceive (by the ‘committed’ plagiarist) in order to gain unfair advantage and ‘unintentional’ plagiarism that is associated with poor academic practice stemming from ignorance or misunderstanding of requirements (the ‘accidental’ plagiarist). Clearly, whilst neither should be condoned the former is decidedly less acceptable than the latter. Further, an analysis of explanatory variables for incidence of plagiarism that have been highlighted in the literature indicates a grouping under three key themes: Pressure, Academic Input, and Personal Factors, lending support to the view that plagiarism is seen as a ‘coping mechanism’ or as a rational response to the circumstances in which the student finds them self. The implication being that the majority of plagiarism is committed by accident and unintentionally. Thus if steps can be taken to support these students (teaching of academic skills, design of assessment and use of JISC) then we can be assured that any remaining plagiarists are ‘committed’ and plagiarise in the full knowledge that it is wrong and are fully aware of the consequences of being caught. Working from this premise, two Schools (Newcastle Business School and School of the Built Environment) from the University of Northumbria are currently undergoing a process of academic debate and discussion in an attempt to provide a working distinction between deliberate plagiarism and poor academic practice. Once defined, this would set in process a series of both short (agreement on penalties and the formative use of JISC) and long term actions (embedding critical thinking and academic integrity). Having defined our boundaries and working with our students it is intended to monitor and evaluate the impact of the strategy, as it is implemented, specifically with respect to the actions and activity of our ‘accidental plagiarists’. This paper, therefore, focuses on establishing the theoretical position of plagiarism against academic practice; establishing the strategic context within which academic consultation and debate took place; on how acceptance and support was gained from academic colleagues within the two different Schools, on how we disseminated the changes to students and the tools and processes developed to support both groups

A protective packaging delivery and growing system for seeds (WO/PCT)

Protective seed case (A) comprising two casing sections (1, 3) interposed with a water soluble and/or hydrolytically degradable layer (2), said case (A) being biodegradable, hygroscopic and water soluble, and encasing seed articles (4) that are self-contained. The seed case (A) packages and protects the seeds (4) prior to planting, the seed case (A) is inserted at the normal to the surface of the growing medium (5) and once in contact with water moisture it provides an ideal moist environment for germination, the moisture then opens the seed case (A) up for root and shoot growth. The system can also encase beans and bulbs which can all be planted in hostile environments with a low moisture content without the need for any specific horticultural knowledge or specialist tools. A seed package comprises at least one such protective seed case (A) attached to each other

A protective packaging delivery and growing system for seeds (WO/PCT)

Protective seed case (A) comprising two casing sections (1, 3) interposed with a water soluble and/or hydrolytically degradable layer (2), said case (A) being biodegradable, hygroscopic and water soluble, and encasing seed articles (4) that are self-contained. The seed case (A) packages and protects the seeds (4) prior to planting, the seed case (A) is inserted at the normal to the surface of the growing medium (5) and once in contact with water moisture it provides an ideal moist environment for germination, the moisture then opens the seed case (A) up for root and shoot growth. The system can also encase beans and bulbs which can all be planted in hostile environments with a low moisture content without the need for any specific horticultural knowledge or specialist tools. A seed package comprises at least one such protective seed case (A) attached to each other