Latest news with #Farmiloe
Business Journals
22-04-2025
- Business
- Business Journals
Help a Reporter Out returns: Scottsdale tech firm to revive journalism tool
Scottsdale-based Featured has just acquired an online media tool that once connected media members with subject matter experts. The firm's CEO said now is the perfect time for the tool to make a comeback. Story Highlights Featured acquires Help A Reporter Out from Cision HARO set to resume daily email newsletters Featured CEO says HARO is coming back as "AI floods the internet with generic content" Scottsdale-based Featured is reviving Help A Reporter Out after recently acquiring the online media tool from Cision, a global public relations software company headquartered in Chicago. Featured, which connects publishers with subject matter experts to create content, announced closure of the deal on April 15. Initially launched as a Facebook group in 2008, HARO was an online service that connected journalists with expert sources via daily email newsletters. HARO was acquired in 2010 by Vocus Inc., which later merged with Cision. In 2024, Cision discontinued HARO to focus on its other tools for PR and communications customers, according to the company. 'This is the perfect time to bring HARO back,' Brett Farmiloe, founder and CEO of Featured, said in a statement. 'As AI floods the internet with generic content, journalists need credible, human sources more than ever. Our goal is to preserve what made HARO great, while modernizing it for today's media landscape.' Financial terms of the acquisition were not disclosed. Farmiloe's decision to acquire HARO was prompted by the online service's alignment with Featured's mission of making expert knowledge more accessible to the media. 'Essentially, it was a great way for us to get more people featured in the media and at the same time help reporters get connected to sources to create incredible stories," he said. "It was a kind of a no-brainer to pursue.' HARO is free to use for journalists and subject matter experts. It will be supported via newsletter advertisements, Farmiloe said. Under Featured's ownership, HARO is returning to its original format of delivering daily email newsletters beginning April 22, Farmiloe said. 'The goal here is to look at the demand on the reporter side and determine how many newsletters we actually send out,' he said. 'Initially, it'll probably be once a day, but our goal is to get back to where it was before — at three times a day.' Featured has raised $2 million since inception Farmiloe launched Featured — then known as Terkel — in 2022 after incorporating the company a year earlier. The company created a two-sided online marketplace that helps publishers connect with vetted experts. The company rebranded to Featured in 2023 to better communicate the company's value proposition to its customers, the Business Journal previously reported. 'A publisher is able to post a question and get a full-length article for their website, so that they could drive incremental revenue through ads or commerce content,' Farmiloe told AZ Inno in a 2023 interview. 'Then, marketers are able to answer a question and get it featured in articles on the publisher's website. That helps them build up visibility, promote themselves and their brands, and really get their name out there.' Featured works with more than 1,000 publishers and companies, some of which include GoDaddy, American Express, Fast Company and the University of Arizona. It has a network of more than 50,000 expert sources signed up to answer questions on its platform. Featured has raised a total of $2 million in capital from investors that include Stout Street, Sonoran Founders Fund and Great North Ventures — the latter of which also backed the company's HARO acquisition. Featured will continue operating independently, with both its platform and HARO's revival "rooted in the belief that everyone's an expert at something,' Farmiloe said. 'The fact that we were able to negotiate this deal from here in Phoenix and bring HARO back is incredible,' Farmiloe said. '… I think a HARO revival wasn't on a lot of peoples' bingo cards, but I think it's a welcome addition to what this year brings. And it brings back a really important tool for people to utilize.' Sign up here for the Phoenix Business Journal's free newsletters, and download our free app for breaking news alerts.
Yahoo
18-02-2025
- General
- Yahoo
‘I was ordered to demolish my brand-new £85k extension under Britain's broken planning system'
Have you fallen foul of the council over planning rules? Email money@ When Steve Farmiloe needed more space in his Edwardian end-of-terrace house in the Withington suburb of Manchester, he looked upwards. There wasn't much room to extend at the back into the garden, but there was a huge volume of wasted space in the loft. 'Moving house is too difficult these days, and I already had a small loft room, but it was small, dark, freezing cold, and the roof was leaking,' he says. 'Since it needed renovating anyway, I decided to build out.' The job was ambitious, but he thought he could do it quickly, and without needing full planning permission. But this was almost an £85,000 mistake. Farmiloe took advice from two firms which both recommended the construction of an L-shaped dormer over the main roof and the outrigger. They confirmed that it would be permitted development, meaning that planning permission was not required. The company he chose for the project applied to the council for a lawful development certificate, a type of application seeking confirmation that the permitted development rules are met. The Government insists that planning decisions be made within eight weeks, so the builders were booked in for two months after submission – Farmiloe was confident that the project would be waved through. When the decision was finally issued five months later, the extension was almost finished. But to Farmiloe's horror, Manchester City Council had refused the application, on the obscure grounds that the dormer's size meant it should be considered an upwards extension rather than a roof enlargement. It meant that the whole structure therefore fell outside of permitted development rights for roof works. He now faced the prospect of demolishing an extension that had cost him £85,000, as well as several long months of dust and disruption. He applied for retrospective planning application – which was refused – and then, with my help, submitted an appeal. After a year of sleepless nights (albeit in a comfortable new bedroom in the newly converted loft), the Government's planning inspector granted permission at appeal. It reached the common-sense conclusion that the extension was very close to being permitted development, whatever the technicalities, and several of his neighbours had built very similar extensions. 'The system is just not fit for purpose,' says Farmiloe. 'What is the point in allowing homeowners to extend without needing a planning application, if those rules are open to interpretation and acting on them is a throw of the dice?' 'A lay person can't possibly be expected to navigate the ins and outs of the system on their own, and even the experts I spoke to all gave me different advice,' he adds. 'I am a sceptic by nature and checked the rules online when the loft conversion company told me the works were permitted development, and it looked to me that we met the requirements. 'And if you make an innocent mistake, there is no humanity at all in the system. When the council refused our first application, I asked the case officer for a call to discuss what had happened and he said he did not think a call would serve any useful purpose.' A Manchester City Council spokesman said: 'It's important that anyone considering a project of any size contact their planning authority first and before starting any work to a advice may not always be correct.' They added: 'This includes waiting for a formal response to a Certificate of Lawful Development submission, which confirms whether or not a full planning application is required, before assuming a development can go ahead under permitted development rights.' There is no doubt that a sizeable minority act deliberately to build without permission in the hope or expectation that they will never get caught. Planning application fees are due to be doubled, and even ministers have conceded that this could spark a rise in illegal house extensions. Many argue that planning enforcement is toothless. But not all planning breaches are made by criminal landlords or dodgy developers. I represent hundreds of clients every year facing enforcement action – what of those, like Farmiloe, who make an innocent mistake and face the prospect of demolishing part of their home? It offends our sense of fair play that chancers should do something without permission and get away with it, while the rest of us grapple with a system that is on its knees. In truth, lots of people break the rules and get away with it. That is partly because building something without planning permission is a legitimate planning strategy. A breach of planning is not, in itself, an offence. If you choose to take the risk, you have done nothing wrong. An offence is only committed if the council finds out about it, serves an enforcement notice against it and you fail to comply with the notice. The local council finding out about it depends on your neighbours – most enforcement investigations are triggered by complaints. If your neighbours are happy, a breach is unlikely to be discovered. And whether a neighbour complaint then leads to the service of an enforcement notice is something of a lottery – it depends on the culture within the planning department (some are more aggressive than others), resource pressures (almost all enforcement departments are understaffed), how loudly and persistently neighbours are complaining, and whether elected councillors have shown an interest in the case. Some severe breaches go unpunished, other minor breaches are pursued more vigorously. When a council investigates a breach and decides that it is harmless, that it would probably be granted permission or that further action is not in the public interest, the case will simply be closed. The landowner will 'get away' with the breach, but only in the sense that the council is exercising its discretion to take no action. The problem is that councils may be closing some cases simply because they don't have the resources to do anything about them. Planning departments have no money – real terms spending has fallen by almost 60pc since 2010. Enforcement action by local authorities has also fallen – the number of enforcement notices issued in England in 2023-24 (3,993) was 21pc lower than the number issued in 2015-16 (5,025). In November 2022, the Royal Town Planning Institute (RTPI) carried out a survey of 103 local authorities and reported a crisis in planning enforcement, with 'unmanageable workloads and insufficient staff, leading to an inability to meet public demand'. Some 90pc of councils reported an enforcement backlog; the RTPI says that the system is falling apart. Since enforcement is a discretionary power, it is a service that is easier to cut when resources are tight. There is anecdotal evidence of some London boroughs pursuing only the most egregious cases. If they don't act quickly, they lose the ability to act at all – a planning breach becomes lawful after four or 10 years (it varies depending on the circumstances). Some people who break the rules simply keep their heads down and hold tight, hoping to run out the clock. Some local authorities are fighting on. London Borough of Brent issues more enforcement notices than almost any council in England (it issued 134 in the year to September 2024 placing it second on the leader board, whereas 29 authorities issued none at all). It takes direct action against a dozen or so developments a year (sending the diggers in itself when people refuse to comply with a notice to demolish). It also uses powers it has gained under the Proceeds of Crime Act to seize unlawful profits from landlords and developers and use them to help fund its operations, covering the cost of a couple of extra investigating officers in the planning enforcement team. Nevertheless, the council says that the team has relentlessly high workloads, with each case officer balancing around 250 cases under investigation. Brent describes its enforcement policy as 'firm but fair', which probably encapsulates what most of us expect from the system as a whole. It must have some bite, to discourage unauthorised development and to deal with the most egregious cases, but also some compassion for those who make genuine mistakes. As Steve Farmiloe found out, you can try and do everything right and still find yourself in deep trouble. Readers, it could be you! Martin Gaine is a chartered town planner and founder of Just Planning ( Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Telegraph
18-02-2025
- General
- Telegraph
‘I was ordered to demolish my brand-new £85k extension under Britain's broken planning system'
When Steve Farmiloe needed more space in his Edwardian end-of-terrace house in the Withington suburb of Manchester, he looked upwards. There wasn't much room to extend at the back into the garden, but there was a huge volume of wasted space in the loft. ' Moving house is too difficult these days, and I already had a small loft room, but it was small, dark, freezing cold, and the roof was leaking,' he says. 'Since it needed renovating anyway, I decided to build out.' The job was ambitious, but he thought he could do it quickly, and without needing full planning permission. But this was almost an £85,000 mistake. 'The system isn't fit for purpose' Farmiloe took advice from two firms which both recommended the construction of an L-shaped dormer over the main roof and the outrigger. They confirmed that it would be permitted development, meaning that planning permission was not required. The company he chose for the project applied to the council for a lawful development certificate, a type of application seeking confirmation that the permitted development rules are met. The Government insists that planning decisions be made within eight weeks, so the builders were booked in for two months after submission – Farmiloe was confident that the project would be waved through. When the decision was finally issued five months later, the extension was almost finished. But to Farmiloe's horror, Manchester City Council had refused the application, on the obscure grounds that the dormer's size meant it should be considered an upwards extension rather than a roof enlargement. It meant that the whole structure therefore fell outside of permitted development rights for roof works. He now faced the prospect of demolishing an extension that had cost him £85,000, as well as several long months of dust and disruption. He applied for retrospective planning application – which was refused – and then, with my help, submitted an appeal. After a year of sleepless nights (albeit in a comfortable new bedroom in the newly converted loft), the Government's planning inspector granted permission at appeal. It reached the common-sense conclusion that the extension was very close to being permitted development, whatever the technicalities, and several of his neighbours had built very similar extensions. 'The system is just not fit for purpose,' says Farmiloe. 'What is the point in allowing homeowners to extend without needing a planning application, if those rules are open to interpretation and acting on them is a throw of the dice?' 'A lay person can't possibly be expected to navigate the ins and outs of the system on their own, and even the experts I spoke to all gave me different advice,' he adds. 'I am a sceptic by nature and checked the rules online when the loft conversion company told me the works were permitted development, and it looked to me that we met the requirements. 'And if you make an innocent mistake, there is no humanity at all in the system. When the council refused our first application, I asked the case officer for a call to discuss what had happened and he said he did not think a call would serve any useful purpose.' A Manchester City Council spokesman said: 'It's important that anyone considering a project of any size contact their planning authority first and before starting any work to a advice may not always be correct.' They added: 'This includes waiting for a formal response to a Certificate of Lawful Development submission, which confirms whether or not a full planning application is required, before assuming a development can go ahead under permitted development rights.' 'Firm but fair' There is no doubt that a sizeable minority act deliberately to build without permission in the hope or expectation that they will never get caught. Planning application fees are due to be doubled, and even ministers have conceded that this could spark a rise in illegal house extensions. Many argue that planning enforcement is toothless. But not all planning breaches are made by criminal landlords or dodgy developers. I represent hundreds of clients every year facing enforcement action – what of those, like Farmiloe, who make an innocent mistake and face the prospect of demolishing part of their home? It offends our sense of fair play that chancers should do something without permission and get away with it, while the rest of us grapple with a system that is on its knees. In truth, lots of people break the rules and get away with it. That is partly because building something without planning permission is a legitimate planning strategy. A breach of planning is not, in itself, an offence. If you choose to take the risk, you have done nothing wrong. An offence is only committed if the council finds out about it, serves an enforcement notice against it and you fail to comply with the notice. The local council finding out about it depends on your neighbours – most enforcement investigations are triggered by complaints. If your neighbours are happy, a breach is unlikely to be discovered. And whether a neighbour complaint then leads to the service of an enforcement notice is something of a lottery – it depends on the culture within the planning department (some are more aggressive than others), resource pressures (almost all enforcement departments are understaffed), how loudly and persistently neighbours are complaining, and whether elected councillors have shown an interest in the case. Some severe breaches go unpunished, other minor breaches are pursued more vigorously. When a council investigates a breach and decides that it is harmless, that it would probably be granted permission or that further action is not in the public interest, the case will simply be closed. The landowner will 'get away' with the breach, but only in the sense that the council is exercising its discretion to take no action. The problem is that councils may be closing some cases simply because they don't have the resources to do anything about them. Planning departments have no money – real terms spending has fallen by almost 60pc since 2010. Enforcement action by local authorities has also fallen – the number of enforcement notices issued in England in 2023-24 (3,993) was 21pc lower than the number issued in 2015-16 (5,025). In November 2022, the Royal Town Planning Institute (RTPI) carried out a survey of 103 local authorities and reported a crisis in planning enforcement, with 'unmanageable workloads and insufficient staff, leading to an inability to meet public demand'. Some 90pc of councils reported an enforcement backlog; the RTPI says that the system is falling apart. Since enforcement is a discretionary power, it is a service that is easier to cut when resources are tight. There is anecdotal evidence of some London boroughs pursuing only the most egregious cases. If they don't act quickly, they lose the ability to act at all – a planning breach becomes lawful after four or 10 years (it varies depending on the circumstances). Some people who break the rules simply keep their heads down and hold tight, hoping to run out the clock. Some local authorities are fighting on. London Borough of Brent issues more enforcement notices than almost any council in England (it issued 134 in the year to September 2024 placing it second on the leader board, whereas 29 authorities issued none at all). It takes direct action against a dozen or so developments a year (sending the diggers in itself when people refuse to comply with a notice to demolish). It also uses powers it has gained under the Proceeds of Crime Act to seize unlawful profits from landlords and developers and use them to help fund its operations, covering the cost of a couple of extra investigating officers in the planning enforcement team. Nevertheless, the council says that the team has relentlessly high workloads, with each case officer balancing around 250 cases under investigation. Brent describes its enforcement policy as 'firm but fair', which probably encapsulates what most of us expect from the system as a whole. It must have some bite, to discourage unauthorised development and to deal with the most egregious cases, but also some compassion for those who make genuine mistakes. As Steve Farmiloe found out, you can try and do everything right and still find yourself in deep trouble. Readers, it could be you! Martin Gaine is a chartered town planner and founder of Just Planning (
