Living in a temporary dwelling on your own land

In most of Europe, it is currently perfectly legal to live in a caravan or camper or log cabin, any temporary dwelling in fact, without planning or other permissions on land which you own.

In this country it is not allowed.  What I would like to see is the abilty for those who wished to, to live full time on their own land, in a temporary dwelling.

Why is this idea important?

In most of Europe, it is currently perfectly legal to live in a caravan or camper or log cabin, any temporary dwelling in fact, without planning or other permissions on land which you own.

In this country it is not allowed.  What I would like to see is the abilty for those who wished to, to live full time on their own land, in a temporary dwelling.

Abolish the legal requirement to submit Animal Movement Documents

Movement licences were introduced during the 2001 outbreak of Foot & Mouth Disease. No animal was permitted to be moved without a licence. Extra staff had to be employed by Local Authorities to deal with the enormous quantity of paperwork generated. I doubt if these civil servants have ever been laid off and, to keep themselves busy, Movement Documents have not been scrapped.

Anyone moving sheep or goats is required to submit a form, in quadruplicate (yes – really…FOUR copies), to the appropriate Local Authority within three days of the animal movement. I seriously doubt if any use has ever been made of the staggering amount of data that has been collected on sheep and goat movements and I doubt if it ever will.

The fact is that, prior to the 2001 Foot & Mouth Disease outbreak, animals were moved around freely, without any associated bureaucracy and without any problems. Diseases such as Foot & Mouth will be spread by animal movements but they are not caused by animal movements. Therefore, there is no justification for the government to monitor movements when no disease is present in the country. The refusal of the government to remove this ‘red tape’ is an example of politicians’ mania for absolute control and desire to micro-manage every aspect of the agricultural industry.

Why is this idea important?

Movement licences were introduced during the 2001 outbreak of Foot & Mouth Disease. No animal was permitted to be moved without a licence. Extra staff had to be employed by Local Authorities to deal with the enormous quantity of paperwork generated. I doubt if these civil servants have ever been laid off and, to keep themselves busy, Movement Documents have not been scrapped.

Anyone moving sheep or goats is required to submit a form, in quadruplicate (yes – really…FOUR copies), to the appropriate Local Authority within three days of the animal movement. I seriously doubt if any use has ever been made of the staggering amount of data that has been collected on sheep and goat movements and I doubt if it ever will.

The fact is that, prior to the 2001 Foot & Mouth Disease outbreak, animals were moved around freely, without any associated bureaucracy and without any problems. Diseases such as Foot & Mouth will be spread by animal movements but they are not caused by animal movements. Therefore, there is no justification for the government to monitor movements when no disease is present in the country. The refusal of the government to remove this ‘red tape’ is an example of politicians’ mania for absolute control and desire to micro-manage every aspect of the agricultural industry.

Abolish legislation requiring farmers to maintain useless records

It is currently a legal requirement for livestock farmers to maintain an up to date record of all animal movements (I believe entries must be completed within 3 days of the movement or else…..!!). Also an Animal Medical Record Book must be kept. Both these must be presented for inspection by a civil servant every one to two years.

The Medical Record Book is particularly ridiculous. One must record such information as the date of administration of a medicine, the identity of the animal treated, when the latter might be sold and the name of the individual treating the animal. None of these things can be checked. None of these things matter to anyone. How does one identify the 324 sheep treated one week and the 534 treated a week later (or whatever)? Individual tag numbers – no thank you! That would take longer than the job of treating the flock in the first place.

The withdrawal period for the drug must also be entered. Obviously animals should not be sold for slaughter within the withdrawal period but if any farmer is so unscrupulous as to do so they are extremely unlikely to make a careful note of the fact in their Medical Record Book.

The date of purchase of a medicine must be entered. Does anybody give a toss on what day I might buy a can of antiseptic foot rot spray?  I think not!

Why is this idea important?

It is currently a legal requirement for livestock farmers to maintain an up to date record of all animal movements (I believe entries must be completed within 3 days of the movement or else…..!!). Also an Animal Medical Record Book must be kept. Both these must be presented for inspection by a civil servant every one to two years.

The Medical Record Book is particularly ridiculous. One must record such information as the date of administration of a medicine, the identity of the animal treated, when the latter might be sold and the name of the individual treating the animal. None of these things can be checked. None of these things matter to anyone. How does one identify the 324 sheep treated one week and the 534 treated a week later (or whatever)? Individual tag numbers – no thank you! That would take longer than the job of treating the flock in the first place.

The withdrawal period for the drug must also be entered. Obviously animals should not be sold for slaughter within the withdrawal period but if any farmer is so unscrupulous as to do so they are extremely unlikely to make a careful note of the fact in their Medical Record Book.

The date of purchase of a medicine must be entered. Does anybody give a toss on what day I might buy a can of antiseptic foot rot spray?  I think not!

Repeal EU law outlawing 800 traditional vegetable varieties

The EU law outlawing 800 traditional vegetable varieties should be repealed to ensure these varieties do not become extinct.

The EU should not have the power to decide what the British people, or any people, can and cannot eat and grow. 

Quotes:

'800 traditional vegetable varieties once grown in Britain are now outlawed by European legislation' – http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/07/outlawed_seeds.php

'In the past 100 years, 90 percent of UK's vegetable varieties have been lost, with the same happening in much of the industrialized world'. – http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/07/outlawed_seeds.php

'Farmers and growers no longer have the automatic right to save seed of varieties covered by plant breeders' rights (PBR). Under PBR new vegetable varieties can be registered by breeders who then receive a royalty from all of those who use the variety. In the US plants can also be patented and in countries in the European Union vegetable varieties can only be sold if they have been registered on a National List. A substantial fee has to be paid in order to register and an annual maintainance fee is also necessary in order to keep the variety on the list. The price of this fee is the same regardless of how many packets of that variety of seed are actually sold. This registration fee means that it would be uneconomic for many small seed suppliers to sell seeds for which there wasn't a great deal of demand. Also in order to be registered, each variety has to pass a strict DUS test. This shows that it is uniform and distinct from other varieties. Unfortunately, many old varieties are not sufficiently uniform to satisfy this legislation and therefore cannot be registered. It is illegal to sell seeds that are not registered on the National List and anyone offering unlisted varieties can be prosecuted. Consequently many once commercial favourites can no longer be sold.

Why is it important that we continue to grow the traditional varieties of vegetables? Heritage, or heirloom, vegetables are important because they contain a wealth of genetic material which could be of vital importance in the future. They should not be discarded and replaced with modern varieties, simply because the latter appear to have more useful characteristics at the moment. Indeed it would be extremely risky and unwise to do this, because nobody knows exactly what the future has in store for us! No one can predict with any great certainty exactly which genetic characteristics will be of importance in 50 or more years time. Nor can anyone know which pests and diseases will be around then, or what the climate will be like. It is, therefore, vitally important that we maintain genetic diversity by preserving as many different species of plants as possible. For it is only by doing this, that we can ensure that we have the best possible chance of successfully adapting to future conditions – whatever they may be.' – http://www.btinternet.com/~bury_rd/heritage.htm

Why is this idea important?

The EU law outlawing 800 traditional vegetable varieties should be repealed to ensure these varieties do not become extinct.

The EU should not have the power to decide what the British people, or any people, can and cannot eat and grow. 

Quotes:

'800 traditional vegetable varieties once grown in Britain are now outlawed by European legislation' – http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/07/outlawed_seeds.php

'In the past 100 years, 90 percent of UK's vegetable varieties have been lost, with the same happening in much of the industrialized world'. – http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/07/outlawed_seeds.php

'Farmers and growers no longer have the automatic right to save seed of varieties covered by plant breeders' rights (PBR). Under PBR new vegetable varieties can be registered by breeders who then receive a royalty from all of those who use the variety. In the US plants can also be patented and in countries in the European Union vegetable varieties can only be sold if they have been registered on a National List. A substantial fee has to be paid in order to register and an annual maintainance fee is also necessary in order to keep the variety on the list. The price of this fee is the same regardless of how many packets of that variety of seed are actually sold. This registration fee means that it would be uneconomic for many small seed suppliers to sell seeds for which there wasn't a great deal of demand. Also in order to be registered, each variety has to pass a strict DUS test. This shows that it is uniform and distinct from other varieties. Unfortunately, many old varieties are not sufficiently uniform to satisfy this legislation and therefore cannot be registered. It is illegal to sell seeds that are not registered on the National List and anyone offering unlisted varieties can be prosecuted. Consequently many once commercial favourites can no longer be sold.

Why is it important that we continue to grow the traditional varieties of vegetables? Heritage, or heirloom, vegetables are important because they contain a wealth of genetic material which could be of vital importance in the future. They should not be discarded and replaced with modern varieties, simply because the latter appear to have more useful characteristics at the moment. Indeed it would be extremely risky and unwise to do this, because nobody knows exactly what the future has in store for us! No one can predict with any great certainty exactly which genetic characteristics will be of importance in 50 or more years time. Nor can anyone know which pests and diseases will be around then, or what the climate will be like. It is, therefore, vitally important that we maintain genetic diversity by preserving as many different species of plants as possible. For it is only by doing this, that we can ensure that we have the best possible chance of successfully adapting to future conditions – whatever they may be.' – http://www.btinternet.com/~bury_rd/heritage.htm

Allowing temporary signs for promoting farmers’ markets

Amending the planning legislation which currently prevents farmers' markets from displaying signs to promote their markets.  Better promotion leads to more popular and better attended markets which are both good for the farmers and producers who attend but also the local community where the market is based.

Why is this idea important?

Amending the planning legislation which currently prevents farmers' markets from displaying signs to promote their markets.  Better promotion leads to more popular and better attended markets which are both good for the farmers and producers who attend but also the local community where the market is based.

Abolish the ban on the burial of fallen livestock on the farm

Abolish the legislation banning the disposal of dead livestock on the farm.

This legislation requires farmers to pay an abattoir to remove all carcases, even those of tiny lambs.

It is inconceivable that on-farm burial poses any health risk to humans. Anybody suggesting that there is such a risk is taking the Precautionary Principle to absurd and extreme lengths.

This is European legislation. I suggest that Britain either pulls out of the EU or gets a bit tougher in rejecting ludicrous legislation.

Why is this idea important?

Abolish the legislation banning the disposal of dead livestock on the farm.

This legislation requires farmers to pay an abattoir to remove all carcases, even those of tiny lambs.

It is inconceivable that on-farm burial poses any health risk to humans. Anybody suggesting that there is such a risk is taking the Precautionary Principle to absurd and extreme lengths.

This is European legislation. I suggest that Britain either pulls out of the EU or gets a bit tougher in rejecting ludicrous legislation.

Remove the requirement for a pre-movement TB test of cattle.

Remove the requirement for a pre-movement TB test of cattle. This is a pointless test because all cattle are tested once a year any way. It has added a huge cost to the industry and extreme inconvenience to the agricultural sector and to the Veterinary businesses that serve it.

Why is this idea important?

Remove the requirement for a pre-movement TB test of cattle. This is a pointless test because all cattle are tested once a year any way. It has added a huge cost to the industry and extreme inconvenience to the agricultural sector and to the Veterinary businesses that serve it.

Remove duplication of animal movement records.

To remove the requirement of cattle keepers to register births, deaths,and movements of cattle with two government bodies- The British Cattle Movement Service and the local County Council. All movements have to reported to the BCMS within so many days of the event occurring, why does the County Council then have to have these same records only once a year? Why can't the County be given access to the national records at BCMS?

Why is this idea important?

To remove the requirement of cattle keepers to register births, deaths,and movements of cattle with two government bodies- The British Cattle Movement Service and the local County Council. All movements have to reported to the BCMS within so many days of the event occurring, why does the County Council then have to have these same records only once a year? Why can't the County be given access to the national records at BCMS?

Ear tagging and tracing sheep

Abolish all legislation concerned with monitoring the location of sheep. Tracing sheep is pointless, unnecessary, unachievable, time wasting, expensive and harmful to the ears of the animals. It is legislation designed by bureaucrats for bureaucrats. These bureaucrats are parasites in our society.

There is no justification for this insane legislation. It is stated to be essential ‘in the event of a disease outbreak’ but it will do nothing to prevent disease or to control disease.

Farmers are now required to record the movement, not just of batches of sheep, but of individual sheep. Sheep are obliged to have a tag in each ear, inscribed with a unique number which must be entered onto a licence whenever the animal is moved. Many farmers have several thousand sheep.

Why is this idea important?

Abolish all legislation concerned with monitoring the location of sheep. Tracing sheep is pointless, unnecessary, unachievable, time wasting, expensive and harmful to the ears of the animals. It is legislation designed by bureaucrats for bureaucrats. These bureaucrats are parasites in our society.

There is no justification for this insane legislation. It is stated to be essential ‘in the event of a disease outbreak’ but it will do nothing to prevent disease or to control disease.

Farmers are now required to record the movement, not just of batches of sheep, but of individual sheep. Sheep are obliged to have a tag in each ear, inscribed with a unique number which must be entered onto a licence whenever the animal is moved. Many farmers have several thousand sheep.

Allowing low impact development on agricultural land

There are thousands of people in the UK who would like to farm there own land but cannot afford the half million £s needed for a farm with accommodation. The planning laws in this area are highly outdated and make it virtually impossible to build up new small farms from bare land.

The countryside is now only for big agribusiness and a playground for the rich, so there is very little new enterprise in small scale agriculture, which is badly needed.

Because of the low incomes involved it is impossible to start up a small agricultural business and pay rent/mortgage on a separate home.

Small, low impact and easily removable dwellings should be allowed while (and only WHILE) the land is being used for agriculture, either business or self sufficiency, which then often grows into small business by selling surplus, providing good local produce, and providing a fulfilling employment in the countryside, which surely is good for everyone.

The British countryside has got to let go if its NIMBY attitude, or it will end up a stale, gated community.

Why is this idea important?

There are thousands of people in the UK who would like to farm there own land but cannot afford the half million £s needed for a farm with accommodation. The planning laws in this area are highly outdated and make it virtually impossible to build up new small farms from bare land.

The countryside is now only for big agribusiness and a playground for the rich, so there is very little new enterprise in small scale agriculture, which is badly needed.

Because of the low incomes involved it is impossible to start up a small agricultural business and pay rent/mortgage on a separate home.

Small, low impact and easily removable dwellings should be allowed while (and only WHILE) the land is being used for agriculture, either business or self sufficiency, which then often grows into small business by selling surplus, providing good local produce, and providing a fulfilling employment in the countryside, which surely is good for everyone.

The British countryside has got to let go if its NIMBY attitude, or it will end up a stale, gated community.

Allow low impact development on agricultural land

There are thousands of people in the UK who would like to farm there own land but cannot afford the half million £s needed for a farm with accommodation.
 The planning laws in this area are highly outdated and make it virtually impossible to build up new small farms from bare land.

The countryside is now only for big agribusiness and a playground for the rich, so there is very little new enterprise in small scale agriculture, which is badly needed.
 
Because of the low incomes involved it is impossible to start up a small agricultural business and pay rent/mortgage on a separate home.
Small, low impact and easily removable dwellings should be allowed while (and only WHILE) the land is being used for agriculture, either business or self sufficiency, which then often grows into small business by selling surplus, providing good local produce, and providing a fulfilling employment in the countryside, which surely is good for everyone.
The British countryside has got to let go if its NIMBY attitude, or it will end up a stale, gated community.

Why is this idea important?

There are thousands of people in the UK who would like to farm there own land but cannot afford the half million £s needed for a farm with accommodation.
 The planning laws in this area are highly outdated and make it virtually impossible to build up new small farms from bare land.

The countryside is now only for big agribusiness and a playground for the rich, so there is very little new enterprise in small scale agriculture, which is badly needed.
 
Because of the low incomes involved it is impossible to start up a small agricultural business and pay rent/mortgage on a separate home.
Small, low impact and easily removable dwellings should be allowed while (and only WHILE) the land is being used for agriculture, either business or self sufficiency, which then often grows into small business by selling surplus, providing good local produce, and providing a fulfilling employment in the countryside, which surely is good for everyone.
The British countryside has got to let go if its NIMBY attitude, or it will end up a stale, gated community.

Allow unemployed to do agricultural work and keep benefits

Fruit growers have to import workers for harvesting, increasing immigration and pressure on the NHS etc. UK workers can't do this work as it is too low paid to decently live on, is not regular enough (seasonal only), and if people come off benefits to do the work they face a 6 week paperwork trail before they get back on. Allow the unemployed to do this work, keep their housing and council tax benefits but reduce the unemployment benefit portion so that the worker would be no better off than someone on tax credits doing the same job. It would give unemployed youth good experience and offer unemployed fathers the chance to get out and work without jeopardising their families financial well being.

Why is this idea important?

Fruit growers have to import workers for harvesting, increasing immigration and pressure on the NHS etc. UK workers can't do this work as it is too low paid to decently live on, is not regular enough (seasonal only), and if people come off benefits to do the work they face a 6 week paperwork trail before they get back on. Allow the unemployed to do this work, keep their housing and council tax benefits but reduce the unemployment benefit portion so that the worker would be no better off than someone on tax credits doing the same job. It would give unemployed youth good experience and offer unemployed fathers the chance to get out and work without jeopardising their families financial well being.

Burying dead livestock on farm

It is now illegal to bury on farm livestock which have died.  They must be left out for a lorry to collect which goes from farm to farm for that purpose.  

Please ease this law so that farmers have the option to bury on farm if they wish.  It is heartbreaking to lose a favourite animal and doubly so that a decent burial cannot be provided on farm.

It has always been the case that dead animals (and people) are buried – earth to earth, ashes to ashes etc.  This EU ruling goes against common sense.

Why is this idea important?

It is now illegal to bury on farm livestock which have died.  They must be left out for a lorry to collect which goes from farm to farm for that purpose.  

Please ease this law so that farmers have the option to bury on farm if they wish.  It is heartbreaking to lose a favourite animal and doubly so that a decent burial cannot be provided on farm.

It has always been the case that dead animals (and people) are buried – earth to earth, ashes to ashes etc.  This EU ruling goes against common sense.

Repeal of laws which prevent protection of fish stocks.

My idea is to protect fishery owners and angling clubs from prosecution under the Human Rights Act for banning individuals or groups from private fisheries and rivers if said groups or individauls break fishery or club rules or are suspected, on good grounds, of having the intention of doing so. 

Why is this idea important?

My idea is to protect fishery owners and angling clubs from prosecution under the Human Rights Act for banning individuals or groups from private fisheries and rivers if said groups or individauls break fishery or club rules or are suspected, on good grounds, of having the intention of doing so. 

Repeal law imposing Agricultural Restrictions on Property

Local authorities are empowered to impose restrictions allowing only agricultural workers to live in designated properties.

This results in lenders refusing to supply mortgages. As a consequence it prevents sale on the open market except to cash buyers, and such properties are typically on the market for years without sale and if sold are at a deep discount to the proper market price (25-30%).

To remove a restriction, owners are told to do a market research survey of the area to find any possible buyers. The result of this survey is then submitted with a planning application, and the Planning Officer decides if the restriction will be removed.

The net effect is that mobility is restricted and a quick sale impossible. It also devalues the property and places the owner and his children at a significant disadvantage. I was even told that my son would have to give up residence in my house if I died – he would own it but not be able to live in it while the restriction remained!!!

Why is this idea important?

Local authorities are empowered to impose restrictions allowing only agricultural workers to live in designated properties.

This results in lenders refusing to supply mortgages. As a consequence it prevents sale on the open market except to cash buyers, and such properties are typically on the market for years without sale and if sold are at a deep discount to the proper market price (25-30%).

To remove a restriction, owners are told to do a market research survey of the area to find any possible buyers. The result of this survey is then submitted with a planning application, and the Planning Officer decides if the restriction will be removed.

The net effect is that mobility is restricted and a quick sale impossible. It also devalues the property and places the owner and his children at a significant disadvantage. I was even told that my son would have to give up residence in my house if I died – he would own it but not be able to live in it while the restriction remained!!!

Repeal law imposing Agricultural Restrictions on Property

Local authorities are empowered to impose restrictions allowing only agricultural workers to live in designated properties.

This results in lenders refusing to supply mortgages. As a consequence it prevents sale on the open market except to cash buyers, and such properties are typically on the market for years without sale and if sold are at a deep discount to the proper market price (25-30%).

To remove a restriction, owners are told to do a market research survey of the area to find any possible buyers. The result of this survey is then submitted with a planning application, and the Planning Officer decides if the restriction will be removed.

The net effect is that mobility is restricted and a quick sale impossible. It also devalues the property and places the owner and his children at a significant disadvantage. I was even told that my son would have to give up residence in my house if I died – he would own it but not be able to live in it while the restriction remained!!!

Why is this idea important?

Local authorities are empowered to impose restrictions allowing only agricultural workers to live in designated properties.

This results in lenders refusing to supply mortgages. As a consequence it prevents sale on the open market except to cash buyers, and such properties are typically on the market for years without sale and if sold are at a deep discount to the proper market price (25-30%).

To remove a restriction, owners are told to do a market research survey of the area to find any possible buyers. The result of this survey is then submitted with a planning application, and the Planning Officer decides if the restriction will be removed.

The net effect is that mobility is restricted and a quick sale impossible. It also devalues the property and places the owner and his children at a significant disadvantage. I was even told that my son would have to give up residence in my house if I died – he would own it but not be able to live in it while the restriction remained!!!

Repeal law imposing Agricultural Restrictions on Property

Local authorities are empowered to impose restrictions allowing only agricultural workers to live in designated properties.

This results in lenders refusing to supply mortgages. As a consequence it prevents sale on the open market except to cash buyers, and such properties are typically on the market for years without sale and if sold are at a deep discount to the proper market price (25-30%).

To remove a restriction, owners are told to do a market research survey of the area to find any possible buyers. The result of this survey is then submitted with a planning application, and the Planning Officer decides if the restriction will be removed.

The net effect is that mobility is restricted and a quick sale impossible. It also devalues the property and places the owner and his children at a significant disadvantage. I was even told that my son would have to give up residence in my house if I died – he would own it but not be able to live in it while the restriction remained!!!

 

Why is this idea important?

Local authorities are empowered to impose restrictions allowing only agricultural workers to live in designated properties.

This results in lenders refusing to supply mortgages. As a consequence it prevents sale on the open market except to cash buyers, and such properties are typically on the market for years without sale and if sold are at a deep discount to the proper market price (25-30%).

To remove a restriction, owners are told to do a market research survey of the area to find any possible buyers. The result of this survey is then submitted with a planning application, and the Planning Officer decides if the restriction will be removed.

The net effect is that mobility is restricted and a quick sale impossible. It also devalues the property and places the owner and his children at a significant disadvantage. I was even told that my son would have to give up residence in my house if I died – he would own it but not be able to live in it while the restriction remained!!!

 

Review all DEFRA regulations hastily put in place during Foot & Mouth outbreak

In my opinion DEFRA should be split up and the Ministry of Agriculture should be brought back, the industry needs to be led by policymakers who understand the trade and how different it is from other commercial operations.

Filling out forms is not a farmer’s forte; more time is now spent doing on a desk than a tractor.

Farmers should not be required to get separate driving licences that say they can transport certain types on animals in their trailer. Farmers know how to look after their animals and don't need people who've never stepped foot on a farm telling them how to.

Also, stop adding more regulations or amendments to EU rules that affect the industry, believe it or not this puts us at a disadvantage!!

Why is this idea important?

In my opinion DEFRA should be split up and the Ministry of Agriculture should be brought back, the industry needs to be led by policymakers who understand the trade and how different it is from other commercial operations.

Filling out forms is not a farmer’s forte; more time is now spent doing on a desk than a tractor.

Farmers should not be required to get separate driving licences that say they can transport certain types on animals in their trailer. Farmers know how to look after their animals and don't need people who've never stepped foot on a farm telling them how to.

Also, stop adding more regulations or amendments to EU rules that affect the industry, believe it or not this puts us at a disadvantage!!

Allow ecological dwellings on rural land.

Land owners should be allowed to build dwellings to encourage ecological, small-scale agricultural businesses.

I've known various projects over the years that have either failed, or been made significantly harder, because local planners will not allow dwellings to be constructed. This is despite plans being drawn up that show that the dwelling will be a) very small b) ecologically sound and c) all but invisible. At the same time, planners allow vast steel and corrugated iron hay and cattle sheds to be put up without a second thought.

I think if owners can prove that their dwelling will a) be built in an ecologically sound manner (for example following BREAMM specifications b) have minimal visual impact and c) not degrade the land, thentbhe default position of councils should be to allow them.

Why is this idea important?

Land owners should be allowed to build dwellings to encourage ecological, small-scale agricultural businesses.

I've known various projects over the years that have either failed, or been made significantly harder, because local planners will not allow dwellings to be constructed. This is despite plans being drawn up that show that the dwelling will be a) very small b) ecologically sound and c) all but invisible. At the same time, planners allow vast steel and corrugated iron hay and cattle sheds to be put up without a second thought.

I think if owners can prove that their dwelling will a) be built in an ecologically sound manner (for example following BREAMM specifications b) have minimal visual impact and c) not degrade the land, thentbhe default position of councils should be to allow them.