Remove listed orders for private owned homes

Our house and next doors has the front facing bay window listed.The road we live on has approx 70%-80% block flats on it.Our house and next doors is in 1/2 of an acre.We cannot sell to developers because of this listing.I personally see no point to it as it is of no use to the public interest.The government should look at all old listed building order's and restrict them to places of interest to the public. Putting a listing on the front of a house makes no sense at all especially if the majority of buildings on the same road are all blocks of flats.We have a coach house which had a restriction for it not to be removed. When the Birmingham city council rented  one of their properties with the coachouse that was in need of repair they scrapped the listing just so that they could pull down their coachouse as re-building it would have cost alot,this was 2 doors away from us. They do what they want when they want.  

Why is this idea important?

Our house and next doors has the front facing bay window listed.The road we live on has approx 70%-80% block flats on it.Our house and next doors is in 1/2 of an acre.We cannot sell to developers because of this listing.I personally see no point to it as it is of no use to the public interest.The government should look at all old listed building order's and restrict them to places of interest to the public. Putting a listing on the front of a house makes no sense at all especially if the majority of buildings on the same road are all blocks of flats.We have a coach house which had a restriction for it not to be removed. When the Birmingham city council rented  one of their properties with the coachouse that was in need of repair they scrapped the listing just so that they could pull down their coachouse as re-building it would have cost alot,this was 2 doors away from us. They do what they want when they want.  

Energy Performance of Buildings Regulations Directive 91/2002/EC

To revoke this Directive.

For existing homes being sold on, the requirement for an Energy Performance Certificate does nothing to save energy (not least because an Energy Assessor probably makes his visit by car) and is an unnecessary burden on a seller.

The purchaser`s own survey should advise on measures to improve the energy efficiency of the property.

With the shortage of housing, an older property should not be condemned simply because it is not as energy efficient as a new one. 

 

Why is this idea important?

To revoke this Directive.

For existing homes being sold on, the requirement for an Energy Performance Certificate does nothing to save energy (not least because an Energy Assessor probably makes his visit by car) and is an unnecessary burden on a seller.

The purchaser`s own survey should advise on measures to improve the energy efficiency of the property.

With the shortage of housing, an older property should not be condemned simply because it is not as energy efficient as a new one. 

 

Cut planning and conservation rules

To do away with unnecessary and restrictive planning and conservation regulations that stop people doings things such as erecting a shed in a rural area or taking down an old delapidated building that has no archetectural or cultural merit. To ensure planning authorities actually listen to local people and not just the planners. To stop the need for archaeological surveys for every small builing

Why is this idea important?

To do away with unnecessary and restrictive planning and conservation regulations that stop people doings things such as erecting a shed in a rural area or taking down an old delapidated building that has no archetectural or cultural merit. To ensure planning authorities actually listen to local people and not just the planners. To stop the need for archaeological surveys for every small builing

Remove the restriction barring Objectors from appealing a Planning decision.

Currently only the requestor of Planning Consent can appeal if the decision goes against them. The same right is not afforded to Ojectors. Remove this unfairness.

Why is this idea important?

Currently only the requestor of Planning Consent can appeal if the decision goes against them. The same right is not afforded to Ojectors. Remove this unfairness.

Reform and clarify the planning system to progressive beauty

The planning system is an out of date, dishonest and currupt monster. It restricts, hinders and punishers those who dare to challenge it and lead business forward with new ideas, buildings and concepts.

I and many of my collegues would invest far more money into business infrastructure to benefit the local enconomy, lower rents and capital costs, improve efficiency, and lower carbon footprints and improve the life of all who work in the economy. I personally invest only 20% of my potential in my business because of the problems, uncretainties and vagarities of the planning system.

This planning system is a mess. Since it was introduced the quality, range and visual amenity of all properties has deteriated, and has only seen a small improvement in the last decade, but still we live in a world of poor quality buildings and workspaces.

This system is policed by biased and corrupt planners who nearly always make a decision to refuse a progressive application and then bend and manipulate the law to fit their decisions. That is unless one of their pals on the planning committee is involved in which case they do just the opposite. Many progressive and highly functional and efficient buildings and land uses are stopped by the 1% of nimbies and their councillor chums whoc then unfairly and unconstitutionaly influence the planners to lie and missrepresent the planning law to refuse and application. I have a small business development which is both low impact and visually unintrusive for hi tech office use, but we have and continue to fight the planners for everything and 5 years in we are still fighting and subject to intrusive inspections by planning officers to try to stop us using our permitted development rights. Throughout this process we have shelved plans for wood fired heating, small wind turbine and a small solar project to progress our energy consumption and have had to aboandon all due to the local authority planning incompetance and obstructions.

here is the typical scenario. We contact the planner for some advice. Is this xyz alteration to our building okay. We then write in after no responce. We are told a load of rubbish that yes we will look at the application and we could not possibly issue a view on it prior to an application. Then as soon as we submit an application they are suddenly 100% sure that all they can do is refuse an application and there is no possibility of passing it. ??Why could they not have said it before. Then we go to appeal and as long as we do not get an x planning officer at appeal we get the permission granted and the planning authority make a fool of themselves lying through their back teeth to back up their reasons for refusal which were all fabricated.

This is all a long and drawn out unnecesary process and we should look at a form of zoning with restrictions on hieght and use in certain areas and alow a certain amount of land each year to be set aside fo new uses close to existing towns. Planners should be forced to represent the law correctly and not lie to applicants and give more honest and less obstructive advice. This unnecesary and overly beurocratic system is holding back business, increasing house rents and capital values andis not deliverying a better built environment or better houses to live in. The system has its head in the sand when in comes to solar gain through south facing windows, solar heating and panels, quality of living space and aspect and beauty.

We need to look at a total overhaul of this sytem and produce a postive progressive, not negative regressive process which encourages people to invest in quality eficient and beautiful buildings which are a joy to behold. When people look back at the buildings from 1960 to 2010 they will wonder what on earth we were doing bar a few fantastic exeptions. Lets make 2010 onwards more progressive, more beautiful, more postive and make Britain a fantastic place to live.

Why is this idea important?

The planning system is an out of date, dishonest and currupt monster. It restricts, hinders and punishers those who dare to challenge it and lead business forward with new ideas, buildings and concepts.

I and many of my collegues would invest far more money into business infrastructure to benefit the local enconomy, lower rents and capital costs, improve efficiency, and lower carbon footprints and improve the life of all who work in the economy. I personally invest only 20% of my potential in my business because of the problems, uncretainties and vagarities of the planning system.

This planning system is a mess. Since it was introduced the quality, range and visual amenity of all properties has deteriated, and has only seen a small improvement in the last decade, but still we live in a world of poor quality buildings and workspaces.

This system is policed by biased and corrupt planners who nearly always make a decision to refuse a progressive application and then bend and manipulate the law to fit their decisions. That is unless one of their pals on the planning committee is involved in which case they do just the opposite. Many progressive and highly functional and efficient buildings and land uses are stopped by the 1% of nimbies and their councillor chums whoc then unfairly and unconstitutionaly influence the planners to lie and missrepresent the planning law to refuse and application. I have a small business development which is both low impact and visually unintrusive for hi tech office use, but we have and continue to fight the planners for everything and 5 years in we are still fighting and subject to intrusive inspections by planning officers to try to stop us using our permitted development rights. Throughout this process we have shelved plans for wood fired heating, small wind turbine and a small solar project to progress our energy consumption and have had to aboandon all due to the local authority planning incompetance and obstructions.

here is the typical scenario. We contact the planner for some advice. Is this xyz alteration to our building okay. We then write in after no responce. We are told a load of rubbish that yes we will look at the application and we could not possibly issue a view on it prior to an application. Then as soon as we submit an application they are suddenly 100% sure that all they can do is refuse an application and there is no possibility of passing it. ??Why could they not have said it before. Then we go to appeal and as long as we do not get an x planning officer at appeal we get the permission granted and the planning authority make a fool of themselves lying through their back teeth to back up their reasons for refusal which were all fabricated.

This is all a long and drawn out unnecesary process and we should look at a form of zoning with restrictions on hieght and use in certain areas and alow a certain amount of land each year to be set aside fo new uses close to existing towns. Planners should be forced to represent the law correctly and not lie to applicants and give more honest and less obstructive advice. This unnecesary and overly beurocratic system is holding back business, increasing house rents and capital values andis not deliverying a better built environment or better houses to live in. The system has its head in the sand when in comes to solar gain through south facing windows, solar heating and panels, quality of living space and aspect and beauty.

We need to look at a total overhaul of this sytem and produce a postive progressive, not negative regressive process which encourages people to invest in quality eficient and beautiful buildings which are a joy to behold. When people look back at the buildings from 1960 to 2010 they will wonder what on earth we were doing bar a few fantastic exeptions. Lets make 2010 onwards more progressive, more beautiful, more postive and make Britain a fantastic place to live.

Planning

Streamline and simplify the planning process. The philosophy should be "Trust the homeowner to take decisions as to how to look after his own property. It is not the State's function to second guess."

Planning restrictions should be clear and understandable and PROPORTIONATE!

Specifically: there should be no requirement for planning permission in respect of remedial works which do not change the size or outline of unlisted buildings.

Generally: (and this is a big exercise, but so worthwhile: tear up the labyrinth of arcane and impenetrable rules surrounding the planning system and replace with laws which are clear and understandable.

Why is this idea important?

Streamline and simplify the planning process. The philosophy should be "Trust the homeowner to take decisions as to how to look after his own property. It is not the State's function to second guess."

Planning restrictions should be clear and understandable and PROPORTIONATE!

Specifically: there should be no requirement for planning permission in respect of remedial works which do not change the size or outline of unlisted buildings.

Generally: (and this is a big exercise, but so worthwhile: tear up the labyrinth of arcane and impenetrable rules surrounding the planning system and replace with laws which are clear and understandable.

Reduce Planning Permission Bureaucracy & Restrictions

There is a need to relax planning regulations very significantly for private citizens, especially in the area of house extensions and modifications, car ports, installation of solar panels, position and design of windows, etc.  Planning applications are often opposed by jealous or awkward neighbours, and Councillors on Town and District Planning Committees often ignore the advice of the council’s own professional planning officers (recommending approval) and reject applications, to curry favour with antagonistic local people whose votes they want to obtain.  Frequently, council officers are also intimidated by aggressive citizens with a typewriter or word processor, who sometimes stir up opposition to perfectly acceptable proposals.

Some councils are excessively interventionist and allow their decisions to be affected by political considerations.  Thus, the extremely left-wing members of Stevenage Borough Council are prone to object to people wishing to improve their homes and depart from the standard size and pattern of the “New Town” housing that dominated the town until the early 1990s.  The appeals procedure offers some redress.  In the early 1990s, the decisions of the planning committee of Stevenage Borough Council were overturned on appeal in 52% of cases.  This demonstrates that in a majority of cases their decisions were demonstrably, legally wrong.  Right-wing councils are sometimes equally interventionist.

Why is this idea important?

There is a need to relax planning regulations very significantly for private citizens, especially in the area of house extensions and modifications, car ports, installation of solar panels, position and design of windows, etc.  Planning applications are often opposed by jealous or awkward neighbours, and Councillors on Town and District Planning Committees often ignore the advice of the council’s own professional planning officers (recommending approval) and reject applications, to curry favour with antagonistic local people whose votes they want to obtain.  Frequently, council officers are also intimidated by aggressive citizens with a typewriter or word processor, who sometimes stir up opposition to perfectly acceptable proposals.

Some councils are excessively interventionist and allow their decisions to be affected by political considerations.  Thus, the extremely left-wing members of Stevenage Borough Council are prone to object to people wishing to improve their homes and depart from the standard size and pattern of the “New Town” housing that dominated the town until the early 1990s.  The appeals procedure offers some redress.  In the early 1990s, the decisions of the planning committee of Stevenage Borough Council were overturned on appeal in 52% of cases.  This demonstrates that in a majority of cases their decisions were demonstrably, legally wrong.  Right-wing councils are sometimes equally interventionist.

Bureaucracy in the planning system

Reduce wholly unnecessary bureaucracy and red tape in a planning system which has virtually stalled in its ability to deliver. Ensure that planning officers apply planning policy only to applications, as opposed to personal prejudice.

Why is this idea important?

Reduce wholly unnecessary bureaucracy and red tape in a planning system which has virtually stalled in its ability to deliver. Ensure that planning officers apply planning policy only to applications, as opposed to personal prejudice.

Ease restrictions on earth sheltered & basement housing

There are only 60 earth sheltered houses in the UK mostly in Wales. The planning law for permission is as strict for earth sheltered as it is for above ground – this is wrong!!!!!

A council has to consider aesthetics as well as several other aspects, and any application in the green belt is automatically turned down as green belt building is considered best avoided.

An earth sheltered house is almost always eco friendly – I do not know why – but it is!!

An earth sheltered house cannot be seen or can barely be seen from above ground, other than an aerial view.  This sort of building should be encouraged as this small island has only limited space, we do not wish to see the loss of more green fields or parks, playing fields, agricultural land etc etc.  But earth sheltered would barely impact on infrastructure, does not spoil views or appearance to greenbelt land, and surely should be encouraged in an attempt to help find space for much needed homes. In my opinion all applications for earth sheltered housing should automatically be viewed as if they were brown field sites, and then each taken on its merits. 

Why is this idea important?

There are only 60 earth sheltered houses in the UK mostly in Wales. The planning law for permission is as strict for earth sheltered as it is for above ground – this is wrong!!!!!

A council has to consider aesthetics as well as several other aspects, and any application in the green belt is automatically turned down as green belt building is considered best avoided.

An earth sheltered house is almost always eco friendly – I do not know why – but it is!!

An earth sheltered house cannot be seen or can barely be seen from above ground, other than an aerial view.  This sort of building should be encouraged as this small island has only limited space, we do not wish to see the loss of more green fields or parks, playing fields, agricultural land etc etc.  But earth sheltered would barely impact on infrastructure, does not spoil views or appearance to greenbelt land, and surely should be encouraged in an attempt to help find space for much needed homes. In my opinion all applications for earth sheltered housing should automatically be viewed as if they were brown field sites, and then each taken on its merits. 

Change to definition of Brownfield Land in gardens to Greenfield

The Government very recently altered the definition of gardens under PPS3 from brownfield land to greenfield. This appears to have been done to placate the NIMBYs of middle England. Many of those who object to such schemes thenselves live on land that was once gardens or recreational areas. It seems that the consequences of such a change were not thought through by those who created the change. My company has spent £50000 on a three year application for a small scheme of 5 houses in a garden. We satisfied all the planner's requests throughout to make the scheme acceptable. The LPA recommended approval. The local counsellors were unduly influenced by the neighbours and refused it. They would not give a reason and asked the planners to insert one in the decision notice. We were in the middle of the appeal process with a high chance of success (because our application at the date of submission "ticked all the planning boxes") when the ministerial decision was announced out of the blue. Now there is no chance of the appeal succeeding as this legislation by Ministerial statement appears to be retrospective. Why could it not have excluded those applications already in the pipeline?  Because of this my small company will have to be liquidated, I and my family will have no income from the business, the young couple who owned the garden will not be able to improve their lot and move, and the men who were going to build the houses will not now have a job. Were such consequences for those on the receiving end ever considered? It was announced by Ministerial statement. Please immediately repeal it by the same method. It does more harm than good. It appears to be unnecessarily unfair.

Why is this idea important?

The Government very recently altered the definition of gardens under PPS3 from brownfield land to greenfield. This appears to have been done to placate the NIMBYs of middle England. Many of those who object to such schemes thenselves live on land that was once gardens or recreational areas. It seems that the consequences of such a change were not thought through by those who created the change. My company has spent £50000 on a three year application for a small scheme of 5 houses in a garden. We satisfied all the planner's requests throughout to make the scheme acceptable. The LPA recommended approval. The local counsellors were unduly influenced by the neighbours and refused it. They would not give a reason and asked the planners to insert one in the decision notice. We were in the middle of the appeal process with a high chance of success (because our application at the date of submission "ticked all the planning boxes") when the ministerial decision was announced out of the blue. Now there is no chance of the appeal succeeding as this legislation by Ministerial statement appears to be retrospective. Why could it not have excluded those applications already in the pipeline?  Because of this my small company will have to be liquidated, I and my family will have no income from the business, the young couple who owned the garden will not be able to improve their lot and move, and the men who were going to build the houses will not now have a job. Were such consequences for those on the receiving end ever considered? It was announced by Ministerial statement. Please immediately repeal it by the same method. It does more harm than good. It appears to be unnecessarily unfair.

Simplify the planning system

I work as an architect nationwide in a large practice.  The planning system has a significant impact on our work and it’s smooth operation is vital to our operations and indeed our profitability and survival as a business.  It is also vital to the country, especially at a time of economic problems, that decisions are made swiftly and at minimal cost to everyone involved, including the public purse.

The planning process, from our perspective, has become increasingly difficult over the last decade.  The introduction of fees and later of targets, has not eased the process from our point of view and we often find ourselves trapped in between the demands of our clients on the one hand and the planners on the other.  

The cost of making a planning application is now so high, because of the time scale required to put an appllication together and the vast number of reports and information required to enable a decision – that it has become beyond the reach of many private clients who cannot afford to venture into the system at huge personal cost, when the outcome is so uncertain.

Simplify the whole system.  Here are some suggestions:

  • Expand the scope of permitted development.
  • Introduce a "rules" based system where any proposal complying with the rules can be automatically permitted.
  • As in much of Europe any design submitted by a qualified architect should be deemed approved from a "design" perspective.
  • Introduce Local Development Orders to cover all main development sites with a set of criteria to be followed.  Any proposal complying with the criteria would be deemed approved.
  • Similarly – define rules within Local Plans whereby compliance deems approval.
  • Having introduced a predominantly rules based system – private sector planners could be engaged to run the system and manage the process.  The democratic element of planning would be in approving and determining the rules in the first place.
  • Many apoplications are stalled awaiting consultees responses.  Where consultees fail to respond – and indeed where the Planning Authority fails to make a decision in the proscribed time – an application should be deemed approved.

Why is this idea important?

I work as an architect nationwide in a large practice.  The planning system has a significant impact on our work and it’s smooth operation is vital to our operations and indeed our profitability and survival as a business.  It is also vital to the country, especially at a time of economic problems, that decisions are made swiftly and at minimal cost to everyone involved, including the public purse.

The planning process, from our perspective, has become increasingly difficult over the last decade.  The introduction of fees and later of targets, has not eased the process from our point of view and we often find ourselves trapped in between the demands of our clients on the one hand and the planners on the other.  

The cost of making a planning application is now so high, because of the time scale required to put an appllication together and the vast number of reports and information required to enable a decision – that it has become beyond the reach of many private clients who cannot afford to venture into the system at huge personal cost, when the outcome is so uncertain.

Simplify the whole system.  Here are some suggestions:

  • Expand the scope of permitted development.
  • Introduce a "rules" based system where any proposal complying with the rules can be automatically permitted.
  • As in much of Europe any design submitted by a qualified architect should be deemed approved from a "design" perspective.
  • Introduce Local Development Orders to cover all main development sites with a set of criteria to be followed.  Any proposal complying with the criteria would be deemed approved.
  • Similarly – define rules within Local Plans whereby compliance deems approval.
  • Having introduced a predominantly rules based system – private sector planners could be engaged to run the system and manage the process.  The democratic element of planning would be in approving and determining the rules in the first place.
  • Many apoplications are stalled awaiting consultees responses.  Where consultees fail to respond – and indeed where the Planning Authority fails to make a decision in the proscribed time – an application should be deemed approved.

Planning laws

Review the whole planning legislation. The cost of submitting a planning application is now far too high due to the massive amount of additional "expert" reports required. This cost has to be incurred prior to submiiting the application and the planning authority can still say no.

What I propose is:

  1. Free up the whole system by allowing a simple application to be filed without any supporting reports. The planning authority can then say yes or no. If it is a yes, it can be conditioned by the additional reports required. Simple and very cost effective.
  2. Allow more development – we only have 8% of land built on. To provide a further 1 miliion homes we would need a further 1.5%, which is not going to destroy our heritage
  3. Allow the full development of all existing buildings on brown field sites, farms etc. They are already there and it is far more cost effective to allow their conversion to housing than to start a whole new build.

Why is this idea important?

Review the whole planning legislation. The cost of submitting a planning application is now far too high due to the massive amount of additional "expert" reports required. This cost has to be incurred prior to submiiting the application and the planning authority can still say no.

What I propose is:

  1. Free up the whole system by allowing a simple application to be filed without any supporting reports. The planning authority can then say yes or no. If it is a yes, it can be conditioned by the additional reports required. Simple and very cost effective.
  2. Allow more development – we only have 8% of land built on. To provide a further 1 miliion homes we would need a further 1.5%, which is not going to destroy our heritage
  3. Allow the full development of all existing buildings on brown field sites, farms etc. They are already there and it is far more cost effective to allow their conversion to housing than to start a whole new build.