Amend requirements to advertise planning and highway etc matters

There are a number of planning and highways applications/decisions which have to be published in local newspapers (sometimes in 2 successive weeks); some notifications even have to be in London Gazette.  This is costly (including cost of staff arranging it to be published). 

Instead of taking away the right for local authorities to produce their own newspapers the various rules should be amended to allow advertisement in those papers instead.  It will greatly reduce cost and (in my view) increase the likelihood of them coming to the attention of the area's inhabitants (because few local newspapers are delivered to every house in an area).  This could be done perhaps by a single provison in legislation stating that any reference to publishing in a newspaper circulating in the area etc would be met by inclusion within a local authority newspaper.

Such papers can also provide a vehicle for voluntary organisations and charities to advertise what they are doing, events which will be taking place and to provide feedback through photos taken at the events.  It can re-engage communities, reduce costs and effort for community and charity organisers, increase the likely support at the events and provide members of the public with ideas (such as where to take the kids for an ebnjoyable afternoon to avoid them sitting in front of the TV), thereby increasing well-being of the area. 

They could also be used as a means to engage the community in lcoal determination of planning matters as per the suggestions from the Coalition Government.

Such papers shouldn't be used to push political influence, but they should explain what the Authority is doing because that is also vital to engage with the community.  Central Government gets such publicity for free through press statements, national TV and journalists seeking stories and Parliament (which you can watch on TV). 

Such issues are often not so compelling for TV (even regional) and journalists (even at local newspapers) when it is at local government level because much of the news would be considered by them as not news-worthy or not sufficiently sensational.  Nevertheless if you want people to be more engaged with democracy (as all parties profess to be) then people need access to the less "sensational" day to day information as well. 

At some stage I am sure it will move to just electronic copies when the vast majority are all connected to broadband but until then I would expect that Authority newspapers can still be produced in a way which ultimately adds more value than it costs.

Whilst Mr Pickles attack may be understandable at some level, I believe he has failed to consider what such "newspapers" might offer in terms of the coalition government's stated objectives.

Why is this idea important?

There are a number of planning and highways applications/decisions which have to be published in local newspapers (sometimes in 2 successive weeks); some notifications even have to be in London Gazette.  This is costly (including cost of staff arranging it to be published). 

Instead of taking away the right for local authorities to produce their own newspapers the various rules should be amended to allow advertisement in those papers instead.  It will greatly reduce cost and (in my view) increase the likelihood of them coming to the attention of the area's inhabitants (because few local newspapers are delivered to every house in an area).  This could be done perhaps by a single provison in legislation stating that any reference to publishing in a newspaper circulating in the area etc would be met by inclusion within a local authority newspaper.

Such papers can also provide a vehicle for voluntary organisations and charities to advertise what they are doing, events which will be taking place and to provide feedback through photos taken at the events.  It can re-engage communities, reduce costs and effort for community and charity organisers, increase the likely support at the events and provide members of the public with ideas (such as where to take the kids for an ebnjoyable afternoon to avoid them sitting in front of the TV), thereby increasing well-being of the area. 

They could also be used as a means to engage the community in lcoal determination of planning matters as per the suggestions from the Coalition Government.

Such papers shouldn't be used to push political influence, but they should explain what the Authority is doing because that is also vital to engage with the community.  Central Government gets such publicity for free through press statements, national TV and journalists seeking stories and Parliament (which you can watch on TV). 

Such issues are often not so compelling for TV (even regional) and journalists (even at local newspapers) when it is at local government level because much of the news would be considered by them as not news-worthy or not sufficiently sensational.  Nevertheless if you want people to be more engaged with democracy (as all parties profess to be) then people need access to the less "sensational" day to day information as well. 

At some stage I am sure it will move to just electronic copies when the vast majority are all connected to broadband but until then I would expect that Authority newspapers can still be produced in a way which ultimately adds more value than it costs.

Whilst Mr Pickles attack may be understandable at some level, I believe he has failed to consider what such "newspapers" might offer in terms of the coalition government's stated objectives.

Coordination of roadworks

At present many companies have the right to shut off sections of road at any time of their choosing.  This often results in chaos or farce where other companies dig up nearby roads or even the same stretch a short time after it was resurfaced by the previous company.  This results in severe frustration and stress, increased emissions as cars wait and an incalculable bill to businesses who may lose both their workers and their customers.

Given that Local Authorities need to raise alternative revenues without pushing up Council Tax, would it not make sense for Councils to police the digging up of highways, charging for the right to do so and issuing licences that were valid for an agreed period with stinging penalty clauses for delays?  Regulation should place a duty on such companies to coordinate their activities ensuring that no particular route was disrupted more than a certain number of days per year.  A duty should also be placed on the Council to ensure that traffic flow was kept as free as possible.

Why is this idea important?

At present many companies have the right to shut off sections of road at any time of their choosing.  This often results in chaos or farce where other companies dig up nearby roads or even the same stretch a short time after it was resurfaced by the previous company.  This results in severe frustration and stress, increased emissions as cars wait and an incalculable bill to businesses who may lose both their workers and their customers.

Given that Local Authorities need to raise alternative revenues without pushing up Council Tax, would it not make sense for Councils to police the digging up of highways, charging for the right to do so and issuing licences that were valid for an agreed period with stinging penalty clauses for delays?  Regulation should place a duty on such companies to coordinate their activities ensuring that no particular route was disrupted more than a certain number of days per year.  A duty should also be placed on the Council to ensure that traffic flow was kept as free as possible.

Residential regulation – Design Standards

There is an opportunity to reform and rationalise the number of residential design standards that apply to new housing. This would tackle the sheer number of standards that currently includes: Building for Life, Code for Sustainable Homes, Design for Manufacture, Lifetime Homes, Secured by Design and Design for London. 

Some of these standards appear subject to frequent change, for example over the last eight years, affordable housing in London has been subject to Scheme Development Standards, then Housing Quality Indicators, and now the new Design for London Standards. Many of these standards have entirely appropriate individual aims, but it is their cumulative impact that is problematic as they are increasing cost and complexity for developers, reducing the viability of individual developments, and ultimately resulting in reduced housing delivery.

The second problem is applying common standards to very different situations across the country. For example ‘Lifetime Homes’ are very much an appropriate standard in some locations, but not others. The third problem relates to the enforcement of standards. There is often no clear deliniation between planning departments and building regulations departments and conflicting advice between the two, as the Penfold Review points out.

Why is this idea important?

There is an opportunity to reform and rationalise the number of residential design standards that apply to new housing. This would tackle the sheer number of standards that currently includes: Building for Life, Code for Sustainable Homes, Design for Manufacture, Lifetime Homes, Secured by Design and Design for London. 

Some of these standards appear subject to frequent change, for example over the last eight years, affordable housing in London has been subject to Scheme Development Standards, then Housing Quality Indicators, and now the new Design for London Standards. Many of these standards have entirely appropriate individual aims, but it is their cumulative impact that is problematic as they are increasing cost and complexity for developers, reducing the viability of individual developments, and ultimately resulting in reduced housing delivery.

The second problem is applying common standards to very different situations across the country. For example ‘Lifetime Homes’ are very much an appropriate standard in some locations, but not others. The third problem relates to the enforcement of standards. There is often no clear deliniation between planning departments and building regulations departments and conflicting advice between the two, as the Penfold Review points out.

GREEN BELT (POLICY CHANGES NEEDED)

i am not here advocating the abolition of green belt but a change in attitude and policy towards it.

i think that green belt has been and is a force for good but has become detached from its origins and is now a sacred temple in the minds of people and that of the planning authorities.

BUT THE FACT IS ITS NOT A SACRED TEMPLE . its just beautifull trees and fields and lakes just like the rest of the countryside.absurd policy and attitude need to be removed and replaced with a more reasonable flexible national policy towards development in the greenbelt. i site a few examples of the absurdity of current policy.

  • if i wanted to build a 20.000sq ft agricultural building say 12 meters high….then that would not be  inappropriate development in green belt and likley approval would be given.
  • now if i wanted to sell a few small garden orniments in my garden now that is inappropriate developement in green belt and would significantly detract from the openess of the green belt. (according to stafford borough council) and approval was not given. although i do have a lot of garden orniments around my garden and thats fine(according to stafford borough council)
  • if my neighbour wanted a small bathing pool in her rear garden then that is inappropriate develpment in greenbelt which significantly detracts from the openness of green belt and conflicts with guidance contained in ppg2 greenbelts . (according to stafford borough council) and after two years of fighting it was eventually passed by the planning inspectorate. so now my neighbour ( who incidentally lives next door to a 10.000sq ft warehouse which is also in greenbelt) now has a pool in her garden which ""significantly detracts from the openness of greenbelt and conflicts with ppg2 national policy but has been allowed by the planning inspectorate.
  • 500 meters away from me and my neighbour we have a 1.000.000m sq ft factory which has been there for sixty years and is a massive complex of buildings and concrete lorry parks……the former creda factory and before that a factory for bomber aircraft production and next to that is another 20.000 sq ft warehouse……both in the green belt. but how can all this warehousing and huge factory not be inappropriate developement and not be a significant detraction from the openness of green belt? 

THIS BRINGS ME TO MY OTHER POINT yes those factorys were built before the greenbelt designation came in to being but its not the point….how can a 1.000.000sq ft of a concrete factory complexe be green belt.??……..its absurd……GREEN SHOULD MEAN GREEN

mr eric pickles please read this and get some reasonablness into planning policy and throw away these absurd green belt policies and replace them with ones that protect the countryside but allows non damaging development to take place.

Why is this idea important?

i am not here advocating the abolition of green belt but a change in attitude and policy towards it.

i think that green belt has been and is a force for good but has become detached from its origins and is now a sacred temple in the minds of people and that of the planning authorities.

BUT THE FACT IS ITS NOT A SACRED TEMPLE . its just beautifull trees and fields and lakes just like the rest of the countryside.absurd policy and attitude need to be removed and replaced with a more reasonable flexible national policy towards development in the greenbelt. i site a few examples of the absurdity of current policy.

  • if i wanted to build a 20.000sq ft agricultural building say 12 meters high….then that would not be  inappropriate development in green belt and likley approval would be given.
  • now if i wanted to sell a few small garden orniments in my garden now that is inappropriate developement in green belt and would significantly detract from the openess of the green belt. (according to stafford borough council) and approval was not given. although i do have a lot of garden orniments around my garden and thats fine(according to stafford borough council)
  • if my neighbour wanted a small bathing pool in her rear garden then that is inappropriate develpment in greenbelt which significantly detracts from the openness of green belt and conflicts with guidance contained in ppg2 greenbelts . (according to stafford borough council) and after two years of fighting it was eventually passed by the planning inspectorate. so now my neighbour ( who incidentally lives next door to a 10.000sq ft warehouse which is also in greenbelt) now has a pool in her garden which ""significantly detracts from the openness of greenbelt and conflicts with ppg2 national policy but has been allowed by the planning inspectorate.
  • 500 meters away from me and my neighbour we have a 1.000.000m sq ft factory which has been there for sixty years and is a massive complex of buildings and concrete lorry parks……the former creda factory and before that a factory for bomber aircraft production and next to that is another 20.000 sq ft warehouse……both in the green belt. but how can all this warehousing and huge factory not be inappropriate developement and not be a significant detraction from the openness of green belt? 

THIS BRINGS ME TO MY OTHER POINT yes those factorys were built before the greenbelt designation came in to being but its not the point….how can a 1.000.000sq ft of a concrete factory complexe be green belt.??……..its absurd……GREEN SHOULD MEAN GREEN

mr eric pickles please read this and get some reasonablness into planning policy and throw away these absurd green belt policies and replace them with ones that protect the countryside but allows non damaging development to take place.

Making the litter creators pay

We live ona  small, densley populated island that is drowning under a sea of litter often created by waste from foreign owned big businesses selling take out food that adds to the nation's health problems and therefore everyone's NI contributions. They should be made to pay for the litter they create and for clearing it up.

Fast food and take out food companies should pay a specific tax in relation to their size and profits. this money should be directly used to pay for more litter bins, employ more refuse staff, employ landscape gardeners to make cities where they are situated more attractive.

Those people who would be employed as a result would be paying tax therefore contributing to the economy and not being paid for doing notjhing and unemployed. Their contribution would also generate exptra income for the NHS to help pay for obesity treatment caused by the fast food and take out companies junk food.

Why is this idea important?

We live ona  small, densley populated island that is drowning under a sea of litter often created by waste from foreign owned big businesses selling take out food that adds to the nation's health problems and therefore everyone's NI contributions. They should be made to pay for the litter they create and for clearing it up.

Fast food and take out food companies should pay a specific tax in relation to their size and profits. this money should be directly used to pay for more litter bins, employ more refuse staff, employ landscape gardeners to make cities where they are situated more attractive.

Those people who would be employed as a result would be paying tax therefore contributing to the economy and not being paid for doing notjhing and unemployed. Their contribution would also generate exptra income for the NHS to help pay for obesity treatment caused by the fast food and take out companies junk food.

Flexibility in council car park charges

At the moment, council car park charges need extensive and costly consultation before they can be changed, which prevents them being raised or lowered in response to fluctuations in demand.  Demand does vary, sometimes predictably when an event is planned such as roadworks or a festival, sometimes in response to a weather forecast, and councils cannot react using charges to manage demand.

Where there is a market in car parking, such as near commuter stations, other operators' charges are often raised from time to time and the local council car park cannot respond quickly to avoid local business users or shoppers being crowded out..  It is also undesirable for a publicly funded service to undercut private operators in the same market.

The idea is to remove the requirement for consultation to allow a local council flexibility in setting these charges.

Why is this idea important?

At the moment, council car park charges need extensive and costly consultation before they can be changed, which prevents them being raised or lowered in response to fluctuations in demand.  Demand does vary, sometimes predictably when an event is planned such as roadworks or a festival, sometimes in response to a weather forecast, and councils cannot react using charges to manage demand.

Where there is a market in car parking, such as near commuter stations, other operators' charges are often raised from time to time and the local council car park cannot respond quickly to avoid local business users or shoppers being crowded out..  It is also undesirable for a publicly funded service to undercut private operators in the same market.

The idea is to remove the requirement for consultation to allow a local council flexibility in setting these charges.

AMEND INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS PLANNING REQUIREMENTS

It should be a condition for the granting of planning permission (at the Local Authority's discretion) for Industrial Buildings that the roofing should carry panels to generate electricity for the use of the unit concerned, with excess being fed into the national grid.

Why is this idea important?

It should be a condition for the granting of planning permission (at the Local Authority's discretion) for Industrial Buildings that the roofing should carry panels to generate electricity for the use of the unit concerned, with excess being fed into the national grid.

CLAMPING BAN OR REGULATE?

I have been involved in parking management since 1989.  I do not consider myself to be a cowboy or a rogue.  I am not a wealthy man and make a modest living from clamping and towing vehicles parked where they should not be.  I agree with much that has been written but I believe an outright ban on clamping and towing away is a mistake.  Landowner will loose the “freedom” to protect their own property from selfish unauthorised parking.  Gates and barriers are not always practical.  I manage a number of gated residential communities and although outsiders may not be able to get in, the sites suffer from inconsiderate and selfish parking by residents and their visitors.  Without any power to deter or punish this problem will certainly get worse should a ban be adopted?  As I see it the principal of using a financial penalty to deter or punish unauthorised is broadly accepted.  The two complaints most frequently voiced are exorbitant charges and inadequate warning signs.  I accept that this is sometimes the case.  Although a Conservative all of my life up until now I have to say that it was the last Labour government had the right idea. They introduced licensing so that people with a criminal record could not operate as clampers.  They were also about to introduce maximum charges for clamping, towing and storage of vehicles and regulations in respect of warning signs. Had these laws been introduced and more importantly enforced by the police I feel much of the criticism about clamping would have been answered  

Why is this idea important?

I have been involved in parking management since 1989.  I do not consider myself to be a cowboy or a rogue.  I am not a wealthy man and make a modest living from clamping and towing vehicles parked where they should not be.  I agree with much that has been written but I believe an outright ban on clamping and towing away is a mistake.  Landowner will loose the “freedom” to protect their own property from selfish unauthorised parking.  Gates and barriers are not always practical.  I manage a number of gated residential communities and although outsiders may not be able to get in, the sites suffer from inconsiderate and selfish parking by residents and their visitors.  Without any power to deter or punish this problem will certainly get worse should a ban be adopted?  As I see it the principal of using a financial penalty to deter or punish unauthorised is broadly accepted.  The two complaints most frequently voiced are exorbitant charges and inadequate warning signs.  I accept that this is sometimes the case.  Although a Conservative all of my life up until now I have to say that it was the last Labour government had the right idea. They introduced licensing so that people with a criminal record could not operate as clampers.  They were also about to introduce maximum charges for clamping, towing and storage of vehicles and regulations in respect of warning signs. Had these laws been introduced and more importantly enforced by the police I feel much of the criticism about clamping would have been answered  

An End To Private Landlord Selective Licensing

We have just become part of local council selective licensing in our area. We think that this is a money making scheme for the local council and surprisingly our tenants agree. We are a small business that has 3 properties and we are grateful to the council for pointing out some work that needs to be done. Most of them are Health and Safety issues and the problem that we and our tenants have is that the council seem to have forgotten that these are peoples homes and not places of work. I do not have handrails all over my house in case I fall. The cost of this to us as a small business is huge due to the fees that we also have to pay to the council for nothing.

 It is not in our best interest to let our properties go to rack and ruin as it affects the resale value which is already bad enough.

As one of our tenants pointed out "the council should take care of their own proprties before lording it over others", as many council properties in our area are in a terrible state.

Why is this idea important?

We have just become part of local council selective licensing in our area. We think that this is a money making scheme for the local council and surprisingly our tenants agree. We are a small business that has 3 properties and we are grateful to the council for pointing out some work that needs to be done. Most of them are Health and Safety issues and the problem that we and our tenants have is that the council seem to have forgotten that these are peoples homes and not places of work. I do not have handrails all over my house in case I fall. The cost of this to us as a small business is huge due to the fees that we also have to pay to the council for nothing.

 It is not in our best interest to let our properties go to rack and ruin as it affects the resale value which is already bad enough.

As one of our tenants pointed out "the council should take care of their own proprties before lording it over others", as many council properties in our area are in a terrible state.

Fisheries Protection

The Angling is very much forgotten and overlooked, there is mass predation of inland water fish stocks by vermin such as otters and cormorants. There we suggest giving the inland, (canal, river, lake or still water) fisheries owners or managers the right to protect there business by allowing them to humanely destroy these nuicance vermin who decimate stocks and threatens business's, sport, social meetings and more that happen at there premises. We propose that this should be done right away to protect the future of Angling, which is at least one sport where our teams and players get gold yearly.

Fishery owners and managers regularly make massive undertakings to ensure wildlife habbitat is protected and encouraged. If fisheries become to much infested by these vermin then they risk going out of business, thus allowing the habitats to desist.

Why is this idea important?

The Angling is very much forgotten and overlooked, there is mass predation of inland water fish stocks by vermin such as otters and cormorants. There we suggest giving the inland, (canal, river, lake or still water) fisheries owners or managers the right to protect there business by allowing them to humanely destroy these nuicance vermin who decimate stocks and threatens business's, sport, social meetings and more that happen at there premises. We propose that this should be done right away to protect the future of Angling, which is at least one sport where our teams and players get gold yearly.

Fishery owners and managers regularly make massive undertakings to ensure wildlife habbitat is protected and encouraged. If fisheries become to much infested by these vermin then they risk going out of business, thus allowing the habitats to desist.

Reduce Council bureaucracy

Cut red tape in the planning system. Be able to submit  planning requirements in a detailed written statement to be reviewed on a case by case basis. Only bigger or more complex developments should be then required to submit more detailed plans etc and this should be sent as far as possible electronically to save paper.

Why is this idea important?

Cut red tape in the planning system. Be able to submit  planning requirements in a detailed written statement to be reviewed on a case by case basis. Only bigger or more complex developments should be then required to submit more detailed plans etc and this should be sent as far as possible electronically to save paper.

Remove the rule that prevents students choosing their own snacks!!!

In our 6th form college cafe, we are no longer allowed to have a vending machine for snacks.

The reason, apparently, is because we are considered part of the school which we 'came from' and they wanted a 'healthy schools' status.

Firstly, in what world does removing snacks from a place where people are for less than 1% of their week (their lunch/break times) make them magically become healthy?

Secondly, how does removing snacks from the 6th form make the younger student (hence, the school) healthy?

Thirdly, the cafe is used only by students aged 16-19 and occasionally staff as well (who, believe it or not, are adults) who should be permitted to choose whether to buy chocolate from the vending machine every day, or salads and fruit etc from the cafe.

Why is this idea important?

In our 6th form college cafe, we are no longer allowed to have a vending machine for snacks.

The reason, apparently, is because we are considered part of the school which we 'came from' and they wanted a 'healthy schools' status.

Firstly, in what world does removing snacks from a place where people are for less than 1% of their week (their lunch/break times) make them magically become healthy?

Secondly, how does removing snacks from the 6th form make the younger student (hence, the school) healthy?

Thirdly, the cafe is used only by students aged 16-19 and occasionally staff as well (who, believe it or not, are adults) who should be permitted to choose whether to buy chocolate from the vending machine every day, or salads and fruit etc from the cafe.

Repeal Town and Country Planning act and use Zoning make it easier to build your own home

Get rid of the Town and Country Planning Act and introduce Planning Zoning as they do in Germany and throughout the rest of the world.

Why is this idea important?

Get rid of the Town and Country Planning Act and introduce Planning Zoning as they do in Germany and throughout the rest of the world.

Licensing Act 2003

Whilst the Act (and practice) is on the whole better than the previous system, there are some unneccessary hoops within the current system. For example – when applying for a new premises licence the overlong form has to be copied umpteen different times to different departments within the council and to other interested bodies- a complete waste of paper and increase of storage costs all round. It also builds in a beauracracy – creates a need for different departments.  Why cant the forms be submitted electronically to the licensing unit – they then liaise with other departments as necessary and the application viewed by all the necessary departments online?

The premises form could be much reduced. The need to set out how you satisfy the licensing objectives just creates a template mentality – this could be filled in at an interview with the licencing unit who can assess the applicant at the same time – and act as a gate keeper.

Why is this idea important?

Whilst the Act (and practice) is on the whole better than the previous system, there are some unneccessary hoops within the current system. For example – when applying for a new premises licence the overlong form has to be copied umpteen different times to different departments within the council and to other interested bodies- a complete waste of paper and increase of storage costs all round. It also builds in a beauracracy – creates a need for different departments.  Why cant the forms be submitted electronically to the licensing unit – they then liaise with other departments as necessary and the application viewed by all the necessary departments online?

The premises form could be much reduced. The need to set out how you satisfy the licensing objectives just creates a template mentality – this could be filled in at an interview with the licencing unit who can assess the applicant at the same time – and act as a gate keeper.

end the ‘right to buy’ council housing

At a time when social housing is in desperate and increasing demand it is nonsense to continue this misguided Thatcherite policy. It wouldn't be so bad if it wasn't full of loopholes, but the right to buy provisions are open wide to misuse and social housing continues to be lost to the detriment both of the taxpayer and those most genuinely in need of social housing; and to the advantage of the wealthy and greedy individuals who abuse these provisions.

Why is this idea important?

At a time when social housing is in desperate and increasing demand it is nonsense to continue this misguided Thatcherite policy. It wouldn't be so bad if it wasn't full of loopholes, but the right to buy provisions are open wide to misuse and social housing continues to be lost to the detriment both of the taxpayer and those most genuinely in need of social housing; and to the advantage of the wealthy and greedy individuals who abuse these provisions.

Remove holiday home restrictions in Norfolk

Removing holiday home restrictions on a large number of properties in the Norfolk area would help the local government facilities the housing shortage in the area, allow current owners to live in them as their primary home the whole year round and also for those wishing to move would make it easier for propsective or first time buys get a mortgage.

With a large number of the properties under this restriction do not warrant the need for holiday home stipulation and are built meeting building regulation requirements.

Why is this idea important?

Removing holiday home restrictions on a large number of properties in the Norfolk area would help the local government facilities the housing shortage in the area, allow current owners to live in them as their primary home the whole year round and also for those wishing to move would make it easier for propsective or first time buys get a mortgage.

With a large number of the properties under this restriction do not warrant the need for holiday home stipulation and are built meeting building regulation requirements.

planning application

we approached east lindsey borough council regarding a small paddock that we were offered to rent, to train our dogs for agility, we were informed that we would have to pay £125.00 for information and then apply for change of use and planning,that would have been more expense, for just  2 hours a week, but we could use it for 28 days without planning well would you believe it they would not accept us using the 2 hours accumulated to make up the 28 days no each time we used it would count as a day. there would be no change to the paddock no construction ???  

 

 

 

Why is this idea important?

we approached east lindsey borough council regarding a small paddock that we were offered to rent, to train our dogs for agility, we were informed that we would have to pay £125.00 for information and then apply for change of use and planning,that would have been more expense, for just  2 hours a week, but we could use it for 28 days without planning well would you believe it they would not accept us using the 2 hours accumulated to make up the 28 days no each time we used it would count as a day. there would be no change to the paddock no construction ???  

 

 

 

Coroners

Implement the reforms in the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 so that the coroner's service is fit for the 21st century.  There is much in this Act which will be immensely welcome to those bereaved.

Why is this idea important?

Implement the reforms in the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 so that the coroner's service is fit for the 21st century.  There is much in this Act which will be immensely welcome to those bereaved.

Housing Crisis in the rental section

Having recently received a state pension and living in social housing I find that there are only two options open to me. Renting privately is out of the question because of all the outlay, the 6 weeks deposit the months rent in advance, the agency fees, requisite before even moving in. In social housing  now there are so many bad neighbours, with addictions, criminal histories or generally just noisy at night and inconsiderate that the only other option is to move into sheltered housing. Why is there no other option for those who cannot afford to buy, please? Sheltered housing is more expensive due to the costs of supporting manager, etc, but if a person is fit, healthy and very independent, likes privacy and doesnt want a red pull cord in possibly every room or someone knocking on their door every day to check whether they are all right and still alive the truth is that there is simply NO ALTERNATIVE but to rent social housing with often unscrupulous housing organisations who have no respect for the law in what they do or say and bad neighbours who can make life a hell on Earth. There is a housing crisis in England which needs to be addressed by this government! Now, it may not be a popular subject due to the fact it is about the needs of the poorer members of society but poor people are not automatically bad people.

Why is this idea important?

Having recently received a state pension and living in social housing I find that there are only two options open to me. Renting privately is out of the question because of all the outlay, the 6 weeks deposit the months rent in advance, the agency fees, requisite before even moving in. In social housing  now there are so many bad neighbours, with addictions, criminal histories or generally just noisy at night and inconsiderate that the only other option is to move into sheltered housing. Why is there no other option for those who cannot afford to buy, please? Sheltered housing is more expensive due to the costs of supporting manager, etc, but if a person is fit, healthy and very independent, likes privacy and doesnt want a red pull cord in possibly every room or someone knocking on their door every day to check whether they are all right and still alive the truth is that there is simply NO ALTERNATIVE but to rent social housing with often unscrupulous housing organisations who have no respect for the law in what they do or say and bad neighbours who can make life a hell on Earth. There is a housing crisis in England which needs to be addressed by this government! Now, it may not be a popular subject due to the fact it is about the needs of the poorer members of society but poor people are not automatically bad people.

Abolish the ‘Challenge 21/25’ requirements when buying alcohol

I would like to propose that the 'challenge 21' or in some cases 'challenge 25' requirements when purchasing alcohol be repealed.

 

Currently, the legal age to purchase alcohol in a shop is 18. However, the law requires that employees challenge anyone who appears to be under 21, or 25 in some cases, to provide ID before they can purchase alcohol. 

These regulations lead to a creeping criminalisation of people's legal right to enjoy an alcoholic drink, and foster a culture of suspicion and mistrust by enshrining in law the assumption that a customer is attempting to purchase alcohol illegally, and requiring them to prove otherwise. 

The poorly thought out nature of this law has lead to its over-zealous application in numerous instances – there have been no shortage of reports in the media of people who are clearly and unquestionably over 18 – in some cases quite evidently of pensionable age – being denied alcohol because they do not have, or cannot provide, a passport, driving licence or the one specific type of ID card permitted; and even cases where parents accompanied on a shopping trip by their children have been denied their purchase, despite showing the required ID, on the pretext that the children might drink the alcohol!

In addition, the law criminalises employers and employees who fail to check a customer's ID.

Why is this idea important?

I would like to propose that the 'challenge 21' or in some cases 'challenge 25' requirements when purchasing alcohol be repealed.

 

Currently, the legal age to purchase alcohol in a shop is 18. However, the law requires that employees challenge anyone who appears to be under 21, or 25 in some cases, to provide ID before they can purchase alcohol. 

These regulations lead to a creeping criminalisation of people's legal right to enjoy an alcoholic drink, and foster a culture of suspicion and mistrust by enshrining in law the assumption that a customer is attempting to purchase alcohol illegally, and requiring them to prove otherwise. 

The poorly thought out nature of this law has lead to its over-zealous application in numerous instances – there have been no shortage of reports in the media of people who are clearly and unquestionably over 18 – in some cases quite evidently of pensionable age – being denied alcohol because they do not have, or cannot provide, a passport, driving licence or the one specific type of ID card permitted; and even cases where parents accompanied on a shopping trip by their children have been denied their purchase, despite showing the required ID, on the pretext that the children might drink the alcohol!

In addition, the law criminalises employers and employees who fail to check a customer's ID.

commercial leases

Remove the restriction on commercial ' right to buy' leases. Council owned leases should come under the same legislation as domestic properties where tenants have the option to exercise their ' right to buy' Currently commercial leaseholders do not have any options under 'right to buy' and have restrictive leases which generally include a full repairing term that means they have to maintain (to a high 'Council' standard !!) the properties for generally a higher rate of rent, receiving little or no assistance from the council or other bodies just because they are 'a business' !!!

Why is this idea important?

Remove the restriction on commercial ' right to buy' leases. Council owned leases should come under the same legislation as domestic properties where tenants have the option to exercise their ' right to buy' Currently commercial leaseholders do not have any options under 'right to buy' and have restrictive leases which generally include a full repairing term that means they have to maintain (to a high 'Council' standard !!) the properties for generally a higher rate of rent, receiving little or no assistance from the council or other bodies just because they are 'a business' !!!

Posters for Farmers Markets

A change in planning law is absolutely essential for the continued success of farmers' markets. By their very nature the markets are often held on a certain day a month (ie. first saturday) therefore customers often get confused. A sign put up one week before and taken down the day of the market or one day after should be reasonable.

Why is this idea important?

A change in planning law is absolutely essential for the continued success of farmers' markets. By their very nature the markets are often held on a certain day a month (ie. first saturday) therefore customers often get confused. A sign put up one week before and taken down the day of the market or one day after should be reasonable.