de restrict plannining constraints

 Because of the way people have been coerced by planning and government laws over time we have become over reliant on mainstream shops and supermarkets for the nutrition that fuels our bodies and hence our lives and health and its my view that government ought to repeal old establshed laws that prevents people from being forced to live lives that are centered around unhealthy foods and then which leads onto being ill and hence being at the mercy of the medical and drug fraternity,

Its my idea that the government ought to put the onus of our food supply back into the hands of the british people by allowing and encouraging the development of  smallholdings .This would allow vast tracts of small plots of land to be put into productive use by individuals and families to the general benefit of society and balance of the enviroment.. It was once said that you can judge the strength of a nation by the ability to feed itself,if we put the food security in the hands of those who can hold us to ransom then we as a nation are behaving in a way that is not responsable.many countries in europe are at the mercy of russian gas,there is a lesson there for us.

Why is this idea important?

 Because of the way people have been coerced by planning and government laws over time we have become over reliant on mainstream shops and supermarkets for the nutrition that fuels our bodies and hence our lives and health and its my view that government ought to repeal old establshed laws that prevents people from being forced to live lives that are centered around unhealthy foods and then which leads onto being ill and hence being at the mercy of the medical and drug fraternity,

Its my idea that the government ought to put the onus of our food supply back into the hands of the british people by allowing and encouraging the development of  smallholdings .This would allow vast tracts of small plots of land to be put into productive use by individuals and families to the general benefit of society and balance of the enviroment.. It was once said that you can judge the strength of a nation by the ability to feed itself,if we put the food security in the hands of those who can hold us to ransom then we as a nation are behaving in a way that is not responsable.many countries in europe are at the mercy of russian gas,there is a lesson there for us.

getting in life

my idea is to get folks with disbilitys to join in with life more i thinking getting someone with a disbility on planning buildings cos DDA  is only a guide its far better too look and ttalk to everone who,s going to use that building

Why is this idea important?

my idea is to get folks with disbilitys to join in with life more i thinking getting someone with a disbility on planning buildings cos DDA  is only a guide its far better too look and ttalk to everone who,s going to use that building

Sequential testing for development sites.

Sequential testing carried out by Local Authorities or individuals is used to deflect building sites away from the worst flood areas in each district which sounds like a very good way of making sure that new developments would be built and would be safe against flooding. However in practise the sequential approach is a complete waste of time because if you do pass the test then an exception test is required and as part of the exception test a site specific Flood Risk Assessment is needed. This is where my issue arises, a site specific FRA will tell you if your site will be safe against flooding and would not endanger life – therefore if you pass an FRA your development would be deemed as safe by the Environment Agency. 

To give an example to try and make this more clear is if you were wanting to build a single dwelling in Flood Zone 3a and the site specific FRA proved that the proposed dwelling would be safe against flooding, would not endanger life and the EA approved the scheme then your site has been proven to be safe if a flood were to happen………However a sequential test would have to be carried out first and as only a single dwelling would be constructed it is impossible to prove to the Local Authority that this is the only site that the proposed property could be built on (as a single dwelling could be built on any small site) and the application would be refused by the LA on flooding grounds even though your site has been proved to be safe against flooding.

This means  small development sites in areas such as Grimsby will be very limited as  Grimsby is virtually all a flood zone.

 

Why is this idea important?

Sequential testing carried out by Local Authorities or individuals is used to deflect building sites away from the worst flood areas in each district which sounds like a very good way of making sure that new developments would be built and would be safe against flooding. However in practise the sequential approach is a complete waste of time because if you do pass the test then an exception test is required and as part of the exception test a site specific Flood Risk Assessment is needed. This is where my issue arises, a site specific FRA will tell you if your site will be safe against flooding and would not endanger life – therefore if you pass an FRA your development would be deemed as safe by the Environment Agency. 

To give an example to try and make this more clear is if you were wanting to build a single dwelling in Flood Zone 3a and the site specific FRA proved that the proposed dwelling would be safe against flooding, would not endanger life and the EA approved the scheme then your site has been proven to be safe if a flood were to happen………However a sequential test would have to be carried out first and as only a single dwelling would be constructed it is impossible to prove to the Local Authority that this is the only site that the proposed property could be built on (as a single dwelling could be built on any small site) and the application would be refused by the LA on flooding grounds even though your site has been proved to be safe against flooding.

This means  small development sites in areas such as Grimsby will be very limited as  Grimsby is virtually all a flood zone.

 

Ban the use of Restrictive Covenants in property sales

When the ownership of property is relinquished in exchange for a consideration, all interests in that property should be relinquished with it.  The former owner should have no continuing right to determine the use to which the property is or is not subsequently put.  That should be solely the right of the new owner and of the authorities in whose jurisdiction the property falls.

Why is this idea important?

When the ownership of property is relinquished in exchange for a consideration, all interests in that property should be relinquished with it.  The former owner should have no continuing right to determine the use to which the property is or is not subsequently put.  That should be solely the right of the new owner and of the authorities in whose jurisdiction the property falls.

Presentable and attractive views on properties

My idea is to make properties more presentable, you can do this by making it conpulsary to have an acceptable apperience on your house, this is because having a "messy" house on your street affects the costs of peoples houses, also it affects the appeal of people wanting to buy or rent properties around where there are unexceptable houses.

Having such horrifying sights gives England and the rest of Britain a "bad" look, this isn't appealing and that means we loose a lot of tourism.

For example we will use a council house, not all council houses are horrible and are tecnically an eye sore (which is a type of pollution). This is a link to a horrible council house http://www.freefoto.com/images/11/23/11_23_30—Derelict-council-house_web.jpg
 

and this is a link to a council house which is presentable and which all council houses have to set a standard to, if not even better.
http://s0.geograph.org.uk/photos/05/06/050694_ca4262b4.jpg

It is not just council houses, it's also private houses and companies.

Why is this idea important?

My idea is to make properties more presentable, you can do this by making it conpulsary to have an acceptable apperience on your house, this is because having a "messy" house on your street affects the costs of peoples houses, also it affects the appeal of people wanting to buy or rent properties around where there are unexceptable houses.

Having such horrifying sights gives England and the rest of Britain a "bad" look, this isn't appealing and that means we loose a lot of tourism.

For example we will use a council house, not all council houses are horrible and are tecnically an eye sore (which is a type of pollution). This is a link to a horrible council house http://www.freefoto.com/images/11/23/11_23_30—Derelict-council-house_web.jpg
 

and this is a link to a council house which is presentable and which all council houses have to set a standard to, if not even better.
http://s0.geograph.org.uk/photos/05/06/050694_ca4262b4.jpg

It is not just council houses, it's also private houses and companies.

Change restrictive planning laws that constrict housing supply

People are in poverty because the cost of living relative to income is too high.

The single biggest cost of living is housing.

To bring down housing costs, you have to build to meet rising demand, and build cost effectively.

The biggest cost of building is usually the land which is only in short supply due to highly restrictive and conservative planning regulations.

Why is this idea important?

People are in poverty because the cost of living relative to income is too high.

The single biggest cost of living is housing.

To bring down housing costs, you have to build to meet rising demand, and build cost effectively.

The biggest cost of building is usually the land which is only in short supply due to highly restrictive and conservative planning regulations.

Repeal Technical and Industrial Institutions Act 1892 and related provisions

Repeal the Technical and Industrial Institutions Act 1892 and related provisions such as section 131(2) Local Government Act 1972.

This legislation is now an anachronism that is not enforced, and as such is an unnecessary restriction on the use and development of old educational buildings that in any event are already protected by planning and listed building provisions. Also, following Stretch v. UK 44277/98 (Estates Gazette, 17 January 2004) considerations such as legitimate expectation and Article 1 of Protocol 1 suggest that these provisions should be repealed.

Why is this idea important?

Repeal the Technical and Industrial Institutions Act 1892 and related provisions such as section 131(2) Local Government Act 1972.

This legislation is now an anachronism that is not enforced, and as such is an unnecessary restriction on the use and development of old educational buildings that in any event are already protected by planning and listed building provisions. Also, following Stretch v. UK 44277/98 (Estates Gazette, 17 January 2004) considerations such as legitimate expectation and Article 1 of Protocol 1 suggest that these provisions should be repealed.

Remove the ability for local councils to use Anti Terror surveillance laws to snoop on citizens

The Anti Terror laws also known as RIPA (Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 200) should be modified to put the checks and balances back in to prevent local councils from misusing or abusing the law.

At present there are well documented cases where councils have used surveillance techniques reserved for anti-terrorism to spy on whether citizens have cleaned up after their dogs, put the right rubbish in bins, repairing cars in the street and even checking watching whether parents are in the correct catchment area for schools.

For more information on RIPA click here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_of_Investigatory_Powers_Act_2000 and for examples of where the law is being misused simply google "councils using anti terror laws"

Why is this idea important?

The Anti Terror laws also known as RIPA (Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 200) should be modified to put the checks and balances back in to prevent local councils from misusing or abusing the law.

At present there are well documented cases where councils have used surveillance techniques reserved for anti-terrorism to spy on whether citizens have cleaned up after their dogs, put the right rubbish in bins, repairing cars in the street and even checking watching whether parents are in the correct catchment area for schools.

For more information on RIPA click here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_of_Investigatory_Powers_Act_2000 and for examples of where the law is being misused simply google "councils using anti terror laws"

Do we still need Letchworth Garden City Heritage Foundation?

How many bodies does it take to run a small town? Do they still work in the best interest of the town or to its detriment. You only have to compare it to the 2nd garden city just down the road. But only an act of parliament would have any effect on the powers of the foundation. Anyone intersted in looking at cutting all the extra red tape the residents of this good town have to put up with?

Why is this idea important?

How many bodies does it take to run a small town? Do they still work in the best interest of the town or to its detriment. You only have to compare it to the 2nd garden city just down the road. But only an act of parliament would have any effect on the powers of the foundation. Anyone intersted in looking at cutting all the extra red tape the residents of this good town have to put up with?

Repeal excessive construction warning signs legislation

This proposal is to repeal the slew of laws and regulations relating to warning signs on and around construction sites.

Repealing the legislation that introduced these pointless warning signs will have no real impact on accidents at construction sites and will lower the cost of construction works – which affects both taxpayers and private investors.

Why is this idea important?

This proposal is to repeal the slew of laws and regulations relating to warning signs on and around construction sites.

Repealing the legislation that introduced these pointless warning signs will have no real impact on accidents at construction sites and will lower the cost of construction works – which affects both taxpayers and private investors.

s.10A Landlord & Tenant Act 1987

This section makes it an offence not to offer lessees pre-emption rights on the disposal of a Freehold by a landlord.  Pre-emption rights are essentially a civil matter between landlords and tenants and the legislation provides excellent remedies where pre-emption rights have not been offered.  The purchaser can be forced to sell to the lessees at a price that the purchaser paid.  The purchaser ends up out of pocket for his legal expenses and other expenses of purchase including stamp duty.  That is a disincentive for any purchaser to purchase a property without ensuring that the seller has first offered pre-emption rights.

It is fundamentally wrong to enforce civil remedies with criminal sanctions.  This introduces direct state interference in the relationship of landlord and tenant.  Whereas it is the function of government to regulate such relationships by the introduction of the sort of laws that we see in the earlier sections in this act it is not the function of the state then to directly enforce by criminal sanctions.  The lessees can enforce through the County Court and that is perfectly adequate.

I am not actually aware of any prosecutions under this section which suggests that the section is just unnecessary legislation which can be removed.

Why is this idea important?

This section makes it an offence not to offer lessees pre-emption rights on the disposal of a Freehold by a landlord.  Pre-emption rights are essentially a civil matter between landlords and tenants and the legislation provides excellent remedies where pre-emption rights have not been offered.  The purchaser can be forced to sell to the lessees at a price that the purchaser paid.  The purchaser ends up out of pocket for his legal expenses and other expenses of purchase including stamp duty.  That is a disincentive for any purchaser to purchase a property without ensuring that the seller has first offered pre-emption rights.

It is fundamentally wrong to enforce civil remedies with criminal sanctions.  This introduces direct state interference in the relationship of landlord and tenant.  Whereas it is the function of government to regulate such relationships by the introduction of the sort of laws that we see in the earlier sections in this act it is not the function of the state then to directly enforce by criminal sanctions.  The lessees can enforce through the County Court and that is perfectly adequate.

I am not actually aware of any prosecutions under this section which suggests that the section is just unnecessary legislation which can be removed.

Restrict the buying of Alcohol to support smaller businesses

I feel that the buying of alcohol has turned into a complete buyers market, I do not think that it is good for society on this scale and the supermarket giants are simply profiting from the general public's use.

My initiative would be to reduce the buying hours of alcohol as well as restricting the sale of it through licensed vendors only. I would suggest that it becomes only available for sale at registered off-licences of which have only a certain square footage of shop space and being only within a reasonable distance from each other. This would give the business back to the smaller companies and possibly start to encourage less drinking nationally.

As a separate idea which I would also like comment on, I think that we want to encourage more drinkers to use pubs and clubs rather than drinking on the streets and at home. Perhaps a tax incentive to make drinking in pubs cheaper would be a great option; this could be combined with making drinks available from off licenses more expensive as to keep the levels of tax received at a current level. This other idea would massively help landlords and ladies.

Rob

Why is this idea important?

I feel that the buying of alcohol has turned into a complete buyers market, I do not think that it is good for society on this scale and the supermarket giants are simply profiting from the general public's use.

My initiative would be to reduce the buying hours of alcohol as well as restricting the sale of it through licensed vendors only. I would suggest that it becomes only available for sale at registered off-licences of which have only a certain square footage of shop space and being only within a reasonable distance from each other. This would give the business back to the smaller companies and possibly start to encourage less drinking nationally.

As a separate idea which I would also like comment on, I think that we want to encourage more drinkers to use pubs and clubs rather than drinking on the streets and at home. Perhaps a tax incentive to make drinking in pubs cheaper would be a great option; this could be combined with making drinks available from off licenses more expensive as to keep the levels of tax received at a current level. This other idea would massively help landlords and ladies.

Rob

Building Regulation Reform

Current UK building regulations are fragmented and written in language that is entirely opaque to the general reader – regulations for stairs for example, are split between three approved documents. An inordinate amount of time must be spent referring and re-referring to the regulations, trying to decipher the arcane text and taking into account yearly additions to their complexity, this is a waste of my time and my client's money…

The building regulations need to be simplified, condensed, and standardised: they should be an un-changing statement of common sense, written in a clear and simple way.

Why is this idea important?

Current UK building regulations are fragmented and written in language that is entirely opaque to the general reader – regulations for stairs for example, are split between three approved documents. An inordinate amount of time must be spent referring and re-referring to the regulations, trying to decipher the arcane text and taking into account yearly additions to their complexity, this is a waste of my time and my client's money…

The building regulations need to be simplified, condensed, and standardised: they should be an un-changing statement of common sense, written in a clear and simple way.

Simplify planning regulations for private housing

We recently planned to take a chimney breast out of a room – no chimney, only the residual breast.

we required:

1. A builder – necessary

2. A structural engineer – possibly necessary. 1 Degree, large salary.

3. An architect – only necessary because the engineer couldn't get the "necessary" permissions. Another Degree.

4. Building Consent. Local Authority: A reasonably well paid person with, one assumes, yet another Degree.

5. Planning Officer: see above.

6. Listed Building officer: see above.

That's 5 Degrees for one RSJ.

Whilst major projects should be regulated to avoid shoddy development, small works could be deregulated and the areas of operation of Officers 4,5, and 6 above amalgamated into one.

Idea: Reduce the level at which regulation becomes necessary, to cover major works only.

Why is this idea important?

We recently planned to take a chimney breast out of a room – no chimney, only the residual breast.

we required:

1. A builder – necessary

2. A structural engineer – possibly necessary. 1 Degree, large salary.

3. An architect – only necessary because the engineer couldn't get the "necessary" permissions. Another Degree.

4. Building Consent. Local Authority: A reasonably well paid person with, one assumes, yet another Degree.

5. Planning Officer: see above.

6. Listed Building officer: see above.

That's 5 Degrees for one RSJ.

Whilst major projects should be regulated to avoid shoddy development, small works could be deregulated and the areas of operation of Officers 4,5, and 6 above amalgamated into one.

Idea: Reduce the level at which regulation becomes necessary, to cover major works only.

No more nameless, faceless complaints about others on civil matters

Countless times I have come across ridiculous complaints about individuals, being investigated seriously by our Council. 

Defending yourself or your business is costly, both financialy and in terms of your time. Not to mention the cost to the Council and taxpayers in turn.

These complaints can range from the colour of someone's house, to the size of a gap in their fence.  We once had a council official come to our property to investigate a complaint about pollution. After half a day he concluded the complaint was about a cow pat in a cow field that was within 2 metres of a footpath.

A friend of mine also has an ASBO because of how an A3 sized sign for his shop was placed.

I propose that, where a member of the public is disgruntled enough to complain about someone else, they should be made to put their name to it. I would certainly be prepared to and I'm sure other reasonable people would too.

The right to anonymity in these matters has lead to petty, pointless nit-picking at other people by those with nothing better to do, validated by the council and safe in the knowlege that they themselves will not lose a penny or a wink of sleep over it. This is because its not actually any of their business and they will not have any responsibility in proceedings, financially or otherwise.

I also believe that, where someone has spent money to defend themselves, the Council should not be allowed to 'drop' the case if the complaint is unfounded.  The defendant must be awarded positively for spending time and money proving themselves right, so they are not at further risk in the future.

Why is this idea important?

Countless times I have come across ridiculous complaints about individuals, being investigated seriously by our Council. 

Defending yourself or your business is costly, both financialy and in terms of your time. Not to mention the cost to the Council and taxpayers in turn.

These complaints can range from the colour of someone's house, to the size of a gap in their fence.  We once had a council official come to our property to investigate a complaint about pollution. After half a day he concluded the complaint was about a cow pat in a cow field that was within 2 metres of a footpath.

A friend of mine also has an ASBO because of how an A3 sized sign for his shop was placed.

I propose that, where a member of the public is disgruntled enough to complain about someone else, they should be made to put their name to it. I would certainly be prepared to and I'm sure other reasonable people would too.

The right to anonymity in these matters has lead to petty, pointless nit-picking at other people by those with nothing better to do, validated by the council and safe in the knowlege that they themselves will not lose a penny or a wink of sleep over it. This is because its not actually any of their business and they will not have any responsibility in proceedings, financially or otherwise.

I also believe that, where someone has spent money to defend themselves, the Council should not be allowed to 'drop' the case if the complaint is unfounded.  The defendant must be awarded positively for spending time and money proving themselves right, so they are not at further risk in the future.

s81 Housing Act 1996

Although the whole law of forfeiture is ripe for reform, this is one of the most pointless and understood pieces of legislation.  It was introduced to protect lessees threatened with forfeiture for non payment of service charges by forcing the landlord to first have the service charges determined.

In London the Leasehold Reform Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 has been particularly effective so that many landlords are in fact the lessees themselves.  However the problem with that is that these landlords have no capital and cannot survive unless service charges are paid promptly. The introcuction of this additional stage of proceedings increases recovery time by about 4 months.

In only a very small number of cases is there any defence at all and that usually arises out of a misunderstanding by the lessee that the proceedings are to recover the arrears are not simply to determine the amount of service charges.  The result is that lessees frequently arrive at court with a complaints about leaks lack of cleaning etc but these complaints are totally irrelevant to the issue of whether the service charge has been correctly raised.

I do many of these cases and I have never once had a case where a determination was not made as claimed and where the defendant  (the lessee) has not had to pay costs of around £1800. This adds substantially to the debt in circumstantially as where often the lessee has not paid the service charges because they are short of money.

Another aspect of section 81 which is perhaps not anticipated by the draughtsman is that proceedings are brought by the landlord only in respect of arrears of service charges for which the landlord intends to forfeit or re-enter.  Under the law of forfeiture a landlord may only re-enter in relation to the last demanded service charges as the right to forfeit in respect of earlier charges is waived by subsequent demands.  The result is that the only service charges that come before the court for examination are the last service charges but sometimes the lessee has a dispute over earlier charges which he has withheld.  There is no room in the section 81 proceedings to consider that.

The next stage is that forfeiture proceedings but by that stage the lessee is almost always beaten into submission and simply pays up without further argument.

The section does not protect landlords because it increases their recovery time and it most certainly does not protect the lessee because of the laws of forfeiture mentioned above.  Any removal of the landlord's right to have the determination in the county courts and force a landlord to go to the LVT would create grave difficulties for lessee landlords who would not be able to recover the costs before the LVT.  If the lease permitted they would be able to add the costs of going to the LVT to the service charges but that would mean that regular payers would end up having to pay the costs of the defaulters which would be unfair.  If the lease did not permit the recovery of costs through the service charges then lessee landlords would end up being insolvent.

Why is this idea important?

Although the whole law of forfeiture is ripe for reform, this is one of the most pointless and understood pieces of legislation.  It was introduced to protect lessees threatened with forfeiture for non payment of service charges by forcing the landlord to first have the service charges determined.

In London the Leasehold Reform Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 has been particularly effective so that many landlords are in fact the lessees themselves.  However the problem with that is that these landlords have no capital and cannot survive unless service charges are paid promptly. The introcuction of this additional stage of proceedings increases recovery time by about 4 months.

In only a very small number of cases is there any defence at all and that usually arises out of a misunderstanding by the lessee that the proceedings are to recover the arrears are not simply to determine the amount of service charges.  The result is that lessees frequently arrive at court with a complaints about leaks lack of cleaning etc but these complaints are totally irrelevant to the issue of whether the service charge has been correctly raised.

I do many of these cases and I have never once had a case where a determination was not made as claimed and where the defendant  (the lessee) has not had to pay costs of around £1800. This adds substantially to the debt in circumstantially as where often the lessee has not paid the service charges because they are short of money.

Another aspect of section 81 which is perhaps not anticipated by the draughtsman is that proceedings are brought by the landlord only in respect of arrears of service charges for which the landlord intends to forfeit or re-enter.  Under the law of forfeiture a landlord may only re-enter in relation to the last demanded service charges as the right to forfeit in respect of earlier charges is waived by subsequent demands.  The result is that the only service charges that come before the court for examination are the last service charges but sometimes the lessee has a dispute over earlier charges which he has withheld.  There is no room in the section 81 proceedings to consider that.

The next stage is that forfeiture proceedings but by that stage the lessee is almost always beaten into submission and simply pays up without further argument.

The section does not protect landlords because it increases their recovery time and it most certainly does not protect the lessee because of the laws of forfeiture mentioned above.  Any removal of the landlord's right to have the determination in the county courts and force a landlord to go to the LVT would create grave difficulties for lessee landlords who would not be able to recover the costs before the LVT.  If the lease permitted they would be able to add the costs of going to the LVT to the service charges but that would mean that regular payers would end up having to pay the costs of the defaulters which would be unfair.  If the lease did not permit the recovery of costs through the service charges then lessee landlords would end up being insolvent.

Planning requirement for landlords renting residential houses

I am a landlord and I am probably going to be breaking the law this year without even knowing it! Since april 4th this year I have been required to lodge planning permission for change of use on every residential property which is occupied by 3 or more "households". In effect this means that I have to employ architects and pay councils fortunes in houses where a third "household" may appear(a boyfriend moves in temporarily, a lodger is taken in, friends come for a long stay). A household can be one person! Therefore three unrelated people living in a two bed house will require a change of use application! Its just insane! I cannot police this, neither can the council! It is completely unworkable nannying!

Tenants aren't helpless hopeless or utterly brainless and tend not to want to live in overcrowded houses anyway, if I "make" them ( how does a landlord "make" a tenant live in overcrowded property by the way?) environmental health departments have a range of powers they can use against me.

A useless, unworkable,invasive, nanny Law which needs reversing.

Why is this idea important?

I am a landlord and I am probably going to be breaking the law this year without even knowing it! Since april 4th this year I have been required to lodge planning permission for change of use on every residential property which is occupied by 3 or more "households". In effect this means that I have to employ architects and pay councils fortunes in houses where a third "household" may appear(a boyfriend moves in temporarily, a lodger is taken in, friends come for a long stay). A household can be one person! Therefore three unrelated people living in a two bed house will require a change of use application! Its just insane! I cannot police this, neither can the council! It is completely unworkable nannying!

Tenants aren't helpless hopeless or utterly brainless and tend not to want to live in overcrowded houses anyway, if I "make" them ( how does a landlord "make" a tenant live in overcrowded property by the way?) environmental health departments have a range of powers they can use against me.

A useless, unworkable,invasive, nanny Law which needs reversing.

Scrap council rates, as they do nothing to help us!

To scrap council business rates, I pay 9500 a year for nothing! It is a unfair tax, and a un fair law that we have to pay for it. May be understandable if the council actually did something for it.

Why is this idea important?

To scrap council business rates, I pay 9500 a year for nothing! It is a unfair tax, and a un fair law that we have to pay for it. May be understandable if the council actually did something for it.