Give Communities the Power to Deal with their Own Food Waste

Allow communities to deal with their own food waste by removing the unnecessarily strict interpretation of the Animal By Products Regulations (ABPR) and increasing the limits of food waste which can be composted under a T23 anaerobic composting exemption.

Any community group which wishes to compost their own food waste must comply with the very strict time, temperature and particle size requirements set out in the Animal By Product Regulations. These regulations came into force in aftermath of Foot and Mouth and other crises to regulate collection, transport, storage, handling, processing and use of animal by products in EU Member States but their application in the UK has been far too restrictive.

Under the ABPR all catering waste must be composted in line with the ABPR. Catering Waste is defined  as ‘all waste food including used cooking oil originating in restaurants, catering facilities and kitchens, including central kitchens and household kitchens’ this includes waste from vegetarian kitchens, and no distinction is made for purely vegetable waste (DEFRA website). In practice this means that even a tea bag which may have theoretically touched some milk cannot be composted by community groups unless they can meet the strict guidelines set out in the ABPR.  This means that community groups wishing to compost their carrot peelings must be able to afford expensive in-vessel composting systems and the associated testing and recording.

 Those community groups which do manage to meet the requirements of the ABPR are then only allowed 10 tonnes of food waste on site at anyone time under a free exemption. As the quantities most community groups are processing are less than is financially sustainable for PAS100 accreditation the whole of the material – finished compost of excellent quality included is classed legally as food waste and thus limited to 10 tonnes on site at anyone time. Thus the free exemption treats normal kitchen waste in the same way as animal tissue waste (including blood and carcasses!). 

If groups cannot meet  these limits they must apply for a Standard Permit or Bespoke Permit. These permits were developed with large scale commercial composters in mind and cost thousands of pounds. As most community groups operate on tiny budgets, relying on the good will of volunteers these costs simply cannot be meet. 

Why is this idea important?

Allow communities to deal with their own food waste by removing the unnecessarily strict interpretation of the Animal By Products Regulations (ABPR) and increasing the limits of food waste which can be composted under a T23 anaerobic composting exemption.

Any community group which wishes to compost their own food waste must comply with the very strict time, temperature and particle size requirements set out in the Animal By Product Regulations. These regulations came into force in aftermath of Foot and Mouth and other crises to regulate collection, transport, storage, handling, processing and use of animal by products in EU Member States but their application in the UK has been far too restrictive.

Under the ABPR all catering waste must be composted in line with the ABPR. Catering Waste is defined  as ‘all waste food including used cooking oil originating in restaurants, catering facilities and kitchens, including central kitchens and household kitchens’ this includes waste from vegetarian kitchens, and no distinction is made for purely vegetable waste (DEFRA website). In practice this means that even a tea bag which may have theoretically touched some milk cannot be composted by community groups unless they can meet the strict guidelines set out in the ABPR.  This means that community groups wishing to compost their carrot peelings must be able to afford expensive in-vessel composting systems and the associated testing and recording.

 Those community groups which do manage to meet the requirements of the ABPR are then only allowed 10 tonnes of food waste on site at anyone time under a free exemption. As the quantities most community groups are processing are less than is financially sustainable for PAS100 accreditation the whole of the material – finished compost of excellent quality included is classed legally as food waste and thus limited to 10 tonnes on site at anyone time. Thus the free exemption treats normal kitchen waste in the same way as animal tissue waste (including blood and carcasses!). 

If groups cannot meet  these limits they must apply for a Standard Permit or Bespoke Permit. These permits were developed with large scale commercial composters in mind and cost thousands of pounds. As most community groups operate on tiny budgets, relying on the good will of volunteers these costs simply cannot be meet. 

Amendment of the planning process leading to a more appropriate housing stock for future society.

The current planning system and process is slow tired and cumbersome and still involves the cook, baker and candlestick maker who do not have required expertise. The process leads to a point where developers are now no longer able to build developments that they and residents can be proud of, make money, hold their value and are fit for purpose. Developers purchase sites and are then firstly forced by plans to cram attached houses into less room than in the past and setting properties on streets with inadequate parking, no front gardens and on top of each other. Such estates are creating the ghettos of tomorrow by maling families live on top of each and removing the whole street communities. This also creates tension between families living too close. On top of this, current social housing are inappropriate. Firstly the integration of housing with other stock creates issues. Secondly, current regs for houses mean that they are now so expensive to build that developers have another cost issue on top of current economic issues. Developers are currently unable to sell homes due to surveyors downvaluing on orders from banks so they can reduce lending. This means people can’t afford to buy, developers suffer and future housing plans and needs suffer. Idea is to help the developers through these tough times for a longer view of housing needs and also protect and industry and its workforce while making a fair and appropriate future housing plan.

Why is this idea important?

The current planning system and process is slow tired and cumbersome and still involves the cook, baker and candlestick maker who do not have required expertise. The process leads to a point where developers are now no longer able to build developments that they and residents can be proud of, make money, hold their value and are fit for purpose. Developers purchase sites and are then firstly forced by plans to cram attached houses into less room than in the past and setting properties on streets with inadequate parking, no front gardens and on top of each other. Such estates are creating the ghettos of tomorrow by maling families live on top of each and removing the whole street communities. This also creates tension between families living too close. On top of this, current social housing are inappropriate. Firstly the integration of housing with other stock creates issues. Secondly, current regs for houses mean that they are now so expensive to build that developers have another cost issue on top of current economic issues. Developers are currently unable to sell homes due to surveyors downvaluing on orders from banks so they can reduce lending. This means people can’t afford to buy, developers suffer and future housing plans and needs suffer. Idea is to help the developers through these tough times for a longer view of housing needs and also protect and industry and its workforce while making a fair and appropriate future housing plan.

Council Waste. Action Plans, Non Jobs, etc.

I was recently researching Stockport Councils website and came across – The Lesbian, Gay, Bi-Sexual and Trans Gender Equality Action Plan. Somebody employed by the Council and paid out of our Council Tax must have spent months, if not years, on this. There is pages and pages of absolute BUMPH. Even the Chief Executive appears to have been involved.

In no way am I homophobic, but I just do not see the point in spending all that time and money on such a load of waffle.

I encourage you to go on the site, search 'Civic Review' and follow the link.

Presumably other Authorities have prepared similar Action Plans.  What has that cost the Country? And what, if any, are the benefits?

Scrap it together with other worthless Action Plans, schemes and reports like it.

Why is this idea important?

I was recently researching Stockport Councils website and came across – The Lesbian, Gay, Bi-Sexual and Trans Gender Equality Action Plan. Somebody employed by the Council and paid out of our Council Tax must have spent months, if not years, on this. There is pages and pages of absolute BUMPH. Even the Chief Executive appears to have been involved.

In no way am I homophobic, but I just do not see the point in spending all that time and money on such a load of waffle.

I encourage you to go on the site, search 'Civic Review' and follow the link.

Presumably other Authorities have prepared similar Action Plans.  What has that cost the Country? And what, if any, are the benefits?

Scrap it together with other worthless Action Plans, schemes and reports like it.

Allowing temporary signs for promoting farmers’ markets

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

Why is this idea important?

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

Abandon the current compliance process for Code for Sustainable Homes

The Code sets out laudable aims for standards within new homes. However the compliance procedure is very beaurocratic and expensive.

A large part of the cost is hidden in that it is borne by contractors in the accumulation sorting and recording of evidence of compliance. Suppliers of materials are also bearing the cost of demonstrating compliance, including sometimes complex audit trails, which is being passed on in higher prices.

A very large proportion of the standards are subject to other legislation with much duplication of approval. For example energy, water usage, sound resistance between dwellings and domestic waste are all covered by the Building Regulations, site waste management plans are mandatory for projects over £350k. The standards escalator set out in the Code can be dealt with relatively simply by adjustment to the other regulations. The Code also has a number of areas which can be outside the developers control. For example: Density of development, particularly the number of storeys in a building, are subject to planning control with it being very difficult to achieve high levels of Code compliance in some geographical areas under local planning policies and their implementation.

Central Governments Planning Policy Statements could also assist. For example by making it clear that an insistance on single glazing by Conservation Officers is only appropriate on particularly sensistive buildings (Listed grade 1, possible grade 2*, for example).

Additionally under compliance with the Code a number of criteria have been 'fudged'. Heat pumps are efficient heat transfer systems but if the electrical power generation is taken into account they are no more efficient than a gas boiler (or offer lower CO2) but they enable a much higher thermal performance score to be achieved. Similarly larger dwellings score better than small ones as a consequence of geometry. Thermal performance should be based on the number of Kilowatt/years for each person that a dwelling is designed to accommodate, irrespective of heat source and building size.

Why is this idea important?

The Code sets out laudable aims for standards within new homes. However the compliance procedure is very beaurocratic and expensive.

A large part of the cost is hidden in that it is borne by contractors in the accumulation sorting and recording of evidence of compliance. Suppliers of materials are also bearing the cost of demonstrating compliance, including sometimes complex audit trails, which is being passed on in higher prices.

A very large proportion of the standards are subject to other legislation with much duplication of approval. For example energy, water usage, sound resistance between dwellings and domestic waste are all covered by the Building Regulations, site waste management plans are mandatory for projects over £350k. The standards escalator set out in the Code can be dealt with relatively simply by adjustment to the other regulations. The Code also has a number of areas which can be outside the developers control. For example: Density of development, particularly the number of storeys in a building, are subject to planning control with it being very difficult to achieve high levels of Code compliance in some geographical areas under local planning policies and their implementation.

Central Governments Planning Policy Statements could also assist. For example by making it clear that an insistance on single glazing by Conservation Officers is only appropriate on particularly sensistive buildings (Listed grade 1, possible grade 2*, for example).

Additionally under compliance with the Code a number of criteria have been 'fudged'. Heat pumps are efficient heat transfer systems but if the electrical power generation is taken into account they are no more efficient than a gas boiler (or offer lower CO2) but they enable a much higher thermal performance score to be achieved. Similarly larger dwellings score better than small ones as a consequence of geometry. Thermal performance should be based on the number of Kilowatt/years for each person that a dwelling is designed to accommodate, irrespective of heat source and building size.

Abolish most change of use restrictions for non-residential properties

Current planning law classifies non-residential properties into a multitude of use classes, and in most cases planning permission is required for change of use from one class to another. Local councils use these use classes as a way of reserving certain properties for uses they consider appropriate, but often without clear links to actual needs or to what the market can bear. Thus many properties remain empty for years because there is no viable use in the class the property has been assigned to, whereas others who want to use the property are not allowed to for no good reason. This has a damaging effect on small businesses and on community groups. For example, in cases I know of personally, a community organisation was refused permission to open a former shop as a cafe (because a neighbouring shop had been given this change of use permission but was in fact still in use as a shop) and in two separate cases (one overturned on appeal, another currently subject to appeal) permission was refused for industrial buildings that had been empty for years to be used by churches. Some restrictions on change of use of premises may still be needed e.g. to control fast food premises, but these might be better handled by licensing authorities rather than planning officials.

Why is this idea important?

Current planning law classifies non-residential properties into a multitude of use classes, and in most cases planning permission is required for change of use from one class to another. Local councils use these use classes as a way of reserving certain properties for uses they consider appropriate, but often without clear links to actual needs or to what the market can bear. Thus many properties remain empty for years because there is no viable use in the class the property has been assigned to, whereas others who want to use the property are not allowed to for no good reason. This has a damaging effect on small businesses and on community groups. For example, in cases I know of personally, a community organisation was refused permission to open a former shop as a cafe (because a neighbouring shop had been given this change of use permission but was in fact still in use as a shop) and in two separate cases (one overturned on appeal, another currently subject to appeal) permission was refused for industrial buildings that had been empty for years to be used by churches. Some restrictions on change of use of premises may still be needed e.g. to control fast food premises, but these might be better handled by licensing authorities rather than planning officials.

Repeal law stopping courtesy cars/buses

2 years ago a law was passed by the last government that meant that businesses that offered a courtesy mini bus/car service were obliged to register as taxis.

We are a restaurant in a rural location several miles from the local taxi firms. We are located in the poorest  County in the country and many customers cannot afford £30/£409 for a taxi to have a meal out.  Local buses services do not run to us, we are down a country lane with no footpaths and there is no option for our customers but for them to drive. If they want to have a social drink they will stay at home instead.

We asked out Council to confirm we were able to offer a free pick up or free lift home and have been told we have to register as a taxi!.  This of course involves several hundred of pounds in costs meaning that we cannot afford it.

I cannot believe that offering a service, fully insured, that helps to discourage drink driving would actually be discouraged in this way. Environmentally, social responsibility and in every way I can think of this would help secure jobs, grow our business, help the environment and help us play a fill part in the community.

I understand some "taxi firms" abused the "courtesy" service but rather than deal with them the last government has tied the hands of legitimate small businesses from being able to compete.

It seems that if I give my customers a lift home rather than them drive I will be breaking the law as I am not a taxi!! 

Why is this idea important?

2 years ago a law was passed by the last government that meant that businesses that offered a courtesy mini bus/car service were obliged to register as taxis.

We are a restaurant in a rural location several miles from the local taxi firms. We are located in the poorest  County in the country and many customers cannot afford £30/£409 for a taxi to have a meal out.  Local buses services do not run to us, we are down a country lane with no footpaths and there is no option for our customers but for them to drive. If they want to have a social drink they will stay at home instead.

We asked out Council to confirm we were able to offer a free pick up or free lift home and have been told we have to register as a taxi!.  This of course involves several hundred of pounds in costs meaning that we cannot afford it.

I cannot believe that offering a service, fully insured, that helps to discourage drink driving would actually be discouraged in this way. Environmentally, social responsibility and in every way I can think of this would help secure jobs, grow our business, help the environment and help us play a fill part in the community.

I understand some "taxi firms" abused the "courtesy" service but rather than deal with them the last government has tied the hands of legitimate small businesses from being able to compete.

It seems that if I give my customers a lift home rather than them drive I will be breaking the law as I am not a taxi!! 

Drastically reduce or remove council tax

The introduction of council tax wasnt popular and i think we can all see why..

Every month we have to pay rent/mortgage at inflated prices, gas,electricity,water, phone, broadband, car tax, car insurance, road tax, tv license, and council tax.

the only reason i work is to not go to prison for unpaid bills and even still, i cant afford to live properly because of the ridiculous amounts of tax and forced things we have to pay for.

everything should be pay as you use.

We never get a voice. we never get a say and we are always ignored

tv license is to pay for BBC – if i watch itv or sky (which also costs money) i still have to buy a license tio support a station i dont watch or its a fine. so i have to buy a tv, pay for electric, buy a license, pay for sky and not watch bbc whilst still paying for it.

Bailiffs are another example of being let down by the government, money i have never owed, yet a bailiff turns up and bullys, harrasses and threatens innocent people – ask them if they can prove it, they say no and they dont have to and ruin your life.

council tax – my bins are never collected, i dont use the police or ambulance or fire or the council. if i did, id rather pay as i went (every one call i pay a months equivalent of council tax)

I pay the council and yet, they wont fix the pot holes, they dont clean the streets, they wont fix the lighting, or answer their phones.

Where else have we been ignored? Passports, i paid an inflated price to fund the id card scheme, which is scrapped, yet i bet the passport price doesnt get reduced? or a refund on the difference offered? or a refund to people with id cards?

We live to work to pay people and get nothing in return.

My bank…lloyds tsb..bailed out by tax payers money, i ask for a temporary 100 pound overdraft and i am told no because i am a financial risk?? yet my money – that i have no choice about where it goes – saved them.. helpful banking they promised me, yet refuses me overdraft or if i go 4p over drawn charges me £40 and says they cant stop the charge, which is unfair and the government have done nothing about.

You mighht read these, but nothing of use will ever been done, and we are destined to continue to live to line your pockets and have no life of our own.

Why is this idea important?

The introduction of council tax wasnt popular and i think we can all see why..

Every month we have to pay rent/mortgage at inflated prices, gas,electricity,water, phone, broadband, car tax, car insurance, road tax, tv license, and council tax.

the only reason i work is to not go to prison for unpaid bills and even still, i cant afford to live properly because of the ridiculous amounts of tax and forced things we have to pay for.

everything should be pay as you use.

We never get a voice. we never get a say and we are always ignored

tv license is to pay for BBC – if i watch itv or sky (which also costs money) i still have to buy a license tio support a station i dont watch or its a fine. so i have to buy a tv, pay for electric, buy a license, pay for sky and not watch bbc whilst still paying for it.

Bailiffs are another example of being let down by the government, money i have never owed, yet a bailiff turns up and bullys, harrasses and threatens innocent people – ask them if they can prove it, they say no and they dont have to and ruin your life.

council tax – my bins are never collected, i dont use the police or ambulance or fire or the council. if i did, id rather pay as i went (every one call i pay a months equivalent of council tax)

I pay the council and yet, they wont fix the pot holes, they dont clean the streets, they wont fix the lighting, or answer their phones.

Where else have we been ignored? Passports, i paid an inflated price to fund the id card scheme, which is scrapped, yet i bet the passport price doesnt get reduced? or a refund on the difference offered? or a refund to people with id cards?

We live to work to pay people and get nothing in return.

My bank…lloyds tsb..bailed out by tax payers money, i ask for a temporary 100 pound overdraft and i am told no because i am a financial risk?? yet my money – that i have no choice about where it goes – saved them.. helpful banking they promised me, yet refuses me overdraft or if i go 4p over drawn charges me £40 and says they cant stop the charge, which is unfair and the government have done nothing about.

You mighht read these, but nothing of use will ever been done, and we are destined to continue to live to line your pockets and have no life of our own.

Clarification of Planning Classes with regards to C3(b) and C2

Currently, Class C3 Dwelling Houses are defined as follows:

Use as a dwellinghouse (whether or not as a sole or main residence) by—

(a) a single person or by people to be regarded as forming a single household;

(b) not more than six residents living together as a single household where care is provided for residents; or

(c) not more than six residents living together as a single household where no care is provided to residents (other than a use within Class C4).

Within the  Communities and Local Government Circular 05/2010 there are additional comments which state:

C3(b) continues to make provision for supported housing schemes, such as those for people with disabilities or mental health problems.

It remains the case that in small residential care homes or nursing homes, staff and residents will probably not live as a single household and the use will therefore fall into the residential institutions class, regardless of the size of the home. Local planning authorities should include any resident care staff in their calculation of the number of people accommodated.

However, what this does not take into account is the more modern approach to small care homes whereby there are no resident staff and those living in the house are living as a single household.

The determination of C3(b) or C2 has further been confused by some recent case law such as North Devon DC v First Secretary of State [2003] EWHC 157 and Crawley BC v Secretary of State for Transport and the Regions [2004] EWHC 160.

This has left a situation whereby whether a small care home should be a C3(b) or a C2 is determined on the level of needs of the people who live there. Hence, a care home with 6 or less people could open under a class C3(b) but at some point an individual moves in who requires a level of care that a local planning officer (who has no training or experience in assessment of individuals with support needs) makes a determination whether this should now become a C2.

Also, this matter is determined differently by different planning authorities across the country. Indeed, it even varies within counties.

I believe that these planning classes definitions should be used to encourage integration of people with disabilities and mental health problems within the community and hence, allowing small care homes to be within “normal houses, in normal streets”. Not, as I have found that some communities prefer, to be able to challenge the planning in order to not have “those people” living next door to them.

Hence, I believe that this needs to be simplified so that any small care home with up to six people should be classed as C3(b) irrelevant of the level of care provided and that the only people to be included are those that actually live there (and not staff who provide support).

This means that it is not for planning officers with little or no experience of care to make determinations on whether an individual has the capability of living within a household. Also, it means that the planning requirements of a small care home are not a moving target.

Why is this idea important?

Currently, Class C3 Dwelling Houses are defined as follows:

Use as a dwellinghouse (whether or not as a sole or main residence) by—

(a) a single person or by people to be regarded as forming a single household;

(b) not more than six residents living together as a single household where care is provided for residents; or

(c) not more than six residents living together as a single household where no care is provided to residents (other than a use within Class C4).

Within the  Communities and Local Government Circular 05/2010 there are additional comments which state:

C3(b) continues to make provision for supported housing schemes, such as those for people with disabilities or mental health problems.

It remains the case that in small residential care homes or nursing homes, staff and residents will probably not live as a single household and the use will therefore fall into the residential institutions class, regardless of the size of the home. Local planning authorities should include any resident care staff in their calculation of the number of people accommodated.

However, what this does not take into account is the more modern approach to small care homes whereby there are no resident staff and those living in the house are living as a single household.

The determination of C3(b) or C2 has further been confused by some recent case law such as North Devon DC v First Secretary of State [2003] EWHC 157 and Crawley BC v Secretary of State for Transport and the Regions [2004] EWHC 160.

This has left a situation whereby whether a small care home should be a C3(b) or a C2 is determined on the level of needs of the people who live there. Hence, a care home with 6 or less people could open under a class C3(b) but at some point an individual moves in who requires a level of care that a local planning officer (who has no training or experience in assessment of individuals with support needs) makes a determination whether this should now become a C2.

Also, this matter is determined differently by different planning authorities across the country. Indeed, it even varies within counties.

I believe that these planning classes definitions should be used to encourage integration of people with disabilities and mental health problems within the community and hence, allowing small care homes to be within “normal houses, in normal streets”. Not, as I have found that some communities prefer, to be able to challenge the planning in order to not have “those people” living next door to them.

Hence, I believe that this needs to be simplified so that any small care home with up to six people should be classed as C3(b) irrelevant of the level of care provided and that the only people to be included are those that actually live there (and not staff who provide support).

This means that it is not for planning officers with little or no experience of care to make determinations on whether an individual has the capability of living within a household. Also, it means that the planning requirements of a small care home are not a moving target.

Planning Reform

Change the TCPA so that beyond specifying a usage class for land planners have no further involvement.

Most of the great buildings would never have been built under the current regime.

Why is this idea important?

Change the TCPA so that beyond specifying a usage class for land planners have no further involvement.

Most of the great buildings would never have been built under the current regime.

Tighten rules for passing secondary legislation

Currently , Acts of Parliament can only be passed by Parliament after a rigorous consultation exercise involving debates in the Houses of Parliament and a final vote.

However secondary legislation which governs the running of local authorities and other public authorities like the police,  is not afforded the same scrutiny. It is passed with little publicity or debate in Parliament with the result that public bodies are handed carte blanche authority to make rules as they please.

As we all know, this has resulted in hundreds of new laws and by-laws aimed at curtailing and infringeing the basic rights of citizens be it with parking laws and court orders, refuse collection, astronomical increases in council tax among others.

Parliament needs to control the passing of secondary legislation in order to protect the rights of citizens and to allow the public to participate in the making of laws that govern their daily lives.

Why is this idea important?

Currently , Acts of Parliament can only be passed by Parliament after a rigorous consultation exercise involving debates in the Houses of Parliament and a final vote.

However secondary legislation which governs the running of local authorities and other public authorities like the police,  is not afforded the same scrutiny. It is passed with little publicity or debate in Parliament with the result that public bodies are handed carte blanche authority to make rules as they please.

As we all know, this has resulted in hundreds of new laws and by-laws aimed at curtailing and infringeing the basic rights of citizens be it with parking laws and court orders, refuse collection, astronomical increases in council tax among others.

Parliament needs to control the passing of secondary legislation in order to protect the rights of citizens and to allow the public to participate in the making of laws that govern their daily lives.

CDM Regulations

Get rid of the role of CDM co-ordinator.

This bit of worthless red tape has resulted in CDM departments springing up at every local authority and contributes nothing to safety.

My idea would be to either scrap the provision altogether or just simply make the lead consultant responsible for the duties of the CDM co- ordinator.

Why is this idea important?

Get rid of the role of CDM co-ordinator.

This bit of worthless red tape has resulted in CDM departments springing up at every local authority and contributes nothing to safety.

My idea would be to either scrap the provision altogether or just simply make the lead consultant responsible for the duties of the CDM co- ordinator.

Remove the Regulations Concerning Energy Performance Certificates

The requirement to provide Energy Performance Certificates should be removed.  These are a complete waste of time and benefit nobody except the solicitors who charge fees for providing a report which typically advises changing to energy efficient light bulbs.

Why is this idea important?

The requirement to provide Energy Performance Certificates should be removed.  These are a complete waste of time and benefit nobody except the solicitors who charge fees for providing a report which typically advises changing to energy efficient light bulbs.

deposit protection service

I have had a few tenanted properties for many years and since the formation of the DPS I have found them bureaucratic and almost impossible to deal with. I could give you many examples of their unhelpfulness and incompetence but I have found that one recent example sums things up.

I recently let a small flat to a lady on DSS who needed the deposit provided by the local council who in previous cases placed the deposit with the DPS in accordance with the current procedure. They informed me however that they had found the DPS impossible to deal with and had decided to issue landlords with a form of bond to avoid any contact with the DPS.

It seems to me that if a Local Authority cannot communcate with this Quango, the latter should be abolished and that these deposit agencies should be abolished. Surely the law is adequate so that any rogue landlords can to be taken to the County Court as happened before this unnecessary organisation was formed.

Why is this idea important?

I have had a few tenanted properties for many years and since the formation of the DPS I have found them bureaucratic and almost impossible to deal with. I could give you many examples of their unhelpfulness and incompetence but I have found that one recent example sums things up.

I recently let a small flat to a lady on DSS who needed the deposit provided by the local council who in previous cases placed the deposit with the DPS in accordance with the current procedure. They informed me however that they had found the DPS impossible to deal with and had decided to issue landlords with a form of bond to avoid any contact with the DPS.

It seems to me that if a Local Authority cannot communcate with this Quango, the latter should be abolished and that these deposit agencies should be abolished. Surely the law is adequate so that any rogue landlords can to be taken to the County Court as happened before this unnecessary organisation was formed.

Fossilised studentification

The HMO planning policy introduced by Labour as affects so called 'studentification' has already been reduced by this new government, but there are still Article 4 uses of the regulations that need to go.

This NIMBY policy creates 'fossilised studentifcation' in that once those who have a protected monopoly in an area for their own HMO, they are not going to let it go back to family usage. It discourages competition and investment and creates a false market.

The regulation lacks other mechanisms – e.g., council or housing association accommodation designed for families, or proper investment in purpose built student accommodation.  Note that neither of these solutions incur a long term cost as they bring in rents too.  Universities, councils and investment enterprises are quite capable of addressing this themselves without artificial social engineering as is attempted by these regulations.

It also disadvantages home owners who wish to let out their home on a periodic or medium term basis. This restriction can actually be a disincentive for families to move into an area.  It also affects house prices in a way that is unfair to families – lowering the price by restricting the sales possibilities in an area where adjacent properties are fossilised into being HMO lets by this regulation.

The term 'studentification' is a pejorative which is underserved.  The argument that the area goes quiet when student leave is not much of an argument.  It probably originates with a few shop owners who do quite nicely when the students are there, but want a bit more business when they are not. Anyway,  it's nice when it goes quiet!

This policy is ill-thought out and an undue interference.  Get rid of it please.  We don't need it.

Why is this idea important?

The HMO planning policy introduced by Labour as affects so called 'studentification' has already been reduced by this new government, but there are still Article 4 uses of the regulations that need to go.

This NIMBY policy creates 'fossilised studentifcation' in that once those who have a protected monopoly in an area for their own HMO, they are not going to let it go back to family usage. It discourages competition and investment and creates a false market.

The regulation lacks other mechanisms – e.g., council or housing association accommodation designed for families, or proper investment in purpose built student accommodation.  Note that neither of these solutions incur a long term cost as they bring in rents too.  Universities, councils and investment enterprises are quite capable of addressing this themselves without artificial social engineering as is attempted by these regulations.

It also disadvantages home owners who wish to let out their home on a periodic or medium term basis. This restriction can actually be a disincentive for families to move into an area.  It also affects house prices in a way that is unfair to families – lowering the price by restricting the sales possibilities in an area where adjacent properties are fossilised into being HMO lets by this regulation.

The term 'studentification' is a pejorative which is underserved.  The argument that the area goes quiet when student leave is not much of an argument.  It probably originates with a few shop owners who do quite nicely when the students are there, but want a bit more business when they are not. Anyway,  it's nice when it goes quiet!

This policy is ill-thought out and an undue interference.  Get rid of it please.  We don't need it.

Tree Preservation Orders-restoring natural justice

 

Town & Country Planning Act 1990 – sections 197 -214 as amended

The Planning & Compensation Act 1991 (Section 23)

Forestry Act 1967 (as amended)

The Town & Country Planning (Trees) Regulations 1999

 

Tree Preservation Orders (TPO)

A Council can impose a TPO on privately owned trees  without the consent of their owners.  Such an Order  prevents the owners from doing anything whatsoever to the trees without the express permission of the Council.   The owners are warned   they will remain responsible for the trees and any damage  they may cause.  In short, the Council say, the owners still have a ‘duty of care’ and should the trees cause damage or continue to be a nuisance  they  will be held liable.

 

This is contrary to natural justice.   Why should   owners be held responsible for something that the Council has prevented them from remedying?  Surely the Council should accept responsibility and liability?

 

Example 

We own an ever green Lucombe oak.   A large part of its canopy is over  a Pre school  playground.  The school,  on health and safety grounds, wanted the tree removed because of the dangers it was posing to its infants aged 3 – 5  years.   Their reasons being that it drops small branches, dead leaves (all year round  being an ever green)  small acorns and birds excrement into their  playground.  As owners of the tree we made the application but the Council refused  its removal and made it the subject of  a TPO.   Even the  Council’s Arboricultural  Officer,  having objected to its removal,  agreed  about its danger and nuisance  describing it as causing   “inconvenience all year round  due to leaf cast ,  branch shedding,  bird excrement and causing anxiety to residents in periods of adverse weather conditions”   

 

Why is this idea important?

 

Town & Country Planning Act 1990 – sections 197 -214 as amended

The Planning & Compensation Act 1991 (Section 23)

Forestry Act 1967 (as amended)

The Town & Country Planning (Trees) Regulations 1999

 

Tree Preservation Orders (TPO)

A Council can impose a TPO on privately owned trees  without the consent of their owners.  Such an Order  prevents the owners from doing anything whatsoever to the trees without the express permission of the Council.   The owners are warned   they will remain responsible for the trees and any damage  they may cause.  In short, the Council say, the owners still have a ‘duty of care’ and should the trees cause damage or continue to be a nuisance  they  will be held liable.

 

This is contrary to natural justice.   Why should   owners be held responsible for something that the Council has prevented them from remedying?  Surely the Council should accept responsibility and liability?

 

Example 

We own an ever green Lucombe oak.   A large part of its canopy is over  a Pre school  playground.  The school,  on health and safety grounds, wanted the tree removed because of the dangers it was posing to its infants aged 3 – 5  years.   Their reasons being that it drops small branches, dead leaves (all year round  being an ever green)  small acorns and birds excrement into their  playground.  As owners of the tree we made the application but the Council refused  its removal and made it the subject of  a TPO.   Even the  Council’s Arboricultural  Officer,  having objected to its removal,  agreed  about its danger and nuisance  describing it as causing   “inconvenience all year round  due to leaf cast ,  branch shedding,  bird excrement and causing anxiety to residents in periods of adverse weather conditions”   

 

Stop Local Councils passing on personal data and reduce the amount of personal data that they are allowed to hold.

Local Councils should be prevented from passing peoples' personal data on to third parties without people's express consent, given at the relevant time and not thorugh some form of "blanket small print".

Why is this idea important?

Local Councils should be prevented from passing peoples' personal data on to third parties without people's express consent, given at the relevant time and not thorugh some form of "blanket small print".

Remove obstructive DWP rules on CTX and other in-work benefits

 

The idea that I am proposing is that the Government should take the advice of the 2006-07 Communities and Local Government Parliamentary Committee Report and review Council Tax benefits and the tapering off of all in-work benefits. The research has been done. The Report has been published. It’s available on-line on www.parliament.uk. Look at it again and give us back our freedom to go to work.

Millions of people in this country literally cannot afford to go to work because the DWP sets Council Tax benefits (or rebates) at such a low level. Many of the people on low incomes will not benefit at all from the recently announced raising of their income tax threshold because whatever they are given with one hand will be taken away by the other in reduced council tax benefit, (and, if applicable, reduced housing benefit too.) Their poverty will be perpetuated. Yet a Parliamentary Committee investigated CTX benefits and urged the Government to review these DWP rules as a matter of urgency three years ago.

In May 2007 a cross-party Select Committee on Communities and Local Government, chaired by Dr Phyllis Starkey, launched an enquiry into CTX benefit. This followed the Lyons Inquiry into Local Government. Expert evidence and advice was given by several organisations, including the New Policy Institute, the Low Incomes Tax Reform Group, and London Councils.

The Committee published its Report in August 2007. Paragraph 3 of its conclusions and recommendations finds that: “The council benefit taper, and its interaction with other parts of the tax and benefit system, can act as a disincentive to work. We recommend that the Government address this issue with some urgency and recognise the detrimental effects of the council tax benefit taper in its work on welfare reform.”

This recommendation was cross-referenced to Para. 17 of their Report which stated: “Sir Michael pointed out in his report on local government that the issue of work incentives is much wider than that of council tax reform. We Agree. Any reform is best considered in the context of wider welfare reform policy, but this should not be an excuse for inaction. As the Institute of Revenues Ratings and Valuations argued, a Government review of the council tax benefit taper is long overdue but the issue has been largely ignored by Government for some 20 years.”

And how does this translate into the reality of people’s lives? It means that benefits are tapered off so steeply that the amount people gain when taking on a minimum wage or part time job is so little that it doesn’t even cover the cost of transport to work. They are even worse off than living on benefits and cannot improve their lives by working. DWP regulations on Council Tax rebates prevent people from earning their living, and create difficulties for potential employers trying to take on new staff. It also prevents many people who, for various reasons such as poor health or new parenthood, can only work part time, from taking on a job, because they become liable for Council Tax before they even start paying income tax! So they have to remain on benefits even though, with a fairer CTX rebate system, they could work and be less of a burden on the state.

The Government Response to the Parliamentary Committee’s Report was published on 15 October 2007. The DWP dismissed the Report’s recommendation on the grounds that it was not affordable and that the only route for the poor to improve their lot was through the labour market. Yet the report had gone into great detail about how the poor were unable to improve their lot through the labour market because of the obstacles placed in their way by the DWP! This circularity of thought resulted in no progress in welfare reform and public money spent on this enquiry was spun into a vortex down the drain.

Governments pontificate about “the poor” as if they were a separate species or as idle creatures who must be bullied and cajoled into working. Or they talk about social mobility as a means to remove poverty, but we cannot all be, for example, lawyers, bankers or politicians. Here’s a really simple solution to the problem of poverty: pay people enough to live on. Reward them for working. Those who work in low status jobs are providing essential services for the rest of society. This is about recognising and rewarding their contribution and allowing them to live a decent life.  If employers cannot afford to pay a living wage to their employees then state subsidies become a necessity.

But the DWP has recently decided once more that tapering off these in-work benefits more gradually was still not affordable. Surely it’s more cost-effective for the State to support those in low-paid jobs with adequate in-work benefits than it is to leave people stagnating in long term unemployment, with all the costly social problems that that entails.  In-work benefits are cheaper than unemployment benefits. Cut costs. Reduce our dependence on the state. Restore our freedom to go to work. Enable employers to take on more staff. These DWP regulations are unnecessary and illiberal. Change them. Spread the burden of Council Tax fairly so people can go out and earn their living.

Why is this idea important?

 

The idea that I am proposing is that the Government should take the advice of the 2006-07 Communities and Local Government Parliamentary Committee Report and review Council Tax benefits and the tapering off of all in-work benefits. The research has been done. The Report has been published. It’s available on-line on www.parliament.uk. Look at it again and give us back our freedom to go to work.

Millions of people in this country literally cannot afford to go to work because the DWP sets Council Tax benefits (or rebates) at such a low level. Many of the people on low incomes will not benefit at all from the recently announced raising of their income tax threshold because whatever they are given with one hand will be taken away by the other in reduced council tax benefit, (and, if applicable, reduced housing benefit too.) Their poverty will be perpetuated. Yet a Parliamentary Committee investigated CTX benefits and urged the Government to review these DWP rules as a matter of urgency three years ago.

In May 2007 a cross-party Select Committee on Communities and Local Government, chaired by Dr Phyllis Starkey, launched an enquiry into CTX benefit. This followed the Lyons Inquiry into Local Government. Expert evidence and advice was given by several organisations, including the New Policy Institute, the Low Incomes Tax Reform Group, and London Councils.

The Committee published its Report in August 2007. Paragraph 3 of its conclusions and recommendations finds that: “The council benefit taper, and its interaction with other parts of the tax and benefit system, can act as a disincentive to work. We recommend that the Government address this issue with some urgency and recognise the detrimental effects of the council tax benefit taper in its work on welfare reform.”

This recommendation was cross-referenced to Para. 17 of their Report which stated: “Sir Michael pointed out in his report on local government that the issue of work incentives is much wider than that of council tax reform. We Agree. Any reform is best considered in the context of wider welfare reform policy, but this should not be an excuse for inaction. As the Institute of Revenues Ratings and Valuations argued, a Government review of the council tax benefit taper is long overdue but the issue has been largely ignored by Government for some 20 years.”

And how does this translate into the reality of people’s lives? It means that benefits are tapered off so steeply that the amount people gain when taking on a minimum wage or part time job is so little that it doesn’t even cover the cost of transport to work. They are even worse off than living on benefits and cannot improve their lives by working. DWP regulations on Council Tax rebates prevent people from earning their living, and create difficulties for potential employers trying to take on new staff. It also prevents many people who, for various reasons such as poor health or new parenthood, can only work part time, from taking on a job, because they become liable for Council Tax before they even start paying income tax! So they have to remain on benefits even though, with a fairer CTX rebate system, they could work and be less of a burden on the state.

The Government Response to the Parliamentary Committee’s Report was published on 15 October 2007. The DWP dismissed the Report’s recommendation on the grounds that it was not affordable and that the only route for the poor to improve their lot was through the labour market. Yet the report had gone into great detail about how the poor were unable to improve their lot through the labour market because of the obstacles placed in their way by the DWP! This circularity of thought resulted in no progress in welfare reform and public money spent on this enquiry was spun into a vortex down the drain.

Governments pontificate about “the poor” as if they were a separate species or as idle creatures who must be bullied and cajoled into working. Or they talk about social mobility as a means to remove poverty, but we cannot all be, for example, lawyers, bankers or politicians. Here’s a really simple solution to the problem of poverty: pay people enough to live on. Reward them for working. Those who work in low status jobs are providing essential services for the rest of society. This is about recognising and rewarding their contribution and allowing them to live a decent life.  If employers cannot afford to pay a living wage to their employees then state subsidies become a necessity.

But the DWP has recently decided once more that tapering off these in-work benefits more gradually was still not affordable. Surely it’s more cost-effective for the State to support those in low-paid jobs with adequate in-work benefits than it is to leave people stagnating in long term unemployment, with all the costly social problems that that entails.  In-work benefits are cheaper than unemployment benefits. Cut costs. Reduce our dependence on the state. Restore our freedom to go to work. Enable employers to take on more staff. These DWP regulations are unnecessary and illiberal. Change them. Spread the burden of Council Tax fairly so people can go out and earn their living.

Abolish Flyering Ban Zones and promoter Taxes

The Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005 Section 23 inserted a section into the Environmental Protection Act 1990.  The relevant section of the EPA 1990 is 94B and schedule 3A – To give the power to local authorities to fine promoters for littering.

Whether they actually are in the habit of dropping litter or not!

Note that this is not Primary Legislation.  Yet as soon as this became law it was ruthlessly enforced.  As local promoters went under or bust the local authorities involved went into promotion themselves. 

Firstly in the most out of the way places like Sheffield and Newquay where people didn't realise that this wasn't normal in the promotional industries and then in local authority after local authority until eventually the legislation reached Brighton and then finally the
London Comedy Circuit
 

Many promoters now have to pay what are needless TAXes to their local authority to clear up the litter they allegedly create when it should be perfectly possible to identify litter-creating promoters from their own promotional literature.

This legislation was never VOTED for in any MANIFESTO by anyone – it was appended to one act by another.

It doesn't bring in any substantial income to the local authority, it puts promoters and small businesses out of businesses, it gives councillors a political control over promoting which verges on censorship and it's hugely damaging to the live comedy and music industries and hugely expensive to enforce. 

How can Sheffield Council justify charging even the world's most untidy promoter £45 a day to promote their event? Brighton Council even has the brass nerve to charge more for a licence after 7pm on the grounds that their council workers "may have to work anti social hours" in order to pick up litter that may not even neccessarilly be created.  This is just greed by the local authority and bordering on prejudice against the promotional industries.  I mean, why does Cornwall have a flyering ban?  I can understand someone wanting to regulate Leicester Square even though I dont agree with it … but Cornwall?  Yes, I have gigged there it's not the nightlife center of the world (No, offence Cornwall but you know what I mean.

Please sign the petition and help us kill this piece of legislative nonsense

http://londonisfunny.com/petition?page=4#signatures

 

Why is this idea important?

The Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005 Section 23 inserted a section into the Environmental Protection Act 1990.  The relevant section of the EPA 1990 is 94B and schedule 3A – To give the power to local authorities to fine promoters for littering.

Whether they actually are in the habit of dropping litter or not!

Note that this is not Primary Legislation.  Yet as soon as this became law it was ruthlessly enforced.  As local promoters went under or bust the local authorities involved went into promotion themselves. 

Firstly in the most out of the way places like Sheffield and Newquay where people didn't realise that this wasn't normal in the promotional industries and then in local authority after local authority until eventually the legislation reached Brighton and then finally the
London Comedy Circuit
 

Many promoters now have to pay what are needless TAXes to their local authority to clear up the litter they allegedly create when it should be perfectly possible to identify litter-creating promoters from their own promotional literature.

This legislation was never VOTED for in any MANIFESTO by anyone – it was appended to one act by another.

It doesn't bring in any substantial income to the local authority, it puts promoters and small businesses out of businesses, it gives councillors a political control over promoting which verges on censorship and it's hugely damaging to the live comedy and music industries and hugely expensive to enforce. 

How can Sheffield Council justify charging even the world's most untidy promoter £45 a day to promote their event? Brighton Council even has the brass nerve to charge more for a licence after 7pm on the grounds that their council workers "may have to work anti social hours" in order to pick up litter that may not even neccessarilly be created.  This is just greed by the local authority and bordering on prejudice against the promotional industries.  I mean, why does Cornwall have a flyering ban?  I can understand someone wanting to regulate Leicester Square even though I dont agree with it … but Cornwall?  Yes, I have gigged there it's not the nightlife center of the world (No, offence Cornwall but you know what I mean.

Please sign the petition and help us kill this piece of legislative nonsense

http://londonisfunny.com/petition?page=4#signatures

 

CONGESTION CHARGE TIME TO PAY

ALLOW MORE TIME TO PAY THIS CHARGE (5 DAYS) ITS NOT PEOPLE TRYING TO AVOID PAYING IT THE FACT THAT WHEN YOU HAVE A BUSY DAY YOU OFTEN FORGET! ALSO LOWER THE FINE TO £20.00. A JUMP FROM 8.00 TO 60.00 IS DAYLIGHT ROBBERY.THE PEOPLE THAT TEXT YOU A RECEIPT COULD ALSO TEXT YOU A REMINDER TO PAY AFTER THE 24 HOURS IS UP ITS NOT DIFFICULT BUT ITS BETTER FOR LONDONS REVENUE IF YOU FORGET.

Why is this idea important?

ALLOW MORE TIME TO PAY THIS CHARGE (5 DAYS) ITS NOT PEOPLE TRYING TO AVOID PAYING IT THE FACT THAT WHEN YOU HAVE A BUSY DAY YOU OFTEN FORGET! ALSO LOWER THE FINE TO £20.00. A JUMP FROM 8.00 TO 60.00 IS DAYLIGHT ROBBERY.THE PEOPLE THAT TEXT YOU A RECEIPT COULD ALSO TEXT YOU A REMINDER TO PAY AFTER THE 24 HOURS IS UP ITS NOT DIFFICULT BUT ITS BETTER FOR LONDONS REVENUE IF YOU FORGET.

Stop spurious village green applications halting housing development

Repeal the Commons Act 2008 (and Commons Act 2006).

This law allows people to apply for village greens on the flimsiest of grounds.    A social housing development (aka affordable housing) with planning approval has been held up for 2.5 years because a spurious village green application has been made using the Commons Acts recently brought in.  The application is now being turned down but the applicatants have succeeded in delaying the project.

The village green registration authorities have no time limit in which they must reach a conclusion about an application.  Therefore everyone is using spurious village green applications to delay any development they disagree with, regardless of the planning laws.

The Commons Acts are not needed since the Planning Laws are sufficient in themselves. 

   

Why is this idea important?

Repeal the Commons Act 2008 (and Commons Act 2006).

This law allows people to apply for village greens on the flimsiest of grounds.    A social housing development (aka affordable housing) with planning approval has been held up for 2.5 years because a spurious village green application has been made using the Commons Acts recently brought in.  The application is now being turned down but the applicatants have succeeded in delaying the project.

The village green registration authorities have no time limit in which they must reach a conclusion about an application.  Therefore everyone is using spurious village green applications to delay any development they disagree with, regardless of the planning laws.

The Commons Acts are not needed since the Planning Laws are sufficient in themselves. 

   

Suggested change to the application and enforcement of planning conditions for commercial and large scale residential development

This suggestion is not to remove a regulation but to ask for Planning Authorities to be under a statutory obligation to monitor and enforce conditions they apply to planning consents.  The result may be that the number of conditions applied to developers may be reduced but they would be enforced.

National guidance on planning conditions sets out that conditions should only be used to make a development that would otherwise be unacceptable acceptable.  It follows then that any such conditions must be important, but they are rarely enforced.  In almost every town across the UK you can go to your local supermarket, housing development, industrial development or similar and see areas of tree or shrub planting with dead trees or knee height in weeds.  Many other aspects of development mitigation also go un checked or not implemented leaving local communities all the poorer and occasionally neighbouring individuals seriously disadvantaged. 

Many developers look on planning conditions as an optional extra and pay lip service to the requirements they have been set with a planning approval.

All authorities should be formally required to inspect commercial development sites annually for 5 years post completion (the inspections should be on a public register) and be under a statutory obligation to enforce conditions where a developer is found to be in breach.  This would add to the work load of planning departments but in time would lead to a much clearer understanding from developers they must implement schemes only as approved (which would then in turn lead to a reduction in the need to take action).  Authorities would then only apply conditions they could expect to enforce and the public could then accept developments with the confidence that what they see is what they get.  Some authorities would no doubt give up applying conditions – but this would be in affect little different from what happens now. 

The additional cost of this could be recouped through fines for the most flagrant breaches of planning approval.

A spin off consequence of this would be a marked improvement in the UK landscape industry as contractors would no longer be able to walk away from poorly implemented schemes and the UK Nursery trade may be able to get back on its feet and start producing proper quality plant stock.

This suggestion is targeted at only commercial developments.  The reason for this as there is a distinct contrast between how most planning officers treat the public from how commercial developers.  With a member of the public most planners instantly go into a Cap and Badge syndrome mentality.  With a commercial developer most planners start to open their top button reminiscent of Pamela Stephenson on Not the Nine O'clock News (there that dates me doesn't it)!

 

Why is this idea important?

This suggestion is not to remove a regulation but to ask for Planning Authorities to be under a statutory obligation to monitor and enforce conditions they apply to planning consents.  The result may be that the number of conditions applied to developers may be reduced but they would be enforced.

National guidance on planning conditions sets out that conditions should only be used to make a development that would otherwise be unacceptable acceptable.  It follows then that any such conditions must be important, but they are rarely enforced.  In almost every town across the UK you can go to your local supermarket, housing development, industrial development or similar and see areas of tree or shrub planting with dead trees or knee height in weeds.  Many other aspects of development mitigation also go un checked or not implemented leaving local communities all the poorer and occasionally neighbouring individuals seriously disadvantaged. 

Many developers look on planning conditions as an optional extra and pay lip service to the requirements they have been set with a planning approval.

All authorities should be formally required to inspect commercial development sites annually for 5 years post completion (the inspections should be on a public register) and be under a statutory obligation to enforce conditions where a developer is found to be in breach.  This would add to the work load of planning departments but in time would lead to a much clearer understanding from developers they must implement schemes only as approved (which would then in turn lead to a reduction in the need to take action).  Authorities would then only apply conditions they could expect to enforce and the public could then accept developments with the confidence that what they see is what they get.  Some authorities would no doubt give up applying conditions – but this would be in affect little different from what happens now. 

The additional cost of this could be recouped through fines for the most flagrant breaches of planning approval.

A spin off consequence of this would be a marked improvement in the UK landscape industry as contractors would no longer be able to walk away from poorly implemented schemes and the UK Nursery trade may be able to get back on its feet and start producing proper quality plant stock.

This suggestion is targeted at only commercial developments.  The reason for this as there is a distinct contrast between how most planning officers treat the public from how commercial developers.  With a member of the public most planners instantly go into a Cap and Badge syndrome mentality.  With a commercial developer most planners start to open their top button reminiscent of Pamela Stephenson on Not the Nine O'clock News (there that dates me doesn't it)!

 

Repeal the Local Government Act 2000

Repeal all or a significant part of the LGA 2000. 

In particular, simplify the arrangements for the discharge of local government responsibilities and frame the legislation is such a way that there is a presumption of smaller or contracting local bureauracy.

Scrap all payments and expenses to local councillors.

Why is this idea important?

Repeal all or a significant part of the LGA 2000. 

In particular, simplify the arrangements for the discharge of local government responsibilities and frame the legislation is such a way that there is a presumption of smaller or contracting local bureauracy.

Scrap all payments and expenses to local councillors.

To Many Tiers of Governance Local & National

In my local area i have representing me the following councillors Parish,  District, Borough ,County, an MP and a MEP, what a waste of taxpayers money, they all have senior officials and offices and are claiming allowances etc .Why do I need so much duplication Some of these tiers should be removed

Why is this idea important?

In my local area i have representing me the following councillors Parish,  District, Borough ,County, an MP and a MEP, what a waste of taxpayers money, they all have senior officials and offices and are claiming allowances etc .Why do I need so much duplication Some of these tiers should be removed