Flexibility in council car park charges

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

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

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

Why is this idea important?

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

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

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

Futility of Government sponsored sites (such as this)

This site must have generated, thousands of hours of reading for "someone'. Ideas that are sensible, many that are ridiculous rants, (but must be considered, because a vote may be there) It is unlikely that all will be read, and if read will be ignored. Lip service will be given to those that coincide with the ideas that the government have had themselves. An opportunity exists for an idea to be foisted on the public with the tag, "this was one of the most popular ideas you  favoured on the YOUR FREEDOM site" whether it was or not.

    We need an independent body to categorise the "ideas" ascertain the popularity and ensure that the government don't ignore the ones they personally don't agree with.

Why is this idea important?

This site must have generated, thousands of hours of reading for "someone'. Ideas that are sensible, many that are ridiculous rants, (but must be considered, because a vote may be there) It is unlikely that all will be read, and if read will be ignored. Lip service will be given to those that coincide with the ideas that the government have had themselves. An opportunity exists for an idea to be foisted on the public with the tag, "this was one of the most popular ideas you  favoured on the YOUR FREEDOM site" whether it was or not.

    We need an independent body to categorise the "ideas" ascertain the popularity and ensure that the government don't ignore the ones they personally don't agree with.

Referendum website

There are so many things that we think we need or not as the case maybe, why not have a referendum website where awkward things that affect us all are virtually voted upon so that some ideas maybe generated for ministers to look at:

For instance:

Always a controversial one, bring back hanging

Should MEP's be paid much more than their counterparts in our own country

Should horse owners whose animals foul the roads and paths be fined if they do not clear it up, look at dogs and they are tiny in comparison to them.

 

To give you some concept of what i mean, not necessarily a view either way on these things

 

 

Why is this idea important?

There are so many things that we think we need or not as the case maybe, why not have a referendum website where awkward things that affect us all are virtually voted upon so that some ideas maybe generated for ministers to look at:

For instance:

Always a controversial one, bring back hanging

Should MEP's be paid much more than their counterparts in our own country

Should horse owners whose animals foul the roads and paths be fined if they do not clear it up, look at dogs and they are tiny in comparison to them.

 

To give you some concept of what i mean, not necessarily a view either way on these things

 

 

overhaul the general permitted development order 1995

Dear Nick

The general permitted development order 1995 is a piece of legislation which was designed to fast track development under certain circumstances avoiding public consultation and restricting the powers of local planning departments. Where it is applied to the matters it was intended to address ie small building alterations and the installation of sky dishes it answers its purpose and reduces the workload of planning departments.

Sadly this order has been written in such a way as to allow its misuse by developers such as network rail who have used the order to carry out some very questionable developments such as the erection of  multiple 20 meter masts the length of the country without any consultation and with a "big financial stick" to deal with local planning departments.

The mast development has caused storms of protest up and down the country because of the visual impact of the masts and the sense of injustice felt by those who have been subject to the unfair and underhand treatment of the developers without any rights to challenge proposed sites or suggest mutually agreeable alternative sites.

The order has encouraged network rail to site masts where the act allows them to, simply because they can do so without the need for planning permission, this has often resulted in public protest concerning visual impact, additional costs (sometimes tens of thousands of pounds) to install services etc, and damage to local business interests, loss of value to adjacent properties  (with no provision for compensation)

All of the above can take place at very short notice, without any consultation and with little or no legal recourse for effected parties.

To prove the point this matter has already been taken up by several members of parliament who agreed with their constituents and others that this matter requires urgent review, sadly despite concerted efforts the matter remains unresolved.

I am involved with a local group in Suffolk attempting to get a proposed mast site relocated by 700 meters  along a rail way line, for the following reasons;

To reduce the project costs to network rail by a minimum of £55,000 (how much has been wasted nationwide to date, if this one project could save a minimum of £55,000)

To reduce visual impact from a local amenity area, the Broads, an SSSI, and several local tourist business interests  (despite the fact that the order should protect SSSIs, the Broads and areas of natural beauty)

To save the installation of hundreds of meters of power cables along a local road (the site we propose already has power)

To move the mast away from local houses whose views will be dominated by the proposed mast.

Despite our efforts and those of local MPs (who still fight on) to date our local battle continues, a simple matter that would very probably have had a mutually satisfactory out come if planning permission had been a requirement in the first instance.

It is my understanding that fairness is the underlying premiss of British law,  I hope you agree that a fresh look at this order could greatly reduce the injustice of a system that allows uncontrolled development without public consultation, and in many cases save a great deal of money and reduce infrastructure such as power lines etc.(as in our case)

With kind regards

Ian Bond

PS The "Your Freedom site" is a great common sense idea.

 

 

Why is this idea important?

Dear Nick

The general permitted development order 1995 is a piece of legislation which was designed to fast track development under certain circumstances avoiding public consultation and restricting the powers of local planning departments. Where it is applied to the matters it was intended to address ie small building alterations and the installation of sky dishes it answers its purpose and reduces the workload of planning departments.

Sadly this order has been written in such a way as to allow its misuse by developers such as network rail who have used the order to carry out some very questionable developments such as the erection of  multiple 20 meter masts the length of the country without any consultation and with a "big financial stick" to deal with local planning departments.

The mast development has caused storms of protest up and down the country because of the visual impact of the masts and the sense of injustice felt by those who have been subject to the unfair and underhand treatment of the developers without any rights to challenge proposed sites or suggest mutually agreeable alternative sites.

The order has encouraged network rail to site masts where the act allows them to, simply because they can do so without the need for planning permission, this has often resulted in public protest concerning visual impact, additional costs (sometimes tens of thousands of pounds) to install services etc, and damage to local business interests, loss of value to adjacent properties  (with no provision for compensation)

All of the above can take place at very short notice, without any consultation and with little or no legal recourse for effected parties.

To prove the point this matter has already been taken up by several members of parliament who agreed with their constituents and others that this matter requires urgent review, sadly despite concerted efforts the matter remains unresolved.

I am involved with a local group in Suffolk attempting to get a proposed mast site relocated by 700 meters  along a rail way line, for the following reasons;

To reduce the project costs to network rail by a minimum of £55,000 (how much has been wasted nationwide to date, if this one project could save a minimum of £55,000)

To reduce visual impact from a local amenity area, the Broads, an SSSI, and several local tourist business interests  (despite the fact that the order should protect SSSIs, the Broads and areas of natural beauty)

To save the installation of hundreds of meters of power cables along a local road (the site we propose already has power)

To move the mast away from local houses whose views will be dominated by the proposed mast.

Despite our efforts and those of local MPs (who still fight on) to date our local battle continues, a simple matter that would very probably have had a mutually satisfactory out come if planning permission had been a requirement in the first instance.

It is my understanding that fairness is the underlying premiss of British law,  I hope you agree that a fresh look at this order could greatly reduce the injustice of a system that allows uncontrolled development without public consultation, and in many cases save a great deal of money and reduce infrastructure such as power lines etc.(as in our case)

With kind regards

Ian Bond

PS The "Your Freedom site" is a great common sense idea.

 

 

Scrap “Approved Premises”

Laws were passed in the last twenty years that changed bail hostels into approved premises that accomodate prisoners released on licence. Currently local communities have no say over these institutions and the planning laws contain loopholes that allow buildings to be converted to these premises without any planning permission.

Therefore:

– C2 planning categories need to be reviewed to create a new category for bail hostels and approved premises as they stand.

– Laws relating to the creation of approved premises need repealing and returning to their original purpose – to house bailees awaiting trial.

Why is this idea important?

Laws were passed in the last twenty years that changed bail hostels into approved premises that accomodate prisoners released on licence. Currently local communities have no say over these institutions and the planning laws contain loopholes that allow buildings to be converted to these premises without any planning permission.

Therefore:

– C2 planning categories need to be reviewed to create a new category for bail hostels and approved premises as they stand.

– Laws relating to the creation of approved premises need repealing and returning to their original purpose – to house bailees awaiting trial.

Repeal the Water Act 2003 – stop fluoridation

The Water  Act enables a widespread programme of water fluoridation to take place across England and Wales, by  forcing water companies to add hexafluorosilic acid to the water supply if the local NHS chiefs tell them to.

It forces people en masse to drink and wash with artificially fluoridated water.

It is uses precious NHS resources unwisely.

 

 

 

Why is this idea important?

The Water  Act enables a widespread programme of water fluoridation to take place across England and Wales, by  forcing water companies to add hexafluorosilic acid to the water supply if the local NHS chiefs tell them to.

It forces people en masse to drink and wash with artificially fluoridated water.

It is uses precious NHS resources unwisely.

 

 

 

Reducing the burden of public consultation

Make public consultation duties and activity more proportionate and value for money or in some cases enable authorities to act first then receive feedback with the ability to make changes if required rather than encourage delay and procrastination with consultation exercises.

Considerable time, effort and public money is spent on listening exercising with little proven benefit. Consultation activity was massively increased in the late 1990s across the public sector.

Quality outcomes can be driven by used of more effective market research and made accountable through a committment to make changes during a probation period, rather than waste time and money on consultation rounds.

For example: changes to waiting restrictions (yellow line restrictions)

To install yellow lines the public are consulted, this work is undertaken by every local council. It would be quicker to install them on an experimental basis, using professional judgement and consulting with local elected members, install them and then seek feedback. At present simple proposals are costly and take consdierable officer time to implement. The Traffic Regulation Order process needs to be simplified.

For example: changes to NHS service provision in Greater Manchester

Millions of pounds of public money were spent on listening exercises with regard to changes to NHS services in 2006/7. The NHS was duty bound to conduct this exercise, but the available options had already been determined by cost and service efficacy reasons. The customer did not know best as often their reasoning was based on emotional reactions or inertia to change. If change is essential, consultation should be limited and the public told what is not on the table for discussion. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why is this idea important?

Make public consultation duties and activity more proportionate and value for money or in some cases enable authorities to act first then receive feedback with the ability to make changes if required rather than encourage delay and procrastination with consultation exercises.

Considerable time, effort and public money is spent on listening exercising with little proven benefit. Consultation activity was massively increased in the late 1990s across the public sector.

Quality outcomes can be driven by used of more effective market research and made accountable through a committment to make changes during a probation period, rather than waste time and money on consultation rounds.

For example: changes to waiting restrictions (yellow line restrictions)

To install yellow lines the public are consulted, this work is undertaken by every local council. It would be quicker to install them on an experimental basis, using professional judgement and consulting with local elected members, install them and then seek feedback. At present simple proposals are costly and take consdierable officer time to implement. The Traffic Regulation Order process needs to be simplified.

For example: changes to NHS service provision in Greater Manchester

Millions of pounds of public money were spent on listening exercises with regard to changes to NHS services in 2006/7. The NHS was duty bound to conduct this exercise, but the available options had already been determined by cost and service efficacy reasons. The customer did not know best as often their reasoning was based on emotional reactions or inertia to change. If change is essential, consultation should be limited and the public told what is not on the table for discussion.