Local Authorities should provide Urban Fox Control

Lets face it, in urban areas the foxes are getting out of control and nobody is willing to do anything about it.

Wrecking gardens, digging under properties, fouling our schools, attacking our pets, livestock and even reports of urban foxes attacking children & adults.

Boris Johnson said the local councils should start taking pest control more seriously following the attack of the Hackney twins in June 2010.

Has there been any changes or improvements? NO

Why is this idea important?

Lets face it, in urban areas the foxes are getting out of control and nobody is willing to do anything about it.

Wrecking gardens, digging under properties, fouling our schools, attacking our pets, livestock and even reports of urban foxes attacking children & adults.

Boris Johnson said the local councils should start taking pest control more seriously following the attack of the Hackney twins in June 2010.

Has there been any changes or improvements? NO

Remove the requirement to change the way councils are run

Repeal the sections in The Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 that require executively-run councils to change their executive decision-making process to one of two leadership options (a Leader with increased powers or an elected Mayor).

Why is this idea important?

Repeal the sections in The Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 that require executively-run councils to change their executive decision-making process to one of two leadership options (a Leader with increased powers or an elected Mayor).

Town and Country Planning Act deleted please.

At the moment, if a tree is in a conservation area, the council are able to place a Tree Preservation Order on the tree, even if it is in the land of an owner of private land. What right does the Council have to say to a resident, minding their own business, that just because they fancy a certain tree, that the owners are not allowed to cut it. If it is cut, then a £20,000.00 fine is placed on them. This allows corruption to come into the Council. How? Because, after hearing what a racist neighbour says to them, they can forbid certain people (by way of culture, religion and race) to cut their tree, and they could let another person cut theirs if they have the "right" characteristics, (by way of culture race or religion) – it is evil and racist, I know. Hence this is discrimination. The Government has given blind power to the Council Officials. The Ombudsmen do nothing about them, because they also racially discriminate against black and asian people, but are good for the rest.

The town hall officials are very big dictators. You, Government, say other countries are dictators, but you have dictators that are called Council Officials. NOT, by any means the Councillors.

I propose that you scrap Ombudsmen, and set up regulation authorities on the Local Government just as they have for gas, electricity companies, to regulate the Council Officials, and to overlook their decisions and revoke them. If a person wants justice against the Council's decisions, at present, as they have been discriminated against, they must go to the High Court. But this is very expensive, so many people do not go to the High Court. If you made regulatory bodies, it would be cheaper for the people and they would get justice straight away. Please make sure, that those people who are Ombudsmen do not get jobs in these regulatory bodies. This is because they do nothing, if you do, I would be obliged to complain again about these dictators.

Suppose, if somebody has a tree in their property, it should be up to the owners to do what they like to the tree. It is no business of the Council to be nosy and to interfere with what they do to the tree. The owners know themselves, whether the tree being there is good for them or bad for them. Suppose a racist neighbour came and wanted to give trouble to their neighbours, so they get their racist allies, the Council Officials to put a Tree Preservation Order on the tree, (often abbreviated to TPO). For no reason! This is not fair. To summarise, if a racist neighbour says so about another's tree, their right to cut the tree, or loop it is stopped.

If the Council are so concerned about trees, they should plant more in their own land, not force others to keep their in their land. They could buy a plot in the Amazon Rainforest and plant the trees there! Or, the Government can stop Trans National Corporations like MacDonalds from cutting down trees, deforestation, for their animals to graze in or for whatever reason.

In our Whalley Range area in Manchester, where it is a conservation area, there are too many very old trees on the side of the roads, and their roots make the roads bumpy, and affect people's walls. In the Autumn their leaves are too many on the road and pavements, and it makes it slippery, and old and disabled people cannot leave their homes, and cannot walk on the slippery surfaces, or they will fall and hurt. The Council should dig the old trees out after a few years, then plant new trees in those places.

Even if a tree is not in a conservation area, the Council Officials still place a TPO unjustly on a tree, and no one can get justice. Or if it is, it is only for the rich or what they call "middle class". I am against the made up "class system". It should be abolished. People should not be labelled. To bring people together, people should give to charity instead of saying "disadvantaged" or whatever. The label "working class" or "underclass" – "deserving poor" or "undeserving poor" is just what the Tories made up so people can use these labels to bully the poor.

Why is this idea important?

At the moment, if a tree is in a conservation area, the council are able to place a Tree Preservation Order on the tree, even if it is in the land of an owner of private land. What right does the Council have to say to a resident, minding their own business, that just because they fancy a certain tree, that the owners are not allowed to cut it. If it is cut, then a £20,000.00 fine is placed on them. This allows corruption to come into the Council. How? Because, after hearing what a racist neighbour says to them, they can forbid certain people (by way of culture, religion and race) to cut their tree, and they could let another person cut theirs if they have the "right" characteristics, (by way of culture race or religion) – it is evil and racist, I know. Hence this is discrimination. The Government has given blind power to the Council Officials. The Ombudsmen do nothing about them, because they also racially discriminate against black and asian people, but are good for the rest.

The town hall officials are very big dictators. You, Government, say other countries are dictators, but you have dictators that are called Council Officials. NOT, by any means the Councillors.

I propose that you scrap Ombudsmen, and set up regulation authorities on the Local Government just as they have for gas, electricity companies, to regulate the Council Officials, and to overlook their decisions and revoke them. If a person wants justice against the Council's decisions, at present, as they have been discriminated against, they must go to the High Court. But this is very expensive, so many people do not go to the High Court. If you made regulatory bodies, it would be cheaper for the people and they would get justice straight away. Please make sure, that those people who are Ombudsmen do not get jobs in these regulatory bodies. This is because they do nothing, if you do, I would be obliged to complain again about these dictators.

Suppose, if somebody has a tree in their property, it should be up to the owners to do what they like to the tree. It is no business of the Council to be nosy and to interfere with what they do to the tree. The owners know themselves, whether the tree being there is good for them or bad for them. Suppose a racist neighbour came and wanted to give trouble to their neighbours, so they get their racist allies, the Council Officials to put a Tree Preservation Order on the tree, (often abbreviated to TPO). For no reason! This is not fair. To summarise, if a racist neighbour says so about another's tree, their right to cut the tree, or loop it is stopped.

If the Council are so concerned about trees, they should plant more in their own land, not force others to keep their in their land. They could buy a plot in the Amazon Rainforest and plant the trees there! Or, the Government can stop Trans National Corporations like MacDonalds from cutting down trees, deforestation, for their animals to graze in or for whatever reason.

In our Whalley Range area in Manchester, where it is a conservation area, there are too many very old trees on the side of the roads, and their roots make the roads bumpy, and affect people's walls. In the Autumn their leaves are too many on the road and pavements, and it makes it slippery, and old and disabled people cannot leave their homes, and cannot walk on the slippery surfaces, or they will fall and hurt. The Council should dig the old trees out after a few years, then plant new trees in those places.

Even if a tree is not in a conservation area, the Council Officials still place a TPO unjustly on a tree, and no one can get justice. Or if it is, it is only for the rich or what they call "middle class". I am against the made up "class system". It should be abolished. People should not be labelled. To bring people together, people should give to charity instead of saying "disadvantaged" or whatever. The label "working class" or "underclass" – "deserving poor" or "undeserving poor" is just what the Tories made up so people can use these labels to bully the poor.

Stop councils spending money on pointless projects

Councils should submit a business case to central government, or perhaps to local residents in order to get the approval for projects which they wish to go ahead with.

For instance – In crosby, Liverpool the Council has just spent thousands installing speed humps all along a main road (Brownmoor Lane, Crosby) when the raod itsself is in disrepear. Why not speand the money on fixing the road (which has enough pot holes and bumps in it to deter those who want to speed anyway) from speeding!


Councils spend for the sake of spending sometimes!

Why is this idea important?

Councils should submit a business case to central government, or perhaps to local residents in order to get the approval for projects which they wish to go ahead with.

For instance – In crosby, Liverpool the Council has just spent thousands installing speed humps all along a main road (Brownmoor Lane, Crosby) when the raod itsself is in disrepear. Why not speand the money on fixing the road (which has enough pot holes and bumps in it to deter those who want to speed anyway) from speeding!


Councils spend for the sake of spending sometimes!

Ban local councils right to snoop

Local Councils should be banned from snooping, it waste's precious time and resource all of which the tax-payer has to foot the bill, without even going into the civil liberties issues. Local councils are there to administer and manage local services only not intrude on people's lives

Why is this idea important?

Local Councils should be banned from snooping, it waste's precious time and resource all of which the tax-payer has to foot the bill, without even going into the civil liberties issues. Local councils are there to administer and manage local services only not intrude on people's lives

Only 10% Council tax discount for an unoccupied property is unfair

When we moved to Ireland for a medical fellowship (part of my medical training). I have to pay 90% of my council tax. That is not fair! Not just for me but those who inherit an unoccupied property have to pay the same until the house is sold. This is a crazy punitive tax. A 50% discount (as it was before labour) I would accept.

See letter I received from Plymouth council;

I refer to your email sent to Mr x about council tax discounts.

Prior to 2003, if a property was nobody’s main residence but furnished, the law provided that all billing authorities should allow a 50% discount. From 1st April 2004, billing authorities were given the discretion to vary the amount of discount for such properties to some percentage between 10% and 50%. Plymouth City Council, by resolution of the Council, chose to reduce the discount from 50% to 10%. In my opinion, this has been done lawfully in accordance with government legislation, although if you want to challenge this resolution, I would suggest you contact your solicitor who will advise you of the procedure you would need to follow.

If the percentage was to be changed, it would need to be by a further resolution of the Council but would only apply to future years and not the current financial year.

With regard to the fact that you will not be getting anything for your money, I would advise that council tax is a tax on the occupation or ownership of domestic property and is not a payment for service. It could be that the owner of a property may have been permanently living abroad for years, not set foot in the UK for the whole of the financial year and pay no UK income tax but he would still be liable for council tax.

If you have any further queries, please contact me again.

Yours sincerely

Why is this idea important?

When we moved to Ireland for a medical fellowship (part of my medical training). I have to pay 90% of my council tax. That is not fair! Not just for me but those who inherit an unoccupied property have to pay the same until the house is sold. This is a crazy punitive tax. A 50% discount (as it was before labour) I would accept.

See letter I received from Plymouth council;

I refer to your email sent to Mr x about council tax discounts.

Prior to 2003, if a property was nobody’s main residence but furnished, the law provided that all billing authorities should allow a 50% discount. From 1st April 2004, billing authorities were given the discretion to vary the amount of discount for such properties to some percentage between 10% and 50%. Plymouth City Council, by resolution of the Council, chose to reduce the discount from 50% to 10%. In my opinion, this has been done lawfully in accordance with government legislation, although if you want to challenge this resolution, I would suggest you contact your solicitor who will advise you of the procedure you would need to follow.

If the percentage was to be changed, it would need to be by a further resolution of the Council but would only apply to future years and not the current financial year.

With regard to the fact that you will not be getting anything for your money, I would advise that council tax is a tax on the occupation or ownership of domestic property and is not a payment for service. It could be that the owner of a property may have been permanently living abroad for years, not set foot in the UK for the whole of the financial year and pay no UK income tax but he would still be liable for council tax.

If you have any further queries, please contact me again.

Yours sincerely

Stop Local Councils from Prosecuting Innocent People with Barmy Laws

Local councils are threatening to prosecute and are even prosecuting law abiding people (who are not harming anyone else and in some cases actually trying to improve society) for some of the most bizarre reasons.

If you do not believe me consider the following absolutely true and completely daft cases that have appeared in the national and local press

(i) Wiltshire Council threatened a man with prosecution if he cleaned the grass verge outside his property .

(ii) Copeland Borough Council fined a man because his wheelie bin lid was overfilled by four inches.

(iii) Swansea Council prosecuted a man for accidentally putting the rubbish in the wrong cycling bin and now he has a criminal record. The irony here was this man was a keen recycler who was trying hard to recycle.

(iv) Havering Council prosecutes a law abiding shop owner for a scap of paper 120 yards from his shop. That could happen to anyone, for all we know the paper could have been dropped when the bin men last collected the bins or it could have just blown out of the bin.

(v) Ipswich Council fined a 14 year old £50 for feeding a seagull half a chip.

(vi) Hinckley and Bosworth Council prosecuted a man for putting two pieces of junk mail into a street bin with his address on it. Is it really a criminal offence to put rubbish in a street bin?

I could go on and on…

My proposals are that the government should, at the very least, be minded to:

(1)  reword or even, in some cases repeal, any central government laws which allows such crazy prosecutions (or crazy threats to prosecute). I realise that for local bye-laws it might be difficult for central government to do anything.

(2)  not use the criminal law over such trivial matters. Something as serious as a criminal prosecution is not appropriate for some trivial offence like putting rubbish in the wrong place. In none of these cases has anyone deliberately littered or deliberately refused to recycle. Maybe this could be achieved by primary legislation in parliament.

(3) tell councils very firmly that they must use their powers far more sparingly and far more responsibly.

Why is this idea important?

Local councils are threatening to prosecute and are even prosecuting law abiding people (who are not harming anyone else and in some cases actually trying to improve society) for some of the most bizarre reasons.

If you do not believe me consider the following absolutely true and completely daft cases that have appeared in the national and local press

(i) Wiltshire Council threatened a man with prosecution if he cleaned the grass verge outside his property .

(ii) Copeland Borough Council fined a man because his wheelie bin lid was overfilled by four inches.

(iii) Swansea Council prosecuted a man for accidentally putting the rubbish in the wrong cycling bin and now he has a criminal record. The irony here was this man was a keen recycler who was trying hard to recycle.

(iv) Havering Council prosecutes a law abiding shop owner for a scap of paper 120 yards from his shop. That could happen to anyone, for all we know the paper could have been dropped when the bin men last collected the bins or it could have just blown out of the bin.

(v) Ipswich Council fined a 14 year old £50 for feeding a seagull half a chip.

(vi) Hinckley and Bosworth Council prosecuted a man for putting two pieces of junk mail into a street bin with his address on it. Is it really a criminal offence to put rubbish in a street bin?

I could go on and on…

My proposals are that the government should, at the very least, be minded to:

(1)  reword or even, in some cases repeal, any central government laws which allows such crazy prosecutions (or crazy threats to prosecute). I realise that for local bye-laws it might be difficult for central government to do anything.

(2)  not use the criminal law over such trivial matters. Something as serious as a criminal prosecution is not appropriate for some trivial offence like putting rubbish in the wrong place. In none of these cases has anyone deliberately littered or deliberately refused to recycle. Maybe this could be achieved by primary legislation in parliament.

(3) tell councils very firmly that they must use their powers far more sparingly and far more responsibly.

Stop Local Goverments using Anti-Terrorism Laws to Spy on people

 

 

We need to censure local goverment (I.E local councils) from using anti-terrorism laws in order to spy on people, as they use currently,even for petty things like prosecuting people for overflowing bins etc!

Why is this idea important?

 

 

We need to censure local goverment (I.E local councils) from using anti-terrorism laws in order to spy on people, as they use currently,even for petty things like prosecuting people for overflowing bins etc!

more freedom for the public on where construction of council led initiatives take place

 My idea is to have a more open policy on placing of construction projects in my local area,this is to say at a local level councillors should have to meet and respect opinions of local resisidents about what if any type of building work they want done in their own local area.

 For an example I will look no further than my own experience of a proposed Academy that is being built on a local playing field(Queen Elizabeth Playing Field) near to where I live in Kingston Upon Hull.Despite widespread dissaproval of this local building scheme the school will be built on the only "green space" we have available to enjoy time away from city life.Despite partitions from local people at a local level to city councillors for stopping this,despite their being many local schools in the area already,that would be better served refurbished rather than knocked down,they are still going ahead with this idea that would disrupt the community,that has relied on those playing fields for an escape from city life.

  I feel this is an idea that would save the goverment money, money that we all know needs to be saved from the school budget as you'll find many people(certainly in my local area) are opposed to such hair-brained schemes that they neither want nor need.Their are other construction projects that I could write about,but It just feels that local councillors do not listen to the will of the local people.-this one in particular is part of the previous goverments future schools building program.

Why is this idea important?

 My idea is to have a more open policy on placing of construction projects in my local area,this is to say at a local level councillors should have to meet and respect opinions of local resisidents about what if any type of building work they want done in their own local area.

 For an example I will look no further than my own experience of a proposed Academy that is being built on a local playing field(Queen Elizabeth Playing Field) near to where I live in Kingston Upon Hull.Despite widespread dissaproval of this local building scheme the school will be built on the only "green space" we have available to enjoy time away from city life.Despite partitions from local people at a local level to city councillors for stopping this,despite their being many local schools in the area already,that would be better served refurbished rather than knocked down,they are still going ahead with this idea that would disrupt the community,that has relied on those playing fields for an escape from city life.

  I feel this is an idea that would save the goverment money, money that we all know needs to be saved from the school budget as you'll find many people(certainly in my local area) are opposed to such hair-brained schemes that they neither want nor need.Their are other construction projects that I could write about,but It just feels that local councillors do not listen to the will of the local people.-this one in particular is part of the previous goverments future schools building program.

Motor Caravan Aires and Wild Camping in suitable locations

Permitting Motor Caravans to park in locations other than licenced or exempted caravan sites will require the Public Health Act 1937 section 286 and The Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 being ammended.

THe 1937 Act defines what constitues a caravan and the 1960 Act requires that Caravan Sites are licenced or carry an exemption issued by certain clubs and bodies. A Caravan is defined as being a vehicle or vessel that has been built or adapted for human habitation and does not recognise a difference between a Static, Touring(trailer) or Motor Caravan.

Modern Motor Caravans are totaly different and contain superior sanitary and habitation equipment to those envisaged in the 1930s and 1950s. Motor Caravans are in fact luxury hotels on wheels these days with Bedrooms, Kitchens and bathrooms with hot water and showers and sealed toilets.

A recognition that a motor caravan parking overnight does not need the same facilities as a touring caravan is required.

A recognition of the diference between camping and parking (including using the vehicle for cooking and sleeping) is required.

Motor Caravans are much heavier than touring caravans and existing grass caravan sites can prove unsuitable for them in wet weather. A Motor Caravan simply needs a firm level surface to park on and from time to time access to basic facilities for drinking water and to dispose of wet and dry waste.

Camping as defined in regulations for Camping Cars abroard is putting anything including Tables, Chairs, steps, waste and water containers, Awnings, ramps etc outside of the vehicle. There are no restrictions on what you can do within a parked vehicle.

Modern Motor Caravans are totaly self contained and only need facilities to get fresh water and dump black and grey water every few days. They are designed to carry these loads unlike touring caravans.

Local Authorities have the power at present to allow Aire type stopovers on land owned or leased by them under section 11 of the 1960 Act. Few have used this power.

Britain is unfriendly to visiting motor caravan users as we require them to join one of our clubs to use a reasonably priced Certificated site or some of the club sites. Otherwise thay need to use highly priced commercial or club sites.

We can enjoy using our Motor Caravans abroad without such restrictions using the many municipal and private Aires available at very low or even no cost other than a couple of Euros to obtain drinking water.

It has been recognised since the 1960s abroard that Motor Caravan users bring trade into areas they visit, as they need to buy supplies and will use and visit local amenities and eating places. It is time the UK recognised this and became more welcoming to travelling visitors. Many of our authorities are still in the B&B mindset with regards to taking holidays, or are "Traveller" phobic.

Action needed:

Examine and revoke or re-write the 1937 and 1960 acts to bring them into line with todays developments.

Instruct local authorities to remove restrictions preventing the use for cooking and sleeping in parked Motor Caravans.

A recognition that a motor caravan parking overnight does not need the same facilities as a touring caravan is required.

A recognition of the difference between camping and parking (including using the vehicle for cooking and sleeping) is required.

Require local Authorities to make use of existing underused parking spaces at night such as Coach Bays or car parks to permit the overnight parking of Motor Caravans.

Remove height barriers from some parts of otherwise restricted car parks so that larger vehicles can gain access. (Restrictions could still apply to the type of use to which these spaces are permitted to be used for ie no commercial vehicles or trading, and the lenght of stay permitted).

Why is this idea important?

Permitting Motor Caravans to park in locations other than licenced or exempted caravan sites will require the Public Health Act 1937 section 286 and The Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 being ammended.

THe 1937 Act defines what constitues a caravan and the 1960 Act requires that Caravan Sites are licenced or carry an exemption issued by certain clubs and bodies. A Caravan is defined as being a vehicle or vessel that has been built or adapted for human habitation and does not recognise a difference between a Static, Touring(trailer) or Motor Caravan.

Modern Motor Caravans are totaly different and contain superior sanitary and habitation equipment to those envisaged in the 1930s and 1950s. Motor Caravans are in fact luxury hotels on wheels these days with Bedrooms, Kitchens and bathrooms with hot water and showers and sealed toilets.

A recognition that a motor caravan parking overnight does not need the same facilities as a touring caravan is required.

A recognition of the diference between camping and parking (including using the vehicle for cooking and sleeping) is required.

Motor Caravans are much heavier than touring caravans and existing grass caravan sites can prove unsuitable for them in wet weather. A Motor Caravan simply needs a firm level surface to park on and from time to time access to basic facilities for drinking water and to dispose of wet and dry waste.

Camping as defined in regulations for Camping Cars abroard is putting anything including Tables, Chairs, steps, waste and water containers, Awnings, ramps etc outside of the vehicle. There are no restrictions on what you can do within a parked vehicle.

Modern Motor Caravans are totaly self contained and only need facilities to get fresh water and dump black and grey water every few days. They are designed to carry these loads unlike touring caravans.

Local Authorities have the power at present to allow Aire type stopovers on land owned or leased by them under section 11 of the 1960 Act. Few have used this power.

Britain is unfriendly to visiting motor caravan users as we require them to join one of our clubs to use a reasonably priced Certificated site or some of the club sites. Otherwise thay need to use highly priced commercial or club sites.

We can enjoy using our Motor Caravans abroad without such restrictions using the many municipal and private Aires available at very low or even no cost other than a couple of Euros to obtain drinking water.

It has been recognised since the 1960s abroard that Motor Caravan users bring trade into areas they visit, as they need to buy supplies and will use and visit local amenities and eating places. It is time the UK recognised this and became more welcoming to travelling visitors. Many of our authorities are still in the B&B mindset with regards to taking holidays, or are "Traveller" phobic.

Action needed:

Examine and revoke or re-write the 1937 and 1960 acts to bring them into line with todays developments.

Instruct local authorities to remove restrictions preventing the use for cooking and sleeping in parked Motor Caravans.

A recognition that a motor caravan parking overnight does not need the same facilities as a touring caravan is required.

A recognition of the difference between camping and parking (including using the vehicle for cooking and sleeping) is required.

Require local Authorities to make use of existing underused parking spaces at night such as Coach Bays or car parks to permit the overnight parking of Motor Caravans.

Remove height barriers from some parts of otherwise restricted car parks so that larger vehicles can gain access. (Restrictions could still apply to the type of use to which these spaces are permitted to be used for ie no commercial vehicles or trading, and the lenght of stay permitted).

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.

Make It A Legal Requirement That Local Councils Only Raise Charges Against Specific And Costed Expenditure.

All local councils should be required to set out their items for expenditure in advance of being able legally to raise charges, council tax or any other revenues or borrowing. It seems local authorities assume they can simply raise any money they can screw out of captive ratepayers and then decide what to do with it, e.g., pay themselves and their staff vast salaries, expenses and pensions that they can access quickly through allowing themselves to retire early.

All propsoed charges to be collected from homeowners and businesses to be set out in advance of any charges becoming legal and collectable.

This requirement is found to be neccessary with reference to recent developments where those elected and entrusted with local government use the system without due regard and concern for those who must pay for local governnment. They can't be trusted and we must be able to stop the extravagance and waste at source.

Why is this idea important?

All local councils should be required to set out their items for expenditure in advance of being able legally to raise charges, council tax or any other revenues or borrowing. It seems local authorities assume they can simply raise any money they can screw out of captive ratepayers and then decide what to do with it, e.g., pay themselves and their staff vast salaries, expenses and pensions that they can access quickly through allowing themselves to retire early.

All propsoed charges to be collected from homeowners and businesses to be set out in advance of any charges becoming legal and collectable.

This requirement is found to be neccessary with reference to recent developments where those elected and entrusted with local government use the system without due regard and concern for those who must pay for local governnment. They can't be trusted and we must be able to stop the extravagance and waste at source.

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.

Councils spending money unnecessarily and unprofessionally; salaries too high

Councils should be run similar to non-profit organisations. They have important work to do, but they are continually monitored by a highly efficient management team. Ultimately, they have to spend money wisely and usually someone else’s money (eg funding).
Councils spending too much money
Salaries far too high (on public money)
Too many employees
Streamlining operations and becoming more effective for the public benefit and reducing significant costs
Wasting time (and therefore money) in meetings
Spending up money so their budgets are not cut

Why is this idea important?

Councils should be run similar to non-profit organisations. They have important work to do, but they are continually monitored by a highly efficient management team. Ultimately, they have to spend money wisely and usually someone else’s money (eg funding).
Councils spending too much money
Salaries far too high (on public money)
Too many employees
Streamlining operations and becoming more effective for the public benefit and reducing significant costs
Wasting time (and therefore money) in meetings
Spending up money so their budgets are not cut

Cuts in Council Budgets

Prior to councils cutting essential services the following should be implented:

i) all council employees on salaries of £65,000 or more to have salary reduced by 10%

ii) no pay rises in council salaries for 2 years. Pay rises thereafter to reflect inflation only if a recovery from the credit crisis is in place.

iii)  no bonus payments – ever

iv) pensions to reflect private sector

Stop overpaid council employees appearing on TV saying how terrible cuts to services are going to have to be put in place. I am heartily fed up with the majority of my council tax payments being used to pay council gold plated pensions. Sort this out!

Why is this idea important?

Prior to councils cutting essential services the following should be implented:

i) all council employees on salaries of £65,000 or more to have salary reduced by 10%

ii) no pay rises in council salaries for 2 years. Pay rises thereafter to reflect inflation only if a recovery from the credit crisis is in place.

iii)  no bonus payments – ever

iv) pensions to reflect private sector

Stop overpaid council employees appearing on TV saying how terrible cuts to services are going to have to be put in place. I am heartily fed up with the majority of my council tax payments being used to pay council gold plated pensions. Sort this out!

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)!

 

Council Access to Homes

It was my understanding that the only authority who could enter your house without first obtaining a court order were Customs Officers.

Police, first had to obtain a court order.

Now the law is that your local council can force their way into your home and for what reason?

 

Why is this idea important?

It was my understanding that the only authority who could enter your house without first obtaining a court order were Customs Officers.

Police, first had to obtain a court order.

Now the law is that your local council can force their way into your home and for what reason?

 

£45 per week maximum housing benefit.

The idea is simple, put a cap of £45 per week on housing benefit, not ont he person but on the property.

The simple fact is that there are now numerous private landlords buying up houses with the sole intention of renting them to people on benefit. These spivs look at a house on the market, find out what the maximum housing benefit they could recieve is and then simply buy the property if its financially viable.

By reducing the amount so drastically these greedy landlords would be forced to sell some of their holdings, this would open up the market for first time buyers and rebalance the market prices.

I have no problem with someone renting a second home but we have reached a stage where people have a portfolio of 30+ houses, each one purchased with the intention of getting benefit based tennants in.

Why is this idea important?

The idea is simple, put a cap of £45 per week on housing benefit, not ont he person but on the property.

The simple fact is that there are now numerous private landlords buying up houses with the sole intention of renting them to people on benefit. These spivs look at a house on the market, find out what the maximum housing benefit they could recieve is and then simply buy the property if its financially viable.

By reducing the amount so drastically these greedy landlords would be forced to sell some of their holdings, this would open up the market for first time buyers and rebalance the market prices.

I have no problem with someone renting a second home but we have reached a stage where people have a portfolio of 30+ houses, each one purchased with the intention of getting benefit based tennants in.

Be able to sack your Counsellor.

To the Mods.  I've seen the wording of another one you blocked so I'm gonna try this angle.  Giz a fair chance eh?

 

Basically there are laws coming in to make MP's sackable.  By forcing a local election under certain circumstances.

I propose this power be extended to Councils as well.  For the same reasons.  It is a restoration of civil liberties, hence why I am trying it this way.  If someone lies to get in they need to go, so there is a serious justice factor as well.

Yet the regs as is have been set up to not allow this.  Hence why you now have these new changes.  Unwritten or written down they were there and protected bad eggs.  It could even be called implied law. Like an implied contract, and how that is not written down yet some things can be reasonably expected.

Hence why MP's are now being made more accountable.  The old regs were bad so needed adjusting.  There may be some repealing in this.

Why is this idea important?

To the Mods.  I've seen the wording of another one you blocked so I'm gonna try this angle.  Giz a fair chance eh?

 

Basically there are laws coming in to make MP's sackable.  By forcing a local election under certain circumstances.

I propose this power be extended to Councils as well.  For the same reasons.  It is a restoration of civil liberties, hence why I am trying it this way.  If someone lies to get in they need to go, so there is a serious justice factor as well.

Yet the regs as is have been set up to not allow this.  Hence why you now have these new changes.  Unwritten or written down they were there and protected bad eggs.  It could even be called implied law. Like an implied contract, and how that is not written down yet some things can be reasonably expected.

Hence why MP's are now being made more accountable.  The old regs were bad so needed adjusting.  There may be some repealing in this.

Make Council Tax de-ductable against Income Tax

Presently, Council Tax payments are not de-ductable against Income tax .

So the tax payer is paying a direct taxation,-  twice, – on a portion of thier income. 

– Council Tax invoices are issued at the start of a tax year – for the year ahead – Income tax calculations (for the same year) make no allowance for these direct tax payments already made – Even though issued from two seperate arms of the state, both taxes are direct & the person has no option but to pay.

Why is this idea important?

Presently, Council Tax payments are not de-ductable against Income tax .

So the tax payer is paying a direct taxation,-  twice, – on a portion of thier income. 

– Council Tax invoices are issued at the start of a tax year – for the year ahead – Income tax calculations (for the same year) make no allowance for these direct tax payments already made – Even though issued from two seperate arms of the state, both taxes are direct & the person has no option but to pay.

Cancel Council Tax

Have local taxation linked to, and collected by Inland Revenue so that it's based on income and not property value. This would mean that it is calculated and administered centrally, so that over 200 local authority council tax departments will be not needed= big savings. Local authorities will be held to account by central government who will have more incentive to pressurise expenditure downwards.

Why is this idea important?

Have local taxation linked to, and collected by Inland Revenue so that it's based on income and not property value. This would mean that it is calculated and administered centrally, so that over 200 local authority council tax departments will be not needed= big savings. Local authorities will be held to account by central government who will have more incentive to pressurise expenditure downwards.

Prevent local councils from snooping into private bank accounts

It should be made unlawful for local authorities to gain access to an individuals bank account details to access their assets with out due consent from the individual, this would then prevent the possibility of identity freud by anyone working at the local authority. Only individuals and the baks themselves should have this access unless due permission is granted

Why is this idea important?

It should be made unlawful for local authorities to gain access to an individuals bank account details to access their assets with out due consent from the individual, this would then prevent the possibility of identity freud by anyone working at the local authority. Only individuals and the baks themselves should have this access unless due permission is granted