Scrap the qualifying time of 2 years ownership for lease extension

The Leasehold Reform Housing and Urban Development Act 1993  is legislation which provides an opportunity for an additional term of 90 years,  plus the present unexpired term.

To be a Qualifying leaseholder you must own a ‘long lease’, and have owned it for the past two years and not be a business or commercial tenant.  You do not need to have lived in the property for this period, merely owned the lease for two years or more.

The clause of the Law that requires this qualification can be easily scrapped.

Why is this idea important?

The Leasehold Reform Housing and Urban Development Act 1993  is legislation which provides an opportunity for an additional term of 90 years,  plus the present unexpired term.

To be a Qualifying leaseholder you must own a ‘long lease’, and have owned it for the past two years and not be a business or commercial tenant.  You do not need to have lived in the property for this period, merely owned the lease for two years or more.

The clause of the Law that requires this qualification can be easily scrapped.

How to reform the foreign aid to better help the third world develop, increase food security, reduce CO2, increase forest cover in the UK and build cheap and affordable houses for British people.

 

This is long, so bear with me:

We should convert 12% of farmland in the UK into 90% woodland and 10% housing. This would build roughly 3.8 million houses and add another 560,000 hectares of forest, increasing the amount of forest cover of the UK by 56%. This would also cut our carbon footprint by 8% (a big contribution towards our aim to cut 80% by 2050) and generally improving the environment.

Then use the Foreign Aid budget to build farms in the developing world by buying licenses of the governments there. We can then use the food grown in this otherwise unused but productive land to feed our population and increase food sustainability. 

There is of course the matter of security for our farms. It is unlikely for there to be Zimbabwe style farm invasions as this policy shall increase affluence and decrease unemployment in these countries. In the very worst case scenario, we can deploy British troops to protect these farms, though this may also be unnecessary as we should try to get the foreign governments to control crime.

And just to clear one thing out the way, Africa is not all barren and unfertile. It has 28% of all the worlds arable land, more than North America and Europe combined and furthermore more than any other continent, even Asia or South America. The reason it is not very productive is that it is poorly run by corrupt governments. Prime examples are Sudan, Congo, Zimbabwe and South Africa.

The amount of shipping and flights from foreign countries to the UK delivering food may generate some emissions, though this is dwarfed by the mass of trees and other plants being grown in the UK and the foreign countries.

Why is this idea important?

 

This is long, so bear with me:

We should convert 12% of farmland in the UK into 90% woodland and 10% housing. This would build roughly 3.8 million houses and add another 560,000 hectares of forest, increasing the amount of forest cover of the UK by 56%. This would also cut our carbon footprint by 8% (a big contribution towards our aim to cut 80% by 2050) and generally improving the environment.

Then use the Foreign Aid budget to build farms in the developing world by buying licenses of the governments there. We can then use the food grown in this otherwise unused but productive land to feed our population and increase food sustainability. 

There is of course the matter of security for our farms. It is unlikely for there to be Zimbabwe style farm invasions as this policy shall increase affluence and decrease unemployment in these countries. In the very worst case scenario, we can deploy British troops to protect these farms, though this may also be unnecessary as we should try to get the foreign governments to control crime.

And just to clear one thing out the way, Africa is not all barren and unfertile. It has 28% of all the worlds arable land, more than North America and Europe combined and furthermore more than any other continent, even Asia or South America. The reason it is not very productive is that it is poorly run by corrupt governments. Prime examples are Sudan, Congo, Zimbabwe and South Africa.

The amount of shipping and flights from foreign countries to the UK delivering food may generate some emissions, though this is dwarfed by the mass of trees and other plants being grown in the UK and the foreign countries.

Let Owners Build Big Houses On Own Land – With Garages

If you own a piece of land you are not allowed to build a comfortable house to your own design. Government rules effectively forbid you from making the rooms large enough to be comfortable. You probably cannot build just one house either because Minimum Density Regulations mean the land only gets planning consent if it is split into two or more. And no way will you be allowed as much parking as you want. Two adults and two teens who will soon be working 20 miles away – no the PolitiKal Kommisars in most areas order a maximum of 1 parking space per household (often less, 0.8 for flats) in order to force people onto public transport. Which is fine except late at night, early in the morning, on Bank Holidays, if providing any kind of emergency response, or simply if one has back pain and cannot use badly driven busses.

Do not impose maximum standards on property owners that they cannot exceed.

Why is this idea important?

If you own a piece of land you are not allowed to build a comfortable house to your own design. Government rules effectively forbid you from making the rooms large enough to be comfortable. You probably cannot build just one house either because Minimum Density Regulations mean the land only gets planning consent if it is split into two or more. And no way will you be allowed as much parking as you want. Two adults and two teens who will soon be working 20 miles away – no the PolitiKal Kommisars in most areas order a maximum of 1 parking space per household (often less, 0.8 for flats) in order to force people onto public transport. Which is fine except late at night, early in the morning, on Bank Holidays, if providing any kind of emergency response, or simply if one has back pain and cannot use badly driven busses.

Do not impose maximum standards on property owners that they cannot exceed.

Localism and Planning

There is much of interest in the coalition's statements on Localism and putting decision-making powers back in the hands of communities and local authorities. However, to facilitate the process, I would suggest repealing those parts of the current system of town and country planning that work against those fine principles, beginning with the following.

  • Remove the presumption in favour of development
  • Allow statutory development plans to include negatively as well as positively worded policies
  • Increase the weight attached to community opinion in the determination of planning applications and appeals
  • Overall, shift the balance of power from landowners and developers to communities and local planning authorities

This could begin to change the culture of planning in this country so that planning permission is not a right of the individual, but an endorsement by the people it will affect.

Why is this idea important?

There is much of interest in the coalition's statements on Localism and putting decision-making powers back in the hands of communities and local authorities. However, to facilitate the process, I would suggest repealing those parts of the current system of town and country planning that work against those fine principles, beginning with the following.

  • Remove the presumption in favour of development
  • Allow statutory development plans to include negatively as well as positively worded policies
  • Increase the weight attached to community opinion in the determination of planning applications and appeals
  • Overall, shift the balance of power from landowners and developers to communities and local planning authorities

This could begin to change the culture of planning in this country so that planning permission is not a right of the individual, but an endorsement by the people it will affect.

earth sheltered homes

Applications for earth sheltered homes which are normally very eco friendly should not be subjected to the strict considerations which apply to green belt applications, currently they are.

Applications for basement extensions, ie digging under an existing house to create extra living space should also be more favourably looked at, as a positive way to create extra living space without spoiling the beautiful landscapes which are usually either greenbelt or area of outstanding natural beauty.

These two easements would help with the shortage of homes, create work, create profit, and be beneficial in every way without being detrimental to the environment.

Why is this idea important?

Applications for earth sheltered homes which are normally very eco friendly should not be subjected to the strict considerations which apply to green belt applications, currently they are.

Applications for basement extensions, ie digging under an existing house to create extra living space should also be more favourably looked at, as a positive way to create extra living space without spoiling the beautiful landscapes which are usually either greenbelt or area of outstanding natural beauty.

These two easements would help with the shortage of homes, create work, create profit, and be beneficial in every way without being detrimental to the environment.

Reassesment of Residential Planning Permissons

I think the main question is……

Why do I need anyones permission to replace my windows, move an internal wall, to take up the soil in my garden and put a driveway down,  Why do I need permisson to do anything to my home when I own the propery????

I think this needs to to be re-evalutated, I mean do I have to ask a car manufactures permission to change the windscreen, or replace the wheels, NO why? becuase I brought the car and it no longer has anything to do with the manufacturer.

If i purchase my home, I own it, not the local council.

I Believe that for most works that need to be done to a home shouldn't need permission from the local authority, However I do think that some kind of survey or assessment could be needed for certain structial modification to ensure the work is safe to carry out.

Why is this idea important?

I think the main question is……

Why do I need anyones permission to replace my windows, move an internal wall, to take up the soil in my garden and put a driveway down,  Why do I need permisson to do anything to my home when I own the propery????

I think this needs to to be re-evalutated, I mean do I have to ask a car manufactures permission to change the windscreen, or replace the wheels, NO why? becuase I brought the car and it no longer has anything to do with the manufacturer.

If i purchase my home, I own it, not the local council.

I Believe that for most works that need to be done to a home shouldn't need permission from the local authority, However I do think that some kind of survey or assessment could be needed for certain structial modification to ensure the work is safe to carry out.

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.

Repeal the “Exception Sites” rules in planning law

These rules in Planning law¬†allow builders/developers to buy cheap land outside development boundaries and then gain consent for “affordable housing” for Housing Associations on green belt, ANOB, etc. land that otherwise wouldn’t get consent. It also allows them to ignore regulations about flood risk.

Why is this idea important?

These rules in Planning law¬†allow builders/developers to buy cheap land outside development boundaries and then gain consent for “affordable housing” for Housing Associations on green belt, ANOB, etc. land that otherwise wouldn’t get consent. It also allows them to ignore regulations about flood risk.

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.

moderation for environmental regulators

As a business that requires regular licences for dredging, piling, reclamation, marine works and building consents in coastal areas we have a difficult time.  Currently there is no way to appeal against the judgement of environmental officers working for Environment agency, English nature or Countryside council for wales. The officers are overzealous in applying rules emanating from the Habitats directive and other similar acts, they work on the precautionary principle whereby the applicant is obliged to prove "they are not having  a negative effect". This often becomes a game of find the invisible man, after spending years and often hundreds of thousands of pounds proving the painfully obvious to the ill informed few there is no method of redress against these individuals that have often been most unreasonable. i would like to see a measure of moderation and accountability for these agencies.The burden of proof needs to shift from the applicant to the regulator at some point and the consequence of not granting the licence need to be assessed in terms of the local communities affected by these insular and often poor decisions.

Why is this idea important?

As a business that requires regular licences for dredging, piling, reclamation, marine works and building consents in coastal areas we have a difficult time.  Currently there is no way to appeal against the judgement of environmental officers working for Environment agency, English nature or Countryside council for wales. The officers are overzealous in applying rules emanating from the Habitats directive and other similar acts, they work on the precautionary principle whereby the applicant is obliged to prove "they are not having  a negative effect". This often becomes a game of find the invisible man, after spending years and often hundreds of thousands of pounds proving the painfully obvious to the ill informed few there is no method of redress against these individuals that have often been most unreasonable. i would like to see a measure of moderation and accountability for these agencies.The burden of proof needs to shift from the applicant to the regulator at some point and the consequence of not granting the licence need to be assessed in terms of the local communities affected by these insular and often poor decisions.

The Right Of Light Act 1959

If an occupant has lived in a property for 20 years they have the right to prevent the development of an extension to a neighbouring property if the extension will cause a minimal loss of light to a window.


 

Why is this idea important?

If an occupant has lived in a property for 20 years they have the right to prevent the development of an extension to a neighbouring property if the extension will cause a minimal loss of light to a window.


 

New Homes To Be Detached and Have Sufficient Land For Parking and Gardens

That all new houses built should be detached properties with at least enough land to park up to  three cars in the front or, better, sides, of each property. The properties should also have sufficient land for a garden of suitable size in the rear and to a lesser extent to the front of the property. The exact size of land to be a subject for consultation but at least a quarter of an acre.

Why is this idea important?

That all new houses built should be detached properties with at least enough land to park up to  three cars in the front or, better, sides, of each property. The properties should also have sufficient land for a garden of suitable size in the rear and to a lesser extent to the front of the property. The exact size of land to be a subject for consultation but at least a quarter of an acre.

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)!

 

Reduce dependency on USA Military hardware

be able to build any military device we need in the UK.  Invest in UK research

and production, not pay (over a weapons platform lifetime) literally tens of billions to

American companies.

Why is this idea important?

be able to build any military device we need in the UK.  Invest in UK research

and production, not pay (over a weapons platform lifetime) literally tens of billions to

American companies.

Cut planning and conservation rules

To do away with unnecessary and restrictive planning and conservation regulations that stop people doings things such as erecting a shed in a rural area or taking down an old delapidated building that has no archetectural or cultural merit. To ensure planning authorities actually listen to local people and not just the planners. To stop the need for archaeological surveys for every small builing

Why is this idea important?

To do away with unnecessary and restrictive planning and conservation regulations that stop people doings things such as erecting a shed in a rural area or taking down an old delapidated building that has no archetectural or cultural merit. To ensure planning authorities actually listen to local people and not just the planners. To stop the need for archaeological surveys for every small builing

Freedom of movement

We should be allowed to go across borders without being subjected to immigration control within the EU. Many countries in Europe have signed up to this and can move around freely. I believe we should have the same rights, as we already pay for membership, so we should get this benefit. It is especially needed for those people who spend their time traveling back and forth.

Why is this idea important?

We should be allowed to go across borders without being subjected to immigration control within the EU. Many countries in Europe have signed up to this and can move around freely. I believe we should have the same rights, as we already pay for membership, so we should get this benefit. It is especially needed for those people who spend their time traveling back and forth.

Reduce Planning Bureaucracy

We need to make serious reductions to the amount of paperwork that needs to be done in order to speed up and streamline the planning system.

I'm a year or so from graduating as an architect and have already studied planning. I've worked in both fields and the amount of paperwork needed just to get planning permission is incredible. The previous government, despite making some positive changes, have made it harder and more expensive to get planning and build.

Public sector planners have been allowed to request an ever increasing range of documents and reports from developers – tree surveys, bat surveys, traffic impact assessments, environmental impact assessments, design and access statements, statements of community consultation etc etc, all of which can cost thousands upon thousands from specialist consultants. In some cases, these are necessary, however all too often planners aren't sure of whether they are needed so will request anything vaguely applicable to cover their own backs, with no understanding of the costs and time delays involved.

In short: make planners justify all aditional documentation that they request.

Why is this idea important?

We need to make serious reductions to the amount of paperwork that needs to be done in order to speed up and streamline the planning system.

I'm a year or so from graduating as an architect and have already studied planning. I've worked in both fields and the amount of paperwork needed just to get planning permission is incredible. The previous government, despite making some positive changes, have made it harder and more expensive to get planning and build.

Public sector planners have been allowed to request an ever increasing range of documents and reports from developers – tree surveys, bat surveys, traffic impact assessments, environmental impact assessments, design and access statements, statements of community consultation etc etc, all of which can cost thousands upon thousands from specialist consultants. In some cases, these are necessary, however all too often planners aren't sure of whether they are needed so will request anything vaguely applicable to cover their own backs, with no understanding of the costs and time delays involved.

In short: make planners justify all aditional documentation that they request.

Allowing low impact development on agricultural land

There are thousands of people in the UK who would like to farm there own land but cannot afford the half million £s needed for a farm with accommodation. The planning laws in this area are highly outdated and make it virtually impossible to build up new small farms from bare land.

The countryside is now only for big agribusiness and a playground for the rich, so there is very little new enterprise in small scale agriculture, which is badly needed.

Because of the low incomes involved it is impossible to start up a small agricultural business and pay rent/mortgage on a separate home.

Small, low impact and easily removable dwellings should be allowed while (and only WHILE) the land is being used for agriculture, either business or self sufficiency, which then often grows into small business by selling surplus, providing good local produce, and providing a fulfilling employment in the countryside, which surely is good for everyone.

The British countryside has got to let go if its NIMBY attitude, or it will end up a stale, gated community.

Why is this idea important?

There are thousands of people in the UK who would like to farm there own land but cannot afford the half million £s needed for a farm with accommodation. The planning laws in this area are highly outdated and make it virtually impossible to build up new small farms from bare land.

The countryside is now only for big agribusiness and a playground for the rich, so there is very little new enterprise in small scale agriculture, which is badly needed.

Because of the low incomes involved it is impossible to start up a small agricultural business and pay rent/mortgage on a separate home.

Small, low impact and easily removable dwellings should be allowed while (and only WHILE) the land is being used for agriculture, either business or self sufficiency, which then often grows into small business by selling surplus, providing good local produce, and providing a fulfilling employment in the countryside, which surely is good for everyone.

The British countryside has got to let go if its NIMBY attitude, or it will end up a stale, gated community.

Remove the restriction barring Objectors from appealing a Planning decision.

Currently only the requestor of Planning Consent can appeal if the decision goes against them. The same right is not afforded to Ojectors. Remove this unfairness.

Why is this idea important?

Currently only the requestor of Planning Consent can appeal if the decision goes against them. The same right is not afforded to Ojectors. Remove this unfairness.

Reduce and simplify Planning Laws and |Regulations

Reduce the scale of planning laws to remove small changes to property and sporting facilities from Planning Regulation. For example- We run a small village cricket team and sought to improve the facilities by providing a practice net. We were stopped from this by planning regulations and it cost the club several hundred pounds to obtain planning permission for a concrete base which was only at ground level and affected no body. Such unnecessary coverage by planning is costly and can be removed without affecting others and would allow local authorities to reduce their planning staff and costs if applied sensibly.

Why is this idea important?

Reduce the scale of planning laws to remove small changes to property and sporting facilities from Planning Regulation. For example- We run a small village cricket team and sought to improve the facilities by providing a practice net. We were stopped from this by planning regulations and it cost the club several hundred pounds to obtain planning permission for a concrete base which was only at ground level and affected no body. Such unnecessary coverage by planning is costly and can be removed without affecting others and would allow local authorities to reduce their planning staff and costs if applied sensibly.

Replace Planning Permission with Zoning

Replace the current planning permission process with a zoning process. An area should be zoned and then any project which meets current building regulations and conforms to the rules of the zone e.g. light industrial etc. should be approved.

Why is this idea important?

Replace the current planning permission process with a zoning process. An area should be zoned and then any project which meets current building regulations and conforms to the rules of the zone e.g. light industrial etc. should be approved.

Regulate to encourage more than to discourage

By regulatio one intends the creation of disincentives to certain actions or outcomes. There is a plathorae of such regulations. However, what is lacking is a coherent set of regulations that encourage innovation and creativity. One can think of many options, such as the obligation to engage of SMEs in large government projects especially those that need a high level of development (IT, engineering etc), promoting the usage new services and products in universities and govenment departments.

Why is this idea important?

By regulatio one intends the creation of disincentives to certain actions or outcomes. There is a plathorae of such regulations. However, what is lacking is a coherent set of regulations that encourage innovation and creativity. One can think of many options, such as the obligation to engage of SMEs in large government projects especially those that need a high level of development (IT, engineering etc), promoting the usage new services and products in universities and govenment departments.

unlimited repeat planning applications for same development

Present planning laws allow developers to re-apply  for permission to build virtually the same development,  i.e. with very small alterations, indefinitely and irrespective of how many refusals by the local authority.  This is a huge imposition on Councils and local residents who necessarily have to involve themselves in spending a lot of time and money defending unwanted planning appeals.  Resident groups are mostly up against giant organisations  [mainly supermarket chains] which have unlimited resources.  It is truly a David and Goliath situation except that in most cases Goliath is eventually the winner as they gradually wear down the opposition.  Surely, a rejection of one application and a a subsequent appeal is enough to show that the local residents or their Council, do not want the development to take place.  No organisation should be allowed to steamroller its way over the will of the people. 

Why is this idea important?

Present planning laws allow developers to re-apply  for permission to build virtually the same development,  i.e. with very small alterations, indefinitely and irrespective of how many refusals by the local authority.  This is a huge imposition on Councils and local residents who necessarily have to involve themselves in spending a lot of time and money defending unwanted planning appeals.  Resident groups are mostly up against giant organisations  [mainly supermarket chains] which have unlimited resources.  It is truly a David and Goliath situation except that in most cases Goliath is eventually the winner as they gradually wear down the opposition.  Surely, a rejection of one application and a a subsequent appeal is enough to show that the local residents or their Council, do not want the development to take place.  No organisation should be allowed to steamroller its way over the will of the people.