right to light act

Repeal the rule that allows placing a pole or scaffold tube on site,  that takes the place of the planned building.

Once this pole or scaffold has been in place for a year and a day, the builder is then allowed by law to construct any building to the height of that pole or scaffold tube.

This can all be carried out with no notice or warning to the residents effected save the pole, scaffold tube or any other erection in place to the height they will to build.

Why is this idea important?

Repeal the rule that allows placing a pole or scaffold tube on site,  that takes the place of the planned building.

Once this pole or scaffold has been in place for a year and a day, the builder is then allowed by law to construct any building to the height of that pole or scaffold tube.

This can all be carried out with no notice or warning to the residents effected save the pole, scaffold tube or any other erection in place to the height they will to build.

Remove all planning regulations on use of holiday homes

Please remove all planning regulations on use of holiday homes whereby an owner can not "reside" in his home, but he can "occupy" it, i.e. he has to prove he has a permanent home somewhere else in order to use it. He can let it to holiday makers all year round if the site has a 12 month licence, but he is not allowed to live in it himself for 12 months. This is utter nonsense. Does it really matter who occupies/resides in it? It is there to be used. The excuses from councils are that these homes are not well insulated like bricks and mortar. LET THE PEOPLE DECIDE. If they are prepared to live in them, let them. Councils seem to enjoy the power they have over the people in respect of holiday homes and it should be stopped – it is against human rights. It also costs us a fortune paying councils to enforce it.

There are many holiday home sites all over the country with different licences allowing owners to use their mobile homes/pine lodges for 10, 11 or 12 months. A huge number of these homes are owned by elderly people enjoying their retirement years.

If these sites were to be given FULL RESIDENTIAL licences, a great many, elderly people especially, would sell their family homes and live permanently in their holiday homes, thus PROVIDING HOUSES for young families. The homes are there. They should be used, and we NEED TO USE THEM if we are to keep our countryside. 

Why is this idea important?

Please remove all planning regulations on use of holiday homes whereby an owner can not "reside" in his home, but he can "occupy" it, i.e. he has to prove he has a permanent home somewhere else in order to use it. He can let it to holiday makers all year round if the site has a 12 month licence, but he is not allowed to live in it himself for 12 months. This is utter nonsense. Does it really matter who occupies/resides in it? It is there to be used. The excuses from councils are that these homes are not well insulated like bricks and mortar. LET THE PEOPLE DECIDE. If they are prepared to live in them, let them. Councils seem to enjoy the power they have over the people in respect of holiday homes and it should be stopped – it is against human rights. It also costs us a fortune paying councils to enforce it.

There are many holiday home sites all over the country with different licences allowing owners to use their mobile homes/pine lodges for 10, 11 or 12 months. A huge number of these homes are owned by elderly people enjoying their retirement years.

If these sites were to be given FULL RESIDENTIAL licences, a great many, elderly people especially, would sell their family homes and live permanently in their holiday homes, thus PROVIDING HOUSES for young families. The homes are there. They should be used, and we NEED TO USE THEM if we are to keep our countryside. 

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.

Land Tax

First of all I would like to thank Nick Clegg for this opportunity to have some useful input directly into government policy. My personal circumstances are that my current landlord has given me 60 days notice to leave my private let (via a letting agent) house because he needs to sell in order to repay certain debts he has acquired in the current economic climate.

The area I live in there simply isn’t any housing available to let privately, and those that are coming onto the market are well above my finical means. I earn too much for the local council to help me. I need to be homeless for a minimum of 30 days before the council can offer any help.

There are plenty of empty houses in the area I drive past dozens on my way to work so who knows how many more there are in the side roads. These are of course investment properties whereby the owners are waiting for the property market to recover before they restore, develop, or just redecorate to sell on for a profit.

This is a situation that simply does not exist in Germany. The German government charges a ‘Land Tax’ on all property. With residential properties the residents pay the land tax as part of their council tax.

Often in some city areas the land tax is higher that the council tax thus encouraging property owners to have tenants occupying their properties as much as possible.

Why is this idea important?

First of all I would like to thank Nick Clegg for this opportunity to have some useful input directly into government policy. My personal circumstances are that my current landlord has given me 60 days notice to leave my private let (via a letting agent) house because he needs to sell in order to repay certain debts he has acquired in the current economic climate.

The area I live in there simply isn’t any housing available to let privately, and those that are coming onto the market are well above my finical means. I earn too much for the local council to help me. I need to be homeless for a minimum of 30 days before the council can offer any help.

There are plenty of empty houses in the area I drive past dozens on my way to work so who knows how many more there are in the side roads. These are of course investment properties whereby the owners are waiting for the property market to recover before they restore, develop, or just redecorate to sell on for a profit.

This is a situation that simply does not exist in Germany. The German government charges a ‘Land Tax’ on all property. With residential properties the residents pay the land tax as part of their council tax.

Often in some city areas the land tax is higher that the council tax thus encouraging property owners to have tenants occupying their properties as much as possible.

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.

restore rights to DIY home improvements

Scrap existing laws that prevent houseowners from carrying out work on their property including

replacing doors and windows and carrying out electrical work (both currently illegal) these are a an infringement of basic rights of individuals to maintain their own property.

Why is this idea important?

Scrap existing laws that prevent houseowners from carrying out work on their property including

replacing doors and windows and carrying out electrical work (both currently illegal) these are a an infringement of basic rights of individuals to maintain their own property.

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.

Make it illegal for anybody to enter my home without my permission or a court order

It is disgraceful that the last government implemented programs or ideas involving penpushers being able to enter your home whenever they feel like turning up against a £1000 fine for refusal. And there was no justification for this. If we are forced to have a reevaluation of council tax rates then consult the planning office. A complete record of my -or any- property can be found there.

"An Englishman's home is his castle". It might not be the best or the biggest but it should be private and respected. Unless you break the law.

Why is this idea important?

It is disgraceful that the last government implemented programs or ideas involving penpushers being able to enter your home whenever they feel like turning up against a £1000 fine for refusal. And there was no justification for this. If we are forced to have a reevaluation of council tax rates then consult the planning office. A complete record of my -or any- property can be found there.

"An Englishman's home is his castle". It might not be the best or the biggest but it should be private and respected. Unless you break the law.

Entry to one’s home

This should be restricted and only permitted with a court order. Over the last 13 years, the number of organisations who can gain entry without permission from the owner has risen from 1 to over 10.

Why is this idea important?

This should be restricted and only permitted with a court order. Over the last 13 years, the number of organisations who can gain entry without permission from the owner has risen from 1 to over 10.

Remove listed orders for private owned homes

Our house and next doors has the front facing bay window listed.The road we live on has approx 70%-80% block flats on it.Our house and next doors is in 1/2 of an acre.We cannot sell to developers because of this listing.I personally see no point to it as it is of no use to the public interest.The government should look at all old listed building order's and restrict them to places of interest to the public. Putting a listing on the front of a house makes no sense at all especially if the majority of buildings on the same road are all blocks of flats.We have a coach house which had a restriction for it not to be removed. When the Birmingham city council rented  one of their properties with the coachouse that was in need of repair they scrapped the listing just so that they could pull down their coachouse as re-building it would have cost alot,this was 2 doors away from us. They do what they want when they want.  

Why is this idea important?

Our house and next doors has the front facing bay window listed.The road we live on has approx 70%-80% block flats on it.Our house and next doors is in 1/2 of an acre.We cannot sell to developers because of this listing.I personally see no point to it as it is of no use to the public interest.The government should look at all old listed building order's and restrict them to places of interest to the public. Putting a listing on the front of a house makes no sense at all especially if the majority of buildings on the same road are all blocks of flats.We have a coach house which had a restriction for it not to be removed. When the Birmingham city council rented  one of their properties with the coachouse that was in need of repair they scrapped the listing just so that they could pull down their coachouse as re-building it would have cost alot,this was 2 doors away from us. They do what they want when they want.  

Planning Inspectorate

The activities of the Planning Inspectorate need curtailing.  If a planning application is turned down, an appeal can be launched by the aggrieved party.   However, the Inspectorate appoints someone who knows nothing about the area and his/her opinion takes precedence of that of the local planning authority.  Even though the Inspectorate employs someone to do quality control of its decisions, it appears not to carry out any quality control.  I know of a case when the Inspectorate was asked to review a decision it had made, the quality control man sid they could not do this because they had thrown away the papers!

Why is this idea important?

The activities of the Planning Inspectorate need curtailing.  If a planning application is turned down, an appeal can be launched by the aggrieved party.   However, the Inspectorate appoints someone who knows nothing about the area and his/her opinion takes precedence of that of the local planning authority.  Even though the Inspectorate employs someone to do quality control of its decisions, it appears not to carry out any quality control.  I know of a case when the Inspectorate was asked to review a decision it had made, the quality control man sid they could not do this because they had thrown away the papers!

Revoke unneccessary planning conditions

Planning conditions such as 'holiday use' or 'agricultural worker' reduce the supply of affordable housing, distort the housing market, hamper business flexibility to change direction, and encourage illegal occupation in breach of planning laws.

Houses that have been built to building regulations (as opposed to temporary structures such as caravans) should be available to live in, or rent as holiday accommodation according to market conditions.

This idea is to offer the owners of properties suffering from these conditions the opportunity to revoke these conditions in exchange for a payment to the goverment.

 

Why is this idea important?

Planning conditions such as 'holiday use' or 'agricultural worker' reduce the supply of affordable housing, distort the housing market, hamper business flexibility to change direction, and encourage illegal occupation in breach of planning laws.

Houses that have been built to building regulations (as opposed to temporary structures such as caravans) should be available to live in, or rent as holiday accommodation according to market conditions.

This idea is to offer the owners of properties suffering from these conditions the opportunity to revoke these conditions in exchange for a payment to the goverment.

 

No right of local authorities to enter homes without consent.

I understand that local authorities and utility employees have, under certain circumstances, the right to enter private homes without the consent of the owner.  One such scenario is in order to inspect alterations or improvements which the householder has made to the property before revaluation and rebanding for rating purposes.  This is an outrageous infringement of individual civil liberty.  Except where a criminal offence has been committed or an emergency (like a fire or burst water pipe) occurs, local authority officials and public utility employees should have no right enter a property without the consent of the owner.

Why is this idea important?

I understand that local authorities and utility employees have, under certain circumstances, the right to enter private homes without the consent of the owner.  One such scenario is in order to inspect alterations or improvements which the householder has made to the property before revaluation and rebanding for rating purposes.  This is an outrageous infringement of individual civil liberty.  Except where a criminal offence has been committed or an emergency (like a fire or burst water pipe) occurs, local authority officials and public utility employees should have no right enter a property without the consent of the owner.

House holders to be represented when regulations formulated

An example is the Building regulation changes. These now dictate that if a gas boiler is replaced then a more efficient condensing boiler must be used; that seems reasonable. What is not reasonable is the householder having to pay for additional work (plumbing and decoration) required to meet the separate heating zone requirements. The householder is poorly represented when new regulations are being formulated compared to the companies that make money out of such regulations.

Why is this idea important?

An example is the Building regulation changes. These now dictate that if a gas boiler is replaced then a more efficient condensing boiler must be used; that seems reasonable. What is not reasonable is the householder having to pay for additional work (plumbing and decoration) required to meet the separate heating zone requirements. The householder is poorly represented when new regulations are being formulated compared to the companies that make money out of such regulations.

Redundant Farm Buildings Conversion

The last Labour governmentbrought in a law which allowed the conversion of suitable redundant farm buildings into offices or holiday cottages. But not houses

The offices are difficult to let and the holiday cottages are only suitable in the right area.

However there is a desperate shortage of houses and these buildings often make good houses.

The footprint is already there and no extra land is utilised, also the nations housing shortage could be improved at no cost to the tax payer.

I believe Mr Clegg the deputy Prime Minister wrote an article in the Daily Mail supporting this idea.

I would like to propose therefore that these buildings if suiutable should be given planning permission to convert into houses./

Why is this idea important?

The last Labour governmentbrought in a law which allowed the conversion of suitable redundant farm buildings into offices or holiday cottages. But not houses

The offices are difficult to let and the holiday cottages are only suitable in the right area.

However there is a desperate shortage of houses and these buildings often make good houses.

The footprint is already there and no extra land is utilised, also the nations housing shortage could be improved at no cost to the tax payer.

I believe Mr Clegg the deputy Prime Minister wrote an article in the Daily Mail supporting this idea.

I would like to propose therefore that these buildings if suiutable should be given planning permission to convert into houses./

Protection of landlord property from fraudulant housing benefit applications for purposes of property misappropriation

Currently central Government issues only guidelines for the processing of Housing Benefit applications to local Councils. These are not implemented uniformly with respect of protecting property owners rights and in the worst cases can leave the property owner exposed to their property being 'taken over' by a Housing Benefit claimant(s). The requirement to check with the true owner of the property that the application is valid is never made.

The claimant or someone wanting to commit the fraud simply has to tick the box stating that they are the owner, or alternatively submit contracts drawn up in the fraudsters name stating that they are the owner or landlord. All of this can be done without the true owners knowledge or consent. Once the application has been approved if the fraudster can gain entry to the property then the true owner cannot get the Housing Benefit Claimants out because their tennancy is protected by the terms of the contract drawn up, irrespective of whether the contract was drawn up with the owners knowledge or not.

In no part of this process is the applicants form verified for factual information about who the owner or landlord of the property is. This can be done via the land registry but I believe for reasons more connected with housing claimants, it is not in the interests of Councils to make these checks as their primary requirement is to house claimants, not check with owners that they have agreed to this.

Why is this idea important?

Currently central Government issues only guidelines for the processing of Housing Benefit applications to local Councils. These are not implemented uniformly with respect of protecting property owners rights and in the worst cases can leave the property owner exposed to their property being 'taken over' by a Housing Benefit claimant(s). The requirement to check with the true owner of the property that the application is valid is never made.

The claimant or someone wanting to commit the fraud simply has to tick the box stating that they are the owner, or alternatively submit contracts drawn up in the fraudsters name stating that they are the owner or landlord. All of this can be done without the true owners knowledge or consent. Once the application has been approved if the fraudster can gain entry to the property then the true owner cannot get the Housing Benefit Claimants out because their tennancy is protected by the terms of the contract drawn up, irrespective of whether the contract was drawn up with the owners knowledge or not.

In no part of this process is the applicants form verified for factual information about who the owner or landlord of the property is. This can be done via the land registry but I believe for reasons more connected with housing claimants, it is not in the interests of Councils to make these checks as their primary requirement is to house claimants, not check with owners that they have agreed to this.

An Englishman’s Home is His Castle.

An Englishman's home is his castle is an idea that should be enshrined in law. If someone breaks into your property, you should be allowed to defend yourself and your property (from uninvited invasion) by or with whatever means you choose. If someone decides to break into your property (for an example let's say it is at night), you don't have time to be rational, or to check whether or not the intruder has a weapon – you will grab whatever is to hand to defend yourself and your property and evict (or capture) the intruder. The intruder has to know that if they are breaking the law, they need to worry about more than being caught by the (never there when you need them) police. A change in law to affect this situation would cut the number of burglaries due to the fear of being caught by a householder. Using "reasonable force" is currently misunderstood. Whatever force I decide to use against an uninvited (and unknown to me) intruder is, as far as I am concerned, reasonable.

Why is this idea important?

An Englishman's home is his castle is an idea that should be enshrined in law. If someone breaks into your property, you should be allowed to defend yourself and your property (from uninvited invasion) by or with whatever means you choose. If someone decides to break into your property (for an example let's say it is at night), you don't have time to be rational, or to check whether or not the intruder has a weapon – you will grab whatever is to hand to defend yourself and your property and evict (or capture) the intruder. The intruder has to know that if they are breaking the law, they need to worry about more than being caught by the (never there when you need them) police. A change in law to affect this situation would cut the number of burglaries due to the fear of being caught by a householder. Using "reasonable force" is currently misunderstood. Whatever force I decide to use against an uninvited (and unknown to me) intruder is, as far as I am concerned, reasonable.

Right to enter your Property

The only people who should have a right to enter your Property without permission are the emergency services and that only in an emergency unless there is a court warrant.

Anyone else should have no rights unless with a court warrant, and courts should not issue warrants for nosy LA's etc.

Some leniency should be allowed for child protection services

 

Why is this idea important?

The only people who should have a right to enter your Property without permission are the emergency services and that only in an emergency unless there is a court warrant.

Anyone else should have no rights unless with a court warrant, and courts should not issue warrants for nosy LA's etc.

Some leniency should be allowed for child protection services

 

Self Defense

For any man and woman to defend themselves and love ones, and anything they own (houses, cars etc) without the risk of being sent to jail themselves…unarmed and non-legal weaponary (taser at least)

Why is this idea important?

For any man and woman to defend themselves and love ones, and anything they own (houses, cars etc) without the risk of being sent to jail themselves…unarmed and non-legal weaponary (taser at least)