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. 

child abuse (are social worker’s hands tied)

Social workers must be given the powers to enter a home where a a child is suspected to be at risk.

The recent case of Khyra Ishaq who was starved and badly abused until she died, is an example of social workers inabilities to do their job, as they do not have sufficient powers.

They visited this house on at least seven occasions and only twice briefly glimpsed poor Khyra. They were unable to assess her condition.

Social workers should be able to call on police if necessary to force entry and insist on seeing a child in a way sufficient to enable them to assess the mental and physical condition of the child properly.

Why is this idea important?

Social workers must be given the powers to enter a home where a a child is suspected to be at risk.

The recent case of Khyra Ishaq who was starved and badly abused until she died, is an example of social workers inabilities to do their job, as they do not have sufficient powers.

They visited this house on at least seven occasions and only twice briefly glimpsed poor Khyra. They were unable to assess her condition.

Social workers should be able to call on police if necessary to force entry and insist on seeing a child in a way sufficient to enable them to assess the mental and physical condition of the child properly.

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.

The planning law that prevents affordable village homes.

Why am I prevented from dividing my 5 bedroomed village home, which is half a mile from the curtailage of the Village?  If my home was half a mile nearer the village there wouldnt be a problem!

The house and garden are too big, now my family have left home but I love my home and my garden, why should I sell the whole house? The sensible option would be to divide into two flats or make two semi detached homes but planning law prevents this. The stupid part of this law is, if the property was a pair of  semi detached homes I could apply to make one large house and this would be approved!

Why is this idea important?

Why am I prevented from dividing my 5 bedroomed village home, which is half a mile from the curtailage of the Village?  If my home was half a mile nearer the village there wouldnt be a problem!

The house and garden are too big, now my family have left home but I love my home and my garden, why should I sell the whole house? The sensible option would be to divide into two flats or make two semi detached homes but planning law prevents this. The stupid part of this law is, if the property was a pair of  semi detached homes I could apply to make one large house and this would be approved!

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.

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.

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.

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.

Overcrowding legislation

We should remove laws that force social landlords to move large families to larger houses once their children reach a certain age. I am sure there are lots of home owners who are forced to have their children share a bedroom because they cannot afford to buy a bigger home. it seems unfair that social landlords are forced to move tenants to bigger homes or spend large sums of money on building extensions to aviod breaching overcrowding legislation.

Why is this idea important?

We should remove laws that force social landlords to move large families to larger houses once their children reach a certain age. I am sure there are lots of home owners who are forced to have their children share a bedroom because they cannot afford to buy a bigger home. it seems unfair that social landlords are forced to move tenants to bigger homes or spend large sums of money on building extensions to aviod breaching overcrowding legislation.

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.

Abolish Council Tax it is Obsolete Replace it with Local V.A.T.

Council tax is a tax that is extremely unfair. It is devisive and discriminatory. Each home was banded according to a value which was determined by an estate agent driving round the street giving values to each property.  These values placed each owner in a particular band. This way of banding property took no account of the ability to pay by the owner and subsequently became a tax/demand.  The whole sorry episode was a knee jerk reaction to the failed community charge, and was not thought out properly or calculated fairly. It is also impossible to get your banding changed if as an individual think you are in the wrong band. I know to my own experience. I am placed in band "E" wheras alll my neighbours are band "C". It is obvious to me that there was an error in the valuation probably the estate agent whizzing past my property but try to get it changed not a chance. I have even had veiled threats by the Valuation  Office to drop my request to reband me.  But back to the system as a whole. Why should a pensioner on a small pension be in the position of a potential jail sentance if they cannot pay their Council Tax, just because they bought a property say in the 1960's when house prices were affordable. Why should this person be expected to be able to support those who are on benefit and do not pay these taxes. Example (not me) an Old lady  ( it always has to for example purposes)near me who is just above the benefit level who just subsists, she has no holidays, no car, her only entertainment is the Radio. She does not go out at night. Why should this old lady be expected to support a household of four adults who do not work they are subsidsed to the hilt. These four adults are down the pub getting drunk. Feeding themselves on cooked junk food, because they are too idle to cook for themselves. They come out of the pub straight to the Kebab shop. Causing general mayhem vomitiing over the street damaging the council infrastructure. They can afford to have some lifestyle but the old lady who just subsists does not but she has to contribute to their lifestyle and pay to clear up after them. This tax is unfair when looked at like this but it does happen in life.

So my proposal and I expect you have already had this is Local V.A.T.    This would be a fairer system. The old lady would only pay for what she uses. The four adults on benefits would pay for what they use. The setting of the rate would be down to the local council. Example seaside town quite small but in the summer its visitor numbers are vastly greater than the local inhabitants. The local inhabitants have to support the visitors who use the local services and therefore under the current system pay quite a large amount of Council Tax . Under the local V.a.t. those visitors would contribute to the local economy and infrastructure. These extra local tax incomes could be ploughed back into the town and the whole town improved thereby attracting more visitors and everyone is a winner. This system could be used to improve not just the hypothetical seaside town but most areas of the U.K.  But most of all it gives you choice. Choice over how you wish to live. Choice of where you want to visit. Choice of whether you can afford it and greatest of all there will be no chance of being jailed because you cannot pay your current Council Tax.       

Why is this idea important?

Council tax is a tax that is extremely unfair. It is devisive and discriminatory. Each home was banded according to a value which was determined by an estate agent driving round the street giving values to each property.  These values placed each owner in a particular band. This way of banding property took no account of the ability to pay by the owner and subsequently became a tax/demand.  The whole sorry episode was a knee jerk reaction to the failed community charge, and was not thought out properly or calculated fairly. It is also impossible to get your banding changed if as an individual think you are in the wrong band. I know to my own experience. I am placed in band "E" wheras alll my neighbours are band "C". It is obvious to me that there was an error in the valuation probably the estate agent whizzing past my property but try to get it changed not a chance. I have even had veiled threats by the Valuation  Office to drop my request to reband me.  But back to the system as a whole. Why should a pensioner on a small pension be in the position of a potential jail sentance if they cannot pay their Council Tax, just because they bought a property say in the 1960's when house prices were affordable. Why should this person be expected to be able to support those who are on benefit and do not pay these taxes. Example (not me) an Old lady  ( it always has to for example purposes)near me who is just above the benefit level who just subsists, she has no holidays, no car, her only entertainment is the Radio. She does not go out at night. Why should this old lady be expected to support a household of four adults who do not work they are subsidsed to the hilt. These four adults are down the pub getting drunk. Feeding themselves on cooked junk food, because they are too idle to cook for themselves. They come out of the pub straight to the Kebab shop. Causing general mayhem vomitiing over the street damaging the council infrastructure. They can afford to have some lifestyle but the old lady who just subsists does not but she has to contribute to their lifestyle and pay to clear up after them. This tax is unfair when looked at like this but it does happen in life.

So my proposal and I expect you have already had this is Local V.A.T.    This would be a fairer system. The old lady would only pay for what she uses. The four adults on benefits would pay for what they use. The setting of the rate would be down to the local council. Example seaside town quite small but in the summer its visitor numbers are vastly greater than the local inhabitants. The local inhabitants have to support the visitors who use the local services and therefore under the current system pay quite a large amount of Council Tax . Under the local V.a.t. those visitors would contribute to the local economy and infrastructure. These extra local tax incomes could be ploughed back into the town and the whole town improved thereby attracting more visitors and everyone is a winner. This system could be used to improve not just the hypothetical seaside town but most areas of the U.K.  But most of all it gives you choice. Choice over how you wish to live. Choice of where you want to visit. Choice of whether you can afford it and greatest of all there will be no chance of being jailed because you cannot pay your current Council Tax.       

Planning Laws

Many councils now withdraw 'permitted development rights' from new homes, simply to make money from the householders when they want to do the simplest of alterations/extensions to their homes.  This law should be removed so that everybody is able to make simple alterations/extension without the need to get the council involved and line their coffers. Planning permission should not be needed for those of us who want a greener environment and wish to install solar panels or a small wind turbine. As things stand it is cost prohibited when the council need to get involved in every aspect of these matters.

Why is this idea important?

Many councils now withdraw 'permitted development rights' from new homes, simply to make money from the householders when they want to do the simplest of alterations/extensions to their homes.  This law should be removed so that everybody is able to make simple alterations/extension without the need to get the council involved and line their coffers. Planning permission should not be needed for those of us who want a greener environment and wish to install solar panels or a small wind turbine. As things stand it is cost prohibited when the council need to get involved in every aspect of these matters.

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.  

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.