Abandon the South East Plan and local Core Strategies

 

The South East plan was the previous labour governments plan to dump 654160 houses in South-east England by 2026, with each council or unitary authority being set various targets.

 

Councils are obliged to continue moving forward with their local plans until the new coalition government modifies or abandons this legal enforceable strategy.

 

The plan promotes massive over building in the south-east, with no allowances for availability of land, provision of infrastructure, loss of countryside and local opposition.

Why is this idea important?

 

The South East plan was the previous labour governments plan to dump 654160 houses in South-east England by 2026, with each council or unitary authority being set various targets.

 

Councils are obliged to continue moving forward with their local plans until the new coalition government modifies or abandons this legal enforceable strategy.

 

The plan promotes massive over building in the south-east, with no allowances for availability of land, provision of infrastructure, loss of countryside and local opposition.

Affordable Housing

It is the right of every citizen to have access to affordable housing. However, due to the mismanagement of social housing and the continued discrimination of landlords/estate agents benefit claimants, this is not the case.

Here are some suggestions to alleviate this growing crisis in our country.

1. Landlords/Estate Agents must accept benefit claimants if they can pay the necessary deposit/fees and are of good character/credit.

2. If a Council/Association cannot house an applicant after a given time (i.e 18 months or 2 years) then the applicant should be given the necessary monies to rent privately. This should include 1 months deposit (LHA equivalent), 1 months rent in advance (LHA equivalent), administration cost (standard of the area). It can be difficult for those on low-incomes to raise this money aswell as buy furniture, tv licence, and all the other necessary costs of setting up home.

3. Ensure that Local Housing Allowance rates do reflect the actual cost of private rent in a given area. In some areas the rate seriously falls short, which means that people either have to apply for social housing or move to another area of the country away from family and friends.

4. Revise Social Housing Allocations. At present, allocations are generally made on a needs basis rather than a time-waiting basis. This means that many people, especially single people, are perpetually at the bottom of the list. Allocations should be split between needs basis and time-waiting i.e. 70% of allocations made on a needs basis and 30% on a time-waiting basis. Even if only 1 in 5 properties were allocated on a time-waiting basis, then those at the bottom of the list would eventually move up.

5. Right to buy has its merits but also problems. Sold stock should be replaced. If it cannot be, due to financial constraints on the Council/Association or lack of land, then right-to-buy should be restricted in that area.

6. Build more social housing!

Why is this idea important?

It is the right of every citizen to have access to affordable housing. However, due to the mismanagement of social housing and the continued discrimination of landlords/estate agents benefit claimants, this is not the case.

Here are some suggestions to alleviate this growing crisis in our country.

1. Landlords/Estate Agents must accept benefit claimants if they can pay the necessary deposit/fees and are of good character/credit.

2. If a Council/Association cannot house an applicant after a given time (i.e 18 months or 2 years) then the applicant should be given the necessary monies to rent privately. This should include 1 months deposit (LHA equivalent), 1 months rent in advance (LHA equivalent), administration cost (standard of the area). It can be difficult for those on low-incomes to raise this money aswell as buy furniture, tv licence, and all the other necessary costs of setting up home.

3. Ensure that Local Housing Allowance rates do reflect the actual cost of private rent in a given area. In some areas the rate seriously falls short, which means that people either have to apply for social housing or move to another area of the country away from family and friends.

4. Revise Social Housing Allocations. At present, allocations are generally made on a needs basis rather than a time-waiting basis. This means that many people, especially single people, are perpetually at the bottom of the list. Allocations should be split between needs basis and time-waiting i.e. 70% of allocations made on a needs basis and 30% on a time-waiting basis. Even if only 1 in 5 properties were allocated on a time-waiting basis, then those at the bottom of the list would eventually move up.

5. Right to buy has its merits but also problems. Sold stock should be replaced. If it cannot be, due to financial constraints on the Council/Association or lack of land, then right-to-buy should be restricted in that area.

6. Build more social housing!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Stop spurious village green applications halting housing development

Repeal the Commons Act 2008 (and Commons Act 2006).

This law allows people to apply for village greens on the flimsiest of grounds.    A social housing development (aka affordable housing) with planning approval has been held up for 2.5 years because a spurious village green application has been made using the Commons Acts recently brought in.  The application is now being turned down but the applicatants have succeeded in delaying the project.

The village green registration authorities have no time limit in which they must reach a conclusion about an application.  Therefore everyone is using spurious village green applications to delay any development they disagree with, regardless of the planning laws.

The Commons Acts are not needed since the Planning Laws are sufficient in themselves. 

   

Why is this idea important?

Repeal the Commons Act 2008 (and Commons Act 2006).

This law allows people to apply for village greens on the flimsiest of grounds.    A social housing development (aka affordable housing) with planning approval has been held up for 2.5 years because a spurious village green application has been made using the Commons Acts recently brought in.  The application is now being turned down but the applicatants have succeeded in delaying the project.

The village green registration authorities have no time limit in which they must reach a conclusion about an application.  Therefore everyone is using spurious village green applications to delay any development they disagree with, regardless of the planning laws.

The Commons Acts are not needed since the Planning Laws are sufficient in themselves. 

   

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!

Abolish the AONB boards

A few years ago it was decided that AONBs (Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty) should each have some form of board, invoving a staff, website, publications, meetings, input into planning decisions etc. These were duly formed and now are staffed up and eating money and wasting time.  

The planning functions can be discharged by locally elected bodies eg councils who have due regard to AONB status when looking at applications.  Everything else they do is a complete waste of time including handing out tiny grants to local bodies – councils can, and do, this already.  Basically they are an extra layer of non-accountable cost which duplicates council functions.  No-one asked for them and no-one would miss them.

Why is this idea important?

A few years ago it was decided that AONBs (Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty) should each have some form of board, invoving a staff, website, publications, meetings, input into planning decisions etc. These were duly formed and now are staffed up and eating money and wasting time.  

The planning functions can be discharged by locally elected bodies eg councils who have due regard to AONB status when looking at applications.  Everything else they do is a complete waste of time including handing out tiny grants to local bodies – councils can, and do, this already.  Basically they are an extra layer of non-accountable cost which duplicates council functions.  No-one asked for them and no-one would miss them.

Give Planning Enforcement Departments power to act quickly

Faster action by Planning Enforcement Officers to prevent unplanned buildings in the first place and quicker action in getting illegal buildings removed.

Why is this idea important?

Faster action by Planning Enforcement Officers to prevent unplanned buildings in the first place and quicker action in getting illegal buildings removed.

Overhaul , review and simplify the town planning process

1 – Reduce the beaurocracy associated with the planning process , particularly insofar as it applies to smaller schemes, ( say up to 10 houses on smaller sites ) Remove the legalised bribery that is Section 106 ' Agreements ' (!!) ; Impose stricter time scales on planning Authorities to deal with applications ; Inhibit Authoritys ability to make up all manner of costly conditions to attach to the decision when it is finally given such as Archeological Digs for the tiniest of or no reasons; contamination tests where there has been no real  evidence of previous suspect activity; Expensive works to protect suspected presence of one or two newts or frogs etc etc etc

2. – Stop mixing ' social ' housing with private and prevent Developers promoting their sites as private and then selling large numbers of houses to Housing Assns. after some people have bought privately.

3 – Stop the drive to keep increasing the  Coded sustainability. Each increase is very costly and of dubious ongoing viability.

4 – Put less emphasis on density targets.

Why is this idea important?

1 – Reduce the beaurocracy associated with the planning process , particularly insofar as it applies to smaller schemes, ( say up to 10 houses on smaller sites ) Remove the legalised bribery that is Section 106 ' Agreements ' (!!) ; Impose stricter time scales on planning Authorities to deal with applications ; Inhibit Authoritys ability to make up all manner of costly conditions to attach to the decision when it is finally given such as Archeological Digs for the tiniest of or no reasons; contamination tests where there has been no real  evidence of previous suspect activity; Expensive works to protect suspected presence of one or two newts or frogs etc etc etc

2. – Stop mixing ' social ' housing with private and prevent Developers promoting their sites as private and then selling large numbers of houses to Housing Assns. after some people have bought privately.

3 – Stop the drive to keep increasing the  Coded sustainability. Each increase is very costly and of dubious ongoing viability.

4 – Put less emphasis on density targets.

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./

Have a look at trying to make a house for living in

Have a look at trying to make a house for living in and not for milking a whole generation who can not get on the property market due to being priced out because of BTL pushing up prices 280% in a few short years..

.Unless you register as a company and fees should be charged to keep cowboys out you should only ever have at the most two houses and then the extra should be disposed of in three years to cover probate.

This country is full of amateur landlords who to put it mildly are greedy money worshipping fools.

.Houses should be for living in…..not for ripping off people..

Why is this idea important?

Have a look at trying to make a house for living in and not for milking a whole generation who can not get on the property market due to being priced out because of BTL pushing up prices 280% in a few short years..

.Unless you register as a company and fees should be charged to keep cowboys out you should only ever have at the most two houses and then the extra should be disposed of in three years to cover probate.

This country is full of amateur landlords who to put it mildly are greedy money worshipping fools.

.Houses should be for living in…..not for ripping off people..

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

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.

PLANNING LAWS TO BE MORE PUBLICLY ACCOUNTABLE

To revert back to the Town & Country Planning Act which may need strengthening in places but fundamentally worked in allowing local participation and to scrap the existing planning laws which allow developers the right of appeal but not local people or communities.

To scrap the law that a local authority can be both a developer and planning authority at the same time as this is inherently biased in favour of development and does not allow any real democratic public process.

Why is this idea important?

To revert back to the Town & Country Planning Act which may need strengthening in places but fundamentally worked in allowing local participation and to scrap the existing planning laws which allow developers the right of appeal but not local people or communities.

To scrap the law that a local authority can be both a developer and planning authority at the same time as this is inherently biased in favour of development and does not allow any real democratic public process.

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.

Get rid of agricultural tie restrictions on dwellings

Good idea after WW2, but out of date in 2010. Why should owners of agtie properties be forced to either comply with restriction or have to sell if they cannot?  If an ag business or employment ceases why should I leave my home?  I should not be forced to market it for up to 2 years to demonstrate a lack of local agricultural housing need! I dont want to move.

I accept there has to be some planning regulation in the countryside, but this law is surely against human rights? Im proposing radical changes in what constitutes agricultural occupancy.  The list of occupations should be widened to encompass smallholder, farrier, blacksmith, and other country occupations not presently accepted under the existing legislation. And, because profit isnt necessarily the main point for some whose lifestyle choice has led them to an agtie property, the necessity to prove income should be abolished.  

Why is this idea important?

Good idea after WW2, but out of date in 2010. Why should owners of agtie properties be forced to either comply with restriction or have to sell if they cannot?  If an ag business or employment ceases why should I leave my home?  I should not be forced to market it for up to 2 years to demonstrate a lack of local agricultural housing need! I dont want to move.

I accept there has to be some planning regulation in the countryside, but this law is surely against human rights? Im proposing radical changes in what constitutes agricultural occupancy.  The list of occupations should be widened to encompass smallholder, farrier, blacksmith, and other country occupations not presently accepted under the existing legislation. And, because profit isnt necessarily the main point for some whose lifestyle choice has led them to an agtie property, the necessity to prove income should be abolished.  

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.