Replace Planning Permission with Zoning

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

Why is this idea important?

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

Provide co-housing to help with mobility of labour

Establish co-housing projects in areas that need influxes of labour to encourage indigenous migration for work.

Short term housing contracts could help young people find their feet and live in a local community of like minded others and then move on.

Why is this idea important?

Establish co-housing projects in areas that need influxes of labour to encourage indigenous migration for work.

Short term housing contracts could help young people find their feet and live in a local community of like minded others and then move on.

Reform and clarify the planning system to progressive beauty

The planning system is an out of date, dishonest and currupt monster. It restricts, hinders and punishers those who dare to challenge it and lead business forward with new ideas, buildings and concepts.

I and many of my collegues would invest far more money into business infrastructure to benefit the local enconomy, lower rents and capital costs, improve efficiency, and lower carbon footprints and improve the life of all who work in the economy. I personally invest only 20% of my potential in my business because of the problems, uncretainties and vagarities of the planning system.

This planning system is a mess. Since it was introduced the quality, range and visual amenity of all properties has deteriated, and has only seen a small improvement in the last decade, but still we live in a world of poor quality buildings and workspaces.

This system is policed by biased and corrupt planners who nearly always make a decision to refuse a progressive application and then bend and manipulate the law to fit their decisions. That is unless one of their pals on the planning committee is involved in which case they do just the opposite. Many progressive and highly functional and efficient buildings and land uses are stopped by the 1% of nimbies and their councillor chums whoc then unfairly and unconstitutionaly influence the planners to lie and missrepresent the planning law to refuse and application. I have a small business development which is both low impact and visually unintrusive for hi tech office use, but we have and continue to fight the planners for everything and 5 years in we are still fighting and subject to intrusive inspections by planning officers to try to stop us using our permitted development rights. Throughout this process we have shelved plans for wood fired heating, small wind turbine and a small solar project to progress our energy consumption and have had to aboandon all due to the local authority planning incompetance and obstructions.

here is the typical scenario. We contact the planner for some advice. Is this xyz alteration to our building okay. We then write in after no responce. We are told a load of rubbish that yes we will look at the application and we could not possibly issue a view on it prior to an application. Then as soon as we submit an application they are suddenly 100% sure that all they can do is refuse an application and there is no possibility of passing it. ??Why could they not have said it before. Then we go to appeal and as long as we do not get an x planning officer at appeal we get the permission granted and the planning authority make a fool of themselves lying through their back teeth to back up their reasons for refusal which were all fabricated.

This is all a long and drawn out unnecesary process and we should look at a form of zoning with restrictions on hieght and use in certain areas and alow a certain amount of land each year to be set aside fo new uses close to existing towns. Planners should be forced to represent the law correctly and not lie to applicants and give more honest and less obstructive advice. This unnecesary and overly beurocratic system is holding back business, increasing house rents and capital values andis not deliverying a better built environment or better houses to live in. The system has its head in the sand when in comes to solar gain through south facing windows, solar heating and panels, quality of living space and aspect and beauty.

We need to look at a total overhaul of this sytem and produce a postive progressive, not negative regressive process which encourages people to invest in quality eficient and beautiful buildings which are a joy to behold. When people look back at the buildings from 1960 to 2010 they will wonder what on earth we were doing bar a few fantastic exeptions. Lets make 2010 onwards more progressive, more beautiful, more postive and make Britain a fantastic place to live.

Why is this idea important?

The planning system is an out of date, dishonest and currupt monster. It restricts, hinders and punishers those who dare to challenge it and lead business forward with new ideas, buildings and concepts.

I and many of my collegues would invest far more money into business infrastructure to benefit the local enconomy, lower rents and capital costs, improve efficiency, and lower carbon footprints and improve the life of all who work in the economy. I personally invest only 20% of my potential in my business because of the problems, uncretainties and vagarities of the planning system.

This planning system is a mess. Since it was introduced the quality, range and visual amenity of all properties has deteriated, and has only seen a small improvement in the last decade, but still we live in a world of poor quality buildings and workspaces.

This system is policed by biased and corrupt planners who nearly always make a decision to refuse a progressive application and then bend and manipulate the law to fit their decisions. That is unless one of their pals on the planning committee is involved in which case they do just the opposite. Many progressive and highly functional and efficient buildings and land uses are stopped by the 1% of nimbies and their councillor chums whoc then unfairly and unconstitutionaly influence the planners to lie and missrepresent the planning law to refuse and application. I have a small business development which is both low impact and visually unintrusive for hi tech office use, but we have and continue to fight the planners for everything and 5 years in we are still fighting and subject to intrusive inspections by planning officers to try to stop us using our permitted development rights. Throughout this process we have shelved plans for wood fired heating, small wind turbine and a small solar project to progress our energy consumption and have had to aboandon all due to the local authority planning incompetance and obstructions.

here is the typical scenario. We contact the planner for some advice. Is this xyz alteration to our building okay. We then write in after no responce. We are told a load of rubbish that yes we will look at the application and we could not possibly issue a view on it prior to an application. Then as soon as we submit an application they are suddenly 100% sure that all they can do is refuse an application and there is no possibility of passing it. ??Why could they not have said it before. Then we go to appeal and as long as we do not get an x planning officer at appeal we get the permission granted and the planning authority make a fool of themselves lying through their back teeth to back up their reasons for refusal which were all fabricated.

This is all a long and drawn out unnecesary process and we should look at a form of zoning with restrictions on hieght and use in certain areas and alow a certain amount of land each year to be set aside fo new uses close to existing towns. Planners should be forced to represent the law correctly and not lie to applicants and give more honest and less obstructive advice. This unnecesary and overly beurocratic system is holding back business, increasing house rents and capital values andis not deliverying a better built environment or better houses to live in. The system has its head in the sand when in comes to solar gain through south facing windows, solar heating and panels, quality of living space and aspect and beauty.

We need to look at a total overhaul of this sytem and produce a postive progressive, not negative regressive process which encourages people to invest in quality eficient and beautiful buildings which are a joy to behold. When people look back at the buildings from 1960 to 2010 they will wonder what on earth we were doing bar a few fantastic exeptions. Lets make 2010 onwards more progressive, more beautiful, more postive and make Britain a fantastic place to live.

Remove Planning Zoning

Many other countries have laws that basically say if you own a piece of land more than Xm square, you are entitled to build a single family property. Conversely, our system is all about density – cramming as many dwellings as possible into the smallest possible space.

This favours big developers and artificially increases the price of housing by over valuing development land.

Why is this idea important?

Many other countries have laws that basically say if you own a piece of land more than Xm square, you are entitled to build a single family property. Conversely, our system is all about density – cramming as many dwellings as possible into the smallest possible space.

This favours big developers and artificially increases the price of housing by over valuing development land.

Artistic freedom – deregulation of house design from planning restrictions

Planning laws are necessary only to prevent the erection of dangerous structures. But they are more often than not used to prevent unusual, creative and innovative design from being built. I propose the resztriction of the planning laws to cover only the structure, size and facililties of buildings, but not their appearance, their colour, shape, materials and ornament. This will allow the natrural creative talent of the nation to flourish, expressed through the built environment at every level.

Why is this idea important?

Planning laws are necessary only to prevent the erection of dangerous structures. But they are more often than not used to prevent unusual, creative and innovative design from being built. I propose the resztriction of the planning laws to cover only the structure, size and facililties of buildings, but not their appearance, their colour, shape, materials and ornament. This will allow the natrural creative talent of the nation to flourish, expressed through the built environment at every level.

Town and Country Planning Act

The town and country Planning act should be repealed in part or reviewed majorly and a new start initiated. At the moment the act is far too complex and almost impossible for the average man in the street to understand. It gives powers to planners that seem arbitrary and totally subjective. Plans that would be passed by one planner may not necessarily get past another! This causes a great deal of frustration when your application for a small extension is turned down and next door gets permission to build Moonbase Alpha! And why do you have to put in retrospective planning permission for a structure that has stood for over 4 years that enforcement action cannot be taken against? What happens if the planners in their wisdom turn it down. It can't be enforced upon so what's the point? What can the planners do? wag their finger at you? Permission should be granted automatically once the 4 year period  (with no complaints) is up. I appreciate the need for planning laws otherwise the country would be overrun with inappropriate structures but planners should be more consistent in their approval of planning applications.

Why is this idea important?

The town and country Planning act should be repealed in part or reviewed majorly and a new start initiated. At the moment the act is far too complex and almost impossible for the average man in the street to understand. It gives powers to planners that seem arbitrary and totally subjective. Plans that would be passed by one planner may not necessarily get past another! This causes a great deal of frustration when your application for a small extension is turned down and next door gets permission to build Moonbase Alpha! And why do you have to put in retrospective planning permission for a structure that has stood for over 4 years that enforcement action cannot be taken against? What happens if the planners in their wisdom turn it down. It can't be enforced upon so what's the point? What can the planners do? wag their finger at you? Permission should be granted automatically once the 4 year period  (with no complaints) is up. I appreciate the need for planning laws otherwise the country would be overrun with inappropriate structures but planners should be more consistent in their approval of planning applications.

Relax planning regulations, using a “polluter pays” model to control development

Britain was pulled from the slump of the early 1930s by a housebuilding boom that gave us many of the semi-detached suburbs that are so sought after today. Now, in contrast, it is very difficult for new homes to receive planning permission. While new development undoubtedly will have some negative consequences, it also brings benefits, although the current planning system fails to recognise this, pandering solely to those who have objections, rather than considering how other people will gain. What are the benefits of relaxing planning regulations? I have listed some here:

– Rises in living standards resulting from improvements to the quality of the country's housing stock;

– Reduced costs of living resulting from reductions in commercial and residential rents;

– Freeing businesses from needless contraints on their activities by simplifying land use categories;

– Reductions in the local government resources devoted to land use issues, reducing the amount of money spent by local government;

– Promoting long term economic growth by removing barriers faced by infrastructure projects of national significance.

– Creating jobs and business opportunities in the construction sector, and related trades such as consumer durables;

How would this work in detail?

I propose that the current system should be replaced by a more streamlined tribunal approach working on a "polluter pays" model.

First, however, we should ensure those parts of Britain that genuinely deserve to be preserved continue to be subject tight planning controls. This would cover, for example, areas of outstanding natural beauty (e.g. North Downs, Cotswolds, Chilterns) and historic or noteworthy urban districts. Also, a wider range of buildings might be considered for listing. Second, in order to ensure new construction was of a high standard, I would like to see building standards being bolstered. This might mean, for example, reintroducing the Parker Morris standards for new homes (which regulate minimum room sizes) and introducing new standards for building on flood plains similar to those used in the Netherlands.

Having tightened controls over those parts of Britain most deserving of protection, I believe a tribunal process can ensure compensation is awarded to those with valid claims to have suffered damages as the result of the development. So someone losing light as the result of a neighbour's extension could be awarded a sum of money by the tribunal. In most cases, this would be settled "out of court", preventing the need for the tribunal to be used. These compensation sums would be "built-in" to the price of the development, and be part of the developer's decision whether to proceed. I suggest compensation might be awarded for noise, disruption, or loss of light, but not for aesthetic matters. With this in place, the market would be free to determine Britain's land use patterns, while ensuring those who were genuinely affected by a development were appropriately compensated.

To make this work, proposed land use changes and new development would be reported to the planning authorities. There would be some limited circumstances where permission could be denied by the council – for example, nightclubs, abatoirs, chemical plants. (I propose that existing land use categories are simplified into two categories: one would contain potentially disruptive, unpleasant, or dangerous activities and the other would contain everything else (e.g. houses, shops, offices, hospitals, libraries, etc.). It would no longer be necessary to seek permission to change use within the second category.)

Where development was proposed on greenfield land that the planning authority considered worthy of protection, the local council would be able to offer to take it into public ownership as common land, with the tribunal setting the level of compensation that would be offered to the landowner. Savings elsewhere could be put towards a fund for this purpose.

This proposal may be a bit rich for many tastes: a more digestable proposal might be to allow a development free-for-all in, for example, the eastern halves of Britain's big cities, which are invariably crying out for private investment in the built-environment, and where developers should be welcomed, not forced to kow-tow to planners and their precious local plans.

Why is this idea important?

Britain was pulled from the slump of the early 1930s by a housebuilding boom that gave us many of the semi-detached suburbs that are so sought after today. Now, in contrast, it is very difficult for new homes to receive planning permission. While new development undoubtedly will have some negative consequences, it also brings benefits, although the current planning system fails to recognise this, pandering solely to those who have objections, rather than considering how other people will gain. What are the benefits of relaxing planning regulations? I have listed some here:

– Rises in living standards resulting from improvements to the quality of the country's housing stock;

– Reduced costs of living resulting from reductions in commercial and residential rents;

– Freeing businesses from needless contraints on their activities by simplifying land use categories;

– Reductions in the local government resources devoted to land use issues, reducing the amount of money spent by local government;

– Promoting long term economic growth by removing barriers faced by infrastructure projects of national significance.

– Creating jobs and business opportunities in the construction sector, and related trades such as consumer durables;

How would this work in detail?

I propose that the current system should be replaced by a more streamlined tribunal approach working on a "polluter pays" model.

First, however, we should ensure those parts of Britain that genuinely deserve to be preserved continue to be subject tight planning controls. This would cover, for example, areas of outstanding natural beauty (e.g. North Downs, Cotswolds, Chilterns) and historic or noteworthy urban districts. Also, a wider range of buildings might be considered for listing. Second, in order to ensure new construction was of a high standard, I would like to see building standards being bolstered. This might mean, for example, reintroducing the Parker Morris standards for new homes (which regulate minimum room sizes) and introducing new standards for building on flood plains similar to those used in the Netherlands.

Having tightened controls over those parts of Britain most deserving of protection, I believe a tribunal process can ensure compensation is awarded to those with valid claims to have suffered damages as the result of the development. So someone losing light as the result of a neighbour's extension could be awarded a sum of money by the tribunal. In most cases, this would be settled "out of court", preventing the need for the tribunal to be used. These compensation sums would be "built-in" to the price of the development, and be part of the developer's decision whether to proceed. I suggest compensation might be awarded for noise, disruption, or loss of light, but not for aesthetic matters. With this in place, the market would be free to determine Britain's land use patterns, while ensuring those who were genuinely affected by a development were appropriately compensated.

To make this work, proposed land use changes and new development would be reported to the planning authorities. There would be some limited circumstances where permission could be denied by the council – for example, nightclubs, abatoirs, chemical plants. (I propose that existing land use categories are simplified into two categories: one would contain potentially disruptive, unpleasant, or dangerous activities and the other would contain everything else (e.g. houses, shops, offices, hospitals, libraries, etc.). It would no longer be necessary to seek permission to change use within the second category.)

Where development was proposed on greenfield land that the planning authority considered worthy of protection, the local council would be able to offer to take it into public ownership as common land, with the tribunal setting the level of compensation that would be offered to the landowner. Savings elsewhere could be put towards a fund for this purpose.

This proposal may be a bit rich for many tastes: a more digestable proposal might be to allow a development free-for-all in, for example, the eastern halves of Britain's big cities, which are invariably crying out for private investment in the built-environment, and where developers should be welcomed, not forced to kow-tow to planners and their precious local plans.

Remove the Green Belt restrictions

Long term land owners who has ownership for a long time say over 10 years should be allowed to build a residential property.  Why should local government dictate what a land owner is able to do.  Relax this nonsense and allow development for a single residential home.

Why is this idea important?

Long term land owners who has ownership for a long time say over 10 years should be allowed to build a residential property.  Why should local government dictate what a land owner is able to do.  Relax this nonsense and allow development for a single residential home.

Bureaucracy in the planning system

Reduce wholly unnecessary bureaucracy and red tape in a planning system which has virtually stalled in its ability to deliver. Ensure that planning officers apply planning policy only to applications, as opposed to personal prejudice.

Why is this idea important?

Reduce wholly unnecessary bureaucracy and red tape in a planning system which has virtually stalled in its ability to deliver. Ensure that planning officers apply planning policy only to applications, as opposed to personal prejudice.

Ease restrictions on earth sheltered & basement housing

There are only 60 earth sheltered houses in the UK mostly in Wales. The planning law for permission is as strict for earth sheltered as it is for above ground – this is wrong!!!!!

A council has to consider aesthetics as well as several other aspects, and any application in the green belt is automatically turned down as green belt building is considered best avoided.

An earth sheltered house is almost always eco friendly – I do not know why – but it is!!

An earth sheltered house cannot be seen or can barely be seen from above ground, other than an aerial view.  This sort of building should be encouraged as this small island has only limited space, we do not wish to see the loss of more green fields or parks, playing fields, agricultural land etc etc.  But earth sheltered would barely impact on infrastructure, does not spoil views or appearance to greenbelt land, and surely should be encouraged in an attempt to help find space for much needed homes. In my opinion all applications for earth sheltered housing should automatically be viewed as if they were brown field sites, and then each taken on its merits. 

Why is this idea important?

There are only 60 earth sheltered houses in the UK mostly in Wales. The planning law for permission is as strict for earth sheltered as it is for above ground – this is wrong!!!!!

A council has to consider aesthetics as well as several other aspects, and any application in the green belt is automatically turned down as green belt building is considered best avoided.

An earth sheltered house is almost always eco friendly – I do not know why – but it is!!

An earth sheltered house cannot be seen or can barely be seen from above ground, other than an aerial view.  This sort of building should be encouraged as this small island has only limited space, we do not wish to see the loss of more green fields or parks, playing fields, agricultural land etc etc.  But earth sheltered would barely impact on infrastructure, does not spoil views or appearance to greenbelt land, and surely should be encouraged in an attempt to help find space for much needed homes. In my opinion all applications for earth sheltered housing should automatically be viewed as if they were brown field sites, and then each taken on its merits. 

Repeal HMO Licensing

Please repeal HMO licensing requirements.

Councils are using these not only as a 'catch penny' to pay EHO wages, but also it seems to make unnecessary work for electricians and builders.

Why is this idea important?

Please repeal HMO licensing requirements.

Councils are using these not only as a 'catch penny' to pay EHO wages, but also it seems to make unnecessary work for electricians and builders.

Ease restrictions on earth sheltered & basement housing

There are only 60 earth sheltered houses in the UK mostly in Wales. The planning law for permission is as strict for earth sheltered as it is for above ground – this is wrong!!!!!

A council has to consider aesthetics as well as several other aspects, and any application in the green belt is automatically turned down as green belt building is considered best avoided.

An earth sheltered house is almost always eco friendly – I do not know why – but it is!!

An earth sheltered house cannot be seen or can barely be seen from above ground, other than an aerial view.  This sort of building should be encouraged as this small island has only limited space, we do not wish to see the loss of more green fields or parks, playing fields, agricultural land etc etc.  But earth sheltered would barely impact on infrastructure, does not spoil views or appearance to greenbelt land, and surely should be encouraged in an attempt to help find space for much needed homes. In my opinion all applications for earth sheltered housing should automatically be viewed as if they were brown field sites, and then each taken on its merits. 

Why is this idea important?

There are only 60 earth sheltered houses in the UK mostly in Wales. The planning law for permission is as strict for earth sheltered as it is for above ground – this is wrong!!!!!

A council has to consider aesthetics as well as several other aspects, and any application in the green belt is automatically turned down as green belt building is considered best avoided.

An earth sheltered house is almost always eco friendly – I do not know why – but it is!!

An earth sheltered house cannot be seen or can barely be seen from above ground, other than an aerial view.  This sort of building should be encouraged as this small island has only limited space, we do not wish to see the loss of more green fields or parks, playing fields, agricultural land etc etc.  But earth sheltered would barely impact on infrastructure, does not spoil views or appearance to greenbelt land, and surely should be encouraged in an attempt to help find space for much needed homes. In my opinion all applications for earth sheltered housing should automatically be viewed as if they were brown field sites, and then each taken on its merits. 

Change to definition of Brownfield Land in gardens to Greenfield

The Government very recently altered the definition of gardens under PPS3 from brownfield land to greenfield. This appears to have been done to placate the NIMBYs of middle England. Many of those who object to such schemes thenselves live on land that was once gardens or recreational areas. It seems that the consequences of such a change were not thought through by those who created the change. My company has spent £50000 on a three year application for a small scheme of 5 houses in a garden. We satisfied all the planner's requests throughout to make the scheme acceptable. The LPA recommended approval. The local counsellors were unduly influenced by the neighbours and refused it. They would not give a reason and asked the planners to insert one in the decision notice. We were in the middle of the appeal process with a high chance of success (because our application at the date of submission "ticked all the planning boxes") when the ministerial decision was announced out of the blue. Now there is no chance of the appeal succeeding as this legislation by Ministerial statement appears to be retrospective. Why could it not have excluded those applications already in the pipeline?  Because of this my small company will have to be liquidated, I and my family will have no income from the business, the young couple who owned the garden will not be able to improve their lot and move, and the men who were going to build the houses will not now have a job. Were such consequences for those on the receiving end ever considered? It was announced by Ministerial statement. Please immediately repeal it by the same method. It does more harm than good. It appears to be unnecessarily unfair.

Why is this idea important?

The Government very recently altered the definition of gardens under PPS3 from brownfield land to greenfield. This appears to have been done to placate the NIMBYs of middle England. Many of those who object to such schemes thenselves live on land that was once gardens or recreational areas. It seems that the consequences of such a change were not thought through by those who created the change. My company has spent £50000 on a three year application for a small scheme of 5 houses in a garden. We satisfied all the planner's requests throughout to make the scheme acceptable. The LPA recommended approval. The local counsellors were unduly influenced by the neighbours and refused it. They would not give a reason and asked the planners to insert one in the decision notice. We were in the middle of the appeal process with a high chance of success (because our application at the date of submission "ticked all the planning boxes") when the ministerial decision was announced out of the blue. Now there is no chance of the appeal succeeding as this legislation by Ministerial statement appears to be retrospective. Why could it not have excluded those applications already in the pipeline?  Because of this my small company will have to be liquidated, I and my family will have no income from the business, the young couple who owned the garden will not be able to improve their lot and move, and the men who were going to build the houses will not now have a job. Were such consequences for those on the receiving end ever considered? It was announced by Ministerial statement. Please immediately repeal it by the same method. It does more harm than good. It appears to be unnecessarily unfair.

Simplify the planning system

I work as an architect nationwide in a large practice.  The planning system has a significant impact on our work and it’s smooth operation is vital to our operations and indeed our profitability and survival as a business.  It is also vital to the country, especially at a time of economic problems, that decisions are made swiftly and at minimal cost to everyone involved, including the public purse.

The planning process, from our perspective, has become increasingly difficult over the last decade.  The introduction of fees and later of targets, has not eased the process from our point of view and we often find ourselves trapped in between the demands of our clients on the one hand and the planners on the other.  

The cost of making a planning application is now so high, because of the time scale required to put an appllication together and the vast number of reports and information required to enable a decision – that it has become beyond the reach of many private clients who cannot afford to venture into the system at huge personal cost, when the outcome is so uncertain.

Simplify the whole system.  Here are some suggestions:

  • Expand the scope of permitted development.
  • Introduce a "rules" based system where any proposal complying with the rules can be automatically permitted.
  • As in much of Europe any design submitted by a qualified architect should be deemed approved from a "design" perspective.
  • Introduce Local Development Orders to cover all main development sites with a set of criteria to be followed.  Any proposal complying with the criteria would be deemed approved.
  • Similarly – define rules within Local Plans whereby compliance deems approval.
  • Having introduced a predominantly rules based system – private sector planners could be engaged to run the system and manage the process.  The democratic element of planning would be in approving and determining the rules in the first place.
  • Many apoplications are stalled awaiting consultees responses.  Where consultees fail to respond – and indeed where the Planning Authority fails to make a decision in the proscribed time – an application should be deemed approved.

Why is this idea important?

I work as an architect nationwide in a large practice.  The planning system has a significant impact on our work and it’s smooth operation is vital to our operations and indeed our profitability and survival as a business.  It is also vital to the country, especially at a time of economic problems, that decisions are made swiftly and at minimal cost to everyone involved, including the public purse.

The planning process, from our perspective, has become increasingly difficult over the last decade.  The introduction of fees and later of targets, has not eased the process from our point of view and we often find ourselves trapped in between the demands of our clients on the one hand and the planners on the other.  

The cost of making a planning application is now so high, because of the time scale required to put an appllication together and the vast number of reports and information required to enable a decision – that it has become beyond the reach of many private clients who cannot afford to venture into the system at huge personal cost, when the outcome is so uncertain.

Simplify the whole system.  Here are some suggestions:

  • Expand the scope of permitted development.
  • Introduce a "rules" based system where any proposal complying with the rules can be automatically permitted.
  • As in much of Europe any design submitted by a qualified architect should be deemed approved from a "design" perspective.
  • Introduce Local Development Orders to cover all main development sites with a set of criteria to be followed.  Any proposal complying with the criteria would be deemed approved.
  • Similarly – define rules within Local Plans whereby compliance deems approval.
  • Having introduced a predominantly rules based system – private sector planners could be engaged to run the system and manage the process.  The democratic element of planning would be in approving and determining the rules in the first place.
  • Many apoplications are stalled awaiting consultees responses.  Where consultees fail to respond – and indeed where the Planning Authority fails to make a decision in the proscribed time – an application should be deemed approved.

Planning laws

Review the whole planning legislation. The cost of submitting a planning application is now far too high due to the massive amount of additional "expert" reports required. This cost has to be incurred prior to submiiting the application and the planning authority can still say no.

What I propose is:

  1. Free up the whole system by allowing a simple application to be filed without any supporting reports. The planning authority can then say yes or no. If it is a yes, it can be conditioned by the additional reports required. Simple and very cost effective.
  2. Allow more development – we only have 8% of land built on. To provide a further 1 miliion homes we would need a further 1.5%, which is not going to destroy our heritage
  3. Allow the full development of all existing buildings on brown field sites, farms etc. They are already there and it is far more cost effective to allow their conversion to housing than to start a whole new build.

Why is this idea important?

Review the whole planning legislation. The cost of submitting a planning application is now far too high due to the massive amount of additional "expert" reports required. This cost has to be incurred prior to submiiting the application and the planning authority can still say no.

What I propose is:

  1. Free up the whole system by allowing a simple application to be filed without any supporting reports. The planning authority can then say yes or no. If it is a yes, it can be conditioned by the additional reports required. Simple and very cost effective.
  2. Allow more development – we only have 8% of land built on. To provide a further 1 miliion homes we would need a further 1.5%, which is not going to destroy our heritage
  3. Allow the full development of all existing buildings on brown field sites, farms etc. They are already there and it is far more cost effective to allow their conversion to housing than to start a whole new build.

Reform HMO legislation

The 2004 Housing Act introduced a requirement that houses of 3 or more stories occupied by 5 or more people (other than a single household) should conform to expensive planning requirements eg installation of fire doors throughout, fire-resistant ceilings, etc. There is no evidence that this has achieved any benefit whatsoever.

A 2010 statutory instrument extended these to houses newly in multiple occupation by as few as 3 people. Fortunately the Coalition has announced a review of this latter legislation: however a better approach would be to scrap the regulations altogether.

Why is this idea important?

The 2004 Housing Act introduced a requirement that houses of 3 or more stories occupied by 5 or more people (other than a single household) should conform to expensive planning requirements eg installation of fire doors throughout, fire-resistant ceilings, etc. There is no evidence that this has achieved any benefit whatsoever.

A 2010 statutory instrument extended these to houses newly in multiple occupation by as few as 3 people. Fortunately the Coalition has announced a review of this latter legislation: however a better approach would be to scrap the regulations altogether.

Change restrictive planning laws that constrict housing supply

People are in poverty because the cost of living relative to income is too high.

The single biggest cost of living is housing.

To bring down housing costs, you have to build to meet rising demand, and build cost effectively.

The biggest cost of building is usually the land which is only in short supply due to highly restrictive and conservative planning regulations.

Why is this idea important?

People are in poverty because the cost of living relative to income is too high.

The single biggest cost of living is housing.

To bring down housing costs, you have to build to meet rising demand, and build cost effectively.

The biggest cost of building is usually the land which is only in short supply due to highly restrictive and conservative planning regulations.

retrospective planning law

get rid retrospective planning law as it is is not needed.Everyone needs planning permission before starting on their project. There should be  more planning officers provided so that the time taken by them to give a reply to application is decreased.

Why is this idea important?

get rid retrospective planning law as it is is not needed.Everyone needs planning permission before starting on their project. There should be  more planning officers provided so that the time taken by them to give a reply to application is decreased.