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.

Prevent developers re-submitting plans under different application numbers

Often a planning application will be submitted to local council planning departments and published generating hundreds of objections. These objections may be completely valid to the application and will put severe pressure on the council to reject the plans.

The developer can then withdraw their application, wait a short time, and resubmit their plans (maybe adding some minor changes to justify themselves) and the application is re-posted with a different application number.

This then means all of the previously submitted objections have now disappeared and the developer has a clean slate for effectively the same plan. This forces objectors to re-object. Do this enough and it is likely the amount of objections will be reduced substantially.

There appears to be no limits on this behaviour at present and it is a loophole that entirely benefits a developer and nobody else. I believe this loophole must be closed.

Why is this idea important?

Often a planning application will be submitted to local council planning departments and published generating hundreds of objections. These objections may be completely valid to the application and will put severe pressure on the council to reject the plans.

The developer can then withdraw their application, wait a short time, and resubmit their plans (maybe adding some minor changes to justify themselves) and the application is re-posted with a different application number.

This then means all of the previously submitted objections have now disappeared and the developer has a clean slate for effectively the same plan. This forces objectors to re-object. Do this enough and it is likely the amount of objections will be reduced substantially.

There appears to be no limits on this behaviour at present and it is a loophole that entirely benefits a developer and nobody else. I believe this loophole must be closed.

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.

Evicting BAD tenants too Difficult for Landlords! Legal System Old and Outdated!

Obstrctions should not be put in-front of decent folk.

When a private landlord issues a ‘Notice to Quit (NTQ)’ or ‘Section 21 (SEC21)’ form to enable him or her to legally take-back his property from the current tenant this process takes many months in itself.

It does not help that the legal system and local councils, Merton Council to name one for your reference, getting negatively involved advising the bad tenant to remain in the property, illegally remaining after the expiry date of the NTQ or SEC21.

Issuing of the NTQ or SEC21 should be it. Any other legal responsibility should be on the shoulders of the tenant(s) and not the landlord who has already given many months notice!

I am not advocating any shortcutting of eviction processes that are currently in place to protect good tenants because this would be unethical of me to suggest this. The protection of tenants should be balanced with the interests of the local community at heart too. Keeping ASBOs in-place because the local (Merton) council do not wish not want to rehouse them is not the problem of the local community nor the private landlord.

Furthermore, if any ‘legal Aid’ is offered to any defendant then the same legal aid need to be offered to the Plaintiff. This would focus the minds of those faceless individuals who give many thousands of faceless lawyers and judges who a re financially benefiting from the good-will gesture of the local pay clerks. This individual matter applies to all legal cases!
 

When a private landlord issues a ‘Notice to Quit (NTQ)’ or ‘Section 21 (SEC21)’ form to enable him or her to legally take-back his property from the current tenant this process takes many months in itself.

 

It does not help that the legal system and local councils, Merton Council to name one for your reference, getting negatively involved advising the bad tenant to remain in the property, illegally remaining after the expiry date of the NTQ or SEC21.

 

Issuing of the NTQ or SEC21 should be it. Any other legal responsibility should be on the shoulders of the tenant(s) and not the landlord who has already given many months notice!

 

I am not advocating any shortcutting of eviction processes that are currently in place  to protect good tenants because this would be unethical of me to suggest this. The protection of tenants should be balanced with the interests of the local community at heart too. Keeping ASBOs in-place because the local (Merton) council do not wish not want to rehouse them is not the problem of the local community nor the private landlord.

 

Furthermore, if any ‘legal Aid’ is offered to any defendant then the same legal aid need to be offered to the Plaintiff. This would focus the minds of those faceless individuals who give many thousands of faceless lawyers and judges who a re financially benefiting from the good-will gesture of the local pay clerks. This individual matter applies to all legal cases!

When a private landlord issues a ‘Notice to Quit (NTQ)’ or ‘Section 21 (SEC21)’ form to enable him or her to legally take-back his property from the current tenant this process takes many months in itself.

 

It does not help that the legal system and local councils, Merton Council to name one for your reference, getting negatively involved advising the bad tenant to remain in the property, illegally remaining after the expiry date of the NTQ or SEC21.

 

Issuing of the NTQ or SEC21 should be it. Any other legal responsibility should be on the shoulders of the tenant(s) and not the landlord who has already given many months notice!

 

I am not advocating any shortcutting of eviction processes that are currently in place  to protect good tenants because this would be unethical of me to suggest this. The protection of tenants should be balanced with the interests of the local community at heart too. Keeping ASBOs in-place because the local (Merton) council do not wish not want to rehouse them is not the problem of the local community nor the private landlord.

 

Furthermore, if any ‘legal Aid’ is offered to any defendant then the same legal aid need to be offered to the Plaintiff. This would focus the minds of those faceless individuals who give many thousands of faceless lawyers and judges who a re financially benefiting from the good-will gesture of the local pay clerks. This individual matter applies to all legal cases!

Why is this idea important?

Obstrctions should not be put in-front of decent folk.

When a private landlord issues a ‘Notice to Quit (NTQ)’ or ‘Section 21 (SEC21)’ form to enable him or her to legally take-back his property from the current tenant this process takes many months in itself.

It does not help that the legal system and local councils, Merton Council to name one for your reference, getting negatively involved advising the bad tenant to remain in the property, illegally remaining after the expiry date of the NTQ or SEC21.

Issuing of the NTQ or SEC21 should be it. Any other legal responsibility should be on the shoulders of the tenant(s) and not the landlord who has already given many months notice!

I am not advocating any shortcutting of eviction processes that are currently in place to protect good tenants because this would be unethical of me to suggest this. The protection of tenants should be balanced with the interests of the local community at heart too. Keeping ASBOs in-place because the local (Merton) council do not wish not want to rehouse them is not the problem of the local community nor the private landlord.

Furthermore, if any ‘legal Aid’ is offered to any defendant then the same legal aid need to be offered to the Plaintiff. This would focus the minds of those faceless individuals who give many thousands of faceless lawyers and judges who a re financially benefiting from the good-will gesture of the local pay clerks. This individual matter applies to all legal cases!
 

When a private landlord issues a ‘Notice to Quit (NTQ)’ or ‘Section 21 (SEC21)’ form to enable him or her to legally take-back his property from the current tenant this process takes many months in itself.

 

It does not help that the legal system and local councils, Merton Council to name one for your reference, getting negatively involved advising the bad tenant to remain in the property, illegally remaining after the expiry date of the NTQ or SEC21.

 

Issuing of the NTQ or SEC21 should be it. Any other legal responsibility should be on the shoulders of the tenant(s) and not the landlord who has already given many months notice!

 

I am not advocating any shortcutting of eviction processes that are currently in place  to protect good tenants because this would be unethical of me to suggest this. The protection of tenants should be balanced with the interests of the local community at heart too. Keeping ASBOs in-place because the local (Merton) council do not wish not want to rehouse them is not the problem of the local community nor the private landlord.

 

Furthermore, if any ‘legal Aid’ is offered to any defendant then the same legal aid need to be offered to the Plaintiff. This would focus the minds of those faceless individuals who give many thousands of faceless lawyers and judges who a re financially benefiting from the good-will gesture of the local pay clerks. This individual matter applies to all legal cases!

When a private landlord issues a ‘Notice to Quit (NTQ)’ or ‘Section 21 (SEC21)’ form to enable him or her to legally take-back his property from the current tenant this process takes many months in itself.

 

It does not help that the legal system and local councils, Merton Council to name one for your reference, getting negatively involved advising the bad tenant to remain in the property, illegally remaining after the expiry date of the NTQ or SEC21.

 

Issuing of the NTQ or SEC21 should be it. Any other legal responsibility should be on the shoulders of the tenant(s) and not the landlord who has already given many months notice!

 

I am not advocating any shortcutting of eviction processes that are currently in place  to protect good tenants because this would be unethical of me to suggest this. The protection of tenants should be balanced with the interests of the local community at heart too. Keeping ASBOs in-place because the local (Merton) council do not wish not want to rehouse them is not the problem of the local community nor the private landlord.

 

Furthermore, if any ‘legal Aid’ is offered to any defendant then the same legal aid need to be offered to the Plaintiff. This would focus the minds of those faceless individuals who give many thousands of faceless lawyers and judges who a re financially benefiting from the good-will gesture of the local pay clerks. This individual matter applies to all legal cases!

Evicting BAD tenants too Difficult for Landlords! Legal System Old and Outdated!

There are far too many laws for the criminal than for the victim in the UK!

Most tenants are decent honest hard working citizens. Most 'Private' landlords are the very same.

That being said, when a decent landlord gives a notice to quit or a section 21 to bad tenants, who are often recking his/her asset/investment or simply not paying whislt single-handedly frustrating all those decent people trying to live their noraml lives with the blight of a ASBO waiting to happen next door in their neighbourhood, would have to wait two months before expecting to be able to legally take back his or her property.

Now. Here is were it gets legally bad for the honest but a help for the criminal!

Once the two months have expired the local councils (Merton Council in London/Surrey boarder is one such council!) advise the bad tenants or criminals to stay put and wait for the landlord to legally evict them!

This is the law I want to have reviewed. Landlords who have ALREADY GIVEN TWO MONTHS NOTICE should not have to go through the mire or atiquaited legal system AGAIN! landlords should have legal recourse to take back their rightful property and let the bad tenant take the landlord to court for legal recompence but not to stay where he or she is not welcome.

If the council are prepaird to help the bad tenants or criminals then the local council should house them!

SECTION 21 is all that should be required. No more legal loopholes for the decent lanlord.

TWO Months is enough for any tenant to get another place to live. In any case, it is not for the private landords to have to play games within antiquaited justice systems sucking up to old farts wearing wigs lookign to dot 'I's and cross 'T's whilst someones and sometimes manyothers lives sre being blighted by scum aided by the local council!!

Francis Hegarty

 

Why is this idea important?

There are far too many laws for the criminal than for the victim in the UK!

Most tenants are decent honest hard working citizens. Most 'Private' landlords are the very same.

That being said, when a decent landlord gives a notice to quit or a section 21 to bad tenants, who are often recking his/her asset/investment or simply not paying whislt single-handedly frustrating all those decent people trying to live their noraml lives with the blight of a ASBO waiting to happen next door in their neighbourhood, would have to wait two months before expecting to be able to legally take back his or her property.

Now. Here is were it gets legally bad for the honest but a help for the criminal!

Once the two months have expired the local councils (Merton Council in London/Surrey boarder is one such council!) advise the bad tenants or criminals to stay put and wait for the landlord to legally evict them!

This is the law I want to have reviewed. Landlords who have ALREADY GIVEN TWO MONTHS NOTICE should not have to go through the mire or atiquaited legal system AGAIN! landlords should have legal recourse to take back their rightful property and let the bad tenant take the landlord to court for legal recompence but not to stay where he or she is not welcome.

If the council are prepaird to help the bad tenants or criminals then the local council should house them!

SECTION 21 is all that should be required. No more legal loopholes for the decent lanlord.

TWO Months is enough for any tenant to get another place to live. In any case, it is not for the private landords to have to play games within antiquaited justice systems sucking up to old farts wearing wigs lookign to dot 'I's and cross 'T's whilst someones and sometimes manyothers lives sre being blighted by scum aided by the local council!!

Francis Hegarty

 

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.

Repeal the Rights of Squatters

Squatters have rights to take over a home or building and vandalise it just because the owner is not living there for some reason.  It is a kind of legalised theft.  The law is ancient and totally outdated. We now have Council housing, Welfare, etc.

Why is this idea important?

Squatters have rights to take over a home or building and vandalise it just because the owner is not living there for some reason.  It is a kind of legalised theft.  The law is ancient and totally outdated. We now have Council housing, Welfare, etc.

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.

Rented Housing: No Dogs, No Smokers, No DSS

In a supposed age of equality, why are Landlords/Letting Agents allowed to discriminate against the disadvantaged? With housing stock at record lows, and rising unemployment I suggest the mantra's "Proffessionals Only" & "No DSS" be outlawed.

Because Social housing is allocated on a strict 'needs'basis, the vast majority of people find themselves homeless or at the mercy of unscrupulous landlords. Unless legislation is introduced to force Councils to house people based on a fair queuing system, private housing needs to be available for all, and not merely for the select few who have access to large deposits, references and jobs.

In a so called fair society, discrimination cuts both ways and cannot be dismissed on a spurious basis of Council bureaucracy, payment delays and or BTL buildings insurance exclusions.

Once an applicant qualifies for social housing/benefit, a deposit and first months rent should be paid directly to the landlord via the Council and recovered through the benefits system. Any subsequent payments should also be managed through the Council.

Why is this idea important?

In a supposed age of equality, why are Landlords/Letting Agents allowed to discriminate against the disadvantaged? With housing stock at record lows, and rising unemployment I suggest the mantra's "Proffessionals Only" & "No DSS" be outlawed.

Because Social housing is allocated on a strict 'needs'basis, the vast majority of people find themselves homeless or at the mercy of unscrupulous landlords. Unless legislation is introduced to force Councils to house people based on a fair queuing system, private housing needs to be available for all, and not merely for the select few who have access to large deposits, references and jobs.

In a so called fair society, discrimination cuts both ways and cannot be dismissed on a spurious basis of Council bureaucracy, payment delays and or BTL buildings insurance exclusions.

Once an applicant qualifies for social housing/benefit, a deposit and first months rent should be paid directly to the landlord via the Council and recovered through the benefits system. Any subsequent payments should also be managed through the Council.

Bailiffs

One of the laws that made me angriest under the last government was the change to allow bailiffs to break into a property to seize possession.  After hundreds of years, it was hard to see why this was suddenly necessary.  I think the law should be restored so that bailiffs can no longer break in.

Why is this idea important?

One of the laws that made me angriest under the last government was the change to allow bailiffs to break into a property to seize possession.  After hundreds of years, it was hard to see why this was suddenly necessary.  I think the law should be restored so that bailiffs can no longer break in.

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.

Stop building houses on arable/farm land

stop building houses, housing estates and roads, over areas of green land such as arable and farming land.

the farming and agriculture industry is slipping and needs as much land as possible whihc can not be achived by government housing and building plans. also by taking away fields and green area you are creating visual pollution. at the moment a lot of farm land where i live is going into houses, whihc is a shame as there is less places for local children to go and play outdoors as well.

Why is this idea important?

stop building houses, housing estates and roads, over areas of green land such as arable and farming land.

the farming and agriculture industry is slipping and needs as much land as possible whihc can not be achived by government housing and building plans. also by taking away fields and green area you are creating visual pollution. at the moment a lot of farm land where i live is going into houses, whihc is a shame as there is less places for local children to go and play outdoors as well.

repeal the protection against eviction act 1977

This is the "shield" that many families whos members and visitors and friends cause long term anti social behaviour hide behind and remain in our communities wreaking havoc and causing suffering for years.

we realise that everyone has a right to be housed, but with social housing at a premium and waiting lists years long it is time that people who cannot maintain their tenancies in a proper manner to risk or suffer eviction from the homes they inhabit.

Why is this idea important?

This is the "shield" that many families whos members and visitors and friends cause long term anti social behaviour hide behind and remain in our communities wreaking havoc and causing suffering for years.

we realise that everyone has a right to be housed, but with social housing at a premium and waiting lists years long it is time that people who cannot maintain their tenancies in a proper manner to risk or suffer eviction from the homes they inhabit.

Arms Length Organisations

The regulations allowing, in fact encouraging, Local Authorities to move their housing to ALMO's which allows LA's to pretend they are not responsible for these organisations whilst the exact same people/managers/officers still run them should be repealed.

Why is this idea important?

The regulations allowing, in fact encouraging, Local Authorities to move their housing to ALMO's which allows LA's to pretend they are not responsible for these organisations whilst the exact same people/managers/officers still run them should be repealed.