Civil Law of Property

With Local Authorities not taking into account at the planning application stage of restrictive covenants in property or land deeds, local communities are not benefiting from the restrictions put in place to there right to light and air in some cases. There right to free sun light and the wind to dry out the land to keep a balance in ground conditions.

 

To know that no building will take place on gardens and that a fence will be kept to the height and the type agreed by the parties benefiting from the covenant restriction put in place and agreed to at the point of purchase.

The Law of property have to comply with the Law as much as any citizen does, and this includes respecting their private law property right. Which under the present planning system the Local Authority do not look or take into consideration any restrictive covenants on land submitted for development? Is this how it has led to large numbers of people having to take out insurance policies just in case some heir appears and decides to enforce the covenant. Or the property owner of a semi- detached house having the party fence raised in height cutting out there sun light and the wind to there land being told this is permitted development by the Local Authority on a fence under covenant to maintain.

 

If the Local Authority is providing a service for the people and the local community why shouldn’t there private law property rights be taken into account when a planning application is made or a complaint is made. Why should it have to cost them to enforce it when to have one removed you make an application through the Lands Tribunal. It hasn’t got to cost for advised by their solicitor that it is hugely expensive needing a barrister costing £500 an hour.   

 

It affects lots of property owners, and the remedy is simple and if no action is taken now our grandchildren will face less free air and sun light, with these restrictions we have our own civil liberties as property owners, but when will they be respected by the Local Government and Central Government.

Why is this idea important?

With Local Authorities not taking into account at the planning application stage of restrictive covenants in property or land deeds, local communities are not benefiting from the restrictions put in place to there right to light and air in some cases. There right to free sun light and the wind to dry out the land to keep a balance in ground conditions.

 

To know that no building will take place on gardens and that a fence will be kept to the height and the type agreed by the parties benefiting from the covenant restriction put in place and agreed to at the point of purchase.

The Law of property have to comply with the Law as much as any citizen does, and this includes respecting their private law property right. Which under the present planning system the Local Authority do not look or take into consideration any restrictive covenants on land submitted for development? Is this how it has led to large numbers of people having to take out insurance policies just in case some heir appears and decides to enforce the covenant. Or the property owner of a semi- detached house having the party fence raised in height cutting out there sun light and the wind to there land being told this is permitted development by the Local Authority on a fence under covenant to maintain.

 

If the Local Authority is providing a service for the people and the local community why shouldn’t there private law property rights be taken into account when a planning application is made or a complaint is made. Why should it have to cost them to enforce it when to have one removed you make an application through the Lands Tribunal. It hasn’t got to cost for advised by their solicitor that it is hugely expensive needing a barrister costing £500 an hour.   

 

It affects lots of property owners, and the remedy is simple and if no action is taken now our grandchildren will face less free air and sun light, with these restrictions we have our own civil liberties as property owners, but when will they be respected by the Local Government and Central Government.

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.

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.

Allow 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.

Repeal Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act

If you assume that a property developer wheeling a barrow load of cash down to the town hall to buy a planning consent would end up in jail, think again.  It is perfectly legal under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act.

To “legalised bribery” add blackmail and extortion with council planners extracting huge sums of money from developers. Again, there is nothing unlawful about that.

This dark little corner of planning law also allows cosy deals between local authorities and developers which may not always be in the public interest.

The 1990 Act states:

106 Agreements regulating development or use of land

 (1) A local planning authority may enter into an agreement with any person interested in land in their area for the purpose of restricting or regulating the development or use of the land, either permanently or during such period as may be prescribed by the agreement.

(2) Any such agreement may contain such incidental and consequential provisions (including financial ones) as appear to the local planning authority to be necessary or expedient for the purposes of the agreement.

Examine any planning consent for a major construction project and you will invariably find that a Section 106 legal agreement has been hatched up between the council planners and the developer. In most cases, the developer pays money – sometimes huge amounts – for his planning consent. Ostensibly, the contribution is to offset the impact of the development on local amenities such as roads and schools.

The problem is that it is up to the developer and the planners to reach a deal and tie it up in a legal agreement. This is unsafe and open to abuse.

Developers can buy influence over ill advised projects by negotiating large financial contributions to the council’s coffers. Greedy councils can also hold cash strapped smaller developers to ransom for extortionate sums.

The financial element of Section 106 agreements should either be taken out of the hands of local planning authorities and regulated by an independent body or scrapped altogether and replaced with a transparent and uniform land development tax that could be used for local roads, schools, etc.

Why is this idea important?

If you assume that a property developer wheeling a barrow load of cash down to the town hall to buy a planning consent would end up in jail, think again.  It is perfectly legal under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act.

To “legalised bribery” add blackmail and extortion with council planners extracting huge sums of money from developers. Again, there is nothing unlawful about that.

This dark little corner of planning law also allows cosy deals between local authorities and developers which may not always be in the public interest.

The 1990 Act states:

106 Agreements regulating development or use of land

 (1) A local planning authority may enter into an agreement with any person interested in land in their area for the purpose of restricting or regulating the development or use of the land, either permanently or during such period as may be prescribed by the agreement.

(2) Any such agreement may contain such incidental and consequential provisions (including financial ones) as appear to the local planning authority to be necessary or expedient for the purposes of the agreement.

Examine any planning consent for a major construction project and you will invariably find that a Section 106 legal agreement has been hatched up between the council planners and the developer. In most cases, the developer pays money – sometimes huge amounts – for his planning consent. Ostensibly, the contribution is to offset the impact of the development on local amenities such as roads and schools.

The problem is that it is up to the developer and the planners to reach a deal and tie it up in a legal agreement. This is unsafe and open to abuse.

Developers can buy influence over ill advised projects by negotiating large financial contributions to the council’s coffers. Greedy councils can also hold cash strapped smaller developers to ransom for extortionate sums.

The financial element of Section 106 agreements should either be taken out of the hands of local planning authorities and regulated by an independent body or scrapped altogether and replaced with a transparent and uniform land development tax that could be used for local roads, schools, etc.