That unemployed people should be allowed to hunt rabbits and such.

Unemployed people are stuck. Their only income is that provided by the state, which is minuscule. Why should they not be able to hunt and fish?

Why is this idea important?

Unemployed people are stuck. Their only income is that provided by the state, which is minuscule. Why should they not be able to hunt and fish?

Allow the right to live on one’s own land

Planning law makes it difficult for individuals to live in a modest way on thier own agricultural land. While planners should protect the countryside from overdevelopment, current planning law and practice presents a major obstacle to individuals who wish to cultivate the land and achieve a measure of self-sufficiency.

Everyone should have the right on live on the land they farm, and to do so is a basic civil liberty. Ludicrous planning laws conspire to make living on the land either expensive or difficult to achieve – or both.

Provision should be made for smallholders and farmers to live on the land. This need not be incompatible with preventing the countryside filling-up with houses. Dwellings could be modest or temporary in nature. The right to establsh them for genuine agricultural need is not fully supported by the planning system in England and Wales.

Why is this idea important?

Planning law makes it difficult for individuals to live in a modest way on thier own agricultural land. While planners should protect the countryside from overdevelopment, current planning law and practice presents a major obstacle to individuals who wish to cultivate the land and achieve a measure of self-sufficiency.

Everyone should have the right on live on the land they farm, and to do so is a basic civil liberty. Ludicrous planning laws conspire to make living on the land either expensive or difficult to achieve – or both.

Provision should be made for smallholders and farmers to live on the land. This need not be incompatible with preventing the countryside filling-up with houses. Dwellings could be modest or temporary in nature. The right to establsh them for genuine agricultural need is not fully supported by the planning system in England and Wales.

Let Owners Build Big Houses On Own Land – With Garages

If you own a piece of land you are not allowed to build a comfortable house to your own design. Government rules effectively forbid you from making the rooms large enough to be comfortable. You probably cannot build just one house either because Minimum Density Regulations mean the land only gets planning consent if it is split into two or more. And no way will you be allowed as much parking as you want. Two adults and two teens who will soon be working 20 miles away – no the PolitiKal Kommisars in most areas order a maximum of 1 parking space per household (often less, 0.8 for flats) in order to force people onto public transport. Which is fine except late at night, early in the morning, on Bank Holidays, if providing any kind of emergency response, or simply if one has back pain and cannot use badly driven busses.

Do not impose maximum standards on property owners that they cannot exceed.

Why is this idea important?

If you own a piece of land you are not allowed to build a comfortable house to your own design. Government rules effectively forbid you from making the rooms large enough to be comfortable. You probably cannot build just one house either because Minimum Density Regulations mean the land only gets planning consent if it is split into two or more. And no way will you be allowed as much parking as you want. Two adults and two teens who will soon be working 20 miles away – no the PolitiKal Kommisars in most areas order a maximum of 1 parking space per household (often less, 0.8 for flats) in order to force people onto public transport. Which is fine except late at night, early in the morning, on Bank Holidays, if providing any kind of emergency response, or simply if one has back pain and cannot use badly driven busses.

Do not impose maximum standards on property owners that they cannot exceed.

earth sheltered homes

Applications for earth sheltered homes which are normally very eco friendly should not be subjected to the strict considerations which apply to green belt applications, currently they are.

Applications for basement extensions, ie digging under an existing house to create extra living space should also be more favourably looked at, as a positive way to create extra living space without spoiling the beautiful landscapes which are usually either greenbelt or area of outstanding natural beauty.

These two easements would help with the shortage of homes, create work, create profit, and be beneficial in every way without being detrimental to the environment.

Why is this idea important?

Applications for earth sheltered homes which are normally very eco friendly should not be subjected to the strict considerations which apply to green belt applications, currently they are.

Applications for basement extensions, ie digging under an existing house to create extra living space should also be more favourably looked at, as a positive way to create extra living space without spoiling the beautiful landscapes which are usually either greenbelt or area of outstanding natural beauty.

These two easements would help with the shortage of homes, create work, create profit, and be beneficial in every way without being detrimental to the environment.

Removal of travellers from land they have no right to use

Whilst there should be some level of protection for people who choose a less conventional lifestyle it should not be at the expense of others. I am not an expert in these laws so am unable to say precisely which laws need to be repealed but as it stands the balance needs readdressing and I suggest that making it less onerous for landowners to reclaim their land would be a suitable proposal for further consideration.

Why is this idea important?

Whilst there should be some level of protection for people who choose a less conventional lifestyle it should not be at the expense of others. I am not an expert in these laws so am unable to say precisely which laws need to be repealed but as it stands the balance needs readdressing and I suggest that making it less onerous for landowners to reclaim their land would be a suitable proposal for further consideration.

Planning Inspectorate

The activities of the Planning Inspectorate need curtailing.  If a planning application is turned down, an appeal can be launched by the aggrieved party.   However, the Inspectorate appoints someone who knows nothing about the area and his/her opinion takes precedence of that of the local planning authority.  Even though the Inspectorate employs someone to do quality control of its decisions, it appears not to carry out any quality control.  I know of a case when the Inspectorate was asked to review a decision it had made, the quality control man sid they could not do this because they had thrown away the papers!

Why is this idea important?

The activities of the Planning Inspectorate need curtailing.  If a planning application is turned down, an appeal can be launched by the aggrieved party.   However, the Inspectorate appoints someone who knows nothing about the area and his/her opinion takes precedence of that of the local planning authority.  Even though the Inspectorate employs someone to do quality control of its decisions, it appears not to carry out any quality control.  I know of a case when the Inspectorate was asked to review a decision it had made, the quality control man sid they could not do this because they had thrown away the papers!

Redundant Farm Buildings Conversion

The last Labour governmentbrought in a law which allowed the conversion of suitable redundant farm buildings into offices or holiday cottages. But not houses

The offices are difficult to let and the holiday cottages are only suitable in the right area.

However there is a desperate shortage of houses and these buildings often make good houses.

The footprint is already there and no extra land is utilised, also the nations housing shortage could be improved at no cost to the tax payer.

I believe Mr Clegg the deputy Prime Minister wrote an article in the Daily Mail supporting this idea.

I would like to propose therefore that these buildings if suiutable should be given planning permission to convert into houses./

Why is this idea important?

The last Labour governmentbrought in a law which allowed the conversion of suitable redundant farm buildings into offices or holiday cottages. But not houses

The offices are difficult to let and the holiday cottages are only suitable in the right area.

However there is a desperate shortage of houses and these buildings often make good houses.

The footprint is already there and no extra land is utilised, also the nations housing shortage could be improved at no cost to the tax payer.

I believe Mr Clegg the deputy Prime Minister wrote an article in the Daily Mail supporting this idea.

I would like to propose therefore that these buildings if suiutable should be given planning permission to convert into houses./

Planning Rules

Although we appreciate the reason why Developers can apply for permission to build on land they do not own, it has unexpected consequences for ordinary citizens. The common practice of building a 1.8 metre boundary fence around the site often prevents the already existing surrounding properties from maintaining their boundary fences, or walls.

Planning authorities have apparently no “Duty of Care” to neighbours and boundary disputes are “a civil matter”, even if the red line site boundary is clearly unrealistic, or even potentially fraudulent. Although we do not expect authorities to know every boundary within their area, if an error is pointed out (with proof) they should not be able to ignore it in favour of what the developer submits.

“It’s a civil matter” means if you cannot afford to fight a developer, or do not know that Planning Permission isn’t the be all and end all, then you lose your land.
A local pensioner is facing using his life savings to ensure a developer cannot use his drive (which is needed for access to the site). We know of five similar cases within a very small area. In another case the red line on the “existing site survey” clearly went through adjoining properties (not just land).

This means that effectively local planning authorities are assisting with illegal land grabs – surely that is not the intention.

Why is this idea important?

Although we appreciate the reason why Developers can apply for permission to build on land they do not own, it has unexpected consequences for ordinary citizens. The common practice of building a 1.8 metre boundary fence around the site often prevents the already existing surrounding properties from maintaining their boundary fences, or walls.

Planning authorities have apparently no “Duty of Care” to neighbours and boundary disputes are “a civil matter”, even if the red line site boundary is clearly unrealistic, or even potentially fraudulent. Although we do not expect authorities to know every boundary within their area, if an error is pointed out (with proof) they should not be able to ignore it in favour of what the developer submits.

“It’s a civil matter” means if you cannot afford to fight a developer, or do not know that Planning Permission isn’t the be all and end all, then you lose your land.
A local pensioner is facing using his life savings to ensure a developer cannot use his drive (which is needed for access to the site). We know of five similar cases within a very small area. In another case the red line on the “existing site survey” clearly went through adjoining properties (not just land).

This means that effectively local planning authorities are assisting with illegal land grabs – surely that is not the intention.

Please repeal the 2006 NERC act. This will restore vehicular rights to the network of green lanes in England, Wales and Northern Ireland

For several decades vehicular rights applied to a network of green lanes across our country. These vehicular rights were used by farmers and other local users, but were enjoyed-lawfully- by other user groups such as trail riders(riders of legal, registered, taxed and insured motorcycles).

These lanes included byways, RUPPS(roads used a s public paths), ORPA's and UCR's.

Under pressure from an unholy alliance of large landowners and the Ramblers Association(vocals plus money), the Labour Govt capitulated and downgraded some of the aforementioned routes. For instance, it is no longer possible to lawfully traverse a RUPP using a motor vehicle, they became 'restricted byways'. This has left many thousands of  lawful trail riders with very limited access to the countryside. It has NOT stopped the untaxed and illegal hooligans that so vexed the complainants in the Ramblers Association.

Many of these old green lanes are now overgrown, used by no one. Or worse, are found suddenly incorporated into a landowners property. In remote areas there are few walkers anyway, and the pasttime precious to many people is severely restricted. This was vindictive piece of legislation,  promoted and funded by the 'holier than thou' Ramblers Association. It has had little or no impact, save the damage done to local pubs, shops, motorcycle shops and specialists used by the trail riders. For more info see the Trail Riders Fellowship website.

Worse still, most 'ramblers' are urban dwellers, often driving their vehicles into the countryside, where they spend a few hours rambling, no money in local businesses, and then they drive home. Whilst the lawful, predominantly rural dwelling trail riders sit fulminating at home, bike garaged or now sold, being lectured to by the Ramblers Association.

This should be reversed. Vehicular rights should be resored to pre- NERC routes. Illegal use of untaxed vehicles is a matter for the police anywhere, including in the countryside. This vindictive act has made matters worse for lawful trail riders, whilst the illegal users carry on with impunity. 

Why is this idea important?

For several decades vehicular rights applied to a network of green lanes across our country. These vehicular rights were used by farmers and other local users, but were enjoyed-lawfully- by other user groups such as trail riders(riders of legal, registered, taxed and insured motorcycles).

These lanes included byways, RUPPS(roads used a s public paths), ORPA's and UCR's.

Under pressure from an unholy alliance of large landowners and the Ramblers Association(vocals plus money), the Labour Govt capitulated and downgraded some of the aforementioned routes. For instance, it is no longer possible to lawfully traverse a RUPP using a motor vehicle, they became 'restricted byways'. This has left many thousands of  lawful trail riders with very limited access to the countryside. It has NOT stopped the untaxed and illegal hooligans that so vexed the complainants in the Ramblers Association.

Many of these old green lanes are now overgrown, used by no one. Or worse, are found suddenly incorporated into a landowners property. In remote areas there are few walkers anyway, and the pasttime precious to many people is severely restricted. This was vindictive piece of legislation,  promoted and funded by the 'holier than thou' Ramblers Association. It has had little or no impact, save the damage done to local pubs, shops, motorcycle shops and specialists used by the trail riders. For more info see the Trail Riders Fellowship website.

Worse still, most 'ramblers' are urban dwellers, often driving their vehicles into the countryside, where they spend a few hours rambling, no money in local businesses, and then they drive home. Whilst the lawful, predominantly rural dwelling trail riders sit fulminating at home, bike garaged or now sold, being lectured to by the Ramblers Association.

This should be reversed. Vehicular rights should be resored to pre- NERC routes. Illegal use of untaxed vehicles is a matter for the police anywhere, including in the countryside. This vindictive act has made matters worse for lawful trail riders, whilst the illegal users carry on with impunity.