Common Sense Councils

Stop councils from harrassing pet owners who have put up posters locally to find a lost pet.

Many councils will demand that these posters are taken down as they are vandalism.

This is absurd and the definition of vandalism should be changed, with local people being able to decide what is acceptable on their streets and what is not.

Why is this idea important?

Stop councils from harrassing pet owners who have put up posters locally to find a lost pet.

Many councils will demand that these posters are taken down as they are vandalism.

This is absurd and the definition of vandalism should be changed, with local people being able to decide what is acceptable on their streets and what is not.

Town and Country Planning Act deleted please.

At the moment, if a tree is in a conservation area, the council are able to place a Tree Preservation Order on the tree, even if it is in the land of an owner of private land. What right does the Council have to say to a resident, minding their own business, that just because they fancy a certain tree, that the owners are not allowed to cut it. If it is cut, then a £20,000.00 fine is placed on them. This allows corruption to come into the Council. How? Because, after hearing what a racist neighbour says to them, they can forbid certain people (by way of culture, religion and race) to cut their tree, and they could let another person cut theirs if they have the "right" characteristics, (by way of culture race or religion) – it is evil and racist, I know. Hence this is discrimination. The Government has given blind power to the Council Officials. The Ombudsmen do nothing about them, because they also racially discriminate against black and asian people, but are good for the rest.

The town hall officials are very big dictators. You, Government, say other countries are dictators, but you have dictators that are called Council Officials. NOT, by any means the Councillors.

I propose that you scrap Ombudsmen, and set up regulation authorities on the Local Government just as they have for gas, electricity companies, to regulate the Council Officials, and to overlook their decisions and revoke them. If a person wants justice against the Council's decisions, at present, as they have been discriminated against, they must go to the High Court. But this is very expensive, so many people do not go to the High Court. If you made regulatory bodies, it would be cheaper for the people and they would get justice straight away. Please make sure, that those people who are Ombudsmen do not get jobs in these regulatory bodies. This is because they do nothing, if you do, I would be obliged to complain again about these dictators.

Suppose, if somebody has a tree in their property, it should be up to the owners to do what they like to the tree. It is no business of the Council to be nosy and to interfere with what they do to the tree. The owners know themselves, whether the tree being there is good for them or bad for them. Suppose a racist neighbour came and wanted to give trouble to their neighbours, so they get their racist allies, the Council Officials to put a Tree Preservation Order on the tree, (often abbreviated to TPO). For no reason! This is not fair. To summarise, if a racist neighbour says so about another's tree, their right to cut the tree, or loop it is stopped.

If the Council are so concerned about trees, they should plant more in their own land, not force others to keep their in their land. They could buy a plot in the Amazon Rainforest and plant the trees there! Or, the Government can stop Trans National Corporations like MacDonalds from cutting down trees, deforestation, for their animals to graze in or for whatever reason.

In our Whalley Range area in Manchester, where it is a conservation area, there are too many very old trees on the side of the roads, and their roots make the roads bumpy, and affect people's walls. In the Autumn their leaves are too many on the road and pavements, and it makes it slippery, and old and disabled people cannot leave their homes, and cannot walk on the slippery surfaces, or they will fall and hurt. The Council should dig the old trees out after a few years, then plant new trees in those places.

Even if a tree is not in a conservation area, the Council Officials still place a TPO unjustly on a tree, and no one can get justice. Or if it is, it is only for the rich or what they call "middle class". I am against the made up "class system". It should be abolished. People should not be labelled. To bring people together, people should give to charity instead of saying "disadvantaged" or whatever. The label "working class" or "underclass" – "deserving poor" or "undeserving poor" is just what the Tories made up so people can use these labels to bully the poor.

Why is this idea important?

At the moment, if a tree is in a conservation area, the council are able to place a Tree Preservation Order on the tree, even if it is in the land of an owner of private land. What right does the Council have to say to a resident, minding their own business, that just because they fancy a certain tree, that the owners are not allowed to cut it. If it is cut, then a £20,000.00 fine is placed on them. This allows corruption to come into the Council. How? Because, after hearing what a racist neighbour says to them, they can forbid certain people (by way of culture, religion and race) to cut their tree, and they could let another person cut theirs if they have the "right" characteristics, (by way of culture race or religion) – it is evil and racist, I know. Hence this is discrimination. The Government has given blind power to the Council Officials. The Ombudsmen do nothing about them, because they also racially discriminate against black and asian people, but are good for the rest.

The town hall officials are very big dictators. You, Government, say other countries are dictators, but you have dictators that are called Council Officials. NOT, by any means the Councillors.

I propose that you scrap Ombudsmen, and set up regulation authorities on the Local Government just as they have for gas, electricity companies, to regulate the Council Officials, and to overlook their decisions and revoke them. If a person wants justice against the Council's decisions, at present, as they have been discriminated against, they must go to the High Court. But this is very expensive, so many people do not go to the High Court. If you made regulatory bodies, it would be cheaper for the people and they would get justice straight away. Please make sure, that those people who are Ombudsmen do not get jobs in these regulatory bodies. This is because they do nothing, if you do, I would be obliged to complain again about these dictators.

Suppose, if somebody has a tree in their property, it should be up to the owners to do what they like to the tree. It is no business of the Council to be nosy and to interfere with what they do to the tree. The owners know themselves, whether the tree being there is good for them or bad for them. Suppose a racist neighbour came and wanted to give trouble to their neighbours, so they get their racist allies, the Council Officials to put a Tree Preservation Order on the tree, (often abbreviated to TPO). For no reason! This is not fair. To summarise, if a racist neighbour says so about another's tree, their right to cut the tree, or loop it is stopped.

If the Council are so concerned about trees, they should plant more in their own land, not force others to keep their in their land. They could buy a plot in the Amazon Rainforest and plant the trees there! Or, the Government can stop Trans National Corporations like MacDonalds from cutting down trees, deforestation, for their animals to graze in or for whatever reason.

In our Whalley Range area in Manchester, where it is a conservation area, there are too many very old trees on the side of the roads, and their roots make the roads bumpy, and affect people's walls. In the Autumn their leaves are too many on the road and pavements, and it makes it slippery, and old and disabled people cannot leave their homes, and cannot walk on the slippery surfaces, or they will fall and hurt. The Council should dig the old trees out after a few years, then plant new trees in those places.

Even if a tree is not in a conservation area, the Council Officials still place a TPO unjustly on a tree, and no one can get justice. Or if it is, it is only for the rich or what they call "middle class". I am against the made up "class system". It should be abolished. People should not be labelled. To bring people together, people should give to charity instead of saying "disadvantaged" or whatever. The label "working class" or "underclass" – "deserving poor" or "undeserving poor" is just what the Tories made up so people can use these labels to bully the poor.

Allow Anyone To Set Up A Local TV Station

Allow any one to set up a local TV station.  Impose a low power limit and prevent operators having licences for more than one area, but just make it easier.  Don't force people to categorise their channels. Remove massive bureacratic and operational hurdles – it's all but impossible to operate a TV channel without a legal department. Remove scope for malicious complaints.

OK, impose a few conditions. Convicted criminals, sex shop onwers and people "convicted" of trading offences in civil courts should be required to undergo full "Appropriate Person" checks, and debtors, but let ordinary people set up channels.

Let people sub-lease capacity at different times of day without assuming liability for content.

Make it even easier by making Ofcom provide "TV station in a box" model kits, eg docs, retention of recordings, etc.

And keep local council out of it, there is enough bland well meaning rubbish out there.

Why is this idea important?

Allow any one to set up a local TV station.  Impose a low power limit and prevent operators having licences for more than one area, but just make it easier.  Don't force people to categorise their channels. Remove massive bureacratic and operational hurdles – it's all but impossible to operate a TV channel without a legal department. Remove scope for malicious complaints.

OK, impose a few conditions. Convicted criminals, sex shop onwers and people "convicted" of trading offences in civil courts should be required to undergo full "Appropriate Person" checks, and debtors, but let ordinary people set up channels.

Let people sub-lease capacity at different times of day without assuming liability for content.

Make it even easier by making Ofcom provide "TV station in a box" model kits, eg docs, retention of recordings, etc.

And keep local council out of it, there is enough bland well meaning rubbish out there.

Give Communities the Power to Deal with their Own Food Waste

Allow communities to deal with their own food waste by removing the unnecessarily strict interpretation of the Animal By Products Regulations (ABPR) and increasing the limits of food waste which can be composted under a T23 anaerobic composting exemption.

Any community group which wishes to compost their own food waste must comply with the very strict time, temperature and particle size requirements set out in the Animal By Product Regulations. These regulations came into force in aftermath of Foot and Mouth and other crises to regulate collection, transport, storage, handling, processing and use of animal by products in EU Member States but their application in the UK has been far too restrictive.

Under the ABPR all catering waste must be composted in line with the ABPR. Catering Waste is defined  as ‘all waste food including used cooking oil originating in restaurants, catering facilities and kitchens, including central kitchens and household kitchens’ this includes waste from vegetarian kitchens, and no distinction is made for purely vegetable waste (DEFRA website). In practice this means that even a tea bag which may have theoretically touched some milk cannot be composted by community groups unless they can meet the strict guidelines set out in the ABPR.  This means that community groups wishing to compost their carrot peelings must be able to afford expensive in-vessel composting systems and the associated testing and recording.

 Those community groups which do manage to meet the requirements of the ABPR are then only allowed 10 tonnes of food waste on site at anyone time under a free exemption. As the quantities most community groups are processing are less than is financially sustainable for PAS100 accreditation the whole of the material – finished compost of excellent quality included is classed legally as food waste and thus limited to 10 tonnes on site at anyone time. Thus the free exemption treats normal kitchen waste in the same way as animal tissue waste (including blood and carcasses!). 

If groups cannot meet  these limits they must apply for a Standard Permit or Bespoke Permit. These permits were developed with large scale commercial composters in mind and cost thousands of pounds. As most community groups operate on tiny budgets, relying on the good will of volunteers these costs simply cannot be meet. 

Why is this idea important?

Allow communities to deal with their own food waste by removing the unnecessarily strict interpretation of the Animal By Products Regulations (ABPR) and increasing the limits of food waste which can be composted under a T23 anaerobic composting exemption.

Any community group which wishes to compost their own food waste must comply with the very strict time, temperature and particle size requirements set out in the Animal By Product Regulations. These regulations came into force in aftermath of Foot and Mouth and other crises to regulate collection, transport, storage, handling, processing and use of animal by products in EU Member States but their application in the UK has been far too restrictive.

Under the ABPR all catering waste must be composted in line with the ABPR. Catering Waste is defined  as ‘all waste food including used cooking oil originating in restaurants, catering facilities and kitchens, including central kitchens and household kitchens’ this includes waste from vegetarian kitchens, and no distinction is made for purely vegetable waste (DEFRA website). In practice this means that even a tea bag which may have theoretically touched some milk cannot be composted by community groups unless they can meet the strict guidelines set out in the ABPR.  This means that community groups wishing to compost their carrot peelings must be able to afford expensive in-vessel composting systems and the associated testing and recording.

 Those community groups which do manage to meet the requirements of the ABPR are then only allowed 10 tonnes of food waste on site at anyone time under a free exemption. As the quantities most community groups are processing are less than is financially sustainable for PAS100 accreditation the whole of the material – finished compost of excellent quality included is classed legally as food waste and thus limited to 10 tonnes on site at anyone time. Thus the free exemption treats normal kitchen waste in the same way as animal tissue waste (including blood and carcasses!). 

If groups cannot meet  these limits they must apply for a Standard Permit or Bespoke Permit. These permits were developed with large scale commercial composters in mind and cost thousands of pounds. As most community groups operate on tiny budgets, relying on the good will of volunteers these costs simply cannot be meet. 

Repeal of the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960

To repeal this little known law which allows unelected bodies to make planning decisions  allowing campsites to be established in communities without any recourse to the inhabitants or to the Local Authority. This is one way to give local planning decisions back to local people.

Why is this idea important?

To repeal this little known law which allows unelected bodies to make planning decisions  allowing campsites to be established in communities without any recourse to the inhabitants or to the Local Authority. This is one way to give local planning decisions back to local people.

Parental choice of secondary school is not green

We still have three state grammar schools in our Council District.  But I think that fewer than 20% of the children who attend them live in the District or town where the schools are based.  Two are in the same town and educate about 1,200 students between them. 

These two selective state schools are drawing students from five surrounding counties, with many students doing a ridiculous amount of miles per day to get a 'good' education.  It is not green and it is undermining the community importance of a local school, in the same way as the abolition of local post offices and corner shops. 

It is also removing the rights of local children to go to their own local state selective school, meaning pressure on the also excellent non-selective secondary school in the town is huge, exceeding supply.

The pass rate at 11+ exams for the three local grammar schools is between 96 and 98.6%, driven by demand.  Some 11 year-olds attending these schools spend as long or longer out of the home each day than a full time working adult when commuting time is added.  That is a modern-day form of child slavery.  A bright child will do well in any school.

So please give local schools back to local people in order to be more green – the most important item on all agendas.

Two of the selective schools also get funding from a town-based charity which is obliged by law to give over £1m pa to them.

So these two schools get over £800,000 for pupils who don't even live here.  That is another injustice for other secondary school students who do live in the town.

Why is this idea important?

We still have three state grammar schools in our Council District.  But I think that fewer than 20% of the children who attend them live in the District or town where the schools are based.  Two are in the same town and educate about 1,200 students between them. 

These two selective state schools are drawing students from five surrounding counties, with many students doing a ridiculous amount of miles per day to get a 'good' education.  It is not green and it is undermining the community importance of a local school, in the same way as the abolition of local post offices and corner shops. 

It is also removing the rights of local children to go to their own local state selective school, meaning pressure on the also excellent non-selective secondary school in the town is huge, exceeding supply.

The pass rate at 11+ exams for the three local grammar schools is between 96 and 98.6%, driven by demand.  Some 11 year-olds attending these schools spend as long or longer out of the home each day than a full time working adult when commuting time is added.  That is a modern-day form of child slavery.  A bright child will do well in any school.

So please give local schools back to local people in order to be more green – the most important item on all agendas.

Two of the selective schools also get funding from a town-based charity which is obliged by law to give over £1m pa to them.

So these two schools get over £800,000 for pupils who don't even live here.  That is another injustice for other secondary school students who do live in the town.

Remove requiements for planning authorities to put public notices in local newspapers

At the moment planning authorities are required to place notices in local newspapers at regular stages e.g. to annource planning applications, to annouce consultation on a plan, to say that a plan has been adopted etc.  This is very expensive.  Each time that a notice is placed it costs about £1000, depending on the individual newspaper.  

I'm not sure that many people read the notices section and think that there are better ways of getting the infomation to the public (e.g. online consultations, press releases, notices displayed at sites).  These methods are already widely used.

Why is this idea important?

At the moment planning authorities are required to place notices in local newspapers at regular stages e.g. to annource planning applications, to annouce consultation on a plan, to say that a plan has been adopted etc.  This is very expensive.  Each time that a notice is placed it costs about £1000, depending on the individual newspaper.  

I'm not sure that many people read the notices section and think that there are better ways of getting the infomation to the public (e.g. online consultations, press releases, notices displayed at sites).  These methods are already widely used.

Raffles – remove requirement to register.

Anyone holding a raffle is supposed to register and get permission. On tickets of larger raffles you will see the name and the address of the promoter. Most raffles however are quite small and involve generic raffle tickets bought from stationers, involve relatively few people and may only last a few hours for the duration of an event. The requirement to register is largely ignored in practice by the general public for these smaller raffles, so you may as well remove the law which states that the raffle shoudl be registered.

Why is this idea important?

Anyone holding a raffle is supposed to register and get permission. On tickets of larger raffles you will see the name and the address of the promoter. Most raffles however are quite small and involve generic raffle tickets bought from stationers, involve relatively few people and may only last a few hours for the duration of an event. The requirement to register is largely ignored in practice by the general public for these smaller raffles, so you may as well remove the law which states that the raffle shoudl be registered.

Allow free market places in towns and cities

Every weekend, or at least one day of every week a part of town (e.g. an open square) should become a free market place. Perhaps people should still have to register (through the council) so there is some form of quality control, but the important thing is that a market place should be provided for free, without the need for a traders licence, and that the market should be facillitated (i.e. tables and covers provided).

Why is this idea important?

Every weekend, or at least one day of every week a part of town (e.g. an open square) should become a free market place. Perhaps people should still have to register (through the council) so there is some form of quality control, but the important thing is that a market place should be provided for free, without the need for a traders licence, and that the market should be facillitated (i.e. tables and covers provided).

Remove restrictions on village social events

The last Government  dramatically  restricted the number of events involving alcohol ( dances, parties, concerts, quizzes etc) that can be run in a village hall per year. This has affected the viability of halls which are a keystone of rural communities. It has also cut off funds to those village bodies relying on that income and also the social life of often isolated communities. IF the motive was to help village pubs it has had no benefit, because those attending events in the hall are not in the main pub "regulars". There was no public order motive as the average age of atttendees would generally render that out of the question. This was -as in so many cases- silly legislation imposed for something to do. Remove please!

Why is this idea important?

The last Government  dramatically  restricted the number of events involving alcohol ( dances, parties, concerts, quizzes etc) that can be run in a village hall per year. This has affected the viability of halls which are a keystone of rural communities. It has also cut off funds to those village bodies relying on that income and also the social life of often isolated communities. IF the motive was to help village pubs it has had no benefit, because those attending events in the hall are not in the main pub "regulars". There was no public order motive as the average age of atttendees would generally render that out of the question. This was -as in so many cases- silly legislation imposed for something to do. Remove please!

Bring Life back to the High Street and Local Store

Cap the number of out of town shopping centres, give high streets free nearby parking, give incentives to councils to approve planning for high street shops.

Why is this idea important?

Cap the number of out of town shopping centres, give high streets free nearby parking, give incentives to councils to approve planning for high street shops.

councils

i live in bradford and i can see that when it comes to saving money.bradford doesnt !majority of works such as the park and other stuff.it is destroying bradford.the council decide for us and we have no say.i reckon we should have that right.you will save more money by pulling the plug on some of these stupid ideas and give the right to decide to the people.

Why is this idea important?

i live in bradford and i can see that when it comes to saving money.bradford doesnt !majority of works such as the park and other stuff.it is destroying bradford.the council decide for us and we have no say.i reckon we should have that right.you will save more money by pulling the plug on some of these stupid ideas and give the right to decide to the people.