Allow freedom to build without planning permission outside green belts

I AM NOT CONNECTED TO THE BUILDING TRADE IN ANY WAY, but I often read of householders being forced to demolish improvements to their properties or sometimes entire houses and that seems wrong.

If it's your land you should build whatever you like on it as long as it is not part of a designated green belt.Freedom to build and freedom to charge whatever rent a property willfetch with freedom to evict those who do not pay their rent !

All this sounds impossible and old fashioned,but I THINK REMOVING REGULATION WOULD SOLVE THE HOUSING SHORTAGE AND THROUGH COMPETITION RENTS WOULD GO DOWN NOT UP !

Why is this idea important?

I AM NOT CONNECTED TO THE BUILDING TRADE IN ANY WAY, but I often read of householders being forced to demolish improvements to their properties or sometimes entire houses and that seems wrong.

If it's your land you should build whatever you like on it as long as it is not part of a designated green belt.Freedom to build and freedom to charge whatever rent a property willfetch with freedom to evict those who do not pay their rent !

All this sounds impossible and old fashioned,but I THINK REMOVING REGULATION WOULD SOLVE THE HOUSING SHORTAGE AND THROUGH COMPETITION RENTS WOULD GO DOWN NOT UP !

simplifying the town planning process

 I have been a development control planning officer for 30 years and an independant planning consultant for 4 years.

Section 36 of the 2004 Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act should be repealled. Its consequences for determination of planning applications are causing a disproportionate number of planning permissions being refused and loss of development benefit to the ecnomy and to local communities. With so many development plan policies now contained in development plans it is impossible for any development to satisfy the minutii of every one of them and  local authorities are applying them unthinkingly and disproportionately to the level of harm that the development might cause if planning permission were granted. As an example of what I mean, I have recently been refused planning permission for four stables in the countryside because they would create the need for additional travel by private car and the lack of alternative public transport meant they conflict with the sustainable transport policies in the developmnt plan. There is a dead hand of planning across much of the country which is stopping development which would cause no harm if it were premitted.

The level of harm is the test which should be applied to decision making, just as it is in the enforcement regime where local authorities are advised to consider harm to public amenity before issuing enforcement notices not the evidence of a mere breach of planning control.

Under the present regime we are running the risk that those who are prepared to run the risk of not applying for planning permission and get away with it for 4/10 years are getting a better deal than those who apply and go through the whole gamut of planning policy led control with a greater risk of getting a refusal.

 

Why is this idea important?

 I have been a development control planning officer for 30 years and an independant planning consultant for 4 years.

Section 36 of the 2004 Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act should be repealled. Its consequences for determination of planning applications are causing a disproportionate number of planning permissions being refused and loss of development benefit to the ecnomy and to local communities. With so many development plan policies now contained in development plans it is impossible for any development to satisfy the minutii of every one of them and  local authorities are applying them unthinkingly and disproportionately to the level of harm that the development might cause if planning permission were granted. As an example of what I mean, I have recently been refused planning permission for four stables in the countryside because they would create the need for additional travel by private car and the lack of alternative public transport meant they conflict with the sustainable transport policies in the developmnt plan. There is a dead hand of planning across much of the country which is stopping development which would cause no harm if it were premitted.

The level of harm is the test which should be applied to decision making, just as it is in the enforcement regime where local authorities are advised to consider harm to public amenity before issuing enforcement notices not the evidence of a mere breach of planning control.

Under the present regime we are running the risk that those who are prepared to run the risk of not applying for planning permission and get away with it for 4/10 years are getting a better deal than those who apply and go through the whole gamut of planning policy led control with a greater risk of getting a refusal.

 

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.

Reduction of powers for listed building officers

Just over a year ago my wife and I purchased a relatively ordinary house in a Northamptonshire village which happened to be Grade 2 listed. Before we purchased the house we were not provided with any official guidence pointing out the constraints this would put us under and the responsibilities it would impose upon us. This in itself is wrong and should be made clear to all prospective buyers of Grade 2 listed properties.

Nevertheless, this is not in  itself my idea as that would be adding to rather taking away regulations.  What I am wanting to say is that, currently,  if you were to make even some quite minor alteration to your Grade 2 listed property without permission then you are commitinig not just a civil offence but a criminal offence. This is utterly outrageous and needs without delay to be changed. It is intolerable in a free, democratic society that making some minor unapproved change to your own proprtey can make you a criminal.  Furthermore, as if that were not enough, the unelected listed buildings officers, who are  very subjective in their assertions, seem to act and believe as if  they have a divine right to bully people in their own homes.

Why is this idea important?

Just over a year ago my wife and I purchased a relatively ordinary house in a Northamptonshire village which happened to be Grade 2 listed. Before we purchased the house we were not provided with any official guidence pointing out the constraints this would put us under and the responsibilities it would impose upon us. This in itself is wrong and should be made clear to all prospective buyers of Grade 2 listed properties.

Nevertheless, this is not in  itself my idea as that would be adding to rather taking away regulations.  What I am wanting to say is that, currently,  if you were to make even some quite minor alteration to your Grade 2 listed property without permission then you are commitinig not just a civil offence but a criminal offence. This is utterly outrageous and needs without delay to be changed. It is intolerable in a free, democratic society that making some minor unapproved change to your own proprtey can make you a criminal.  Furthermore, as if that were not enough, the unelected listed buildings officers, who are  very subjective in their assertions, seem to act and believe as if  they have a divine right to bully people in their own homes.