right to light act

Repeal the rule that allows placing a pole or scaffold tube on site,  that takes the place of the planned building.

Once this pole or scaffold has been in place for a year and a day, the builder is then allowed by law to construct any building to the height of that pole or scaffold tube.

This can all be carried out with no notice or warning to the residents effected save the pole, scaffold tube or any other erection in place to the height they will to build.

Why is this idea important?

Repeal the rule that allows placing a pole or scaffold tube on site,  that takes the place of the planned building.

Once this pole or scaffold has been in place for a year and a day, the builder is then allowed by law to construct any building to the height of that pole or scaffold tube.

This can all be carried out with no notice or warning to the residents effected save the pole, scaffold tube or any other erection in place to the height they will to build.

Party Wall agreements

Your neighbour is doing something in their house, they won't tell you what it is, they have submitted plans to the council for building control, but they won't tell what your neighbour is doing either. You suspect your neighbour may need a party wall agreement for the work, but they haven't offered you for one. You are now compelled sit there while work continues without an agreement or engage a surveyor at around £1500 to intervene on the assumption you may need a party wall agreement, which is both a financial risk and a declaration of war on your neighbour.

Why not ensure that building control and planning permission will not be issued without the correct Party Wall agreements in place, that way the neighbours a protected as of right not the good graces of the people carrying out the work.

Why is this idea important?

Your neighbour is doing something in their house, they won't tell you what it is, they have submitted plans to the council for building control, but they won't tell what your neighbour is doing either. You suspect your neighbour may need a party wall agreement for the work, but they haven't offered you for one. You are now compelled sit there while work continues without an agreement or engage a surveyor at around £1500 to intervene on the assumption you may need a party wall agreement, which is both a financial risk and a declaration of war on your neighbour.

Why not ensure that building control and planning permission will not be issued without the correct Party Wall agreements in place, that way the neighbours a protected as of right not the good graces of the people carrying out the work.

Reassesment of Residential Planning Permissons

I think the main question is……

Why do I need anyones permission to replace my windows, move an internal wall, to take up the soil in my garden and put a driveway down,  Why do I need permisson to do anything to my home when I own the propery????

I think this needs to to be re-evalutated, I mean do I have to ask a car manufactures permission to change the windscreen, or replace the wheels, NO why? becuase I brought the car and it no longer has anything to do with the manufacturer.

If i purchase my home, I own it, not the local council.

I Believe that for most works that need to be done to a home shouldn't need permission from the local authority, However I do think that some kind of survey or assessment could be needed for certain structial modification to ensure the work is safe to carry out.

Why is this idea important?

I think the main question is……

Why do I need anyones permission to replace my windows, move an internal wall, to take up the soil in my garden and put a driveway down,  Why do I need permisson to do anything to my home when I own the propery????

I think this needs to to be re-evalutated, I mean do I have to ask a car manufactures permission to change the windscreen, or replace the wheels, NO why? becuase I brought the car and it no longer has anything to do with the manufacturer.

If i purchase my home, I own it, not the local council.

I Believe that for most works that need to be done to a home shouldn't need permission from the local authority, However I do think that some kind of survey or assessment could be needed for certain structial modification to ensure the work is safe to carry out.

Remove listed orders for private owned homes

Our house and next doors has the front facing bay window listed.The road we live on has approx 70%-80% block flats on it.Our house and next doors is in 1/2 of an acre.We cannot sell to developers because of this listing.I personally see no point to it as it is of no use to the public interest.The government should look at all old listed building order's and restrict them to places of interest to the public. Putting a listing on the front of a house makes no sense at all especially if the majority of buildings on the same road are all blocks of flats.We have a coach house which had a restriction for it not to be removed. When the Birmingham city council rented  one of their properties with the coachouse that was in need of repair they scrapped the listing just so that they could pull down their coachouse as re-building it would have cost alot,this was 2 doors away from us. They do what they want when they want.  

Why is this idea important?

Our house and next doors has the front facing bay window listed.The road we live on has approx 70%-80% block flats on it.Our house and next doors is in 1/2 of an acre.We cannot sell to developers because of this listing.I personally see no point to it as it is of no use to the public interest.The government should look at all old listed building order's and restrict them to places of interest to the public. Putting a listing on the front of a house makes no sense at all especially if the majority of buildings on the same road are all blocks of flats.We have a coach house which had a restriction for it not to be removed. When the Birmingham city council rented  one of their properties with the coachouse that was in need of repair they scrapped the listing just so that they could pull down their coachouse as re-building it would have cost alot,this was 2 doors away from us. They do what they want when they want.  

Adjustment to PPG2 to clarify what is meant by disproportionate extensions in Green Belts and to ensure planning approvals are more fairly assessed.

Planning Policy Guidance Note PPG2 and the planning policies that many local authorities derive from that national guidance are unfairly in conflict with my right to enjoy my property in the Green Belt. 

The policy suggests that inappropriate development in the Green Belt is by definition harmful to the openness of a Green Belt irrespective of weather or not any one can see the development or if it causes no other harm – other than offend the sensibilities of a local planning officer.

The test for extending dwellings is based on the concept that extensions are not inappropriate if they are not disproportionate over and above the size of the original building (i.e. as the building was in 1948 or when first built). 

Many planning applications have been allowed over the years to extend such properties.  A good proportion between the 1960s when Green Belts first appeared and 1995 when PPG2 was published.  In recent years many authorities have become increasingly tight on what they will allow under what is a very ambiguously worded policy.  Many planning officers when given a cap and a badge seek to enforce a percentage limit as a black and white interpretation of what the national guidance sets out.  This gives them power but does not require any difficult or professional judgements to be made.

Two key issues arise from the way this policy has evolved that are in direct contravention of the right to enjoy property allowed for under the HRA.

Although there is no formal definition of original within PPG2 many but not all authorities use 1948 as the cut off date.  So while some properties may have been extended in the past they are treated differently.  In our local area the authority has lost most of its records from before reorganisation that took place in 1974.  This can mean properties that were build after 1948 can be mistakenly taken for earlier or earlier phases of extension work can be incorrectly assumed to be part of the original.  Other authorities now take later dates (one as late as 1980) as the cut off date.

Smaller dwellings are placed under a much greater restriction than larger properties.  So while a good sized extension on a large property could have the same volume or foot print as a modest extension on a small dwelling – the extension to the smaller property would be more likely to be refused.  The extension on the smaller property can be automatically classed as 'inappropriate development' even though it has no greater size or impact on openness!  This can be the case even where an acceptable extension could be in full public view and the unacceptable extension could be completely out of site on a rear elevation.

The assessments made under this policy as it currently stand are frequently confused and arbitrary.  The policy should be changed to recognise that small properties can be extended by a greater proportion (say up to a limit of the extension not being greater than the original volume) without harm.  Alternatively change the wording to say extensions to dwellings in the green belt are acceptable as long as they don't cause a disproportionate increase in the visibility (or visual impact) of the building from public vantage points.

 

 

 

 

Why is this idea important?

Planning Policy Guidance Note PPG2 and the planning policies that many local authorities derive from that national guidance are unfairly in conflict with my right to enjoy my property in the Green Belt. 

The policy suggests that inappropriate development in the Green Belt is by definition harmful to the openness of a Green Belt irrespective of weather or not any one can see the development or if it causes no other harm – other than offend the sensibilities of a local planning officer.

The test for extending dwellings is based on the concept that extensions are not inappropriate if they are not disproportionate over and above the size of the original building (i.e. as the building was in 1948 or when first built). 

Many planning applications have been allowed over the years to extend such properties.  A good proportion between the 1960s when Green Belts first appeared and 1995 when PPG2 was published.  In recent years many authorities have become increasingly tight on what they will allow under what is a very ambiguously worded policy.  Many planning officers when given a cap and a badge seek to enforce a percentage limit as a black and white interpretation of what the national guidance sets out.  This gives them power but does not require any difficult or professional judgements to be made.

Two key issues arise from the way this policy has evolved that are in direct contravention of the right to enjoy property allowed for under the HRA.

Although there is no formal definition of original within PPG2 many but not all authorities use 1948 as the cut off date.  So while some properties may have been extended in the past they are treated differently.  In our local area the authority has lost most of its records from before reorganisation that took place in 1974.  This can mean properties that were build after 1948 can be mistakenly taken for earlier or earlier phases of extension work can be incorrectly assumed to be part of the original.  Other authorities now take later dates (one as late as 1980) as the cut off date.

Smaller dwellings are placed under a much greater restriction than larger properties.  So while a good sized extension on a large property could have the same volume or foot print as a modest extension on a small dwelling – the extension to the smaller property would be more likely to be refused.  The extension on the smaller property can be automatically classed as 'inappropriate development' even though it has no greater size or impact on openness!  This can be the case even where an acceptable extension could be in full public view and the unacceptable extension could be completely out of site on a rear elevation.

The assessments made under this policy as it currently stand are frequently confused and arbitrary.  The policy should be changed to recognise that small properties can be extended by a greater proportion (say up to a limit of the extension not being greater than the original volume) without harm.  Alternatively change the wording to say extensions to dwellings in the green belt are acceptable as long as they don't cause a disproportionate increase in the visibility (or visual impact) of the building from public vantage points.

 

 

 

 

Unfettered outdoor advertisement

PROPOSAL

Repeal the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisement) Regulations, the roadside advertisement provisions of the Highways Act and teh Clean Neighbourhood and Environment Act.

REASON

This is the most universal form of civil disobedience and criminal negligence carried out across Britain today.  It is ignored by the tens of thousands of perpetrators and beneficiaries,

It is also actively and negligently disregarded and tacitly accepted by all the Government Agencies from the Planning Officers, Environmental Health Officers, Highways Inspectors and others charged with control and enforcement. 

 

Why is this idea important?

PROPOSAL

Repeal the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisement) Regulations, the roadside advertisement provisions of the Highways Act and teh Clean Neighbourhood and Environment Act.

REASON

This is the most universal form of civil disobedience and criminal negligence carried out across Britain today.  It is ignored by the tens of thousands of perpetrators and beneficiaries,

It is also actively and negligently disregarded and tacitly accepted by all the Government Agencies from the Planning Officers, Environmental Health Officers, Highways Inspectors and others charged with control and enforcement. 

 

Grade II listed buildings to be re-graded as ‘Grade III’

All Grade II listed buildings to be downgraded to a new category – say Grade III – where the only additional control compared to non-listed properties is that consent is required for changes to the fabric or appearance of Elevations visible to the general public.
An onus would then be upon planning authorities or other interested parties to apply for the upgrading of particular especially meritorious Grade III listed properties or terraces of such properties to Grade II.

Why is this idea important?

All Grade II listed buildings to be downgraded to a new category – say Grade III – where the only additional control compared to non-listed properties is that consent is required for changes to the fabric or appearance of Elevations visible to the general public.
An onus would then be upon planning authorities or other interested parties to apply for the upgrading of particular especially meritorious Grade III listed properties or terraces of such properties to Grade II.

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.

Limit Listed Building regulation to public features listed

It is reasonable that publicly accessible or viewable elevations of Listed buildings should be protected by Listed Building regulation in addition to general Planning regulation.  It is also reasonable that alterations to all buildings are subject to Building Regulations.

However, many planning departments seem to 'make work' by insisting upon their additional 'Listed Building' regulation of alterations to the private interiors of private homes on the basis that a given property had been 'Listed' after cursory  visual inspection of the exterior only in the 1970's.

This can lead to oppressive conduct by Planning officials, including threatening language and invasion of privacy, and the arbitrary refusal of consent for reasonable alterations, such as, for example, the replacement of a poor quality – even dangerous – staircase with new high quality staircase.  Such oppressive conduct seems mostly to be directed at private individuals, not substantial companies.

Listed Building regulations for private homes should be limited to those features of such properties that were itemised in the original Listing.

Why is this idea important?

It is reasonable that publicly accessible or viewable elevations of Listed buildings should be protected by Listed Building regulation in addition to general Planning regulation.  It is also reasonable that alterations to all buildings are subject to Building Regulations.

However, many planning departments seem to 'make work' by insisting upon their additional 'Listed Building' regulation of alterations to the private interiors of private homes on the basis that a given property had been 'Listed' after cursory  visual inspection of the exterior only in the 1970's.

This can lead to oppressive conduct by Planning officials, including threatening language and invasion of privacy, and the arbitrary refusal of consent for reasonable alterations, such as, for example, the replacement of a poor quality – even dangerous – staircase with new high quality staircase.  Such oppressive conduct seems mostly to be directed at private individuals, not substantial companies.

Listed Building regulations for private homes should be limited to those features of such properties that were itemised in the original Listing.

THE TRAVELLING COMMUNITY TO BE LIABLE TO THE SAME PLANNING LAWS AS THE REST OF US

THAT MEMBERS OF THE TRAVELLING COMMUNITY ARE SUBJECT TOO THE SAME PLANNING LAWS AS THE REST OF SOCIETY AND CANNOT PURCHASE LAND THEN WAIT UNTIL A BANK HOLIDAY W/E AND THEN BRING IN HEAVY EQUIPMENT TO LEVEL THE GROUND AND SET UP HOME.

I QUITE AGREE THAT THESE PEOPLE HAVE RIGHTS, BUT THAT DOES NOT GIVE THEM THE RIGHT TOO BE ABOVE THE LAW.

IT WOULD SEEM AT THE MOMMENT THAT THIS TYPE OF BEHAVIOUR IS TOTALLY BIASED TOWARDS THE TRAVELLERS, IF AN ORDINARY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC BREACHES PLANNING REGULATIONS THEY ARE FORCED TO TAKE DOWN OR RESTORE TO ITS ORIGINAL STATE, SO SURELY THIS SHOULD ALSO APPLY TOO TRAVELLERS. 

Why is this idea important?

THAT MEMBERS OF THE TRAVELLING COMMUNITY ARE SUBJECT TOO THE SAME PLANNING LAWS AS THE REST OF SOCIETY AND CANNOT PURCHASE LAND THEN WAIT UNTIL A BANK HOLIDAY W/E AND THEN BRING IN HEAVY EQUIPMENT TO LEVEL THE GROUND AND SET UP HOME.

I QUITE AGREE THAT THESE PEOPLE HAVE RIGHTS, BUT THAT DOES NOT GIVE THEM THE RIGHT TOO BE ABOVE THE LAW.

IT WOULD SEEM AT THE MOMMENT THAT THIS TYPE OF BEHAVIOUR IS TOTALLY BIASED TOWARDS THE TRAVELLERS, IF AN ORDINARY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC BREACHES PLANNING REGULATIONS THEY ARE FORCED TO TAKE DOWN OR RESTORE TO ITS ORIGINAL STATE, SO SURELY THIS SHOULD ALSO APPLY TOO TRAVELLERS. 

Restore equal rights for rural residents

Repeal the statutes which fail to safeguard rural areas from those who treat planning regulations, and existing residents, with complete contempt.

 

Retrospective planning permission should be abolished. Unlawful settlement on land, which has no sanitory or other essential services, should be a criminal offence.

Why is this idea important?

Repeal the statutes which fail to safeguard rural areas from those who treat planning regulations, and existing residents, with complete contempt.

 

Retrospective planning permission should be abolished. Unlawful settlement on land, which has no sanitory or other essential services, should be a criminal offence.

PLANNING LAWS TO BE MORE PUBLICLY ACCOUNTABLE

To revert back to the Town & Country Planning Act which may need strengthening in places but fundamentally worked in allowing local participation and to scrap the existing planning laws which allow developers the right of appeal but not local people or communities.

To scrap the law that a local authority can be both a developer and planning authority at the same time as this is inherently biased in favour of development and does not allow any real democratic public process.

Why is this idea important?

To revert back to the Town & Country Planning Act which may need strengthening in places but fundamentally worked in allowing local participation and to scrap the existing planning laws which allow developers the right of appeal but not local people or communities.

To scrap the law that a local authority can be both a developer and planning authority at the same time as this is inherently biased in favour of development and does not allow any real democratic public process.

Stop Travellers abuse of Human Rights laws to block planning enforcement

I am appauled that recently there have been several cases where travellers have purchased some land, then moved onto it very quickly and without any planning permission. Setting up mobile homes and small villages, Yet councils are unable to act to remove them.

The loophole is they own the land and so are not trespassing, they have breached planning regulation but that is not seen as a serious crime, despite the wanton deliberate and mass intention to do so. They then use Civil Liberties and Human Rights laws as an excuse to remain living there, install drainage, build walls and shelters and even roads… all without legal permission. It may take years to chase them through the courts, plus appeals, wastes councils time and money and therefore costs us all money.

They must forfeit their rights on the grounds that they have deliberately, wantonly, en-mass and with planned deception and intention gone about becoming residential illegally on their land.

Due to the massively deliberate illegal natue of their actions they should  loose their rights and be immediately evicted from the sites, by force if necessary.

Why is this idea important?

I am appauled that recently there have been several cases where travellers have purchased some land, then moved onto it very quickly and without any planning permission. Setting up mobile homes and small villages, Yet councils are unable to act to remove them.

The loophole is they own the land and so are not trespassing, they have breached planning regulation but that is not seen as a serious crime, despite the wanton deliberate and mass intention to do so. They then use Civil Liberties and Human Rights laws as an excuse to remain living there, install drainage, build walls and shelters and even roads… all without legal permission. It may take years to chase them through the courts, plus appeals, wastes councils time and money and therefore costs us all money.

They must forfeit their rights on the grounds that they have deliberately, wantonly, en-mass and with planned deception and intention gone about becoming residential illegally on their land.

Due to the massively deliberate illegal natue of their actions they should  loose their rights and be immediately evicted from the sites, by force if necessary.

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.

Reverse the requirement for Intrastat returns for services

At the start of this year, a new VAT requirement was introduced for businesses – to submit Intrastat returns for sales of services within the EU. This has not been necessary previously and it is unclear why it is suddenly necessary now, but it does generate a lot of extra paperwork. This is especially the case since there is no threshold below which this does not apply.

I suggest this requirement be reversed, or at least a minimum threshold be made to apply

Why is this idea important?

At the start of this year, a new VAT requirement was introduced for businesses – to submit Intrastat returns for sales of services within the EU. This has not been necessary previously and it is unclear why it is suddenly necessary now, but it does generate a lot of extra paperwork. This is especially the case since there is no threshold below which this does not apply.

I suggest this requirement be reversed, or at least a minimum threshold be made to apply

Remove restrictions on Listed Buildings

Too many houses have been include on the Listed Building register because Local Authorities were told they would get money to provide grants. This is now not the case (in fact it only realistically lasted a few years from 1974). However, the restrictions on a vast swathe of domestic houses are preventing sustainable development. Remove all lower grade residental buildings from to Listed Building register – retain Planning Permission/Development Control requirements but stop the hamstringing of people who want to sensitively develop there house to accommodate changing needs and community resources simply becasie the building was listed for often spurious reasons.

This will also allow Local authorities to save more money in Conservation officers, planning personnel time and expense in general admin and in defending the many appeals etc.

Why is this idea important?

Too many houses have been include on the Listed Building register because Local Authorities were told they would get money to provide grants. This is now not the case (in fact it only realistically lasted a few years from 1974). However, the restrictions on a vast swathe of domestic houses are preventing sustainable development. Remove all lower grade residental buildings from to Listed Building register – retain Planning Permission/Development Control requirements but stop the hamstringing of people who want to sensitively develop there house to accommodate changing needs and community resources simply becasie the building was listed for often spurious reasons.

This will also allow Local authorities to save more money in Conservation officers, planning personnel time and expense in general admin and in defending the many appeals etc.

Reduce Planning Permission Bureaucracy & Restrictions

There is a need to relax planning regulations very significantly for private citizens, especially in the area of house extensions and modifications, car ports, installation of solar panels, position and design of windows, etc.  Planning applications are often opposed by jealous or awkward neighbours, and Councillors on Town and District Planning Committees often ignore the advice of the council’s own professional planning officers (recommending approval) and reject applications, to curry favour with antagonistic local people whose votes they want to obtain.  Frequently, council officers are also intimidated by aggressive citizens with a typewriter or word processor, who sometimes stir up opposition to perfectly acceptable proposals.

Some councils are excessively interventionist and allow their decisions to be affected by political considerations.  Thus, the extremely left-wing members of Stevenage Borough Council are prone to object to people wishing to improve their homes and depart from the standard size and pattern of the “New Town” housing that dominated the town until the early 1990s.  The appeals procedure offers some redress.  In the early 1990s, the decisions of the planning committee of Stevenage Borough Council were overturned on appeal in 52% of cases.  This demonstrates that in a majority of cases their decisions were demonstrably, legally wrong.  Right-wing councils are sometimes equally interventionist.

Why is this idea important?

There is a need to relax planning regulations very significantly for private citizens, especially in the area of house extensions and modifications, car ports, installation of solar panels, position and design of windows, etc.  Planning applications are often opposed by jealous or awkward neighbours, and Councillors on Town and District Planning Committees often ignore the advice of the council’s own professional planning officers (recommending approval) and reject applications, to curry favour with antagonistic local people whose votes they want to obtain.  Frequently, council officers are also intimidated by aggressive citizens with a typewriter or word processor, who sometimes stir up opposition to perfectly acceptable proposals.

Some councils are excessively interventionist and allow their decisions to be affected by political considerations.  Thus, the extremely left-wing members of Stevenage Borough Council are prone to object to people wishing to improve their homes and depart from the standard size and pattern of the “New Town” housing that dominated the town until the early 1990s.  The appeals procedure offers some redress.  In the early 1990s, the decisions of the planning committee of Stevenage Borough Council were overturned on appeal in 52% of cases.  This demonstrates that in a majority of cases their decisions were demonstrably, legally wrong.  Right-wing councils are sometimes equally interventionist.

Repeal law imposing Agricultural Restrictions on Property

Local authorities are empowered to impose restrictions allowing only agricultural workers to live in designated properties.

This results in lenders refusing to supply mortgages. As a consequence it prevents sale on the open market except to cash buyers, and such properties are typically on the market for years without sale and if sold are at a deep discount to the proper market price (25-30%).

To remove a restriction, owners are told to do a market research survey of the area to find any possible buyers. The result of this survey is then submitted with a planning application, and the Planning Officer decides if the restriction will be removed.

The net effect is that mobility is restricted and a quick sale impossible. It also devalues the property and places the owner and his children at a significant disadvantage. I was even told that my son would have to give up residence in my house if I died – he would own it but not be able to live in it while the restriction remained!!!

Why is this idea important?

Local authorities are empowered to impose restrictions allowing only agricultural workers to live in designated properties.

This results in lenders refusing to supply mortgages. As a consequence it prevents sale on the open market except to cash buyers, and such properties are typically on the market for years without sale and if sold are at a deep discount to the proper market price (25-30%).

To remove a restriction, owners are told to do a market research survey of the area to find any possible buyers. The result of this survey is then submitted with a planning application, and the Planning Officer decides if the restriction will be removed.

The net effect is that mobility is restricted and a quick sale impossible. It also devalues the property and places the owner and his children at a significant disadvantage. I was even told that my son would have to give up residence in my house if I died – he would own it but not be able to live in it while the restriction remained!!!

Repeal law imposing Agricultural Restrictions on Property

Local authorities are empowered to impose restrictions allowing only agricultural workers to live in designated properties.

This results in lenders refusing to supply mortgages. As a consequence it prevents sale on the open market except to cash buyers, and such properties are typically on the market for years without sale and if sold are at a deep discount to the proper market price (25-30%).

To remove a restriction, owners are told to do a market research survey of the area to find any possible buyers. The result of this survey is then submitted with a planning application, and the Planning Officer decides if the restriction will be removed.

The net effect is that mobility is restricted and a quick sale impossible. It also devalues the property and places the owner and his children at a significant disadvantage. I was even told that my son would have to give up residence in my house if I died – he would own it but not be able to live in it while the restriction remained!!!

Why is this idea important?

Local authorities are empowered to impose restrictions allowing only agricultural workers to live in designated properties.

This results in lenders refusing to supply mortgages. As a consequence it prevents sale on the open market except to cash buyers, and such properties are typically on the market for years without sale and if sold are at a deep discount to the proper market price (25-30%).

To remove a restriction, owners are told to do a market research survey of the area to find any possible buyers. The result of this survey is then submitted with a planning application, and the Planning Officer decides if the restriction will be removed.

The net effect is that mobility is restricted and a quick sale impossible. It also devalues the property and places the owner and his children at a significant disadvantage. I was even told that my son would have to give up residence in my house if I died – he would own it but not be able to live in it while the restriction remained!!!

Repeal law imposing Agricultural Restrictions on Property

Local authorities are empowered to impose restrictions allowing only agricultural workers to live in designated properties.

This results in lenders refusing to supply mortgages. As a consequence it prevents sale on the open market except to cash buyers, and such properties are typically on the market for years without sale and if sold are at a deep discount to the proper market price (25-30%).

To remove a restriction, owners are told to do a market research survey of the area to find any possible buyers. The result of this survey is then submitted with a planning application, and the Planning Officer decides if the restriction will be removed.

The net effect is that mobility is restricted and a quick sale impossible. It also devalues the property and places the owner and his children at a significant disadvantage. I was even told that my son would have to give up residence in my house if I died – he would own it but not be able to live in it while the restriction remained!!!

 

Why is this idea important?

Local authorities are empowered to impose restrictions allowing only agricultural workers to live in designated properties.

This results in lenders refusing to supply mortgages. As a consequence it prevents sale on the open market except to cash buyers, and such properties are typically on the market for years without sale and if sold are at a deep discount to the proper market price (25-30%).

To remove a restriction, owners are told to do a market research survey of the area to find any possible buyers. The result of this survey is then submitted with a planning application, and the Planning Officer decides if the restriction will be removed.

The net effect is that mobility is restricted and a quick sale impossible. It also devalues the property and places the owner and his children at a significant disadvantage. I was even told that my son would have to give up residence in my house if I died – he would own it but not be able to live in it while the restriction remained!!!

 

make retrospective planning applications illegal

Make retrospective planning applications illegal for everyone. that would hopefully prevent land being sold and moved onto by gypsies and travellers without planning  permission and going before the council committee after the damage has been done, it would also stop others from running business's etc  from properties without the right planning permission. There are many infringements of planning regulations happening all the time by people all over the country and to be quite honest it is not difficult to check to see whether you need planning permission for any project so really retrospective planning is not needed.

Why is this idea important?

Make retrospective planning applications illegal for everyone. that would hopefully prevent land being sold and moved onto by gypsies and travellers without planning  permission and going before the council committee after the damage has been done, it would also stop others from running business's etc  from properties without the right planning permission. There are many infringements of planning regulations happening all the time by people all over the country and to be quite honest it is not difficult to check to see whether you need planning permission for any project so really retrospective planning is not needed.