Rights to establish a static caravan as a permanent home on your own landW

We have bought a building plot but after establishing the services and servitude to access a private road and after paying solicitor, engineer re flood risk assessment and builder etc we cannot afford to do the new build. We can only afford to upgrade our static caravan to make it a permanent residence. My husband can make it look to blend in with our surroundings as he is a retired builder. However the council will not allow us to do this. We are so disillusioned by this as we have made the plot look neat and presentable where before it was a rough overgrown plot.

Why is this idea important?

We have bought a building plot but after establishing the services and servitude to access a private road and after paying solicitor, engineer re flood risk assessment and builder etc we cannot afford to do the new build. We can only afford to upgrade our static caravan to make it a permanent residence. My husband can make it look to blend in with our surroundings as he is a retired builder. However the council will not allow us to do this. We are so disillusioned by this as we have made the plot look neat and presentable where before it was a rough overgrown plot.

Local residents opposition should count for democracy

Residents fighting to save Green Belt Land being used by this Government to build the BIGGEST PRISON, in OUR VILLAGE of RUNWELL ESSEX.

   vmhorner @hotmail.com       10th Sept 2010

With this Governments Policy of listening to Local Peoples Opinion (WHY ARE THEY NOT LISTENING)

The MoJ is obviously determined to go ahead with its plans regardless of local feeling of Runwell, Rettendon, Wickford, with  Chelmsford Borough Council and Basildon Borough Council, also all local Parish Councils opposing this Planning Application. There are many Brown Field sites within the MOJ's selection critria that have been completely ignored, had they taken these into consideration they could have saved the Tax Payer and this Government Millions of pounds. Regenaration in Deprived area's would provide Jobs   and would also save More Government and Tax payers money by getting people in these area's off Benifits. Chelmsford does NOT need these econmic Benifits but many parts of the country clearly do.

Apart from The Massive saving available by re-siting this proposed Prison, the following is statements from Mr Blunt MP.

"If the next Government is Conservative it will restore powers over planning to local authorities so that decisions are taken locally by locally elected councillors. We will give local communities a share in local growth – when local authorities deliver the housing that their community needs they will get the financial benefit."

Mr Blunt also set out proposals that include scrapping the Regional Spatial Strategies and unelected regional assemblies. He said that he hoped that if the policies are enacted they will empower local councillors and encourage more engagement from voters. Mr Blunt also stressed the importance of protecting the Green Belt:

Chelmsford Borough Council were ready to REGECT MOJ PLANNING APPLICATION on the 20th August 2010, and on the same Day MOJ withdrew the application knowing it was going to be rejected, only to admit to a resubmission in late September 2010.

Finally Deprived area's would welcome the £20million proposed (sweetner) that is NOT required by Chelmsford.
 

Why is this idea important?

Residents fighting to save Green Belt Land being used by this Government to build the BIGGEST PRISON, in OUR VILLAGE of RUNWELL ESSEX.

   vmhorner @hotmail.com       10th Sept 2010

With this Governments Policy of listening to Local Peoples Opinion (WHY ARE THEY NOT LISTENING)

The MoJ is obviously determined to go ahead with its plans regardless of local feeling of Runwell, Rettendon, Wickford, with  Chelmsford Borough Council and Basildon Borough Council, also all local Parish Councils opposing this Planning Application. There are many Brown Field sites within the MOJ's selection critria that have been completely ignored, had they taken these into consideration they could have saved the Tax Payer and this Government Millions of pounds. Regenaration in Deprived area's would provide Jobs   and would also save More Government and Tax payers money by getting people in these area's off Benifits. Chelmsford does NOT need these econmic Benifits but many parts of the country clearly do.

Apart from The Massive saving available by re-siting this proposed Prison, the following is statements from Mr Blunt MP.

"If the next Government is Conservative it will restore powers over planning to local authorities so that decisions are taken locally by locally elected councillors. We will give local communities a share in local growth – when local authorities deliver the housing that their community needs they will get the financial benefit."

Mr Blunt also set out proposals that include scrapping the Regional Spatial Strategies and unelected regional assemblies. He said that he hoped that if the policies are enacted they will empower local councillors and encourage more engagement from voters. Mr Blunt also stressed the importance of protecting the Green Belt:

Chelmsford Borough Council were ready to REGECT MOJ PLANNING APPLICATION on the 20th August 2010, and on the same Day MOJ withdrew the application knowing it was going to be rejected, only to admit to a resubmission in late September 2010.

Finally Deprived area's would welcome the £20million proposed (sweetner) that is NOT required by Chelmsford.
 

Speeding up good planning decisions

If Statutory consultees do not respond to formal consultation within the set deadline (usually 21 days), the opportunity to comment should be lost. Holding objections should only be acceptable within this deadline if they make clear in what respects there are outstanding concerns, so that applicants can remedy them without delay.

Why is this idea important?

If Statutory consultees do not respond to formal consultation within the set deadline (usually 21 days), the opportunity to comment should be lost. Holding objections should only be acceptable within this deadline if they make clear in what respects there are outstanding concerns, so that applicants can remedy them without delay.

Cancel listed buildings restrictions on residential buildings

At the moment there are a lot of restrictions as to what the owner of a listed building can do to their property.

 

An Englishman's (or a Scotsman…) home is his castle and owners of listed buildings should be just as entitled as any house owner to make modifications to their house.

 

If the house is primarily used as a dwelling then it should have no more restrictions on it than a 'normal' house.

Why is this idea important?

At the moment there are a lot of restrictions as to what the owner of a listed building can do to their property.

 

An Englishman's (or a Scotsman…) home is his castle and owners of listed buildings should be just as entitled as any house owner to make modifications to their house.

 

If the house is primarily used as a dwelling then it should have no more restrictions on it than a 'normal' house.

AMEND INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS PLANNING REQUIREMENTS

It should be a condition for the granting of planning permission (at the Local Authority's discretion) for Industrial Buildings that the roofing should carry panels to generate electricity for the use of the unit concerned, with excess being fed into the national grid.

Why is this idea important?

It should be a condition for the granting of planning permission (at the Local Authority's discretion) for Industrial Buildings that the roofing should carry panels to generate electricity for the use of the unit concerned, with excess being fed into the national grid.

remove planning regulations for dog training

why does one need planning to train your dogs on a piece of ground that will not involve any changes to that piece of land whatsoever and only be used for 2 hours a week

Why is this idea important?

why does one need planning to train your dogs on a piece of ground that will not involve any changes to that piece of land whatsoever and only be used for 2 hours a week

Abolish Planning Permssion to Alter or Rebuild Existing Homes

Except for properties in a Conservation Area or subject to a conservation order, the owner of a residential property should be allowed to alter or rebuild his property without seeking new planning approval, as long as the structure complies with Building Regulations and general zoning requirements as to height, percentage of land occupied by building and materials.

Why is this idea important?

Except for properties in a Conservation Area or subject to a conservation order, the owner of a residential property should be allowed to alter or rebuild his property without seeking new planning approval, as long as the structure complies with Building Regulations and general zoning requirements as to height, percentage of land occupied by building and materials.

Reduce Planning Controls on Advertising Consent

The application of planning controls is far to rigorous and there is a major waste of time and money by applicants to satisfy planning officials who often gold plate their own interpretation of regulations.

Advertising control should also be taken from District Councils and passed to Parish Councils where they exist. This means that there is a real local focus on what works and what is acceptable. As advertising is just that, there is a very limited need for specific training in this form of planning consent and should be easily handled by a parish clerk in giving the parish councilors advice as required. Given that advertising is mainly about taste, then parish councilors will be as effective as town planners.

Why is this idea important?

The application of planning controls is far to rigorous and there is a major waste of time and money by applicants to satisfy planning officials who often gold plate their own interpretation of regulations.

Advertising control should also be taken from District Councils and passed to Parish Councils where they exist. This means that there is a real local focus on what works and what is acceptable. As advertising is just that, there is a very limited need for specific training in this form of planning consent and should be easily handled by a parish clerk in giving the parish councilors advice as required. Given that advertising is mainly about taste, then parish councilors will be as effective as town planners.

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 !

Restore PD rights to rear of houses in conservation areas

Allow residential householders whose house is in a conservation area to  apply to the Council (LPA) to have their full permitted development (PD) rights under the GDPO restored to the rear elevantion of the property where that elevation has no significant conservation value.  If granted normal PD rights under the GDPO would apply unless and until the Coucils made an Article 4 GDPO Direction to restrict or remove them again.  The Council would be allowed to refuse a PD restoration application if it can demonstrate the rear elevation of that individual property or its immediate vicinity has significant conservation value, linked to the character statement they must produce for the particular conservation area. The Council would be allowed to impose conditions e.g. to protect particular features worthy of preservation or specify that certain materials be used.  There would be a right of appeal against refusal or unreasonable conditions to an independent planning inspector.  Express planning permisison would still be required in the normal way for any alterations to the front elevation not currently permitted in conservation areas under the present GDPO , and to any at the rear that fall outside current PD limits.  These would have to meet the normal conservation area test of whether they preserve or enhance the character of the area. 

Why is this idea important?

Allow residential householders whose house is in a conservation area to  apply to the Council (LPA) to have their full permitted development (PD) rights under the GDPO restored to the rear elevantion of the property where that elevation has no significant conservation value.  If granted normal PD rights under the GDPO would apply unless and until the Coucils made an Article 4 GDPO Direction to restrict or remove them again.  The Council would be allowed to refuse a PD restoration application if it can demonstrate the rear elevation of that individual property or its immediate vicinity has significant conservation value, linked to the character statement they must produce for the particular conservation area. The Council would be allowed to impose conditions e.g. to protect particular features worthy of preservation or specify that certain materials be used.  There would be a right of appeal against refusal or unreasonable conditions to an independent planning inspector.  Express planning permisison would still be required in the normal way for any alterations to the front elevation not currently permitted in conservation areas under the present GDPO , and to any at the rear that fall outside current PD limits.  These would have to meet the normal conservation area test of whether they preserve or enhance the character of the area. 

Regulate the housing market by creating more social housing and the mass construction of rent controlled, high quality housing at cost

The UK economy is heavily unbalanced and society is under severe strain because of the unhealthy proccupation with property values . The private sector should be controlled and the govt should intervene to create more social housing with a new  agile and diverse  philosophy that would allow tenants to rent, buy, exchange but with clearly defined rules on standards of upkeep and presentation .

Southern Europe has some interesting models with public corporations that develop public and private land under cost controlled ,socially  diverse  responsible and means tested models that allow , different age groups, economic classes etc to establish a foothold in areas otherwise closed to them .

Rent controlled projects should be encouraged to draw demand away from the private sector and prevent overheating in the housing market .

Why is this idea important?

The UK economy is heavily unbalanced and society is under severe strain because of the unhealthy proccupation with property values . The private sector should be controlled and the govt should intervene to create more social housing with a new  agile and diverse  philosophy that would allow tenants to rent, buy, exchange but with clearly defined rules on standards of upkeep and presentation .

Southern Europe has some interesting models with public corporations that develop public and private land under cost controlled ,socially  diverse  responsible and means tested models that allow , different age groups, economic classes etc to establish a foothold in areas otherwise closed to them .

Rent controlled projects should be encouraged to draw demand away from the private sector and prevent overheating in the housing market .

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.

 

Reform of the town and country planning system

Time for a completely fresh and radical think about the future of the town and country planning system in this country I reckon.

It would be worth taking some time out to have a brief focussed national debate about how best to plan in the future.

The current system is much too highly regulated with separated processes for long term planning and development control. The current proposals by this goverment are a breath of fresh air but they don't go anywhere near far enough.

Why is this idea important?

Time for a completely fresh and radical think about the future of the town and country planning system in this country I reckon.

It would be worth taking some time out to have a brief focussed national debate about how best to plan in the future.

The current system is much too highly regulated with separated processes for long term planning and development control. The current proposals by this goverment are a breath of fresh air but they don't go anywhere near far enough.

Abandon the South East Plan and local Core Strategies

 

The South East plan was the previous labour governments plan to dump 654160 houses in South-east England by 2026, with each council or unitary authority being set various targets.

 

Councils are obliged to continue moving forward with their local plans until the new coalition government modifies or abandons this legal enforceable strategy.

 

The plan promotes massive over building in the south-east, with no allowances for availability of land, provision of infrastructure, loss of countryside and local opposition.

Why is this idea important?

 

The South East plan was the previous labour governments plan to dump 654160 houses in South-east England by 2026, with each council or unitary authority being set various targets.

 

Councils are obliged to continue moving forward with their local plans until the new coalition government modifies or abandons this legal enforceable strategy.

 

The plan promotes massive over building in the south-east, with no allowances for availability of land, provision of infrastructure, loss of countryside and local opposition.

Community Infrastructure Levy

I am a recently retired planning officer with some experience of the operation of this scheme in my previous local authority.  In theory the scheme has merits, but in practise there are a number of drawbacks.

For a start the calculation should be fair and easy to understand.  The scheme I am familiar with was introduced in haste and was not a fair system as it did not cover every category of land use or development.  Consequently some quite small developments could command a disproportionately large fee, which could not be satisfactorily explained to the developer.  Some payments were so large that the developer was deterred from making the application and investing in the Borough unless they were reduced.  In addition the Borough Solicitor was constantly changing the format of the legal Deed because of doubts over its enforcability.

Small developers of, say 1 house, found the system particularly difficult to understand.  They were required to do an online calculation which produced a legal document, which had to be signed, witnessed and returned with the planning application.  Many small developers failed to understand that they had signed a legal document and didn't complete the Deed correctly.  It was also necessary to carry out a Land Registry check to make sure that the landownwer's details were correct.  This all created additional work for planning officers and delayed  the decision making process.

The levy was payable once building work had comenced.  For a small developer this was a heavy additional outlay at the start of the development when finances were often already tight.  Non-payment meant instigating the debt recovery process – again all  additional work for staff.  I would question whether the amount of income from small development against the cost of administration made it a worthwhile operation.

Why is this idea important?

I am a recently retired planning officer with some experience of the operation of this scheme in my previous local authority.  In theory the scheme has merits, but in practise there are a number of drawbacks.

For a start the calculation should be fair and easy to understand.  The scheme I am familiar with was introduced in haste and was not a fair system as it did not cover every category of land use or development.  Consequently some quite small developments could command a disproportionately large fee, which could not be satisfactorily explained to the developer.  Some payments were so large that the developer was deterred from making the application and investing in the Borough unless they were reduced.  In addition the Borough Solicitor was constantly changing the format of the legal Deed because of doubts over its enforcability.

Small developers of, say 1 house, found the system particularly difficult to understand.  They were required to do an online calculation which produced a legal document, which had to be signed, witnessed and returned with the planning application.  Many small developers failed to understand that they had signed a legal document and didn't complete the Deed correctly.  It was also necessary to carry out a Land Registry check to make sure that the landownwer's details were correct.  This all created additional work for planning officers and delayed  the decision making process.

The levy was payable once building work had comenced.  For a small developer this was a heavy additional outlay at the start of the development when finances were often already tight.  Non-payment meant instigating the debt recovery process – again all  additional work for staff.  I would question whether the amount of income from small development against the cost of administration made it a worthwhile operation.

Review of National Parks – include residents in direct consultation

Did you know that National Parks and National Park Authorities are 2 different things?

 

English National Parks are ‘National Treasures’ and should always remain so.  Many hundreds of thousands of people visit them each year – whether a day trip or for a holiday – National Parks are very special places, I know this because I am lucky to live on one!  These parks are National parks because they belong to the nation; they are unique; tranquil; accessible; educational – and free to use. 

 

A National Park Authority is an unelected body of members made up of DEFRA appointees and other unelected people who often do not even reside in their NP.  It has remained this way since the first National Park (The Peak District) was designated – way back in 1951.

 

Today, in 2010, residents of national parks have their first opportunity to change this democratic deficit through direct public consultation with DEFRA during their Review of the governance arrangements of these authorities. (July – December 2010).

 

Sadly, and from past experiences, we know we should never assume that government would consult at grass-roots level; which means we need to lobby for consultation opportunities during this Review – after all, we know more about where we live than perhaps unelected bureaucrats do and we are capable of meaningful discussions on our own future!

 

Please help us by supporting our petition to DEFRA to include residents/workers/visitors etc., in the consultation process of this Review.  We are not asking for the abolition of National Parks; we just want locally elected authority membership.

 

You can find the petition here: http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/onevoice/and we would be very grateful if you could send the link to friends and family please.

 

Thank you for your support.

Sue Baillie

ONE VOICE

http://www.onevoice.officeoverload.com/

 

Why is this idea important?

Did you know that National Parks and National Park Authorities are 2 different things?

 

English National Parks are ‘National Treasures’ and should always remain so.  Many hundreds of thousands of people visit them each year – whether a day trip or for a holiday – National Parks are very special places, I know this because I am lucky to live on one!  These parks are National parks because they belong to the nation; they are unique; tranquil; accessible; educational – and free to use. 

 

A National Park Authority is an unelected body of members made up of DEFRA appointees and other unelected people who often do not even reside in their NP.  It has remained this way since the first National Park (The Peak District) was designated – way back in 1951.

 

Today, in 2010, residents of national parks have their first opportunity to change this democratic deficit through direct public consultation with DEFRA during their Review of the governance arrangements of these authorities. (July – December 2010).

 

Sadly, and from past experiences, we know we should never assume that government would consult at grass-roots level; which means we need to lobby for consultation opportunities during this Review – after all, we know more about where we live than perhaps unelected bureaucrats do and we are capable of meaningful discussions on our own future!

 

Please help us by supporting our petition to DEFRA to include residents/workers/visitors etc., in the consultation process of this Review.  We are not asking for the abolition of National Parks; we just want locally elected authority membership.

 

You can find the petition here: http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/onevoice/and we would be very grateful if you could send the link to friends and family please.

 

Thank you for your support.

Sue Baillie

ONE VOICE

http://www.onevoice.officeoverload.com/

 

Easement laws

There are some easements that require a change of only a few feet in order that the land they go through gets more use from theitr land. At this moment in time this is a costly process through Local councils and solicitors as well as getting permission from the person using the land to cross. Surely if the land can still be used to get to another property without any extra distance or impediment it should be allowed to be changed by the owner of the land and without recouse to local authority, the legal system or the neighbour.

Why is this idea important?

There are some easements that require a change of only a few feet in order that the land they go through gets more use from theitr land. At this moment in time this is a costly process through Local councils and solicitors as well as getting permission from the person using the land to cross. Surely if the land can still be used to get to another property without any extra distance or impediment it should be allowed to be changed by the owner of the land and without recouse to local authority, the legal system or the neighbour.

Remove regulation requiring newspaper adverst for planning applications

At present there is still a requirement for some applications – particularly listed building applications and planning applications in conservation areas – to be advertised in local newspapers. This is a ridiculous unnecessary bureacratic requirement that costs Councils lots of money. Such adverts could be on their web sites. This should be repealed. The previous government bottled it because they were lobbied by the regional newspaper groups. let's hope the neww Coalition will be braver.

Why is this idea important?

At present there is still a requirement for some applications – particularly listed building applications and planning applications in conservation areas – to be advertised in local newspapers. This is a ridiculous unnecessary bureacratic requirement that costs Councils lots of money. Such adverts could be on their web sites. This should be repealed. The previous government bottled it because they were lobbied by the regional newspaper groups. let's hope the neww Coalition will be braver.

Abolish County Planning Authorities

Now that RSSs have been abolished and all Planning matters either determined at national or local level (and not regional or County-wide) there is no need for County Planning Authorities because they now have no strategic planning remit as 'Open Source Planning' makes clear. Their remaining (non strategic) functions should be transferred to District Planning Authorities.

Why is this idea important?

Now that RSSs have been abolished and all Planning matters either determined at national or local level (and not regional or County-wide) there is no need for County Planning Authorities because they now have no strategic planning remit as 'Open Source Planning' makes clear. Their remaining (non strategic) functions should be transferred to District Planning Authorities.

Fixed Penalty Notices for Planning breaches

Those breaching Planning Regulations should be issued with Fixed Penalty Notices so allowing Councils to recoup the expense of running their Planning Enforcment service so this does not fall on the Council tax and general tax payers.

Why is this idea important?

Those breaching Planning Regulations should be issued with Fixed Penalty Notices so allowing Councils to recoup the expense of running their Planning Enforcment service so this does not fall on the Council tax and general tax payers.

Full cost recovery on Planning Fees

At present Planning Fees only recompense Councils a proportion of the costs required in dealing with Planning & related applications. They should recover the total costs.

Why is this idea important?

At present Planning Fees only recompense Councils a proportion of the costs required in dealing with Planning & related applications. They should recover the total costs.

more freedom for the public on where construction of council led initiatives take place

 My idea is to have a more open policy on placing of construction projects in my local area,this is to say at a local level councillors should have to meet and respect opinions of local resisidents about what if any type of building work they want done in their own local area.

 For an example I will look no further than my own experience of a proposed Academy that is being built on a local playing field(Queen Elizabeth Playing Field) near to where I live in Kingston Upon Hull.Despite widespread dissaproval of this local building scheme the school will be built on the only "green space" we have available to enjoy time away from city life.Despite partitions from local people at a local level to city councillors for stopping this,despite their being many local schools in the area already,that would be better served refurbished rather than knocked down,they are still going ahead with this idea that would disrupt the community,that has relied on those playing fields for an escape from city life.

  I feel this is an idea that would save the goverment money, money that we all know needs to be saved from the school budget as you'll find many people(certainly in my local area) are opposed to such hair-brained schemes that they neither want nor need.Their are other construction projects that I could write about,but It just feels that local councillors do not listen to the will of the local people.-this one in particular is part of the previous goverments future schools building program.

Why is this idea important?

 My idea is to have a more open policy on placing of construction projects in my local area,this is to say at a local level councillors should have to meet and respect opinions of local resisidents about what if any type of building work they want done in their own local area.

 For an example I will look no further than my own experience of a proposed Academy that is being built on a local playing field(Queen Elizabeth Playing Field) near to where I live in Kingston Upon Hull.Despite widespread dissaproval of this local building scheme the school will be built on the only "green space" we have available to enjoy time away from city life.Despite partitions from local people at a local level to city councillors for stopping this,despite their being many local schools in the area already,that would be better served refurbished rather than knocked down,they are still going ahead with this idea that would disrupt the community,that has relied on those playing fields for an escape from city life.

  I feel this is an idea that would save the goverment money, money that we all know needs to be saved from the school budget as you'll find many people(certainly in my local area) are opposed to such hair-brained schemes that they neither want nor need.Their are other construction projects that I could write about,but It just feels that local councillors do not listen to the will of the local people.-this one in particular is part of the previous goverments future schools building program.

Localism and Planning

There is much of interest in the coalition's statements on Localism and putting decision-making powers back in the hands of communities and local authorities. However, to facilitate the process, I would suggest repealing those parts of the current system of town and country planning that work against those fine principles, beginning with the following.

  • Remove the presumption in favour of development
  • Allow statutory development plans to include negatively as well as positively worded policies
  • Increase the weight attached to community opinion in the determination of planning applications and appeals
  • Overall, shift the balance of power from landowners and developers to communities and local planning authorities

This could begin to change the culture of planning in this country so that planning permission is not a right of the individual, but an endorsement by the people it will affect.

Why is this idea important?

There is much of interest in the coalition's statements on Localism and putting decision-making powers back in the hands of communities and local authorities. However, to facilitate the process, I would suggest repealing those parts of the current system of town and country planning that work against those fine principles, beginning with the following.

  • Remove the presumption in favour of development
  • Allow statutory development plans to include negatively as well as positively worded policies
  • Increase the weight attached to community opinion in the determination of planning applications and appeals
  • Overall, shift the balance of power from landowners and developers to communities and local planning authorities

This could begin to change the culture of planning in this country so that planning permission is not a right of the individual, but an endorsement by the people it will affect.

The planning law that prevents affordable village homes.

Why am I prevented from dividing my 5 bedroomed village home, which is half a mile from the curtailage of the Village?  If my home was half a mile nearer the village there wouldnt be a problem!

The house and garden are too big, now my family have left home but I love my home and my garden, why should I sell the whole house? The sensible option would be to divide into two flats or make two semi detached homes but planning law prevents this. The stupid part of this law is, if the property was a pair of  semi detached homes I could apply to make one large house and this would be approved!

Why is this idea important?

Why am I prevented from dividing my 5 bedroomed village home, which is half a mile from the curtailage of the Village?  If my home was half a mile nearer the village there wouldnt be a problem!

The house and garden are too big, now my family have left home but I love my home and my garden, why should I sell the whole house? The sensible option would be to divide into two flats or make two semi detached homes but planning law prevents this. The stupid part of this law is, if the property was a pair of  semi detached homes I could apply to make one large house and this would be approved!