Make “I don’t want it!” legally valid for planning objections

NIMBYism has been ridden roughshod over. Yes, prisons must go somewhere, wind farms and nuclear power stations benefit us in energy security (though wind farms I'd disagree with, but that's only my view). The common factor is they're rarely welcome and planning permission has to be bulldozed through.

Supermarkets, though? Little town killers springing up everywhere, destroying towns for the greater glory of the likes of Tesco (with whom £1 in £7 is spent in the UK already).

The problem is developers get two or three years to form their plans and consult with planning departments while the victims – the residents – get siz weeks to provide detailed objections citing planning regulations that would baffle a boffin. It's hopelessly one-sided, in favour of the developers.

Saying "I don't want it" carries no weight. Saying "It'll destroy the character of the town" is no good. Getting hundreds and even  thousands of signatures on a petition is no good – no matter how large it is, a whole petition counts as one objection!

In plain, simple terms, weight of opinion is completely ignored in planning matters. This Coalition has promised to devolve more say to local communities, and I would wish them to stick by their word.

It is not for us, the electorate, to provide solutions to difficult problems – that's what MPs are given their seats to do. We can help, as we're doing on this site, but give us the tools to give that help!

Why is this idea important?

NIMBYism has been ridden roughshod over. Yes, prisons must go somewhere, wind farms and nuclear power stations benefit us in energy security (though wind farms I'd disagree with, but that's only my view). The common factor is they're rarely welcome and planning permission has to be bulldozed through.

Supermarkets, though? Little town killers springing up everywhere, destroying towns for the greater glory of the likes of Tesco (with whom £1 in £7 is spent in the UK already).

The problem is developers get two or three years to form their plans and consult with planning departments while the victims – the residents – get siz weeks to provide detailed objections citing planning regulations that would baffle a boffin. It's hopelessly one-sided, in favour of the developers.

Saying "I don't want it" carries no weight. Saying "It'll destroy the character of the town" is no good. Getting hundreds and even  thousands of signatures on a petition is no good – no matter how large it is, a whole petition counts as one objection!

In plain, simple terms, weight of opinion is completely ignored in planning matters. This Coalition has promised to devolve more say to local communities, and I would wish them to stick by their word.

It is not for us, the electorate, to provide solutions to difficult problems – that's what MPs are given their seats to do. We can help, as we're doing on this site, but give us the tools to give that help!

overhaul the general permitted development order 1995

Dear Nick

The general permitted development order 1995 is a piece of legislation which was designed to fast track development under certain circumstances avoiding public consultation and restricting the powers of local planning departments. Where it is applied to the matters it was intended to address ie small building alterations and the installation of sky dishes it answers its purpose and reduces the workload of planning departments.

Sadly this order has been written in such a way as to allow its misuse by developers such as network rail who have used the order to carry out some very questionable developments such as the erection of  multiple 20 meter masts the length of the country without any consultation and with a "big financial stick" to deal with local planning departments.

The mast development has caused storms of protest up and down the country because of the visual impact of the masts and the sense of injustice felt by those who have been subject to the unfair and underhand treatment of the developers without any rights to challenge proposed sites or suggest mutually agreeable alternative sites.

The order has encouraged network rail to site masts where the act allows them to, simply because they can do so without the need for planning permission, this has often resulted in public protest concerning visual impact, additional costs (sometimes tens of thousands of pounds) to install services etc, and damage to local business interests, loss of value to adjacent properties  (with no provision for compensation)

All of the above can take place at very short notice, without any consultation and with little or no legal recourse for effected parties.

To prove the point this matter has already been taken up by several members of parliament who agreed with their constituents and others that this matter requires urgent review, sadly despite concerted efforts the matter remains unresolved.

I am involved with a local group in Suffolk attempting to get a proposed mast site relocated by 700 meters  along a rail way line, for the following reasons;

To reduce the project costs to network rail by a minimum of £55,000 (how much has been wasted nationwide to date, if this one project could save a minimum of £55,000)

To reduce visual impact from a local amenity area, the Broads, an SSSI, and several local tourist business interests  (despite the fact that the order should protect SSSIs, the Broads and areas of natural beauty)

To save the installation of hundreds of meters of power cables along a local road (the site we propose already has power)

To move the mast away from local houses whose views will be dominated by the proposed mast.

Despite our efforts and those of local MPs (who still fight on) to date our local battle continues, a simple matter that would very probably have had a mutually satisfactory out come if planning permission had been a requirement in the first instance.

It is my understanding that fairness is the underlying premiss of British law,  I hope you agree that a fresh look at this order could greatly reduce the injustice of a system that allows uncontrolled development without public consultation, and in many cases save a great deal of money and reduce infrastructure such as power lines etc.(as in our case)

With kind regards

Ian Bond

PS The "Your Freedom site" is a great common sense idea.

 

 

Why is this idea important?

Dear Nick

The general permitted development order 1995 is a piece of legislation which was designed to fast track development under certain circumstances avoiding public consultation and restricting the powers of local planning departments. Where it is applied to the matters it was intended to address ie small building alterations and the installation of sky dishes it answers its purpose and reduces the workload of planning departments.

Sadly this order has been written in such a way as to allow its misuse by developers such as network rail who have used the order to carry out some very questionable developments such as the erection of  multiple 20 meter masts the length of the country without any consultation and with a "big financial stick" to deal with local planning departments.

The mast development has caused storms of protest up and down the country because of the visual impact of the masts and the sense of injustice felt by those who have been subject to the unfair and underhand treatment of the developers without any rights to challenge proposed sites or suggest mutually agreeable alternative sites.

The order has encouraged network rail to site masts where the act allows them to, simply because they can do so without the need for planning permission, this has often resulted in public protest concerning visual impact, additional costs (sometimes tens of thousands of pounds) to install services etc, and damage to local business interests, loss of value to adjacent properties  (with no provision for compensation)

All of the above can take place at very short notice, without any consultation and with little or no legal recourse for effected parties.

To prove the point this matter has already been taken up by several members of parliament who agreed with their constituents and others that this matter requires urgent review, sadly despite concerted efforts the matter remains unresolved.

I am involved with a local group in Suffolk attempting to get a proposed mast site relocated by 700 meters  along a rail way line, for the following reasons;

To reduce the project costs to network rail by a minimum of £55,000 (how much has been wasted nationwide to date, if this one project could save a minimum of £55,000)

To reduce visual impact from a local amenity area, the Broads, an SSSI, and several local tourist business interests  (despite the fact that the order should protect SSSIs, the Broads and areas of natural beauty)

To save the installation of hundreds of meters of power cables along a local road (the site we propose already has power)

To move the mast away from local houses whose views will be dominated by the proposed mast.

Despite our efforts and those of local MPs (who still fight on) to date our local battle continues, a simple matter that would very probably have had a mutually satisfactory out come if planning permission had been a requirement in the first instance.

It is my understanding that fairness is the underlying premiss of British law,  I hope you agree that a fresh look at this order could greatly reduce the injustice of a system that allows uncontrolled development without public consultation, and in many cases save a great deal of money and reduce infrastructure such as power lines etc.(as in our case)

With kind regards

Ian Bond

PS The "Your Freedom site" is a great common sense idea.

 

 

Overhaul , review and simplify the town planning process

1 – Reduce the beaurocracy associated with the planning process , particularly insofar as it applies to smaller schemes, ( say up to 10 houses on smaller sites ) Remove the legalised bribery that is Section 106 ' Agreements ' (!!) ; Impose stricter time scales on planning Authorities to deal with applications ; Inhibit Authoritys ability to make up all manner of costly conditions to attach to the decision when it is finally given such as Archeological Digs for the tiniest of or no reasons; contamination tests where there has been no real  evidence of previous suspect activity; Expensive works to protect suspected presence of one or two newts or frogs etc etc etc

2. – Stop mixing ' social ' housing with private and prevent Developers promoting their sites as private and then selling large numbers of houses to Housing Assns. after some people have bought privately.

3 – Stop the drive to keep increasing the  Coded sustainability. Each increase is very costly and of dubious ongoing viability.

4 – Put less emphasis on density targets.

Why is this idea important?

1 – Reduce the beaurocracy associated with the planning process , particularly insofar as it applies to smaller schemes, ( say up to 10 houses on smaller sites ) Remove the legalised bribery that is Section 106 ' Agreements ' (!!) ; Impose stricter time scales on planning Authorities to deal with applications ; Inhibit Authoritys ability to make up all manner of costly conditions to attach to the decision when it is finally given such as Archeological Digs for the tiniest of or no reasons; contamination tests where there has been no real  evidence of previous suspect activity; Expensive works to protect suspected presence of one or two newts or frogs etc etc etc

2. – Stop mixing ' social ' housing with private and prevent Developers promoting their sites as private and then selling large numbers of houses to Housing Assns. after some people have bought privately.

3 – Stop the drive to keep increasing the  Coded sustainability. Each increase is very costly and of dubious ongoing viability.

4 – Put less emphasis on density targets.

Scrap “Approved Premises”

Laws were passed in the last twenty years that changed bail hostels into approved premises that accomodate prisoners released on licence. Currently local communities have no say over these institutions and the planning laws contain loopholes that allow buildings to be converted to these premises without any planning permission.

Therefore:

– C2 planning categories need to be reviewed to create a new category for bail hostels and approved premises as they stand.

– Laws relating to the creation of approved premises need repealing and returning to their original purpose – to house bailees awaiting trial.

Why is this idea important?

Laws were passed in the last twenty years that changed bail hostels into approved premises that accomodate prisoners released on licence. Currently local communities have no say over these institutions and the planning laws contain loopholes that allow buildings to be converted to these premises without any planning permission.

Therefore:

– C2 planning categories need to be reviewed to create a new category for bail hostels and approved premises as they stand.

– Laws relating to the creation of approved premises need repealing and returning to their original purpose – to house bailees awaiting trial.

Banning Retrospective Planning Applicatiopns

There have been many cases of abuse of the planning laws by people who develop a site without having applied to do so and who are then allowed to submit a retrospective application to the local authority. Almost everyone knows that planning laws exist yet some deliberately proceed with development knowing that they can get away with it. I suggest that the ability to apply retrospectively for such permission should be abolished and that those who abuse the planning laws should be summarily prosecuted for so doing. I further suggest that the Planning Inspectorate quango be abolished and that decisions on planning matters be made to sole prerogative of local authorities. The Planning Inspectorate has little knowledge about such sites and yet are empowered to overturn the decisions of local authorities who are in a far better position to judge whether a particular development plan is acceptable in their area.

Why is this idea important?

There have been many cases of abuse of the planning laws by people who develop a site without having applied to do so and who are then allowed to submit a retrospective application to the local authority. Almost everyone knows that planning laws exist yet some deliberately proceed with development knowing that they can get away with it. I suggest that the ability to apply retrospectively for such permission should be abolished and that those who abuse the planning laws should be summarily prosecuted for so doing. I further suggest that the Planning Inspectorate quango be abolished and that decisions on planning matters be made to sole prerogative of local authorities. The Planning Inspectorate has little knowledge about such sites and yet are empowered to overturn the decisions of local authorities who are in a far better position to judge whether a particular development plan is acceptable in their area.

Redundant Farm Buildings Conversion

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why is this idea important?

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

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

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

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

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

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

replacing like for like driveways shouldn’t require planning permission

Changes to the Town and Country Planning Permitted Development Order mean that anyone wanting to replace more than 5m2 (that’s 2.5 x 2m in area – not enough to park anything other than perhaps a Smart car on!) of their driveway, has to apply to their Council for planning permission, if they aren’t going to use permeable paving (letting surface water drain through it, rather than running off to a drain). While the intention of this change is to ensure that the relentless paving over of front gardens doesn’t add to the risk of flooding in urban areas, it is also having the effect of penalising people who simply want to repair, or replace their existing driveways. Surely an exemption to this requirement could be put in place for situations where there will be no change to the existing amount of paved surface?

Why is this idea important?

Changes to the Town and Country Planning Permitted Development Order mean that anyone wanting to replace more than 5m2 (that’s 2.5 x 2m in area – not enough to park anything other than perhaps a Smart car on!) of their driveway, has to apply to their Council for planning permission, if they aren’t going to use permeable paving (letting surface water drain through it, rather than running off to a drain). While the intention of this change is to ensure that the relentless paving over of front gardens doesn’t add to the risk of flooding in urban areas, it is also having the effect of penalising people who simply want to repair, or replace their existing driveways. Surely an exemption to this requirement could be put in place for situations where there will be no change to the existing amount of paved surface?

Introduce Local Tax on Landlords

Landlords only pay income tax and sometimes a registration fee. Local Authorities should be able to inpose a local tax on landlords similar to local business taxes.  This would be especially helpful to university towns and cities where landlords they rent to students who make not contribution to local council revenue.. This would help to maintain the services that non council tax paying tenants make use of. 

Why is this idea important?

Landlords only pay income tax and sometimes a registration fee. Local Authorities should be able to inpose a local tax on landlords similar to local business taxes.  This would be especially helpful to university towns and cities where landlords they rent to students who make not contribution to local council revenue.. This would help to maintain the services that non council tax paying tenants make use of. 

Listed Building Consent

Repeal – Listed Building consent by rescinding the catorgory Grade II Listed. Replace with just Grade I and making the penalties except intentional destruction a civil matter and not presently criminal.

Why is this idea important?

Repeal – Listed Building consent by rescinding the catorgory Grade II Listed. Replace with just Grade I and making the penalties except intentional destruction a civil matter and not presently criminal.

Blanket planning permission 4 solar panels, windmills, satallite dishes

I think wind farms are beautiful, so just ignore my point about that perhaps and concentrate on the simpler part.

If I want to extend a building upwards by the height of solar panels and water tanks, and I have had the strength of the building inspected, surely this could be enough to allow automatic planning permission just as previous generations argued for their sheds and porch extensions to be covered automaticaly.

Why is this idea important?

I think wind farms are beautiful, so just ignore my point about that perhaps and concentrate on the simpler part.

If I want to extend a building upwards by the height of solar panels and water tanks, and I have had the strength of the building inspected, surely this could be enough to allow automatic planning permission just as previous generations argued for their sheds and porch extensions to be covered automaticaly.

Home Sharing for Senior Citizens

Allow resident home-owners to share their properties without the requirement to turn their homes into Houses in Multiple Occupation.

As a single woman I have shared my large, six-bedroom, victorian house for over 25 years.

Changes in the Housing Act mean that my property is now classed as a H.M.O. if I wish to share with more than two other people.

Also make it easier for people to turn their homes into flats.  This would allow the Senior Citizen to live on the ground floor, creating a flat or flats above, providing a solution and income for the ageing and accommodation for the young.

 

 

Why is this idea important?

Allow resident home-owners to share their properties without the requirement to turn their homes into Houses in Multiple Occupation.

As a single woman I have shared my large, six-bedroom, victorian house for over 25 years.

Changes in the Housing Act mean that my property is now classed as a H.M.O. if I wish to share with more than two other people.

Also make it easier for people to turn their homes into flats.  This would allow the Senior Citizen to live on the ground floor, creating a flat or flats above, providing a solution and income for the ageing and accommodation for the young.

 

 

Change the rules: the public has no right to appeal a planning inspectors decision in favour of a property developer

If the local council reject a property developer's planning decision for good local reasons such as it is inappropriate, highways, or out of character, and the developer appeals, the developer can choose not to have a public consultation (hearing) and it can be by written application only, which does not allow the planning inspector to hear from members of the public. This is at this stage already weighted in favour of the developer as more written applications are won by the developer as against those in a full public hearing. Further once the planning inspector has made the decision overruling the council there is no further right of appeal to members of the public to fight the decision. This is all very one sided in favour of the developer and very undemocratic. This system needs changing so that the presumption is not to allow development. If the matter goes to the secretary of state in the recent past the secretary of state has generally found in favour of development. Planning inspectors seem able also to set rules which change council planning guidance and rules, such as for reserve sites, now because of an inspectors decision all reserve sites have to be automatically released for development. Locally we have the situation where part of the next village is decreed as part of this village for planning rules by an inspectors decision. What is the difference? The next village has a rule of 5 and over houses requires one social housing dwelling, this village has a rule of 15 and over. So developers use this inspectors decision to not build social housing and build cul de sacs in what was someones back garden in the the part of the next village closest to this covered by that decision. All these things totally tie the hands of the decision making process of the local authority. No infrastructure implications are ever considered properly of more housing development, shops local services, bus provision, doctors, dentists, school places. Time and time again utilities and service providers hide up provision problems in their input to planning decisions as they are only looking to get more customers.

Why is this idea important?

If the local council reject a property developer's planning decision for good local reasons such as it is inappropriate, highways, or out of character, and the developer appeals, the developer can choose not to have a public consultation (hearing) and it can be by written application only, which does not allow the planning inspector to hear from members of the public. This is at this stage already weighted in favour of the developer as more written applications are won by the developer as against those in a full public hearing. Further once the planning inspector has made the decision overruling the council there is no further right of appeal to members of the public to fight the decision. This is all very one sided in favour of the developer and very undemocratic. This system needs changing so that the presumption is not to allow development. If the matter goes to the secretary of state in the recent past the secretary of state has generally found in favour of development. Planning inspectors seem able also to set rules which change council planning guidance and rules, such as for reserve sites, now because of an inspectors decision all reserve sites have to be automatically released for development. Locally we have the situation where part of the next village is decreed as part of this village for planning rules by an inspectors decision. What is the difference? The next village has a rule of 5 and over houses requires one social housing dwelling, this village has a rule of 15 and over. So developers use this inspectors decision to not build social housing and build cul de sacs in what was someones back garden in the the part of the next village closest to this covered by that decision. All these things totally tie the hands of the decision making process of the local authority. No infrastructure implications are ever considered properly of more housing development, shops local services, bus provision, doctors, dentists, school places. Time and time again utilities and service providers hide up provision problems in their input to planning decisions as they are only looking to get more customers.

Planning Applications – listen to local people

To ensure that the planning process takes into account the views of local people who will be affected by a large planning application and not to give ministers the right to make the final decision. Where a planning application has the potential to impact a large percentage of the local population there should be a local referendum on the application and that vote should have appropriate weight when making final decisions. If a large percentage of LOCAL people object or support an application then that should influence and ultimately make the final decision and it should not be passed to ministers.

Why is this idea important?

To ensure that the planning process takes into account the views of local people who will be affected by a large planning application and not to give ministers the right to make the final decision. Where a planning application has the potential to impact a large percentage of the local population there should be a local referendum on the application and that vote should have appropriate weight when making final decisions. If a large percentage of LOCAL people object or support an application then that should influence and ultimately make the final decision and it should not be passed to ministers.

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.

Cut planning and conservation rules

To do away with unnecessary and restrictive planning and conservation regulations that stop people doings things such as erecting a shed in a rural area or taking down an old delapidated building that has no archetectural or cultural merit. To ensure planning authorities actually listen to local people and not just the planners. To stop the need for archaeological surveys for every small builing

Why is this idea important?

To do away with unnecessary and restrictive planning and conservation regulations that stop people doings things such as erecting a shed in a rural area or taking down an old delapidated building that has no archetectural or cultural merit. To ensure planning authorities actually listen to local people and not just the planners. To stop the need for archaeological surveys for every small builing

Reduce Planning Bureaucracy

We need to make serious reductions to the amount of paperwork that needs to be done in order to speed up and streamline the planning system.

I'm a year or so from graduating as an architect and have already studied planning. I've worked in both fields and the amount of paperwork needed just to get planning permission is incredible. The previous government, despite making some positive changes, have made it harder and more expensive to get planning and build.

Public sector planners have been allowed to request an ever increasing range of documents and reports from developers – tree surveys, bat surveys, traffic impact assessments, environmental impact assessments, design and access statements, statements of community consultation etc etc, all of which can cost thousands upon thousands from specialist consultants. In some cases, these are necessary, however all too often planners aren't sure of whether they are needed so will request anything vaguely applicable to cover their own backs, with no understanding of the costs and time delays involved.

In short: make planners justify all aditional documentation that they request.

Why is this idea important?

We need to make serious reductions to the amount of paperwork that needs to be done in order to speed up and streamline the planning system.

I'm a year or so from graduating as an architect and have already studied planning. I've worked in both fields and the amount of paperwork needed just to get planning permission is incredible. The previous government, despite making some positive changes, have made it harder and more expensive to get planning and build.

Public sector planners have been allowed to request an ever increasing range of documents and reports from developers – tree surveys, bat surveys, traffic impact assessments, environmental impact assessments, design and access statements, statements of community consultation etc etc, all of which can cost thousands upon thousands from specialist consultants. In some cases, these are necessary, however all too often planners aren't sure of whether they are needed so will request anything vaguely applicable to cover their own backs, with no understanding of the costs and time delays involved.

In short: make planners justify all aditional documentation that they request.

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.

Planning Rules

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

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

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

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

Why is this idea important?

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

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

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

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

Planning regs for HMO are impossibly overcomplicated!

I have a 2 bed flat, and 3 students want to rent it. What should be a simple matter of letting a property has become a nightmare of completing Full Planning Application forms, with plans and maps and surveys and god knows what else – mostly highly specialised questions regarding the property – and for what?

Just so I can let 3 students share a flat???

This regulation is badly worded if it lumps in my utterly harmless situation with scenarios of 20 people crammed into unhealthy accommodation.

Badly worded and ill-considered – ah that's right, it was a Stutory Instrument, so it wasn't considered AT ALL.

Why is this idea important?

I have a 2 bed flat, and 3 students want to rent it. What should be a simple matter of letting a property has become a nightmare of completing Full Planning Application forms, with plans and maps and surveys and god knows what else – mostly highly specialised questions regarding the property – and for what?

Just so I can let 3 students share a flat???

This regulation is badly worded if it lumps in my utterly harmless situation with scenarios of 20 people crammed into unhealthy accommodation.

Badly worded and ill-considered – ah that's right, it was a Stutory Instrument, so it wasn't considered AT ALL.

Allowing low impact development on agricultural land

There are thousands of people in the UK who would like to farm there own land but cannot afford the half million £s needed for a farm with accommodation. The planning laws in this area are highly outdated and make it virtually impossible to build up new small farms from bare land.

The countryside is now only for big agribusiness and a playground for the rich, so there is very little new enterprise in small scale agriculture, which is badly needed.

Because of the low incomes involved it is impossible to start up a small agricultural business and pay rent/mortgage on a separate home.

Small, low impact and easily removable dwellings should be allowed while (and only WHILE) the land is being used for agriculture, either business or self sufficiency, which then often grows into small business by selling surplus, providing good local produce, and providing a fulfilling employment in the countryside, which surely is good for everyone.

The British countryside has got to let go if its NIMBY attitude, or it will end up a stale, gated community.

Why is this idea important?

There are thousands of people in the UK who would like to farm there own land but cannot afford the half million £s needed for a farm with accommodation. The planning laws in this area are highly outdated and make it virtually impossible to build up new small farms from bare land.

The countryside is now only for big agribusiness and a playground for the rich, so there is very little new enterprise in small scale agriculture, which is badly needed.

Because of the low incomes involved it is impossible to start up a small agricultural business and pay rent/mortgage on a separate home.

Small, low impact and easily removable dwellings should be allowed while (and only WHILE) the land is being used for agriculture, either business or self sufficiency, which then often grows into small business by selling surplus, providing good local produce, and providing a fulfilling employment in the countryside, which surely is good for everyone.

The British countryside has got to let go if its NIMBY attitude, or it will end up a stale, gated community.

Allow low impact development on agricultural land

There are thousands of people in the UK who would like to farm there own land but cannot afford the half million £s needed for a farm with accommodation.
 The planning laws in this area are highly outdated and make it virtually impossible to build up new small farms from bare land.

The countryside is now only for big agribusiness and a playground for the rich, so there is very little new enterprise in small scale agriculture, which is badly needed.
 
Because of the low incomes involved it is impossible to start up a small agricultural business and pay rent/mortgage on a separate home.
Small, low impact and easily removable dwellings should be allowed while (and only WHILE) the land is being used for agriculture, either business or self sufficiency, which then often grows into small business by selling surplus, providing good local produce, and providing a fulfilling employment in the countryside, which surely is good for everyone.
The British countryside has got to let go if its NIMBY attitude, or it will end up a stale, gated community.

Why is this idea important?

There are thousands of people in the UK who would like to farm there own land but cannot afford the half million £s needed for a farm with accommodation.
 The planning laws in this area are highly outdated and make it virtually impossible to build up new small farms from bare land.

The countryside is now only for big agribusiness and a playground for the rich, so there is very little new enterprise in small scale agriculture, which is badly needed.
 
Because of the low incomes involved it is impossible to start up a small agricultural business and pay rent/mortgage on a separate home.
Small, low impact and easily removable dwellings should be allowed while (and only WHILE) the land is being used for agriculture, either business or self sufficiency, which then often grows into small business by selling surplus, providing good local produce, and providing a fulfilling employment in the countryside, which surely is good for everyone.
The British countryside has got to let go if its NIMBY attitude, or it will end up a stale, gated community.

Get rid of agricultural tie restrictions on dwellings

Good idea after WW2, but out of date in 2010. Why should owners of agtie properties be forced to either comply with restriction or have to sell if they cannot?  If an ag business or employment ceases why should I leave my home?  I should not be forced to market it for up to 2 years to demonstrate a lack of local agricultural housing need! I dont want to move.

I accept there has to be some planning regulation in the countryside, but this law is surely against human rights? Im proposing radical changes in what constitutes agricultural occupancy.  The list of occupations should be widened to encompass smallholder, farrier, blacksmith, and other country occupations not presently accepted under the existing legislation. And, because profit isnt necessarily the main point for some whose lifestyle choice has led them to an agtie property, the necessity to prove income should be abolished.  

Why is this idea important?

Good idea after WW2, but out of date in 2010. Why should owners of agtie properties be forced to either comply with restriction or have to sell if they cannot?  If an ag business or employment ceases why should I leave my home?  I should not be forced to market it for up to 2 years to demonstrate a lack of local agricultural housing need! I dont want to move.

I accept there has to be some planning regulation in the countryside, but this law is surely against human rights? Im proposing radical changes in what constitutes agricultural occupancy.  The list of occupations should be widened to encompass smallholder, farrier, blacksmith, and other country occupations not presently accepted under the existing legislation. And, because profit isnt necessarily the main point for some whose lifestyle choice has led them to an agtie property, the necessity to prove income should be abolished.  

Remove the restriction barring Objectors from appealing a Planning decision.

Currently only the requestor of Planning Consent can appeal if the decision goes against them. The same right is not afforded to Ojectors. Remove this unfairness.

Why is this idea important?

Currently only the requestor of Planning Consent can appeal if the decision goes against them. The same right is not afforded to Ojectors. Remove this unfairness.

Give us back informal camping by removing licensing / H&S obstacles

When I were a lad it was easy to find an informal campsite in the countryside. Just a field, with a basic outside big or a shower (of variable temperature – mostly cool) if you were posh. Happy days! In every country village somebody in the pub would know somewhere you could camp, a farm, a large private garden. As recently as ten years ago round here there were still pubs that would let you camp in their back paddock for a couple of quid, or for free if you had your dinner in the pub. You could use the pub's outside loo and there was a tap to clean your teeth in a beer mug. In my late teens/early 20's such informal camping was easy to find and gave my mates and I some of our most memorable (and economical) experiences of the outdoors.

Now campsites are soul-less, over-regulated places, far too expensive and with unnecessarily lavish 'facilities' and when you ask why, it's always 'the licence' 'the health & safety'. Informal camping has virtually disappeared from the accommodation portfolio in the countryside, it's very sad not to mention disadvantageous for young people and those on moderate incomes.

GET OFF OUR BACKS and give us back our camping. Allow farmers, pubs, landowners to let peole camp informally without having to service a ridiculously onerous licensing regime. 

Why is this idea important?

When I were a lad it was easy to find an informal campsite in the countryside. Just a field, with a basic outside big or a shower (of variable temperature – mostly cool) if you were posh. Happy days! In every country village somebody in the pub would know somewhere you could camp, a farm, a large private garden. As recently as ten years ago round here there were still pubs that would let you camp in their back paddock for a couple of quid, or for free if you had your dinner in the pub. You could use the pub's outside loo and there was a tap to clean your teeth in a beer mug. In my late teens/early 20's such informal camping was easy to find and gave my mates and I some of our most memorable (and economical) experiences of the outdoors.

Now campsites are soul-less, over-regulated places, far too expensive and with unnecessarily lavish 'facilities' and when you ask why, it's always 'the licence' 'the health & safety'. Informal camping has virtually disappeared from the accommodation portfolio in the countryside, it's very sad not to mention disadvantageous for young people and those on moderate incomes.

GET OFF OUR BACKS and give us back our camping. Allow farmers, pubs, landowners to let peole camp informally without having to service a ridiculously onerous licensing regime.