Restore law that councils apply for planning permission when installing CCTV cameras

Make it a legal requirement that Councils must apply and have an open debate with the public before installing street or any council operated CCTV cameras.

Why is this idea important?

Make it a legal requirement that Councils must apply and have an open debate with the public before installing street or any council operated CCTV cameras.

Reduce and simplify Planning Laws and |Regulations

Reduce the scale of planning laws to remove small changes to property and sporting facilities from Planning Regulation. For example- We run a small village cricket team and sought to improve the facilities by providing a practice net. We were stopped from this by planning regulations and it cost the club several hundred pounds to obtain planning permission for a concrete base which was only at ground level and affected no body. Such unnecessary coverage by planning is costly and can be removed without affecting others and would allow local authorities to reduce their planning staff and costs if applied sensibly.

Why is this idea important?

Reduce the scale of planning laws to remove small changes to property and sporting facilities from Planning Regulation. For example- We run a small village cricket team and sought to improve the facilities by providing a practice net. We were stopped from this by planning regulations and it cost the club several hundred pounds to obtain planning permission for a concrete base which was only at ground level and affected no body. Such unnecessary coverage by planning is costly and can be removed without affecting others and would allow local authorities to reduce their planning staff and costs if applied sensibly.

Replace Planning Permission with Zoning

Replace the current planning permission process with a zoning process. An area should be zoned and then any project which meets current building regulations and conforms to the rules of the zone e.g. light industrial etc. should be approved.

Why is this idea important?

Replace the current planning permission process with a zoning process. An area should be zoned and then any project which meets current building regulations and conforms to the rules of the zone e.g. light industrial etc. should be approved.

The new industry list for Britain

Create a list of new industries which Britain will develop as its long term economic base for the next 500 years which is sustainable and provides full employment for all able workers.

Why is this idea important?

Create a list of new industries which Britain will develop as its long term economic base for the next 500 years which is sustainable and provides full employment for all able workers.

PLANNING – Permitted Development (Part 1 of the GPDO) …

INTRODUCTION:

The current "permitted development" legislation for householders (Part 1 of the GPDO, as amended on 01/10/2008), contains a very significant level of ambiguities.  For example, even almost 2 years after the legislation came into force, there is still no correct answer to a number of very basic questions, such as “can I replace my timber windows with UPVC windows?”, or “is a single storey rear extension with a flat roof limited in height to 3m or 4m?”, or "how close can an outbuilding be to a house?".

Furthermore, the legislation is far too permissive in some respects, and yet far too restrictive in others.  For example, it is permitted for a house to install a full-width rear dormer, despite the fact that most people find this type of development very ugly, and yet it is not permitted to install a normal rooflight (i.e. clear glass and opening) on a side roofslope, despite the fact that very few people would object to this type of development.

Ideological arguments as to whether the legislation should be "more permissive" or "more restrictive", as if the answer is either one or the other, miss the point.  The key point is that the overall “quality” of the legislation needs to be improved.  It is a secondary point that this would involve making the legislation more permissive in some parts and more restrictive in others.


KEY SUGGESTIONS FOR HOW TO PRODUCE A HIGHER QUALITY PD LEGISLATION:

1 – Above all, the legislation needs to be unambiguous and clear, not only to planning officers, but also to members of the public.  It is unacceptable that people will be subject to enforcement action because they have wrongly interpreted ambiguous and unclear legislation, including phrases such as “so far as practicable” and “of a similar appearance”.

• The legislation must not prevent acceptable development for artificial reasons.  For example, it is unacceptable that the owner of a house that has been converted into two flats must apply for permission from the Council to change their front door.  Councils must accept that they should not be allowed to control development unless there is a good reason to do so.

• The legislation must not allow unacceptable development for the sake of the “ideal” of being “more permissive”.  For example, it is unacceptable that a hip-to-gable extension can be constructed on a semi-detached property, even though it will destroy the appearance of the pair of properties.  Developers must accept that there are a number of situations in which there are good reasons for Councils to control development.

Why is this idea important?

INTRODUCTION:

The current "permitted development" legislation for householders (Part 1 of the GPDO, as amended on 01/10/2008), contains a very significant level of ambiguities.  For example, even almost 2 years after the legislation came into force, there is still no correct answer to a number of very basic questions, such as “can I replace my timber windows with UPVC windows?”, or “is a single storey rear extension with a flat roof limited in height to 3m or 4m?”, or "how close can an outbuilding be to a house?".

Furthermore, the legislation is far too permissive in some respects, and yet far too restrictive in others.  For example, it is permitted for a house to install a full-width rear dormer, despite the fact that most people find this type of development very ugly, and yet it is not permitted to install a normal rooflight (i.e. clear glass and opening) on a side roofslope, despite the fact that very few people would object to this type of development.

Ideological arguments as to whether the legislation should be "more permissive" or "more restrictive", as if the answer is either one or the other, miss the point.  The key point is that the overall “quality” of the legislation needs to be improved.  It is a secondary point that this would involve making the legislation more permissive in some parts and more restrictive in others.


KEY SUGGESTIONS FOR HOW TO PRODUCE A HIGHER QUALITY PD LEGISLATION:

1 – Above all, the legislation needs to be unambiguous and clear, not only to planning officers, but also to members of the public.  It is unacceptable that people will be subject to enforcement action because they have wrongly interpreted ambiguous and unclear legislation, including phrases such as “so far as practicable” and “of a similar appearance”.

• The legislation must not prevent acceptable development for artificial reasons.  For example, it is unacceptable that the owner of a house that has been converted into two flats must apply for permission from the Council to change their front door.  Councils must accept that they should not be allowed to control development unless there is a good reason to do so.

• The legislation must not allow unacceptable development for the sake of the “ideal” of being “more permissive”.  For example, it is unacceptable that a hip-to-gable extension can be constructed on a semi-detached property, even though it will destroy the appearance of the pair of properties.  Developers must accept that there are a number of situations in which there are good reasons for Councils to control development.

Remove requirement to advertise public notices in local press

The requirement for local authorities to advertise public notices – planning, car parking etc., – should be abolished.

With the number of local publications falling, as is their circulations, the effectiveness of conveying the information contained is getting less and less.

It is totally out of date since the information can be conveyed more efficiently on the council websites.

It is a double waste in Wales where they are published in Welsh as well as English.

Why is this idea important?

The requirement for local authorities to advertise public notices – planning, car parking etc., – should be abolished.

With the number of local publications falling, as is their circulations, the effectiveness of conveying the information contained is getting less and less.

It is totally out of date since the information can be conveyed more efficiently on the council websites.

It is a double waste in Wales where they are published in Welsh as well as English.

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.

Repeal some of appeal provisions of Town and Country Planning Act

I would suggest the virtual abolition of the rights of appeal contained in the Town and Country Planning Act and that central government, in the shape of the Planning Inspectorate, should have no role in the vast majority of planning matters. 

 

Historically, about two-thirds of planning appeals are rejected – meaning that in those cases the local planning authority’s original decision was “correct”.  We maintain an appeals system for the minority of cases (about one third) where the planning authority made a “wrong” decision.  That is a waste of resources and takes away the rights of local authorities to make their own decions – at grass roots level.

 

With no right of appeal it might be necessary to widen the circumstances in which the Secretary of State “calls-in” applications for his own determination.

 

The rights of appeal against non-determination of a planning application and against an enforcement notice would need to be retained.  But with those exceptions the power and responsibility for dealing with planning matters would be returned to the local level where it properly belongs.  The man from Whitehall would not be able to interfere.

Why is this idea important?

I would suggest the virtual abolition of the rights of appeal contained in the Town and Country Planning Act and that central government, in the shape of the Planning Inspectorate, should have no role in the vast majority of planning matters. 

 

Historically, about two-thirds of planning appeals are rejected – meaning that in those cases the local planning authority’s original decision was “correct”.  We maintain an appeals system for the minority of cases (about one third) where the planning authority made a “wrong” decision.  That is a waste of resources and takes away the rights of local authorities to make their own decions – at grass roots level.

 

With no right of appeal it might be necessary to widen the circumstances in which the Secretary of State “calls-in” applications for his own determination.

 

The rights of appeal against non-determination of a planning application and against an enforcement notice would need to be retained.  But with those exceptions the power and responsibility for dealing with planning matters would be returned to the local level where it properly belongs.  The man from Whitehall would not be able to interfere.

Remove planning restrictions on radio and TV antennas on private houses

People should be able to put up TV and radio antennas on their own property without having to apply for permission from the planning authority.  

Why is this idea important?

People should be able to put up TV and radio antennas on their own property without having to apply for permission from the planning authority.  

Outbuilding 2.5m height restriction planning law

Around 18 months ago, the planning laws regarding the installation of temporary outbuildings (e.g. sheds & summerhouses) was changed so that if any part of a building was within 2 metres of a boundary, no part of that building is allowed to be above 2.5m in height, without obtaining planning permission.

This has meant that effectively anybody looking to install a building in their garden that has anything other than a flat roof, needs to apply for planning permission (unless of course they have a very large garden).

I believe the law should be repealed back to its previous form, which had much less restrictive criteria regarding height.

Why is this idea important?

Around 18 months ago, the planning laws regarding the installation of temporary outbuildings (e.g. sheds & summerhouses) was changed so that if any part of a building was within 2 metres of a boundary, no part of that building is allowed to be above 2.5m in height, without obtaining planning permission.

This has meant that effectively anybody looking to install a building in their garden that has anything other than a flat roof, needs to apply for planning permission (unless of course they have a very large garden).

I believe the law should be repealed back to its previous form, which had much less restrictive criteria regarding height.

Reform and clarify the planning system to progressive beauty

The planning system is an out of date, dishonest and currupt monster. It restricts, hinders and punishers those who dare to challenge it and lead business forward with new ideas, buildings and concepts.

I and many of my collegues would invest far more money into business infrastructure to benefit the local enconomy, lower rents and capital costs, improve efficiency, and lower carbon footprints and improve the life of all who work in the economy. I personally invest only 20% of my potential in my business because of the problems, uncretainties and vagarities of the planning system.

This planning system is a mess. Since it was introduced the quality, range and visual amenity of all properties has deteriated, and has only seen a small improvement in the last decade, but still we live in a world of poor quality buildings and workspaces.

This system is policed by biased and corrupt planners who nearly always make a decision to refuse a progressive application and then bend and manipulate the law to fit their decisions. That is unless one of their pals on the planning committee is involved in which case they do just the opposite. Many progressive and highly functional and efficient buildings and land uses are stopped by the 1% of nimbies and their councillor chums whoc then unfairly and unconstitutionaly influence the planners to lie and missrepresent the planning law to refuse and application. I have a small business development which is both low impact and visually unintrusive for hi tech office use, but we have and continue to fight the planners for everything and 5 years in we are still fighting and subject to intrusive inspections by planning officers to try to stop us using our permitted development rights. Throughout this process we have shelved plans for wood fired heating, small wind turbine and a small solar project to progress our energy consumption and have had to aboandon all due to the local authority planning incompetance and obstructions.

here is the typical scenario. We contact the planner for some advice. Is this xyz alteration to our building okay. We then write in after no responce. We are told a load of rubbish that yes we will look at the application and we could not possibly issue a view on it prior to an application. Then as soon as we submit an application they are suddenly 100% sure that all they can do is refuse an application and there is no possibility of passing it. ??Why could they not have said it before. Then we go to appeal and as long as we do not get an x planning officer at appeal we get the permission granted and the planning authority make a fool of themselves lying through their back teeth to back up their reasons for refusal which were all fabricated.

This is all a long and drawn out unnecesary process and we should look at a form of zoning with restrictions on hieght and use in certain areas and alow a certain amount of land each year to be set aside fo new uses close to existing towns. Planners should be forced to represent the law correctly and not lie to applicants and give more honest and less obstructive advice. This unnecesary and overly beurocratic system is holding back business, increasing house rents and capital values andis not deliverying a better built environment or better houses to live in. The system has its head in the sand when in comes to solar gain through south facing windows, solar heating and panels, quality of living space and aspect and beauty.

We need to look at a total overhaul of this sytem and produce a postive progressive, not negative regressive process which encourages people to invest in quality eficient and beautiful buildings which are a joy to behold. When people look back at the buildings from 1960 to 2010 they will wonder what on earth we were doing bar a few fantastic exeptions. Lets make 2010 onwards more progressive, more beautiful, more postive and make Britain a fantastic place to live.

Why is this idea important?

The planning system is an out of date, dishonest and currupt monster. It restricts, hinders and punishers those who dare to challenge it and lead business forward with new ideas, buildings and concepts.

I and many of my collegues would invest far more money into business infrastructure to benefit the local enconomy, lower rents and capital costs, improve efficiency, and lower carbon footprints and improve the life of all who work in the economy. I personally invest only 20% of my potential in my business because of the problems, uncretainties and vagarities of the planning system.

This planning system is a mess. Since it was introduced the quality, range and visual amenity of all properties has deteriated, and has only seen a small improvement in the last decade, but still we live in a world of poor quality buildings and workspaces.

This system is policed by biased and corrupt planners who nearly always make a decision to refuse a progressive application and then bend and manipulate the law to fit their decisions. That is unless one of their pals on the planning committee is involved in which case they do just the opposite. Many progressive and highly functional and efficient buildings and land uses are stopped by the 1% of nimbies and their councillor chums whoc then unfairly and unconstitutionaly influence the planners to lie and missrepresent the planning law to refuse and application. I have a small business development which is both low impact and visually unintrusive for hi tech office use, but we have and continue to fight the planners for everything and 5 years in we are still fighting and subject to intrusive inspections by planning officers to try to stop us using our permitted development rights. Throughout this process we have shelved plans for wood fired heating, small wind turbine and a small solar project to progress our energy consumption and have had to aboandon all due to the local authority planning incompetance and obstructions.

here is the typical scenario. We contact the planner for some advice. Is this xyz alteration to our building okay. We then write in after no responce. We are told a load of rubbish that yes we will look at the application and we could not possibly issue a view on it prior to an application. Then as soon as we submit an application they are suddenly 100% sure that all they can do is refuse an application and there is no possibility of passing it. ??Why could they not have said it before. Then we go to appeal and as long as we do not get an x planning officer at appeal we get the permission granted and the planning authority make a fool of themselves lying through their back teeth to back up their reasons for refusal which were all fabricated.

This is all a long and drawn out unnecesary process and we should look at a form of zoning with restrictions on hieght and use in certain areas and alow a certain amount of land each year to be set aside fo new uses close to existing towns. Planners should be forced to represent the law correctly and not lie to applicants and give more honest and less obstructive advice. This unnecesary and overly beurocratic system is holding back business, increasing house rents and capital values andis not deliverying a better built environment or better houses to live in. The system has its head in the sand when in comes to solar gain through south facing windows, solar heating and panels, quality of living space and aspect and beauty.

We need to look at a total overhaul of this sytem and produce a postive progressive, not negative regressive process which encourages people to invest in quality eficient and beautiful buildings which are a joy to behold. When people look back at the buildings from 1960 to 2010 they will wonder what on earth we were doing bar a few fantastic exeptions. Lets make 2010 onwards more progressive, more beautiful, more postive and make Britain a fantastic place to live.

repeal of certain planning laws

Dear Sir,

Further to your request for suggestions for Nick Clegg, I have the following proposal.

At present any one person may object to any real or imagined nuisance from an established business by appealing to one of the many departments of local Government such as Environmental Health, Planning or Health & Safety. The Local Authority do not have to disclose the name of the objector who may well have personal grievances to air irrespective of the value of a business to any given area in terms of employment, investment and contributions to the local economy not least by way of rates.

If such an objection results in an enforcement notice the costs of bringing the action are born by the Local Authority (the tax payer) whereas the costs of defending it are born exclusively by the business so affected. Such costs, as in the case of an appeal, can be extremely detrimental to the affected business to say nothing of the waste of time and the anxiety which results.

Obviously I recognise that at times a genuine nuisance may arise. In this case I would like to suggest that complaints must first be submitted to the Parish Council or a minimum of say 25 signatures be obtained. Secondly that if unsuccessful in his or her action, the objector should bear the costs of the case.   

I think you will find a level of support for this proposal from many businesses in the U.K.

Regards JOHN GORST

Why is this idea important?

Dear Sir,

Further to your request for suggestions for Nick Clegg, I have the following proposal.

At present any one person may object to any real or imagined nuisance from an established business by appealing to one of the many departments of local Government such as Environmental Health, Planning or Health & Safety. The Local Authority do not have to disclose the name of the objector who may well have personal grievances to air irrespective of the value of a business to any given area in terms of employment, investment and contributions to the local economy not least by way of rates.

If such an objection results in an enforcement notice the costs of bringing the action are born by the Local Authority (the tax payer) whereas the costs of defending it are born exclusively by the business so affected. Such costs, as in the case of an appeal, can be extremely detrimental to the affected business to say nothing of the waste of time and the anxiety which results.

Obviously I recognise that at times a genuine nuisance may arise. In this case I would like to suggest that complaints must first be submitted to the Parish Council or a minimum of say 25 signatures be obtained. Secondly that if unsuccessful in his or her action, the objector should bear the costs of the case.   

I think you will find a level of support for this proposal from many businesses in the U.K.

Regards JOHN GORST

Remove Planning Zoning

Many other countries have laws that basically say if you own a piece of land more than Xm square, you are entitled to build a single family property. Conversely, our system is all about density – cramming as many dwellings as possible into the smallest possible space.

This favours big developers and artificially increases the price of housing by over valuing development land.

Why is this idea important?

Many other countries have laws that basically say if you own a piece of land more than Xm square, you are entitled to build a single family property. Conversely, our system is all about density – cramming as many dwellings as possible into the smallest possible space.

This favours big developers and artificially increases the price of housing by over valuing development land.

Artistic freedom – deregulation of house design from planning restrictions

Planning laws are necessary only to prevent the erection of dangerous structures. But they are more often than not used to prevent unusual, creative and innovative design from being built. I propose the resztriction of the planning laws to cover only the structure, size and facililties of buildings, but not their appearance, their colour, shape, materials and ornament. This will allow the natrural creative talent of the nation to flourish, expressed through the built environment at every level.

Why is this idea important?

Planning laws are necessary only to prevent the erection of dangerous structures. But they are more often than not used to prevent unusual, creative and innovative design from being built. I propose the resztriction of the planning laws to cover only the structure, size and facililties of buildings, but not their appearance, their colour, shape, materials and ornament. This will allow the natrural creative talent of the nation to flourish, expressed through the built environment at every level.

Ease the Planning route for recovery

I am professionally involved with the built environment and have, like many others observed the decline in the economic benefits of an active building industry, which is one of the few productive industries that the UK has.

When the recovery starts to take place, we anticipate that many developers will be looking to submit new applications and try to get projects moving but will be hitting brick walls when dealing with planning issues and getting schemes approved.

We need to have a proactive, co-operative Planning system that can process applications quickly so that the industry can start moving and generating income, let alone quality schemes.

Although the 8 week rule applies we have found even getting pre-app discussions and conditions approved can double that time period.

Why is this idea important?

I am professionally involved with the built environment and have, like many others observed the decline in the economic benefits of an active building industry, which is one of the few productive industries that the UK has.

When the recovery starts to take place, we anticipate that many developers will be looking to submit new applications and try to get projects moving but will be hitting brick walls when dealing with planning issues and getting schemes approved.

We need to have a proactive, co-operative Planning system that can process applications quickly so that the industry can start moving and generating income, let alone quality schemes.

Although the 8 week rule applies we have found even getting pre-app discussions and conditions approved can double that time period.

Town and Country Planning Act

The town and country Planning act should be repealed in part or reviewed majorly and a new start initiated. At the moment the act is far too complex and almost impossible for the average man in the street to understand. It gives powers to planners that seem arbitrary and totally subjective. Plans that would be passed by one planner may not necessarily get past another! This causes a great deal of frustration when your application for a small extension is turned down and next door gets permission to build Moonbase Alpha! And why do you have to put in retrospective planning permission for a structure that has stood for over 4 years that enforcement action cannot be taken against? What happens if the planners in their wisdom turn it down. It can't be enforced upon so what's the point? What can the planners do? wag their finger at you? Permission should be granted automatically once the 4 year period  (with no complaints) is up. I appreciate the need for planning laws otherwise the country would be overrun with inappropriate structures but planners should be more consistent in their approval of planning applications.

Why is this idea important?

The town and country Planning act should be repealed in part or reviewed majorly and a new start initiated. At the moment the act is far too complex and almost impossible for the average man in the street to understand. It gives powers to planners that seem arbitrary and totally subjective. Plans that would be passed by one planner may not necessarily get past another! This causes a great deal of frustration when your application for a small extension is turned down and next door gets permission to build Moonbase Alpha! And why do you have to put in retrospective planning permission for a structure that has stood for over 4 years that enforcement action cannot be taken against? What happens if the planners in their wisdom turn it down. It can't be enforced upon so what's the point? What can the planners do? wag their finger at you? Permission should be granted automatically once the 4 year period  (with no complaints) is up. I appreciate the need for planning laws otherwise the country would be overrun with inappropriate structures but planners should be more consistent in their approval of planning applications.

Planning

Streamline and simplify the planning process. The philosophy should be "Trust the homeowner to take decisions as to how to look after his own property. It is not the State's function to second guess."

Planning restrictions should be clear and understandable and PROPORTIONATE!

Specifically: there should be no requirement for planning permission in respect of remedial works which do not change the size or outline of unlisted buildings.

Generally: (and this is a big exercise, but so worthwhile: tear up the labyrinth of arcane and impenetrable rules surrounding the planning system and replace with laws which are clear and understandable.

Why is this idea important?

Streamline and simplify the planning process. The philosophy should be "Trust the homeowner to take decisions as to how to look after his own property. It is not the State's function to second guess."

Planning restrictions should be clear and understandable and PROPORTIONATE!

Specifically: there should be no requirement for planning permission in respect of remedial works which do not change the size or outline of unlisted buildings.

Generally: (and this is a big exercise, but so worthwhile: tear up the labyrinth of arcane and impenetrable rules surrounding the planning system and replace with laws which are clear and understandable.

Permitted Development Rights – Planning

Town planners often remove permitted development rights when approving planning permission for certain developments.  This is often heavy handed and restricts the developer and future owners to making improvements including to improve the environmental performance of a property.  It restricts addition of renewable energy generation schemes including solar panels, wind turbines and solid fuel burners (where additional flues/chimneys are required).

My suggestion is to ensure that planning officers, committees and authorities cannot remove all permitted development rights from property developments out of a matter of course and have to follow strict guidance when applying any restrictions, and that restrictions can only be applied after approval by the Planning Inspectorate

Furthermore, limited permitted development rights should be granted to listed buildings, following strict guidance.

Planningguidanceshould come from central government and local interpretation should be reduced.  More powershouldbe given to parish councils to have their say in planning approvals.

Why is this idea important?

Town planners often remove permitted development rights when approving planning permission for certain developments.  This is often heavy handed and restricts the developer and future owners to making improvements including to improve the environmental performance of a property.  It restricts addition of renewable energy generation schemes including solar panels, wind turbines and solid fuel burners (where additional flues/chimneys are required).

My suggestion is to ensure that planning officers, committees and authorities cannot remove all permitted development rights from property developments out of a matter of course and have to follow strict guidance when applying any restrictions, and that restrictions can only be applied after approval by the Planning Inspectorate

Furthermore, limited permitted development rights should be granted to listed buildings, following strict guidance.

Planningguidanceshould come from central government and local interpretation should be reduced.  More powershouldbe given to parish councils to have their say in planning approvals.

Relax planning regulations, using a “polluter pays” model to control development

Britain was pulled from the slump of the early 1930s by a housebuilding boom that gave us many of the semi-detached suburbs that are so sought after today. Now, in contrast, it is very difficult for new homes to receive planning permission. While new development undoubtedly will have some negative consequences, it also brings benefits, although the current planning system fails to recognise this, pandering solely to those who have objections, rather than considering how other people will gain. What are the benefits of relaxing planning regulations? I have listed some here:

– Rises in living standards resulting from improvements to the quality of the country's housing stock;

– Reduced costs of living resulting from reductions in commercial and residential rents;

– Freeing businesses from needless contraints on their activities by simplifying land use categories;

– Reductions in the local government resources devoted to land use issues, reducing the amount of money spent by local government;

– Promoting long term economic growth by removing barriers faced by infrastructure projects of national significance.

– Creating jobs and business opportunities in the construction sector, and related trades such as consumer durables;

How would this work in detail?

I propose that the current system should be replaced by a more streamlined tribunal approach working on a "polluter pays" model.

First, however, we should ensure those parts of Britain that genuinely deserve to be preserved continue to be subject tight planning controls. This would cover, for example, areas of outstanding natural beauty (e.g. North Downs, Cotswolds, Chilterns) and historic or noteworthy urban districts. Also, a wider range of buildings might be considered for listing. Second, in order to ensure new construction was of a high standard, I would like to see building standards being bolstered. This might mean, for example, reintroducing the Parker Morris standards for new homes (which regulate minimum room sizes) and introducing new standards for building on flood plains similar to those used in the Netherlands.

Having tightened controls over those parts of Britain most deserving of protection, I believe a tribunal process can ensure compensation is awarded to those with valid claims to have suffered damages as the result of the development. So someone losing light as the result of a neighbour's extension could be awarded a sum of money by the tribunal. In most cases, this would be settled "out of court", preventing the need for the tribunal to be used. These compensation sums would be "built-in" to the price of the development, and be part of the developer's decision whether to proceed. I suggest compensation might be awarded for noise, disruption, or loss of light, but not for aesthetic matters. With this in place, the market would be free to determine Britain's land use patterns, while ensuring those who were genuinely affected by a development were appropriately compensated.

To make this work, proposed land use changes and new development would be reported to the planning authorities. There would be some limited circumstances where permission could be denied by the council – for example, nightclubs, abatoirs, chemical plants. (I propose that existing land use categories are simplified into two categories: one would contain potentially disruptive, unpleasant, or dangerous activities and the other would contain everything else (e.g. houses, shops, offices, hospitals, libraries, etc.). It would no longer be necessary to seek permission to change use within the second category.)

Where development was proposed on greenfield land that the planning authority considered worthy of protection, the local council would be able to offer to take it into public ownership as common land, with the tribunal setting the level of compensation that would be offered to the landowner. Savings elsewhere could be put towards a fund for this purpose.

This proposal may be a bit rich for many tastes: a more digestable proposal might be to allow a development free-for-all in, for example, the eastern halves of Britain's big cities, which are invariably crying out for private investment in the built-environment, and where developers should be welcomed, not forced to kow-tow to planners and their precious local plans.

Why is this idea important?

Britain was pulled from the slump of the early 1930s by a housebuilding boom that gave us many of the semi-detached suburbs that are so sought after today. Now, in contrast, it is very difficult for new homes to receive planning permission. While new development undoubtedly will have some negative consequences, it also brings benefits, although the current planning system fails to recognise this, pandering solely to those who have objections, rather than considering how other people will gain. What are the benefits of relaxing planning regulations? I have listed some here:

– Rises in living standards resulting from improvements to the quality of the country's housing stock;

– Reduced costs of living resulting from reductions in commercial and residential rents;

– Freeing businesses from needless contraints on their activities by simplifying land use categories;

– Reductions in the local government resources devoted to land use issues, reducing the amount of money spent by local government;

– Promoting long term economic growth by removing barriers faced by infrastructure projects of national significance.

– Creating jobs and business opportunities in the construction sector, and related trades such as consumer durables;

How would this work in detail?

I propose that the current system should be replaced by a more streamlined tribunal approach working on a "polluter pays" model.

First, however, we should ensure those parts of Britain that genuinely deserve to be preserved continue to be subject tight planning controls. This would cover, for example, areas of outstanding natural beauty (e.g. North Downs, Cotswolds, Chilterns) and historic or noteworthy urban districts. Also, a wider range of buildings might be considered for listing. Second, in order to ensure new construction was of a high standard, I would like to see building standards being bolstered. This might mean, for example, reintroducing the Parker Morris standards for new homes (which regulate minimum room sizes) and introducing new standards for building on flood plains similar to those used in the Netherlands.

Having tightened controls over those parts of Britain most deserving of protection, I believe a tribunal process can ensure compensation is awarded to those with valid claims to have suffered damages as the result of the development. So someone losing light as the result of a neighbour's extension could be awarded a sum of money by the tribunal. In most cases, this would be settled "out of court", preventing the need for the tribunal to be used. These compensation sums would be "built-in" to the price of the development, and be part of the developer's decision whether to proceed. I suggest compensation might be awarded for noise, disruption, or loss of light, but not for aesthetic matters. With this in place, the market would be free to determine Britain's land use patterns, while ensuring those who were genuinely affected by a development were appropriately compensated.

To make this work, proposed land use changes and new development would be reported to the planning authorities. There would be some limited circumstances where permission could be denied by the council – for example, nightclubs, abatoirs, chemical plants. (I propose that existing land use categories are simplified into two categories: one would contain potentially disruptive, unpleasant, or dangerous activities and the other would contain everything else (e.g. houses, shops, offices, hospitals, libraries, etc.). It would no longer be necessary to seek permission to change use within the second category.)

Where development was proposed on greenfield land that the planning authority considered worthy of protection, the local council would be able to offer to take it into public ownership as common land, with the tribunal setting the level of compensation that would be offered to the landowner. Savings elsewhere could be put towards a fund for this purpose.

This proposal may be a bit rich for many tastes: a more digestable proposal might be to allow a development free-for-all in, for example, the eastern halves of Britain's big cities, which are invariably crying out for private investment in the built-environment, and where developers should be welcomed, not forced to kow-tow to planners and their precious local plans.

Remove the requirement on councils to provide traveller sites

Removing the legal requirement of councils to provide traveller sites will provide many advantages to the areas where these sites are proposed or exist. These sites are NEVER wanted by the local residents, they are no-go areas for police, they are hotbeds of crime and cost a fortune to maintain. All existing sites should be either closed with appropriate notice or offered to the private sector to run.

Where travellers decamp to private or public land such as playing fields, the owner of the land may serve written notice to vacate within 6 hours and if this does not happen then he should have the right to impound any caravans until a suitable release fee is paid. To prevent the occasions were a vehicle has been placed on private land because of breakdown or similar, this should only be applied to the caravan itself or to where 2 or more vehicles and caravans are camped.

Why is this idea important?

Removing the legal requirement of councils to provide traveller sites will provide many advantages to the areas where these sites are proposed or exist. These sites are NEVER wanted by the local residents, they are no-go areas for police, they are hotbeds of crime and cost a fortune to maintain. All existing sites should be either closed with appropriate notice or offered to the private sector to run.

Where travellers decamp to private or public land such as playing fields, the owner of the land may serve written notice to vacate within 6 hours and if this does not happen then he should have the right to impound any caravans until a suitable release fee is paid. To prevent the occasions were a vehicle has been placed on private land because of breakdown or similar, this should only be applied to the caravan itself or to where 2 or more vehicles and caravans are camped.

Mobile phone masks Building law

Building mobile phone masks without planning prmission.

Its a OLD law form the 2nd world war that Mobile phone company are useing to get aroud the planning laws.

The peolpe of the UK, time after time have come out against new Mobile phone masks from been build without planning but still are builded.

Its about time to stop this NOW!

Why is this idea important?

Building mobile phone masks without planning prmission.

Its a OLD law form the 2nd world war that Mobile phone company are useing to get aroud the planning laws.

The peolpe of the UK, time after time have come out against new Mobile phone masks from been build without planning but still are builded.

Its about time to stop this NOW!

Remove the Green Belt restrictions

Long term land owners who has ownership for a long time say over 10 years should be allowed to build a residential property.  Why should local government dictate what a land owner is able to do.  Relax this nonsense and allow development for a single residential home.

Why is this idea important?

Long term land owners who has ownership for a long time say over 10 years should be allowed to build a residential property.  Why should local government dictate what a land owner is able to do.  Relax this nonsense and allow development for a single residential home.