Renove restrictions to prune/fell a tree on your own property

A tree can be subject to a conservation order, meaning the owner is has to apply to his local council to do anything to it. Buraucrats tend to turn applications down with little or no regard for the motivations of the owner. Owners should absolutely have the right to fell/prune a tree on their own private land without the authorities interfering.

Why is this idea important?

A tree can be subject to a conservation order, meaning the owner is has to apply to his local council to do anything to it. Buraucrats tend to turn applications down with little or no regard for the motivations of the owner. Owners should absolutely have the right to fell/prune a tree on their own private land without the authorities interfering.

Reform business rates to prevent landlords of commercial properties allowing shops to lie vacant.

Commercial landlords need an incentive to ensure it's very expensive to allow shops and other retail premises to lie empty.

There are many people who are would like to use these premises for a start up business, but the cost is prohibitive.

Landlord should be charged five times the usual rateable value on commercial premises, if they lie empty for three months or over. Then ten times rateable value for six months, or over.

This would ensure landlords charged rents and deposits at a far more reasonable price, that would encourage entrepreneurs or even existing businesses to make use of these shops that are often left to rot on our high streets.

Why is this idea important?

Commercial landlords need an incentive to ensure it's very expensive to allow shops and other retail premises to lie empty.

There are many people who are would like to use these premises for a start up business, but the cost is prohibitive.

Landlord should be charged five times the usual rateable value on commercial premises, if they lie empty for three months or over. Then ten times rateable value for six months, or over.

This would ensure landlords charged rents and deposits at a far more reasonable price, that would encourage entrepreneurs or even existing businesses to make use of these shops that are often left to rot on our high streets.

Make planning applications for affordable housing subject to the same planning restrictions as other applications

Currently in rural areas, planning restrictionscan be waived for applications for  "affordable housing" if the developers and the housing association agree that there is a need for the housing and houses can be built on green field sites, in Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, outside village boundaries, and so on.  However, too many of these developments once they've been built are being sold to, or rented out to, people from outside the local area because there really wasn't a local need for this "affordable housing."  Planning restrictions should apply equally across the board to all proposed developments in rural areas to help preserve the countryside, to prevent much needed farm land from being built on, to protect biodiversity, to reduce the amount of out-commuting, to help deal with climate change, and to prevent small villages from becoming suburban sprawls.  Also the process for determining local need for "affording housing" needs to be transparent and overseen by a truly independent body (one that's not influenced by developers and housing associations). 

Why is this idea important?

Currently in rural areas, planning restrictionscan be waived for applications for  "affordable housing" if the developers and the housing association agree that there is a need for the housing and houses can be built on green field sites, in Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, outside village boundaries, and so on.  However, too many of these developments once they've been built are being sold to, or rented out to, people from outside the local area because there really wasn't a local need for this "affordable housing."  Planning restrictions should apply equally across the board to all proposed developments in rural areas to help preserve the countryside, to prevent much needed farm land from being built on, to protect biodiversity, to reduce the amount of out-commuting, to help deal with climate change, and to prevent small villages from becoming suburban sprawls.  Also the process for determining local need for "affording housing" needs to be transparent and overseen by a truly independent body (one that's not influenced by developers and housing associations). 

Bring Life back to the High Street and Local Store

Cap the number of out of town shopping centres, give high streets free nearby parking, give incentives to councils to approve planning for high street shops.

Why is this idea important?

Cap the number of out of town shopping centres, give high streets free nearby parking, give incentives to councils to approve planning for high street shops.

Bureaucracy in the planning system

Reduce wholly unnecessary bureaucracy and red tape in a planning system which has virtually stalled in its ability to deliver. Ensure that planning officers apply planning policy only to applications, as opposed to personal prejudice.

Why is this idea important?

Reduce wholly unnecessary bureaucracy and red tape in a planning system which has virtually stalled in its ability to deliver. Ensure that planning officers apply planning policy only to applications, as opposed to personal prejudice.

CLARIFY HOUSEHOLDER PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS: the planning permission you’ve already got.

The 'new regulations' (just Google "SI 2008 No 2362"), which came into force on the 1st October 2008, were spun at the time by Caroline Flint as a significant liberalisation of householders' previous statutory rights to extend and alter their homes, within pre-set limits, without recourse to a planning application.

These new regulatons, however, are causing protracted, unneccessary and damaging delay as a direct result of lack of guidance from Communities and Local Government (CLG) as to their meaning.

The system, first introduced for houses in 1950, is designed to grant general permission for development which would otherwise be granted routinely were an application to be made for it. A further purpose is to free up council planning department resources so that they can concentrate on more significant matters. Indeed, it was with that purpose in mind that the previous government embarked on reform and liberalisation of the system with a series of consultations which led, in turn, to those new rules introduced on the 1st October 2008.

Householder permitted development (known as PD) is more important than you may at first realise: when you so much as put up a little garden shed or greenhouse, you are exercising your permitted development rights. They're not just for extensions and lost conversions, for example. PD rights are supposed to allow work to be started straight away.

However, the new rules have proved to be less effective than intended and in many cases are now the cause of delayed projects and thus, in turn, lost economic output in the form of jobs both for the direct labour involved and the materials and associated supply chain. Every £1 spent on a building project is said to generate about £4 worth of economic benefit. This is at a time of urgent need for building works starts.

Why is this idea important?

The 'new regulations' (just Google "SI 2008 No 2362"), which came into force on the 1st October 2008, were spun at the time by Caroline Flint as a significant liberalisation of householders' previous statutory rights to extend and alter their homes, within pre-set limits, without recourse to a planning application.

These new regulatons, however, are causing protracted, unneccessary and damaging delay as a direct result of lack of guidance from Communities and Local Government (CLG) as to their meaning.

The system, first introduced for houses in 1950, is designed to grant general permission for development which would otherwise be granted routinely were an application to be made for it. A further purpose is to free up council planning department resources so that they can concentrate on more significant matters. Indeed, it was with that purpose in mind that the previous government embarked on reform and liberalisation of the system with a series of consultations which led, in turn, to those new rules introduced on the 1st October 2008.

Householder permitted development (known as PD) is more important than you may at first realise: when you so much as put up a little garden shed or greenhouse, you are exercising your permitted development rights. They're not just for extensions and lost conversions, for example. PD rights are supposed to allow work to be started straight away.

However, the new rules have proved to be less effective than intended and in many cases are now the cause of delayed projects and thus, in turn, lost economic output in the form of jobs both for the direct labour involved and the materials and associated supply chain. Every £1 spent on a building project is said to generate about £4 worth of economic benefit. This is at a time of urgent need for building works starts.

Scrap Planning Appeals

I propose that planning appeals be abolished. Local councils are afraid to make the right decision that is of benefit to the local area on planning applications because of the threat of costs of an appeal.

Local planning decisions should be made locally  – no appeals.

Why is this idea important?

I propose that planning appeals be abolished. Local councils are afraid to make the right decision that is of benefit to the local area on planning applications because of the threat of costs of an appeal.

Local planning decisions should be made locally  – no appeals.

Ease restrictions on earth sheltered & basement housing

There are only 60 earth sheltered houses in the UK mostly in Wales. The planning law for permission is as strict for earth sheltered as it is for above ground – this is wrong!!!!!

A council has to consider aesthetics as well as several other aspects, and any application in the green belt is automatically turned down as green belt building is considered best avoided.

An earth sheltered house is almost always eco friendly – I do not know why – but it is!!

An earth sheltered house cannot be seen or can barely be seen from above ground, other than an aerial view.  This sort of building should be encouraged as this small island has only limited space, we do not wish to see the loss of more green fields or parks, playing fields, agricultural land etc etc.  But earth sheltered would barely impact on infrastructure, does not spoil views or appearance to greenbelt land, and surely should be encouraged in an attempt to help find space for much needed homes. In my opinion all applications for earth sheltered housing should automatically be viewed as if they were brown field sites, and then each taken on its merits. 

Why is this idea important?

There are only 60 earth sheltered houses in the UK mostly in Wales. The planning law for permission is as strict for earth sheltered as it is for above ground – this is wrong!!!!!

A council has to consider aesthetics as well as several other aspects, and any application in the green belt is automatically turned down as green belt building is considered best avoided.

An earth sheltered house is almost always eco friendly – I do not know why – but it is!!

An earth sheltered house cannot be seen or can barely be seen from above ground, other than an aerial view.  This sort of building should be encouraged as this small island has only limited space, we do not wish to see the loss of more green fields or parks, playing fields, agricultural land etc etc.  But earth sheltered would barely impact on infrastructure, does not spoil views or appearance to greenbelt land, and surely should be encouraged in an attempt to help find space for much needed homes. In my opinion all applications for earth sheltered housing should automatically be viewed as if they were brown field sites, and then each taken on its merits. 

End planning protection for recent alterations to old buildings

Please amend the Planning Act 1990 to exclude protection from any post-1945 alterations to an older building. My mum lives in a conservation area, in part of a big Victorian house that was partitioned into a terrace in 1959. During the conversion, one of the sash windows was painted shut. As the law stands, this damage to an original period feature is protected by the Act. Repairing it would require an expensive conservation permit, which really is a bit silly.

Why is this idea important?

Please amend the Planning Act 1990 to exclude protection from any post-1945 alterations to an older building. My mum lives in a conservation area, in part of a big Victorian house that was partitioned into a terrace in 1959. During the conversion, one of the sash windows was painted shut. As the law stands, this damage to an original period feature is protected by the Act. Repairing it would require an expensive conservation permit, which really is a bit silly.

Remove planning decision overrule from Secretary of State

The Secretary of State should not be allowed to arbitrarily overrule planning decisions made through consultation and due process as it negates the whole process and the democratic rights of people involved and affected by such planning.

Why is this idea important?

The Secretary of State should not be allowed to arbitrarily overrule planning decisions made through consultation and due process as it negates the whole process and the democratic rights of people involved and affected by such planning.

Remove planning decision overrule from Secretary of State

The Secretary of State should not be allowed to arbitrarily overrule planning decisions made through consultation and due process as it negates the whole process and the democratic rights of people involved and affected by such planning.

Why is this idea important?

The Secretary of State should not be allowed to arbitrarily overrule planning decisions made through consultation and due process as it negates the whole process and the democratic rights of people involved and affected by such planning.

Remove planning decision overrule from Secretary of State

The Secretary of State should not be allowed to arbitrarily overrule planning decisions made through consultation and due process as it negates the whole process and the democratic rights of people involved and affected by such planning.

Why is this idea important?

The Secretary of State should not be allowed to arbitrarily overrule planning decisions made through consultation and due process as it negates the whole process and the democratic rights of people involved and affected by such planning.

Compulsory micro-generation for new detached homes.

All new detached homes should have to be constructed taking advantage of at least one form of re-newable micro-electricity generation (solarwindgeo-thermaletc)

This would create jobs, reduce the cost of the technology for everyone and have a number of other enviromental and economic benefits.

By limiting this to detached homes it should not effect (or minimise the effect to) low-cost housing.

In the scheme of things, a few thousand pounds extra to the cost of a new build is minimal.

Why is this idea important?

All new detached homes should have to be constructed taking advantage of at least one form of re-newable micro-electricity generation (solarwindgeo-thermaletc)

This would create jobs, reduce the cost of the technology for everyone and have a number of other enviromental and economic benefits.

By limiting this to detached homes it should not effect (or minimise the effect to) low-cost housing.

In the scheme of things, a few thousand pounds extra to the cost of a new build is minimal.

Planning laws

Some planning laws pay little heed to common sense or community wishes; they tend to follow the whims of certain planning or conservation 'officers' who assume too much authority; they demand £200 for every application whether it succeeds or not (we are often subjected to off-putting bureaucratise form filling for something that should be relatively straightforward.

I would like to see the community that are affected by such laws consulted more closely: rather than a single tiny advert in the paper, why not telephone or write to the people directly affected (even better, send a junior clerk out to talk to people).

Planning laws should be simplified (as should the forms); a more common sense approach taken; reduce the fee – how many of us have £200 to donate to some council administration office? Money is short for all of us  – for hourly paid workers that takes a lot of toil and for what?

May I also suggest a quarterly consultation between a community and the planning and conservation officers (in village or town hall or church hall) to discuss ideas and get some informed discussion on both sides – it can seem as though the local govt construct insurmountable walls to keep voters at bay or worse, ill-informed!

Why is this idea important?

Some planning laws pay little heed to common sense or community wishes; they tend to follow the whims of certain planning or conservation 'officers' who assume too much authority; they demand £200 for every application whether it succeeds or not (we are often subjected to off-putting bureaucratise form filling for something that should be relatively straightforward.

I would like to see the community that are affected by such laws consulted more closely: rather than a single tiny advert in the paper, why not telephone or write to the people directly affected (even better, send a junior clerk out to talk to people).

Planning laws should be simplified (as should the forms); a more common sense approach taken; reduce the fee – how many of us have £200 to donate to some council administration office? Money is short for all of us  – for hourly paid workers that takes a lot of toil and for what?

May I also suggest a quarterly consultation between a community and the planning and conservation officers (in village or town hall or church hall) to discuss ideas and get some informed discussion on both sides – it can seem as though the local govt construct insurmountable walls to keep voters at bay or worse, ill-informed!

Planning (Gates, Fences)

If I want to put up a new fence, at the front of my property more than 1mtr in height I have to apply for planning permission but I can grow a hedge to any height, we are encouraged to help stop crime but a 1mtr fence is easy to step over,

it’s the same with gates, I would like to put up 1.5mtr wrought iron gates but my council say I must apply for planning permission which costs £150 pounds. (for what)

I can have a side or back fence 2mtrs in height so why a 1mrt limit at the front when I can grow a 3mrt hedge in the same place……….. 

     

Why is this idea important?

If I want to put up a new fence, at the front of my property more than 1mtr in height I have to apply for planning permission but I can grow a hedge to any height, we are encouraged to help stop crime but a 1mtr fence is easy to step over,

it’s the same with gates, I would like to put up 1.5mtr wrought iron gates but my council say I must apply for planning permission which costs £150 pounds. (for what)

I can have a side or back fence 2mtrs in height so why a 1mrt limit at the front when I can grow a 3mrt hedge in the same place……….. 

     

Planning authority – incentivisation

Many planning officers reject planning applications which ultimately get approved on appeal. They have an incentive to reject – it keeps them in a job. I suggest they should be penalised, say £100 for every application where their rejection is overturned on appeal and that they are awarded a bonus of say £1000 everytime their rejection is ultimately approved by the Minister of State. Clearly every planning authority could review its own losing cases and identify the common mistakes they had made – there should be no reason for making mistakes in future. Equally, planning authorities could identify common elements in the cases where the Minister supported them – and they could consistently earn bonuses. Obviously the exact numbers – £100 penalty and £1000 bonus – could (and should) be adjusted from time to time to make the whole process virtually 'cost neutral'.

Doubtless it might be difficult to force this regime on autonomous 'district councils', but a start could be made by forcing it on the National Parks – starting with the 'Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority'.   

Why is this idea important?

Many planning officers reject planning applications which ultimately get approved on appeal. They have an incentive to reject – it keeps them in a job. I suggest they should be penalised, say £100 for every application where their rejection is overturned on appeal and that they are awarded a bonus of say £1000 everytime their rejection is ultimately approved by the Minister of State. Clearly every planning authority could review its own losing cases and identify the common mistakes they had made – there should be no reason for making mistakes in future. Equally, planning authorities could identify common elements in the cases where the Minister supported them – and they could consistently earn bonuses. Obviously the exact numbers – £100 penalty and £1000 bonus – could (and should) be adjusted from time to time to make the whole process virtually 'cost neutral'.

Doubtless it might be difficult to force this regime on autonomous 'district councils', but a start could be made by forcing it on the National Parks – starting with the 'Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority'.   

Creating high streets for communities




High Streets are the heart of local communities and can make an enormous difference to the lives of inhabitants. There should be a set list of shops that every high street should have. An example of this would be butcher, banker, book shop, coffee shop, clothes shop, shoe shop, fruit and vegetable seller etc. Lowest rents offered to applicants which fulfil these needs. Individual non-chain stores will get the lowest, chain stores will pay more. When all of the essential lists are filled, normal rates apply, however, restrictions on chains coming into direct competition with existing shops are put in place.

Why is this idea important?




High Streets are the heart of local communities and can make an enormous difference to the lives of inhabitants. There should be a set list of shops that every high street should have. An example of this would be butcher, banker, book shop, coffee shop, clothes shop, shoe shop, fruit and vegetable seller etc. Lowest rents offered to applicants which fulfil these needs. Individual non-chain stores will get the lowest, chain stores will pay more. When all of the essential lists are filled, normal rates apply, however, restrictions on chains coming into direct competition with existing shops are put in place.

Ease restrictions on earth sheltered & basement housing

There are only 60 earth sheltered houses in the UK mostly in Wales. The planning law for permission is as strict for earth sheltered as it is for above ground – this is wrong!!!!!

A council has to consider aesthetics as well as several other aspects, and any application in the green belt is automatically turned down as green belt building is considered best avoided.

An earth sheltered house is almost always eco friendly – I do not know why – but it is!!

An earth sheltered house cannot be seen or can barely be seen from above ground, other than an aerial view.  This sort of building should be encouraged as this small island has only limited space, we do not wish to see the loss of more green fields or parks, playing fields, agricultural land etc etc.  But earth sheltered would barely impact on infrastructure, does not spoil views or appearance to greenbelt land, and surely should be encouraged in an attempt to help find space for much needed homes. In my opinion all applications for earth sheltered housing should automatically be viewed as if they were brown field sites, and then each taken on its merits. 

Why is this idea important?

There are only 60 earth sheltered houses in the UK mostly in Wales. The planning law for permission is as strict for earth sheltered as it is for above ground – this is wrong!!!!!

A council has to consider aesthetics as well as several other aspects, and any application in the green belt is automatically turned down as green belt building is considered best avoided.

An earth sheltered house is almost always eco friendly – I do not know why – but it is!!

An earth sheltered house cannot be seen or can barely be seen from above ground, other than an aerial view.  This sort of building should be encouraged as this small island has only limited space, we do not wish to see the loss of more green fields or parks, playing fields, agricultural land etc etc.  But earth sheltered would barely impact on infrastructure, does not spoil views or appearance to greenbelt land, and surely should be encouraged in an attempt to help find space for much needed homes. In my opinion all applications for earth sheltered housing should automatically be viewed as if they were brown field sites, and then each taken on its merits. 

Change to definition of Brownfield Land in gardens to Greenfield

The Government very recently altered the definition of gardens under PPS3 from brownfield land to greenfield. This appears to have been done to placate the NIMBYs of middle England. Many of those who object to such schemes thenselves live on land that was once gardens or recreational areas. It seems that the consequences of such a change were not thought through by those who created the change. My company has spent £50000 on a three year application for a small scheme of 5 houses in a garden. We satisfied all the planner's requests throughout to make the scheme acceptable. The LPA recommended approval. The local counsellors were unduly influenced by the neighbours and refused it. They would not give a reason and asked the planners to insert one in the decision notice. We were in the middle of the appeal process with a high chance of success (because our application at the date of submission "ticked all the planning boxes") when the ministerial decision was announced out of the blue. Now there is no chance of the appeal succeeding as this legislation by Ministerial statement appears to be retrospective. Why could it not have excluded those applications already in the pipeline?  Because of this my small company will have to be liquidated, I and my family will have no income from the business, the young couple who owned the garden will not be able to improve their lot and move, and the men who were going to build the houses will not now have a job. Were such consequences for those on the receiving end ever considered? It was announced by Ministerial statement. Please immediately repeal it by the same method. It does more harm than good. It appears to be unnecessarily unfair.

Why is this idea important?

The Government very recently altered the definition of gardens under PPS3 from brownfield land to greenfield. This appears to have been done to placate the NIMBYs of middle England. Many of those who object to such schemes thenselves live on land that was once gardens or recreational areas. It seems that the consequences of such a change were not thought through by those who created the change. My company has spent £50000 on a three year application for a small scheme of 5 houses in a garden. We satisfied all the planner's requests throughout to make the scheme acceptable. The LPA recommended approval. The local counsellors were unduly influenced by the neighbours and refused it. They would not give a reason and asked the planners to insert one in the decision notice. We were in the middle of the appeal process with a high chance of success (because our application at the date of submission "ticked all the planning boxes") when the ministerial decision was announced out of the blue. Now there is no chance of the appeal succeeding as this legislation by Ministerial statement appears to be retrospective. Why could it not have excluded those applications already in the pipeline?  Because of this my small company will have to be liquidated, I and my family will have no income from the business, the young couple who owned the garden will not be able to improve their lot and move, and the men who were going to build the houses will not now have a job. Were such consequences for those on the receiving end ever considered? It was announced by Ministerial statement. Please immediately repeal it by the same method. It does more harm than good. It appears to be unnecessarily unfair.

Prevent developers re-submitting plans under different application numbers

Often a planning application will be submitted to local council planning departments and published generating hundreds of objections. These objections may be completely valid to the application and will put severe pressure on the council to reject the plans.

The developer can then withdraw their application, wait a short time, and resubmit their plans (maybe adding some minor changes to justify themselves) and the application is re-posted with a different application number.

This then means all of the previously submitted objections have now disappeared and the developer has a clean slate for effectively the same plan. This forces objectors to re-object. Do this enough and it is likely the amount of objections will be reduced substantially.

There appears to be no limits on this behaviour at present and it is a loophole that entirely benefits a developer and nobody else. I believe this loophole must be closed.

Why is this idea important?

Often a planning application will be submitted to local council planning departments and published generating hundreds of objections. These objections may be completely valid to the application and will put severe pressure on the council to reject the plans.

The developer can then withdraw their application, wait a short time, and resubmit their plans (maybe adding some minor changes to justify themselves) and the application is re-posted with a different application number.

This then means all of the previously submitted objections have now disappeared and the developer has a clean slate for effectively the same plan. This forces objectors to re-object. Do this enough and it is likely the amount of objections will be reduced substantially.

There appears to be no limits on this behaviour at present and it is a loophole that entirely benefits a developer and nobody else. I believe this loophole must be closed.

Simplify the planning system

I work as an architect nationwide in a large practice.  The planning system has a significant impact on our work and it’s smooth operation is vital to our operations and indeed our profitability and survival as a business.  It is also vital to the country, especially at a time of economic problems, that decisions are made swiftly and at minimal cost to everyone involved, including the public purse.

The planning process, from our perspective, has become increasingly difficult over the last decade.  The introduction of fees and later of targets, has not eased the process from our point of view and we often find ourselves trapped in between the demands of our clients on the one hand and the planners on the other.  

The cost of making a planning application is now so high, because of the time scale required to put an appllication together and the vast number of reports and information required to enable a decision – that it has become beyond the reach of many private clients who cannot afford to venture into the system at huge personal cost, when the outcome is so uncertain.

Simplify the whole system.  Here are some suggestions:

  • Expand the scope of permitted development.
  • Introduce a "rules" based system where any proposal complying with the rules can be automatically permitted.
  • As in much of Europe any design submitted by a qualified architect should be deemed approved from a "design" perspective.
  • Introduce Local Development Orders to cover all main development sites with a set of criteria to be followed.  Any proposal complying with the criteria would be deemed approved.
  • Similarly – define rules within Local Plans whereby compliance deems approval.
  • Having introduced a predominantly rules based system – private sector planners could be engaged to run the system and manage the process.  The democratic element of planning would be in approving and determining the rules in the first place.
  • Many apoplications are stalled awaiting consultees responses.  Where consultees fail to respond – and indeed where the Planning Authority fails to make a decision in the proscribed time – an application should be deemed approved.

Why is this idea important?

I work as an architect nationwide in a large practice.  The planning system has a significant impact on our work and it’s smooth operation is vital to our operations and indeed our profitability and survival as a business.  It is also vital to the country, especially at a time of economic problems, that decisions are made swiftly and at minimal cost to everyone involved, including the public purse.

The planning process, from our perspective, has become increasingly difficult over the last decade.  The introduction of fees and later of targets, has not eased the process from our point of view and we often find ourselves trapped in between the demands of our clients on the one hand and the planners on the other.  

The cost of making a planning application is now so high, because of the time scale required to put an appllication together and the vast number of reports and information required to enable a decision – that it has become beyond the reach of many private clients who cannot afford to venture into the system at huge personal cost, when the outcome is so uncertain.

Simplify the whole system.  Here are some suggestions:

  • Expand the scope of permitted development.
  • Introduce a "rules" based system where any proposal complying with the rules can be automatically permitted.
  • As in much of Europe any design submitted by a qualified architect should be deemed approved from a "design" perspective.
  • Introduce Local Development Orders to cover all main development sites with a set of criteria to be followed.  Any proposal complying with the criteria would be deemed approved.
  • Similarly – define rules within Local Plans whereby compliance deems approval.
  • Having introduced a predominantly rules based system – private sector planners could be engaged to run the system and manage the process.  The democratic element of planning would be in approving and determining the rules in the first place.
  • Many apoplications are stalled awaiting consultees responses.  Where consultees fail to respond – and indeed where the Planning Authority fails to make a decision in the proscribed time – an application should be deemed approved.

Planning laws

Review the whole planning legislation. The cost of submitting a planning application is now far too high due to the massive amount of additional "expert" reports required. This cost has to be incurred prior to submiiting the application and the planning authority can still say no.

What I propose is:

  1. Free up the whole system by allowing a simple application to be filed without any supporting reports. The planning authority can then say yes or no. If it is a yes, it can be conditioned by the additional reports required. Simple and very cost effective.
  2. Allow more development – we only have 8% of land built on. To provide a further 1 miliion homes we would need a further 1.5%, which is not going to destroy our heritage
  3. Allow the full development of all existing buildings on brown field sites, farms etc. They are already there and it is far more cost effective to allow their conversion to housing than to start a whole new build.

Why is this idea important?

Review the whole planning legislation. The cost of submitting a planning application is now far too high due to the massive amount of additional "expert" reports required. This cost has to be incurred prior to submiiting the application and the planning authority can still say no.

What I propose is:

  1. Free up the whole system by allowing a simple application to be filed without any supporting reports. The planning authority can then say yes or no. If it is a yes, it can be conditioned by the additional reports required. Simple and very cost effective.
  2. Allow more development – we only have 8% of land built on. To provide a further 1 miliion homes we would need a further 1.5%, which is not going to destroy our heritage
  3. Allow the full development of all existing buildings on brown field sites, farms etc. They are already there and it is far more cost effective to allow their conversion to housing than to start a whole new build.

Change restrictive planning laws that constrict housing supply

People are in poverty because the cost of living relative to income is too high.

The single biggest cost of living is housing.

To bring down housing costs, you have to build to meet rising demand, and build cost effectively.

The biggest cost of building is usually the land which is only in short supply due to highly restrictive and conservative planning regulations.

Why is this idea important?

People are in poverty because the cost of living relative to income is too high.

The single biggest cost of living is housing.

To bring down housing costs, you have to build to meet rising demand, and build cost effectively.

The biggest cost of building is usually the land which is only in short supply due to highly restrictive and conservative planning regulations.