Reduce cost and bureaucracy of Listed Building and Conservation Area administration

Interference by Councils in the maintenance of Listed Buildings and buildings in Conservation Areas has become a hugely intrusive, expensive and inappropriate means of controlling issues of "taste" in public life by imposing on individuals and their property.

Reduction in this involvement and the charges made for it need to be achieved to take Local Government out of the detail of peoples lives and properties.

Examples are the charges levied for erecting a shed or greenhouse in the garden of a listed building, or for the change in colour of the paint work, or for replacing features such as gates, doors or windows with more appropriate styles. The need for involvement may be justified by the public good, but the degree of detailed involvement  by individuals from the Local Council and the charges made for this intrusion goes against the laws of natural justice. The imposition of public standards on individuals is arbitrary, and disproportionate to the good that arises. If such involvement is perceived to be necessary by government, then the cost should not be forced upon the individuals as well as the restriction of the regulations; it should be borne by the Council who should reduce their costs by efficient management and by good judgement in allowing suitable works and decisions to be made by the individual after appropriate advice and guidance (which can be by web pages or leaflets provided in advance of an application for consent).

If poor outcomes result then if the cost/benefit justifies the Council taking "enforcement action", then they can do so at their risk in a simplified panel of adjudication. Their experience in taking such action will provide a good track record to illustrate the Councils standards of management, both by the number of challenges they make an the success rate. This will also provide guidance for other individuals in such circumstances as to the standards that are acceptable and those that are not.

Why is this idea important?

Interference by Councils in the maintenance of Listed Buildings and buildings in Conservation Areas has become a hugely intrusive, expensive and inappropriate means of controlling issues of "taste" in public life by imposing on individuals and their property.

Reduction in this involvement and the charges made for it need to be achieved to take Local Government out of the detail of peoples lives and properties.

Examples are the charges levied for erecting a shed or greenhouse in the garden of a listed building, or for the change in colour of the paint work, or for replacing features such as gates, doors or windows with more appropriate styles. The need for involvement may be justified by the public good, but the degree of detailed involvement  by individuals from the Local Council and the charges made for this intrusion goes against the laws of natural justice. The imposition of public standards on individuals is arbitrary, and disproportionate to the good that arises. If such involvement is perceived to be necessary by government, then the cost should not be forced upon the individuals as well as the restriction of the regulations; it should be borne by the Council who should reduce their costs by efficient management and by good judgement in allowing suitable works and decisions to be made by the individual after appropriate advice and guidance (which can be by web pages or leaflets provided in advance of an application for consent).

If poor outcomes result then if the cost/benefit justifies the Council taking "enforcement action", then they can do so at their risk in a simplified panel of adjudication. Their experience in taking such action will provide a good track record to illustrate the Councils standards of management, both by the number of challenges they make an the success rate. This will also provide guidance for other individuals in such circumstances as to the standards that are acceptable and those that are not.

Remove all ewducation acts since 1976

Before 1976 Education was the responsibility of schools and teachers.  Local Authorities were required to make sure that there were enough schools for all the children in their area and had to ensure every child had a place in school.  Central Government provided a framework and the funds. 

In 1976 the Great Education Debate allowed Central Government to get involved in Education and it's not worked.  The National Curriculum as a guideline would be fine, but it's become a requirement. In ordr to deliver a centralised curriculum we have seen the development of lots of new QUANGOs like OFSTED and QCA etc.  Before HMI was able to check that Local Authorities were doing their work while Local inspectors checked that the schools were delivering.  Some Local Authorities were poor at their job, but we now have laws that allow Government to inspect Local Authorities, lets use that model for Education.  HMI can inspect the Authority and require it to do its job properly.  But lets get Central Government out of the minutii of schools and education. Restore Local Authority and Accountability.

Why is this idea important?

Before 1976 Education was the responsibility of schools and teachers.  Local Authorities were required to make sure that there were enough schools for all the children in their area and had to ensure every child had a place in school.  Central Government provided a framework and the funds. 

In 1976 the Great Education Debate allowed Central Government to get involved in Education and it's not worked.  The National Curriculum as a guideline would be fine, but it's become a requirement. In ordr to deliver a centralised curriculum we have seen the development of lots of new QUANGOs like OFSTED and QCA etc.  Before HMI was able to check that Local Authorities were doing their work while Local inspectors checked that the schools were delivering.  Some Local Authorities were poor at their job, but we now have laws that allow Government to inspect Local Authorities, lets use that model for Education.  HMI can inspect the Authority and require it to do its job properly.  But lets get Central Government out of the minutii of schools and education. Restore Local Authority and Accountability.

Stop Road Tax

Remove road tax and add the necessary revenue shortfall to petrol duty.

Benefits:

– Petrol is naturally 'progressive' (to use this weeks popular token).

– We will be able to remove the departments that currently manage the road tax process including the road tax evasion group (and their spy vans).

– We will reduce the overhead on the police

– We will be able to stop the very unadvisable adverts that talk about crushing people's property (not a good example for the state to set).

– Lets face it, in today's digital world sticking a bit of paper on your car is very dated. We can already chack insurance and MOT compliance on-line so it adds no value there either.

Finally, petrol station receipts need to show the petrol cost and the break down of duties paid. This will add transparency any allow us to keep an eye on the government's expenditure. All very healthy.

Lets just do it.

Why is this idea important?

Remove road tax and add the necessary revenue shortfall to petrol duty.

Benefits:

– Petrol is naturally 'progressive' (to use this weeks popular token).

– We will be able to remove the departments that currently manage the road tax process including the road tax evasion group (and their spy vans).

– We will reduce the overhead on the police

– We will be able to stop the very unadvisable adverts that talk about crushing people's property (not a good example for the state to set).

– Lets face it, in today's digital world sticking a bit of paper on your car is very dated. We can already chack insurance and MOT compliance on-line so it adds no value there either.

Finally, petrol station receipts need to show the petrol cost and the break down of duties paid. This will add transparency any allow us to keep an eye on the government's expenditure. All very healthy.

Lets just do it.