Give Planning Enforcement Departments power to act quickly

Faster action by Planning Enforcement Officers to prevent unplanned buildings in the first place and quicker action in getting illegal buildings removed.

Why is this idea important?

Faster action by Planning Enforcement Officers to prevent unplanned buildings in the first place and quicker action in getting illegal buildings removed.

overhaul the general permitted development order 1995

Dear Nick

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

With kind regards

Ian Bond

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

 

 

Why is this idea important?

Dear Nick

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

With kind regards

Ian Bond

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

 

 

Repeal retrospective elements of section 58, 2008 Finance Act

Section 58 of the 2008 Finance Act attempted to close a perceived tax avoidance loophole, legitimately used and annually declared to HMRC by thousands of self-employed contractors over the last decade.  However, in a move that is unprecedented in UK Tax history, section 58 then back-dated this legislation under the guise of a 'clarification' to 2002.  The legislation is currently being challenged under the European Human Rights act with a hearing due at the Court of Appeal in November.  I propose that this insidious and pernicious legislation, introduced by the previous Labour government, be repealed immediately for the reasons given below.

Why is this idea important?

Section 58 of the 2008 Finance Act attempted to close a perceived tax avoidance loophole, legitimately used and annually declared to HMRC by thousands of self-employed contractors over the last decade.  However, in a move that is unprecedented in UK Tax history, section 58 then back-dated this legislation under the guise of a 'clarification' to 2002.  The legislation is currently being challenged under the European Human Rights act with a hearing due at the Court of Appeal in November.  I propose that this insidious and pernicious legislation, introduced by the previous Labour government, be repealed immediately for the reasons given below.