Green-belt housing doubles in a year - Telegraph

Green-belt housing doubles in a year - Telegraph:

Dear Mr Owen,

Thank you for your email of 3 July to the Planning Minister, Nick Boles, about development in the countryside. The Minister was grateful for your positive views and has asked me to reply.

Whilst this Government does not set top-down housing targets, or ask local authorities to build more homes than they need, it has been equally clear in the National Planning Policy Framework that councils need to plan to meet the full needs of their communities for all types of housing in their area. The Framework therefore promotes a positive approach to development, which makes clear that development which is sustainable should go ahead without delay.

Through the Growth and Infrastructure Act, the Government has also introduced practical planning reforms, aimed at further improving processes and removing unnecessary bureaucracy. They include measures to ensure that councils meet minimum performance standards for deciding applications – helping to avoid delays that are unfair to both local residents and applicants.

The Government certainly does not want to see more open land developed than is necessary, but we have a simple choice. We can decide to ignore the misery of young families forced to grow up in flats with no outside space, and of working men and women in their twenties and thirties who have to live with their parents or share bedrooms with friends. Or we can accept that we are going to have to build on some previously undeveloped land and resolve that we will make these decisions locally. We should also keep the amount of development needed in perspective: 8.9% of England is built up, compared to 40% being covered by protective designations.

Thank you, once again, for writing.

Yours sincerely,

'via Blog this'

Michael Gove: People fighting planning reforms are against aspiration, family and social mobility - Telegraph

Michael Gove: People fighting planning reforms are against aspiration, family and social mobility - Telegraph:

"Chatsworth or the Nash terraces of Regent’s Park, Edinburgh’s New Town or Salisbury Cathedral,"

The irony of it, the buildings he extols were built in a "free for all", there were no planning laws back then!

'via Blog this'

Martin Goodall's Planning Law Blog: Buildings or structures - the Woolley Chickens case

Martin Goodall's Planning Law Blog: Buildings or structures - the Woolley Chickens case

This is certainly "woolley", Just think of all the planning applications that will have to be made to retain cattle feeders, shipping containers, caravans, pig arks, 'mobile' field shelters... or is it all a matter of 'fact and degree' as to how big the item needs to be?

Martin Goodall's Planning Law Blog: Holiday lets may be a change of use

Martin Goodall's Planning Law Blog: Holiday lets may be a change of use

Interesting. But, what class use applies in the case of a barn conversion to four holiday lets where the planning conditions allow 365 days use p.a. albeit with a 28 day limit per person or family group and a 'register' to record occupancy and compliance with said conditions?

This is one planning unit owned by one person or company and run on a commercial basis and as is the case in all such lets they qualify for business rates rather than council tax.

Restraint of Trade

No public body has the right to decide what any profession or trade can charge for their services, I think it is also in breach of the Human Rights Act

1. The principles of Article 1 of the First Protocol


This Convention right provides that every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.

Article 1 of Protocol 1 is made up of three rules concerning:

· the principle of the peaceful enjoyment of possessions;

· the deprivation of possessions;

· the right of the State to control the use of property in the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.

The UK courts will be able to decide whether interference with property rights is justified in the public interest. The Strasbourg Court acknowledges that, in the context of this Convention right, each State is in a better position to assess the economic needs of its own society and should therefore be allowed some discretion in determining when interference with this right is in the public interest.

Even so, any measure or law that interferes with property rights (for example, a compulsory purchase order) must strike a fair balance between the demands of the community or society and the need to protect the individual’s fundamental rights. In considering this balance, one of the things the court will look for is compensation. So that, for example in the case of compulsory purchase, interference can be justified if the loss of rights to property are compensated by the payment of the economic cost of that property.

An interference with property must also satisfy the requirements of legal certainty. In other words, there must be a law which permits the interference and that law must be sufficiently certain and accessible. There must also be procedural safeguards against arbitrary State decisions. The procedural requirements of Article 6 – right to a fair trial, may be relevant here.



2. Definition of property or possessions

"Property" or "possessions" in this context has a wide meaning and covers anything of economic value.

It includes physical and non-physical property such as:

· land and buildings;

· money;

· goods;

· shares and investments;

· patents;

· rights under contracts (including leases);

· rights to run a business or economic interest connected to the running of a business;

· rights to exercise a profession;

· goodwill;

· a benefit resulting from a restrictive covenant;

· an entitlement to an annual rent;

· damages or other sums awarded by a court or tribunal.



3. Interference with Property Rights

Everyone has the right to use, develop, sell, destroy or deal with his or her property in any way they please, this includes Intellectual Property. The right to protection of property means that public authorities cannot interfere with the way that property is used unless there is a law that lets them do it and unless it is justified. This means that no one can be deprived of his or her property except where the action is permitted by law and justifiable in the public or general interest.

It is also necessary to ensure that a person has the same rights to property as other people in the same situation. For example, a man caring for his disabled wife should get the same exemption from paying tax as a woman caring for her disabled husband. In this situation, a person’s rights under Article 1 of the First Protocol together with rights under Article 14 – prohibition of discrimination, are important.