Urgent. New proposed legislation affecting Motorhomes/Campervans/Caravans (1 Viewer)

[bigtwin]

Its a history lesson on a obscure gov proposal that never got off the ground.

Not according to this, it isn’t:

Broken Link Removed

Ian

 

[chaser]

Not according to this, it isn’t:

Broken Link Removed

Ian

So if it's removing the need for planning permission, isn't that a good thing?

 

[SpeedyDux]

So if it's removing the need for planning permission, isn't that a good thing?

Planning permission gives the Planning Authority power to impose conditions to conform with their current policy. It also helps to protect the interests of local residents who may be affected.

I don't know what Mr Chote's purpose is, although there is an ideological drive to chop down Planning law wholesale and make life easy for business interests who want to develop prime farmland without restriction. It is misguided and forgets the good reasons why Planning laws (and green belts) were created in the first place.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[pappajohn]

?

Posted before reading whole thread and simply repeated what had been posted by others.
Document dated February 2012

 

[bigtwin]

So if it's removing the need for planning permission, isn't that a good thing?

I was responding to thebriars post suggesting that this was an old bill when, in fact, it is very current.

Its a history lesson on a obscure gov proposal that never got off the ground.

Not according to this, it isn’t:

Broken Link Removed

Ian

I haven’t seen the details of the proposed bill so am not really in a position to answer your question but, as SpeedyDux alludes to, one must be cautious in case the law of unintended consequences come back to bite you.

Ian

 

[Speve]

I think removing planning permission would open things up for the traveler types who take over a field and fill it with their mates and all of their I’ll gotten gains, build whatever they want.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Chris51]

I think removing planning permission would open things up for the traveler types who take over a field and fill it with their mates and all of their I’ll gotten gains, build whatever they want.

Don't they already do that ?

 

[Speve]

Don't they already do that ?

They do but then at least it’s illegal if this bill passes then there will be no way to get rid of them

 

[tonyidle]

Not according to this, it isn’t:

Broken Link Removed

Ian

That may be a different Bill (first presented Feb this year).

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[bigtwin]

That may be a different Bill (first presented Feb this year).

Yes, the first reading was in Feb 2020.

If I may be so bold as to suggest, I think that the OP may be quoting the wrong bill. The bill to which I referred is generating some discussion on various FB pages and I think it was perhaps this that the OP was intending to refer to.

Ian

 

[PeteH]

I have been communicating with My MP and the L-A on this type of thing. We have some "persons" locally extracting the urine in a similar manner. We now have 3 wide body Static vans umpteen pieces of varied vehicles caravans and plant on a site that has been refused Planning. Not once but twice. My only "hope" is that the nearby river overtops its banks and drowns it all. But unfortunately that would also put hundreds of Hectares of valuable agriculture at risk too. As well as flooding a nearby Pub.

IF you or I tried this we would be given the "Bums Rush" ASAP.

 

[SpeedyDux]

I have been communicating with My MP and the L-A on this type of thing. We have some "persons" locally extracting the urine in a similar manner. We now have 3 wide body Static vans umpteen pieces of varied vehicles caravans and plant on a site that has been refused Planning. Not once but twice. My only "hope" is that the nearby river overtops its banks and drowns it all. But unfortunately that would also put hundreds of Hectares of valuable agriculture at risk too. As well as flooding a nearby Pub.

IF you or I tried this we would be given the "Bums Rush" ASAP.

Fair point. Unfortunately, the stats show that Travellers have a better chance of obtaining retrospective planning permission for development in the green belt than any other applicants. They know this.

Round these parts the powers that be ignore many genuine and perfectly reasonable objections by residents to planning applications by the Travellers on the grounds excuse that such objections are raycist if they mention (say) the risk of increased antisocial behaviour, crime, etc. This can be taken to absurd extremes:

At a public meeting where the Council put its proposals for a new Traveller site down the road on view as part of a consultation exercise, I was confronted by the Diversity and Equalities Manager and given a stern lecture merely because I had pointed out that the Council's general layout plan for the site made no provision for keeping horses. In her opinion, if you associate the Traveller community with keeping horses that is racial sterotyping. Really? Had she never heard of the Appleby Horse Fair? But that is typical of the prevalent fact-free ideology within the Council, enforced by its well-paid Kommisars.

As you are probably aware, you need to stick to PC acceptable grounds for objection that are related to Planning policy or non-Traveller issues. Good luck with that.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}