Liberal Democtar Communities Minister, Andrew Stunell, has said that councils should consider amending their planning policies to make it easier for disused farm buildings to be converted into affordable homes said .

The average house price in rural England has more than doubled over the past ten years to more than£250,000, but the average salary is still £21,000, and the number of people on social housing waiting lists in rural areas has risen to 750,000.

Mr Stunell has called on farmers to look for disused farm buildings that could be converted into new affordable homes for local people, and for councils to look favourably on their planning applications.

This would fulfil a Coalition Agreement commitment to make the building of Homes on the Farm easier, by encouraging the redevelopment of disused agricultural buildings as new and affordable housing.

Mr Stunnell said:

“Farmers are the custodians of our countryside, managing thousands of acres of rural land across England, but when they want to make disused buildings available for new homes, they can often face an uphill battle to get planning permission in the face of their council’s development plans.

“As more young people are unable to afford to live in rural areas and village schools, shops and pubs struggle to survive, farmers are ideally placed to help bring the community together to help reverse this trend.

“That’s why I want to make it easier for farmers to offer Homes on the Farm for local people. One small step for councils will offer a significant opportunity for communities to get the new and affordable homes their villages need. I want farmers to take their place at the forefront of this rural revolution alongside their local councils, to make farm buildings available, and to work with their local communities to shape the sustainable development of their countryside so it can remain a vibrant place to live for generations to come.”

National Farmers Union planning adviser Ivan Moss said:

“The Home on the Farm scheme is an excellent opportunity for farmers who want to use their outbuildings for a constructive purpose. It should also sustain the rural economy by providing homes for those working in it.

“The NFU will watch with interest the outcomes of the first applications from farmers to their local councils to convert disused buildings into affordable homes and hope that councils will be equally eager to be pioneers in the scheme.”

A survey of local residents has been carried out at the request of Ward Councillors Peter Bailey and Les Bonner to find the attitude of residents of the Laceby Acres Estate who are affected by the Open Plan Order.  An unprecedented 30% (202 replies from 672) of residents responded to the survey, and of these 138 would like to see the order removed and 64 were against.

The Planning Committee resolved to accept the recommendations of the planning department that the Order be retained with the following comments:

• Planning applications for boundary treatments in the area covered by the Open Plan Order will be free of charge.
• All residents are to be informed of the new policy for planning applications in the area.
• There will in future be a more sympathetic treatment of applications for boundary treatments.
• New material considerations to be taken into account in considering future applications will include the fear of crime, and road safety.
• Walls or fences that have been in place for more than four years are immune from enforcement action.

Cllr Les Bonner said:

“Cllr Bailey and I would like to thank the residents of Laceby Acres for co-operating in this survey in such great numbers, and the Planning Department for their help and support. It gives me great satisfaction to see local residents taking such an active part in determining the future of their neighbourhoods, as cooperation between the residents and the Council can only be of benefit to the area.

Although the Open Plan Order remains in place we have secured a significant change in policy which will mean that future applications for walls and fences in this area will be treated in a more sensible and sympathetic way than in the past.  If any resident needs any help or advice they can contact a planning officer through the Council call centre on 01472 313131, myself at les.bonner@nelincs.gov.uk, or Councillor Bailey at peter.bailey@nelincs.gov.uk “

“We need a fair planning system that is responsive to people’s needs,” said the Liberal Democrat Shadow Energy and Climate Change Secretary, Simon Hughes.

Commenting as the Government’s new Infrastructure Planning Commission [IPC] starts to accept applications from developers, Simon Hughes said:

“The Government’s planning stitch-up means big energy projects like dirty coal and new nuclear loom dangerously large.

“Local people with reasonable objections will find that the chips are stacked against them.

“Britain faces being locked in to a reckless and expensive energy mix which would be a colossal mistake.

“We need a fair planning system that is responsive to people’s needs and geared to the rapid development of renewable power.”

 This article was written by Vince Cable and appeared in today’s Mail on Sunday

Our homes are our castles. Or perhaps not, after Surrey farmer Robert Fidler was ordered last week to demolish his four-bedroom ‘castle’ built secretly (behind straw bales) without planning permission.

This case illustrates the different ways we look at planners.

To some, they are bullies who spend taxpayers’ money stopping people doing what they want. To others, they provide valuable protection against greedy developers, inconsiderate neighbours, ugly buildings and loss of open space. The truth is somewhere in the middle.

People feel equally passionate when their own application is turned down.

Or it could be a developer, who wants to put up a block of houses creating traffic and parking problems and reducing green space. The developer will claim the project provides badly needed homes. If those are for the homeless, the mentally ill or ex-prisoners the emotional temperature rises on both sides.

Most difficult of all are big developments – a new town or estate, a motorway, a power station or an airport expansion. Quality of life is set against wider economic interests.

These questions arouse deep feelings. While there is little we can do as individuals to save the planet, we can exercise some control over our local environment. That is why public meetings on big issues – even the Iraq War – attract dozens while proposals to allow housing on playing fields or a police custody suite in a residential area pack in hundreds.

Development also touches on our deep attachment to home ownership. When people have mortgaged to the hilt to buy a home and poured their energies into DIY, they will fight to the last ditch against planning blight.

Most of us are deeply ambivalent about development. We want to do our own thing with our own homes; but we live very close together in a society with rules and want to see people who cynically break them – like Mr Fidler – put in their place.

We value our freedom to drive and park; it is other people who create parking problems and congestion. We value our own property improvements; it is other people who ‘overdevelop’.

We want new jobs; but not a factory down the road or a windmill or aircraft noise keeping us awake. We poke fun at NIMBY – Not In My Back Yard – syndrome, but we are all NIMBYs. Planning is about striking a balance between expansion and conservation. There will never be a ‘right’ answer.

Many people are left with a lingering sense of injustice and a grudge against the council. Sometimes they suspect officials and councillors of being corrupt – though corruption is worse in national than local politics. Sometimes party politics muddies the waters too.

One difficult issue is retrospective approval for those who built without permission. Sometimes neighbours are anxious to see ‘punishment’ for an ‘illegal’ building and are frustrated that the system allows retrospective application. Mr Fidler has discovered, the hard way, that deliberately breaking the rules has painful consequences.

But I have sympathy for some of my constituents fighting off a similar fate: houseboat owners who built multi-storey boats having been initially told that the rules allowed it; the family who built a porch only a few inches too wide; a woman told to remove her new roof because the tiles were the wrong shade of red. Genuine mistakes should be treated sympathetically.

The appeals system is also unfair.

A developer can appeal against a rejection of planning permission leading to a review by a government inspector. But if an objector loses there is no right of appeal. So there is a bias towards developers.

Big supermarkets routinely apply, are turned down, appeal, lose, reapply, are turned down at appeal and appeal again until they get their way. That is harassment and bullying. But the small shopkeepers affected by superstores cannot appeal once a decision has gone the wrong way.

And in future big projects will be fast-tracked through a quango to bypass the objectors.

The Government has created an unaccountable monster. If a big corporation with Government backing decides your area is right for an incinerator, an airport or a nuclear power station, you will be powerless.

The system is fiercely protective of conservation areas, national parks and anywhere hosting badgers, bats, snakes or newts (or which attracts the attention of Prince Charles).

The Green Belt is still largely respected. But for millions of people in pleasant but unpretentious towns there are fewer safeguards. ‘Garden grabbing’ by developers is a particular worry.

Planning can be tiresome, bureaucratic and sometimes painful – as for Mr Fidler with his 21st Century castle. But without it our quality of life would be far worse.

Liberal Democrat Shadow Chancellor, Vince Cable

May I thank the residents of Laceby Acres who turned out on Wednesday evening to discuss with Planning Officers and Lib-Dem Ward Councillors the future developments on their estate.

Over thirty people attended to put their views over the possible reinstatement of development rights so that small walls and fences could be erected without the need for planning permission.

Their feelings, together with those from the many who have returned the Council’s Questionnaire, will be communicated to the Planning Commitee shortly.

As an exercise in public consultation it has been a success and we are pleased that so many people wished to be involved in this way.

Community pride and concern is alive and well among the residents of Laceby Acres.We are proud to serve them.

Yours sincerely,

Peter Bailey and Les Bonner

Yarborough Ward Councillors

The Liberal Democrat Ward Councillors for the Yarborough Ward are holding a special surgery at Laceby Acres school at  6.30 on 20th January.

 Your Ward Councillors have been concerned that Laceby Acres residents have been receiving inconsistent decisions on planning applications for boundary walls and fences, and we have requested a consultation be undertaken with a view to having the order lifted.

You should have already have received a consultation Questionnaire from the Planning Department, and it will help us greatly if you could send in the questionnaire as soon as possible giving your views on the open plan order.

In case you have any questions about the planning order, or any other planning matter, we have arranged for one of the planning officers to attend, and your Ward Councillors will also be in attendance if you have any other queries about council services.

“We cannot have a rigorous immigration system if we do not count people out as well as in,” said Chris Huhne, the Liberal Democrat Shadow Home Secretary.

Commenting on the Office of National Statistics’ projection that the population could rise to 70m by 2029, Chris Huhne said:

“Population forecasts in 30 years are particularly uncertain when we don’t know how many people live here now after Labour and the Tories abandoned exit checks, which are the way of ensuring short-term visa holders do not overstay.

“We cannot have a rigorous immigration system if we do not count people out as well as in.

“Some parts of the country, like Scotland, need and want more population while others, like the South East, are at the limit of environmental sustainability. That is why the Liberal Democrats propose a regional points-based system to ensure that legal migrants fit our needs.”

This morning I attended a meeting of the Planning Committee where a report from the planning officers on the future of the open plan order which is in force on the Laceby Acres Estate was discussed, following my request at a previous meeting.

I moved two motions, both of which were passed:

• That the residents of the affected parts of the Laceby Acres Estate be consulted to find out whether they are in favour of having the open plan order for the estate lifted.
• That any enforcement action against unauthorised boundary walls and fences be postponed until the future of the open plan agreement has been decided.

If there is any resident of Laceby Acres who would like any information on this subject please give me a ring on 310855

You may have read in the Telegraph recently about the resident of Nelson Way who is fighting to gain planning permission for a small wall at the front of his house.  The latest article is at http://tinyurl.com/lm8csx 

The problem has been caused by the imposition of an open plan order on a large part of the estate when it was built in the 1970′s.

An open plan estate may have been a good idea in the 70′s, but times have changed, and peoples’ behaviour has changed as well.  I have spoken to numerous residents over the last few weeks, and they have all agreed with me that it is time that things changed.  After winning an appeal last week, there are now five houses in Nelson Way that have been granted planning permission.

I have started to press for the open plan order to be lifted, but I need to know the opinion of as many residents as possible before I proceed.  Please let me know what you think by contacting me at les.bonner@nelincs.gov.uk

I have successfully represented two residents in appeals against decisions made by the Planning Committee, and I am prepared to assist any other residents in a similar position to the best of my ability, so if there are any residents who would like me to do the same for them please let me know.  I can be contacted through les.bonner@nelincs.gov.uk

According to the Mail online Lord Mandy is once again under the political spotlight; it is claimed that he is at the centre of a ‘favours for friends’ row over the controversial proposals to expand Heathrow.

Details emerged of the extraordinary access the Business Secretary’s close acquaintance Roland Rudd - who represents airport operator BAA - had to the top tiers of Government.

Mr Rudd, the City’s most powerful PR, or his company Finsbury Ltd met with ministers at least five times in ten days in the run-up to Labour’s unpopular decision to go ahead with plans for a third runway, and once a few months earlier.

It provoked angry allegations that Lord Mandelson used his political influence to help his friend persuade ministers to push through the £9billion project.

Mr Rudd, who is rumoured to be worth £50million, has had a long friendship with Lord Mandelson, who is godfather to his son.

Mandelson as campaigned strongly in favour of the expansion of Heathrow, and at one Cabinet meeting, he ‘banged his head’ on a table in frustration at anti-runway ministers.

The Daily Mail have revealed the extraordinary access Mr Rudd and his firm, which lists BAA as one of its biggest corporate clients, was given to people at the levers of power.

Mr Rudd was also involved in last summer’s ‘Yachtgate’ affair involving Lord Mandelson.

The Trade Secretary was in Corfu, staying on the yacht of Russian billionaire Oleg Deripaska – who is a client of Finsbury through Basic Elements, the holding group for his investments.

Another guest was Shadow Chancellor George Osborne, who was later suspected of leaking unfavourable remarks made by Lord Mandelson about the Prime Minister.

That upset a third guest, millionaire business heir Nat Rothschild – who is also represented by Mr Rudd and who, on the advice of Mr Rudd, launched a damaging media offensive against Mr Osborne.

  The intriguing details of the ministerial access granted to Mr Rudd were uncovered by Liberal Democrat Shadow Transport Secretary, Norman Baker from Parliamentary questions.

Norman Bakersaid: “These revelations provide, at the very least, evidence that Peter Mandelson has been doing favours for friends. Again, his position as a Cabinet minister is compromised by his shadowy personal contacts.

“It is astonishing that Roland Rudd, who has enjoyed lavish hospitality with Oleg Deripaska at the same time as Peter Mandelson, was granted so many meetings with ministers over such a short period of time
“We know Mr Rudd’s firm represents BAA, so now we need to know how he came to be granted such favourable access at the time Lord Mandelson was lobbying so hard in the Cabinet for the third runway.

“It is not surprising that people jump to the conclusion that there is an old pals act going on here to try to influence Government policy. We need an investigation to be carried out to see if there have been breaches of the ministerial code. It is in the public interest.”