Musings from the Merse
Thursday, March 29, 2007
Planning Berwickshire style: Planning Pain
It sometimes seems to Huttonian that the Planning system is aimed to help the big battalions and punish the poor old foot soldier. Here we have a farmer, thinking about his retirement and would like to build himself a house for this purpose on his own land, presumably against the time he sells or otherwise disposes of his farm as a going concern; the new owner will certainly like a farm house on his new property.Simple matter you would think to get planning permission. After all this is not a major development project involving new roads and lots of new buildings concreting over the countryside. Just a retirement home.
The bloke in question, according to the SBC planning site has just received the following letter-extract as follows
The Planning Department has recently received consultation responses on the above application. The Director of Technical Services (Roads) has expressed concern relating to the visibility of vehicles turning into the plot. I enclosed a copy of his reply for your information.
The Planning Department has been instructed recently that it is to seek developer contributions in relation to education provision in Berwickshire. I have consulted the Councils Director of Education and Lifelong Learning and he has informed me that in this instance the contribution required would be:
- 1 x £3,940 for Berwickshire High School: £3,940
The process can again be formally concluded through a Section 69 or Section 75 Agreement organised by the Councils Legal Services Department.
What on earth does this mean. What is the connection, if any between the visibility of vehicles and the support of education in Berwickshire to the tune of £3,940. And is not the link between a farmer wanting to retire on his own land and a contribution towards a school somewhat tenuous. Answer: no connection. This is Planning Gain in the jargon and it seems somewhat unfair on Johnny Borderer.If yoou find it hard to ectract hard cash from hard nosed developers, turn ordinary guys into deverlopers and rip them off. Much easier.
Huttonian's advice is to go for broke (the metaphor is hardly apt as you will see). Seek planning permission to build a whacking great road across your farm at your expense (Thats Planning Gain for you-is it not Farmer N of Fishwick?)The SBC Technical Services (roads) people will be most appreciative. In so doing avoid the dangerous turn into your proposed new site via this bypass (thankyou again say Technical Services() and get rid of a lot of traffic in the interests of public safety. Oh Whoops you have cut into a nice lot of agricultural land!. What a shame!. No good for crops anymore-seek outline planning permission for say 6 country mansions for this infill site. Sell them to well heeled stockbrokers from Embra; pay for your road and bank the profits off shore; perhaps in Lindesfarne?
And enjoy your retirement
It sometimes seems to Huttonian that the Planning system is aimed to help the big battalions and punish the poor old foot soldier. Here we have a farmer, thinking about his retirement and would like to build himself a house for this purpose on his own land, presumably against the time he sells or otherwise disposes of his farm as a going concern; the new owner will certainly like a farm house on his new property.Simple matter you would think to get planning permission. After all this is not a major development project involving new roads and lots of new buildings concreting over the countryside. Just a retirement home.
The bloke in question, according to the SBC planning site has just received the following letter-extract as follows
The Planning Department has recently received consultation responses on the above application. The Director of Technical Services (Roads) has expressed concern relating to the visibility of vehicles turning into the plot. I enclosed a copy of his reply for your information.
The Planning Department has been instructed recently that it is to seek developer contributions in relation to education provision in Berwickshire. I have consulted the Councils Director of Education and Lifelong Learning and he has informed me that in this instance the contribution required would be:
- 1 x £3,940 for Berwickshire High School: £3,940
The process can again be formally concluded through a Section 69 or Section 75 Agreement organised by the Councils Legal Services Department.
What on earth does this mean. What is the connection, if any between the visibility of vehicles and the support of education in Berwickshire to the tune of £3,940. And is not the link between a farmer wanting to retire on his own land and a contribution towards a school somewhat tenuous. Answer: no connection. This is Planning Gain in the jargon and it seems somewhat unfair on Johnny Borderer.If yoou find it hard to ectract hard cash from hard nosed developers, turn ordinary guys into deverlopers and rip them off. Much easier.
Huttonian's advice is to go for broke (the metaphor is hardly apt as you will see). Seek planning permission to build a whacking great road across your farm at your expense (Thats Planning Gain for you-is it not Farmer N of Fishwick?)The SBC Technical Services (roads) people will be most appreciative. In so doing avoid the dangerous turn into your proposed new site via this bypass (thankyou again say Technical Services() and get rid of a lot of traffic in the interests of public safety. Oh Whoops you have cut into a nice lot of agricultural land!. What a shame!. No good for crops anymore-seek outline planning permission for say 6 country mansions for this infill site. Sell them to well heeled stockbrokers from Embra; pay for your road and bank the profits off shore; perhaps in Lindesfarne?
And enjoy your retirement
Comments:
Yes Maybe, but tell me why retiring farmers should be treated any differently to other citizens wanting to build on their land. The special dispensation for farmers is archaic and indefensible.
# posted by 
: 8:00 PM
: 8:00 PM
No special dispensation needed. Just common sense and natural justice. Anyone who wants to build a single property for their own use, and is within the planning guidelines, should not be a penalised as a 'developer' who is out to make money. Why should he ber forcerd to contribute to a school which he will never use?
Businesses are going to be hit with a 'payment for planning fee' to support the reintroduction of the Waverley Line as far I can see.
Where will this all end up?
Post a Comment
Where will this all end up?
