Musings from the Merse
Sunday, August 23, 2009
Happen Nothing at t'mill
Nothing very much seems to be happening over the long posted application for a new house at Hutton Mill. It may be the dead hand of the summer hols as senior planning officials take tbeir long breaks in Iceland (to be near the pile of missing taxpayers cash in the Icelandic Banks)or it may be that the applicant has not got the message-better withdraw the paperwork and avoid an embarrassing rejection. One more objection has been received see here.
Go on Albert do the decent thing. I know its a bore to have to commute nearly 21/2 miles to see your pheasant chicks but you really don't need an extra house for an extra bloke to micro manage the enterprise in duplicate.
A pity about your grandson perhaps but commuting from Aberdeen to the banks of the Whiteadder is an even longer trek than the hard slog to Paxton
Nothing very much seems to be happening over the long posted application for a new house at Hutton Mill. It may be the dead hand of the summer hols as senior planning officials take tbeir long breaks in Iceland (to be near the pile of missing taxpayers cash in the Icelandic Banks)or it may be that the applicant has not got the message-better withdraw the paperwork and avoid an embarrassing rejection. One more objection has been received see here.
Go on Albert do the decent thing. I know its a bore to have to commute nearly 21/2 miles to see your pheasant chicks but you really don't need an extra house for an extra bloke to micro manage the enterprise in duplicate.
A pity about your grandson perhaps but commuting from Aberdeen to the banks of the Whiteadder is an even longer trek than the hard slog to Paxton
Labels: Albert R, Commuting from Paxton, Hutton Castle Mill, Inappropriate Development
Thursday, July 23, 2009
HUTTON CASTLE MILL :SCRAPE OUT THE BARREL
I think Mr Albert R must be getting a bit rattled at the reaction to his application to build a second home for his manager/gillie/clerk of works/stalker/refuse collector next to his first house at Hutton Castle Mill as he has burst into print again-see
here This time it appears that Mr Gillie is to remain where he is and to be bumped by Mr R's grandson studying Environmental and Countryside Management at Aberdeen who now needs a permanent home on the banks of the Whiteadder so as he can study the countryside at close quarters and keep a watchful eye on the Peregrine falcons via a web camera broadcasting to the known world. In addition he has to be in site 24/7 (apart of course from attending his studies up North)to manage the lade course (water channel leading up to the old mill wheel which was supposed to be restored under a previous planning application but hasn't)now to be converted into a 'water based wild life sanctuary' and also the management of ten badger sets who are apparently quite incapable of looking after themselves. On top of this daunting work load someone has to empty the wheelie bins and take other recyclables into Berwick; not to mention find time for a drink at the Cross. Although it is not clear whether it is the 20 year old grand son or the gillie already on site who has to do this.
In support of his application the tireless Mr R has produced an ancient image of the old Hutton Castle Mill complex to demonstrate that the new buildings are to be on the site of an existing building block; admittedly one which was mostly destroyed by the big flood of 1948 and the badly damaged buildings (apart from the mill) subsequently bulldozed into the Whiteadder. The fact that it has been a countryside agricultural area ever since is rather glossed over. And the thought that perhaps, only perhaps, there might be another flood (it is a flood plain after all) seems not to have occurred.
If this unrecycled garbage (npi) gets through the Planners I am a Dutchman.
But with bitter experience of the inanities of the Berwickshire Area Committee
I am learning Dutch
I think Mr Albert R must be getting a bit rattled at the reaction to his application to build a second home for his manager/gillie/clerk of works/stalker/refuse collector next to his first house at Hutton Castle Mill as he has burst into print again-see
here This time it appears that Mr Gillie is to remain where he is and to be bumped by Mr R's grandson studying Environmental and Countryside Management at Aberdeen who now needs a permanent home on the banks of the Whiteadder so as he can study the countryside at close quarters and keep a watchful eye on the Peregrine falcons via a web camera broadcasting to the known world. In addition he has to be in site 24/7 (apart of course from attending his studies up North)to manage the lade course (water channel leading up to the old mill wheel which was supposed to be restored under a previous planning application but hasn't)now to be converted into a 'water based wild life sanctuary' and also the management of ten badger sets who are apparently quite incapable of looking after themselves. On top of this daunting work load someone has to empty the wheelie bins and take other recyclables into Berwick; not to mention find time for a drink at the Cross. Although it is not clear whether it is the 20 year old grand son or the gillie already on site who has to do this.
In support of his application the tireless Mr R has produced an ancient image of the old Hutton Castle Mill complex to demonstrate that the new buildings are to be on the site of an existing building block; admittedly one which was mostly destroyed by the big flood of 1948 and the badly damaged buildings (apart from the mill) subsequently bulldozed into the Whiteadder. The fact that it has been a countryside agricultural area ever since is rather glossed over. And the thought that perhaps, only perhaps, there might be another flood (it is a flood plain after all) seems not to have occurred.
If this unrecycled garbage (npi) gets through the Planners I am a Dutchman.
But with bitter experience of the inanities of the Berwickshire Area Committee
I am learning Dutch
Labels: Hutton Castle Mill, Inappropriate Development, Mr R
Sunday, July 12, 2009
Trouble near t'Mill, Revisited
Its good to see from the Scottish Borders Council Planning website here
that the Hutton and Paxton Community Council have come out against the thoroughly unnecessary application for a second house next to Hutton Castle Mill
One hopes that Mr R will do the decent thing and withdraw the application as a 'Fair Cop Mate...bit of a try on actually Give it another year and have a go' sort of thing.
And which way will big Dim Jim jump
Watch this space
Its good to see from the Scottish Borders Council Planning website here
that the Hutton and Paxton Community Council have come out against the thoroughly unnecessary application for a second house next to Hutton Castle Mill
One hopes that Mr R will do the decent thing and withdraw the application as a 'Fair Cop Mate...bit of a try on actually Give it another year and have a go' sort of thing.
And which way will big Dim Jim jump
Watch this space
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Hutton Mill Grinds Slowly
Yes, it's Deja Vu all over again, again. Is Huttonian stupid or does the applicant for a new house at Hutton Mill think we have pathetic memories? Look at(Click on look at) And its not so long ago as the glance at my post of Monday, March 31, 2008 will show you-see here
Or are we missing something? And certainly what is missing from the map and from the application is any indication of the existing house originally built for the game keeper a few years back and for the same purpose as the bungalow now proposed. Weirder still -this seems to be a repeat of an application made just over a year ago and was subsequently withdrawn after a site visit by a planning officer who did not seem convinced that the manager/game keeper living in his bijou dwelling with a wonderful view of both the Whiteadder and the vulnerable Pheasants really needed a second official residence.
Another dead give away that all is not Kosher is revealed by the 'Neighbour Notification' section on the form. Three neighbouring farmers are duly notified but not the tenant of the existing managers house who lives about 100 yards from the site of the proposed new bungalow. Oh its not on the map so it can't exist; no notification necessary? Right.
Someone needs to find an up to date map with the existing house marked on it as well as the converted mill (now a self catering establishment) so as future bids for further concreting over an area of Special Scientific Interest are at least less economical with the actualitie. (as some one memorably said)
One hopes that the ever alert Hutton and Paxton Community Council will once again do its stuff
Stop Press-I now have seen a justification for a second keeper/manager/ resident fixer/greeter in support of the application here
Apparently the current guy is working more than seven days a week, 25 hours a day and needs reinforcement. Two full time managers for this business and on the spot as well? Its a pity that the original application omitted to make any such point and was basically a cut and paste job from the 2008 failed application. We remain unconvinced
Yes, it's Deja Vu all over again, again. Is Huttonian stupid or does the applicant for a new house at Hutton Mill think we have pathetic memories? Look at(Click on look at) And its not so long ago as the glance at my post of Monday, March 31, 2008 will show you-see here
Or are we missing something? And certainly what is missing from the map and from the application is any indication of the existing house originally built for the game keeper a few years back and for the same purpose as the bungalow now proposed. Weirder still -this seems to be a repeat of an application made just over a year ago and was subsequently withdrawn after a site visit by a planning officer who did not seem convinced that the manager/game keeper living in his bijou dwelling with a wonderful view of both the Whiteadder and the vulnerable Pheasants really needed a second official residence.
Another dead give away that all is not Kosher is revealed by the 'Neighbour Notification' section on the form. Three neighbouring farmers are duly notified but not the tenant of the existing managers house who lives about 100 yards from the site of the proposed new bungalow. Oh its not on the map so it can't exist; no notification necessary? Right.
Someone needs to find an up to date map with the existing house marked on it as well as the converted mill (now a self catering establishment) so as future bids for further concreting over an area of Special Scientific Interest are at least less economical with the actualitie. (as some one memorably said)
One hopes that the ever alert Hutton and Paxton Community Council will once again do its stuff
Stop Press-I now have seen a justification for a second keeper/manager/ resident fixer/greeter in support of the application here
Apparently the current guy is working more than seven days a week, 25 hours a day and needs reinforcement. Two full time managers for this business and on the spot as well? Its a pity that the original application omitted to make any such point and was basically a cut and paste job from the 2008 failed application. We remain unconvinced
Labels: Economy with the truth, Hutton Mill, Inappropriate Development
Friday, June 05, 2009
Bring in the Lumberjack; its ok
Back in the Borders-just in time to catch the latest Berwickshire News and to see that some things don't change including the Laird's attempts to add to his housing stock in greater Paxton. Having had his application for two bijou dwellings turned down on several occasions and even on appeal to the Scottish Executive he has managed to have the case reopened as reported here
It seems that one of the previous objections to the houses was that it would mean that some trees would have been cut down to allow them to be built. Or in Planning Speak :building on the land would result in "the loss of a woodland resource."
Quick Action by the Laird:
"To counteract this the nearby spruce trees were cut down in January".
Objection : Don't cut down trees to build houses
Trees cut down: Objection overruled
Odd that;
or am I missing something
Back in the Borders-just in time to catch the latest Berwickshire News and to see that some things don't change including the Laird's attempts to add to his housing stock in greater Paxton. Having had his application for two bijou dwellings turned down on several occasions and even on appeal to the Scottish Executive he has managed to have the case reopened as reported here
It seems that one of the previous objections to the houses was that it would mean that some trees would have been cut down to allow them to be built. Or in Planning Speak :building on the land would result in "the loss of a woodland resource."
Quick Action by the Laird:
"To counteract this the nearby spruce trees were cut down in January".
Objection : Don't cut down trees to build houses
Trees cut down: Objection overruled
Odd that;
or am I missing something
Labels: Border Planning, Inappropriate Development, Paxton, the Laird
Friday, April 17, 2009
Greenlaw farmer praised for housing plans
(by Fellow Farmer Shock)
Cognoscenti of Borders Planning shenanigans will find this story here drearily familiar. Farmer looking to diversify (tr. Make money out of housing) Produces scheme. Opposed by local community as represented by the Community Council usually for very good planning reasons including in this case a clear breach of how many new buildings can be built near an existing building group. Oh its just the Nimbies says the Tribune of the People-aka Local Borders Councillor. Endangering bats? Birds? That's strictly for the Birds And Bats. Bats! In a word ;BATTY. Berwickshire Civic Society objecting? Lot of Middle Class reactionaries Keeping booming Berwickshire in a Guardian reading time warp.. Imaginative scheme. Pushes it through the hoops.
But this little latest triumph for the farmers/developers has another familiar element. Indeed a common -no slur intended-denominator: Yes you spotted it!
Big Jim F.
One just has to admire his consistency/persistency. When ever a farmer proposes any kind of development, regardless of merit (as it often is- apart from ladling in the readies) it seems to the keen observer Jim will try to fix it. And in this case building apparently for rent is singing from BJ's favourite hymn sheet. By coincidence his Coldingham farm stead has housing for rent and a few more buildings dotted around the rape,in accordance with planning precedent elsewhere in Berwickshire might not come amiss.
Am I being a bit cynical?
Am I Donald?*
* Borders rhyming scan-blog ed
(by Fellow Farmer Shock)
Cognoscenti of Borders Planning shenanigans will find this story here drearily familiar. Farmer looking to diversify (tr. Make money out of housing) Produces scheme. Opposed by local community as represented by the Community Council usually for very good planning reasons including in this case a clear breach of how many new buildings can be built near an existing building group. Oh its just the Nimbies says the Tribune of the People-aka Local Borders Councillor. Endangering bats? Birds? That's strictly for the Birds And Bats. Bats! In a word ;BATTY. Berwickshire Civic Society objecting? Lot of Middle Class reactionaries Keeping booming Berwickshire in a Guardian reading time warp.. Imaginative scheme. Pushes it through the hoops.
But this little latest triumph for the farmers/developers has another familiar element. Indeed a common -no slur intended-denominator: Yes you spotted it!
Big Jim F.
One just has to admire his consistency/persistency. When ever a farmer proposes any kind of development, regardless of merit (as it often is- apart from ladling in the readies) it seems to the keen observer Jim will try to fix it. And in this case building apparently for rent is singing from BJ's favourite hymn sheet. By coincidence his Coldingham farm stead has housing for rent and a few more buildings dotted around the rape,in accordance with planning precedent elsewhere in Berwickshire might not come amiss.
Am I being a bit cynical?
Am I Donald?*
* Borders rhyming scan-blog ed
Labels: Big Jim Fullarton, Borders Planning, Inappropriate Development
Saturday, February 14, 2009
Good Laird!
Well the Laird will not just give up if the Berwickshire News is to be believed This not a new application in that it is on more or less the same site and appears to be the previous one tweaked a bit to take account of the objections made to application number one, which failed, and also the further objections made by the adjudicator when the appeal was turned down.Its a nice touch to want to build on a 'former stackyard' -makes it sound all industrial regeneration-much better than constructing in a woody area-not that is any longer an inhibition as the offending wood has been bulldozed away-inferior Norwegian Spruce, apparently, uprooted in early January to provide a wonderful opportunity for getting Christmas Tree bargains with only 345 shopping days to go.
The correspondence including a massive letter of support from one of the Laird's men and a trenchant critique from a neighbour can be viewed here In brief the supporting documents claim that the Laird's new project will enhance the neighbourhood to a Zanadu like degree whilst the objector strongly disagrees, pointing out, inter alia,that extending an 'existing building group' in the way desired by the Laird could be the start of ribbon development along the upper Hutton Road.
And when that happens,with the huge traffic growth inevitably involved, thus potentially creating a very dangerous corner, who might then suggest a bypass-a la Fishwick? (and on whose land?)
Who indeed?
Well the Laird will not just give up if the Berwickshire News is to be believed This not a new application in that it is on more or less the same site and appears to be the previous one tweaked a bit to take account of the objections made to application number one, which failed, and also the further objections made by the adjudicator when the appeal was turned down.Its a nice touch to want to build on a 'former stackyard' -makes it sound all industrial regeneration-much better than constructing in a woody area-not that is any longer an inhibition as the offending wood has been bulldozed away-inferior Norwegian Spruce, apparently, uprooted in early January to provide a wonderful opportunity for getting Christmas Tree bargains with only 345 shopping days to go.
The correspondence including a massive letter of support from one of the Laird's men and a trenchant critique from a neighbour can be viewed here In brief the supporting documents claim that the Laird's new project will enhance the neighbourhood to a Zanadu like degree whilst the objector strongly disagrees, pointing out, inter alia,that extending an 'existing building group' in the way desired by the Laird could be the start of ribbon development along the upper Hutton Road.
And when that happens,with the huge traffic growth inevitably involved, thus potentially creating a very dangerous corner, who might then suggest a bypass-a la Fishwick? (and on whose land?)
Who indeed?
Labels: Inappropriate Development, Laird, Paxton Bypass
Sunday, February 01, 2009
Best Laird Schemes. The End?
Those of you who sympathise with the Laird's attempts to create a greater Paxton (or Poxton as a bloggee has called it) will be dismayed by the ruling referred to here The appeal to reverse a decision by the Scottish Borders Planning Department (another oxymoron) against the building of two bijou residences just outside the village on the upper Hutton road has been turned down. The grounds for refusal are a classic of planning Gobbledygook to do with road alignment and existing building blocks-not a mention of scrub land nor bull dozed copses. And for once it seems that neighbours with their objections have won the day.
Could it be that there is an inbuilt prejudice amongst the Planning Highheidyins as far as the Laird's schemes are concerned. And if so
Why?
(Answers on an A 3 sheet to the Hutton Think Tank: Wild Ideas Department)
Those of you who sympathise with the Laird's attempts to create a greater Paxton (or Poxton as a bloggee has called it) will be dismayed by the ruling referred to here The appeal to reverse a decision by the Scottish Borders Planning Department (another oxymoron) against the building of two bijou residences just outside the village on the upper Hutton road has been turned down. The grounds for refusal are a classic of planning Gobbledygook to do with road alignment and existing building blocks-not a mention of scrub land nor bull dozed copses. And for once it seems that neighbours with their objections have won the day.
Could it be that there is an inbuilt prejudice amongst the Planning Highheidyins as far as the Laird's schemes are concerned. And if so
Why?
(Answers on an A 3 sheet to the Hutton Think Tank: Wild Ideas Department)
Labels: Inappropriate Development, Paxton, Poxton, the Laird
Saturday, December 13, 2008
Green Box (of tricks?)
A bloggee from Whitsome has sent in this image of a glorious winter's scene outside the village and wonders how fellow villagers will deal with the proposed development mentioned in the previous post and goes on : Not sure what can look worse than the green box attached though..
I agree it somewhat detracts from the rural view but seems to be a bog standard agricultural building-so many in the Merse which is after all mostly a farming community. And to my untutored eye the bigger eyesore is the hall(?) in front of the green whatever. But in Huttonian's view better what they have than a 'residential development' of executive houses, on good agricultural land, not affordable by the locals and ugly to boot.They escaped that in Paxton thanks to communal popular action.
This may be a case of being thankful for small mercies?
And may the credit crunch last long!? Stalled development is one obvious upside
Labels: Inappropriate Development, Whitsome
Friday, December 12, 2008
Concreting the Merse. Episode the twenty fifth
Poor old Whitsome seems to be heading for the title of the most badly developed settlement in the Merse if this writer to the Berwickshire is to be believed :
SIR, - I see that yet another inappropriate and unwanted housing development is to be foisted upon Whitsome.
The Local Plan and other policies of Scottish Borders Council appear to have been altered. We have already endured well over a year of filth and noise resulting from an earlier planning decision.
A previously glorious view south has been destroyed by unsuitable buildings which are well out of local people’s pockets.
Nobody seems interested in the heritage of small Borders hamlets or in the opinions of their inhabitants. Many people don’t bother to go through the hassle of preparing a submission against planning applications any more because they know their voices don’t matter to anyone.
At least the coming financial doldrums could call a temporary halt to the gradual dissolution of a once lovely environment. Scottish Borders Council would do well to address the real housing issues of the region.
‘DISCOURAGED’,
Whitsome
'Amen' we say and a fervent thanks that Paxton (apart, of course, from the unfortunate Kanes Close and the mud splattered Orchard)has been spared further inappropriate development with the fading of the monstrous prospect of 100 plus houses in Knowes Close. Well and truly killed by the credit crunch, one hopes. People power originally scuppered that little scheme-perhaps the people of Whitsome should follow suit; Not that seems necessary for the moment.
Poor old Whitsome seems to be heading for the title of the most badly developed settlement in the Merse if this writer to the Berwickshire is to be believed :
SIR, - I see that yet another inappropriate and unwanted housing development is to be foisted upon Whitsome.
The Local Plan and other policies of Scottish Borders Council appear to have been altered. We have already endured well over a year of filth and noise resulting from an earlier planning decision.
A previously glorious view south has been destroyed by unsuitable buildings which are well out of local people’s pockets.
Nobody seems interested in the heritage of small Borders hamlets or in the opinions of their inhabitants. Many people don’t bother to go through the hassle of preparing a submission against planning applications any more because they know their voices don’t matter to anyone.
At least the coming financial doldrums could call a temporary halt to the gradual dissolution of a once lovely environment. Scottish Borders Council would do well to address the real housing issues of the region.
‘DISCOURAGED’,
Whitsome
'Amen' we say and a fervent thanks that Paxton (apart, of course, from the unfortunate Kanes Close and the mud splattered Orchard)has been spared further inappropriate development with the fading of the monstrous prospect of 100 plus houses in Knowes Close. Well and truly killed by the credit crunch, one hopes. People power originally scuppered that little scheme-perhaps the people of Whitsome should follow suit; Not that seems necessary for the moment.
Labels: Inappropriate Development, Paxton, Whitsome
Thursday, September 11, 2008
DO IT YOURSELF PLANNING
I am sure a number of people, among them Farmer C, Organic Egg guru M, the Laird and possibly even Big Jim F would agree, for different reasons with Professor Robb's letter to this weeks Berwickshire
:SIR, - The letter claiming that “planners are at the mercy of councillors” (September 4) asks what is the point in employing professionals to form and implement policy when their recommendations are overturned by councillors.
I agree, absolutely no point at all! Indeed, as I shall show, there is no point in involving the committee either.
Officials have the task of ensuring that all applications are in compliance with the rules which they have devised and which the council has approved. Only applications that are in compliance with those rules should be sent to the Area Committee.
The committee should not be allowed to open the file of any application that has been blessed by officialdom as being in compliance with the rules. Indeed, the file could come from the officials already stamped with the committee’s approval. Think of the saving in time, effort and cost! And it would be cruel and unusual treatment of officials were any councillor to open the file and question the officials’ recommendation. After all, officials are only doing what the council agreed. Obviously, there is no need for the committee to address planning applications at all.
There are wonderful unintended consequences of the council approving these all-embracing rules. By ticking a number of boxes on the application form, applicants could self-certify compliance with each rule and get immediate and automatic approval.
The tedious business of inviting comments and objections could be eliminated. Auditors could test a random sample of applications for compliance and there would be no need for planning officials at all.
Thus, there would be no opportunities for councillors to be merciless to officials, simply because there would be no officials – problem solved!
PROF. FENTON F. ROBB
This kind of simplified planning procedures is reminiscent of the Hutton Think Tank report : Do, Dirty Dogs, and Dirt Disposal (Proceedings of Htx2, Occasional Papers, Volume CLII)on the vexed question of dog poo. They recommended that the problem could easily be solved by shooting all dogs within a three mile area centred on the Hutton Village Hall. Simplicity and direct action is surely the key to dynamic and user friendly local government, they argued
Dog owners always excepted.
And the dogs of course
(Htx2 warned that of course dogs might learn to shoot back-the image from appendix 45 of their report illustrates the danger)
Labels: Inappropriate Development, Planning
Thursday, September 04, 2008
Planning on the Hoof
A 'Name and Address Supplied' Has written to the Berwickshire as follows
SIR, - Staggering is the only word for it.
We may not always agree with what we perceive to be the decisions that the “planners” make but we must be aware that they, the “planners”, are often completely at the mercy of the councillors on the Berwickshire Area Committee.
Attending the committee last Tuesday was an eye opener - what a farce! The ignorance of planning policy, voted for by the councillors themselves, and of basic legal procedure defies belief.
What is the point in employing professionals to form policy, and then to try to implement that policy, when it is regularly overturned by councillors who are completely subjective in their judgement and make up policy on the hoof. Of the eight planning applications before the committee on Tuesday three of the decisions overturned the recommendations of the planning officers and were clearly against the published policy.
A fourth was continued, against the recommendation of the officers, while councillors hunted in vain for a policy on which to hang a refusal. No wonder Michael Cook, the convenor, was despairing.
Next time you see an isolated house in the countryside that spoils the view, or a completely inappropriate development, or hear about the “planners” blocking something that might be worthwhile, don't necessarily blame the “planners” - check out the minutes of the Berwickshire Area Committee to see who really cocked it up
.
NAME AND ADDRESS SUPPLIED
Huttonian would like to have the address supplied, brown envelope is fine, and will call around to shake the writer by his capable hand. For the moment a fervent 'Amen' will have to do.
The faffing councillors except for the exceptionally excellent Mr Cook are unnamed. I'll bet my last Scottish Pound note that big Jim Fullarton was amongst the faffiest. A combination of ignorance and loud mouthed inarticulateness is a heady mix especially when combined with a large and insensitive hoof.Of course I may be flattering him. I have not personally seen him in action since the heady days of the Hutton and Paxton Community Council so he may be worse than I remember.
If so I apologise.
Profusely
A 'Name and Address Supplied' Has written to the Berwickshire as follows
SIR, - Staggering is the only word for it.
We may not always agree with what we perceive to be the decisions that the “planners” make but we must be aware that they, the “planners”, are often completely at the mercy of the councillors on the Berwickshire Area Committee.
Attending the committee last Tuesday was an eye opener - what a farce! The ignorance of planning policy, voted for by the councillors themselves, and of basic legal procedure defies belief.
What is the point in employing professionals to form policy, and then to try to implement that policy, when it is regularly overturned by councillors who are completely subjective in their judgement and make up policy on the hoof. Of the eight planning applications before the committee on Tuesday three of the decisions overturned the recommendations of the planning officers and were clearly against the published policy.
A fourth was continued, against the recommendation of the officers, while councillors hunted in vain for a policy on which to hang a refusal. No wonder Michael Cook, the convenor, was despairing.
Next time you see an isolated house in the countryside that spoils the view, or a completely inappropriate development, or hear about the “planners” blocking something that might be worthwhile, don't necessarily blame the “planners” - check out the minutes of the Berwickshire Area Committee to see who really cocked it up
.
NAME AND ADDRESS SUPPLIED
Huttonian would like to have the address supplied, brown envelope is fine, and will call around to shake the writer by his capable hand. For the moment a fervent 'Amen' will have to do.
The faffing councillors except for the exceptionally excellent Mr Cook are unnamed. I'll bet my last Scottish Pound note that big Jim Fullarton was amongst the faffiest. A combination of ignorance and loud mouthed inarticulateness is a heady mix especially when combined with a large and insensitive hoof.Of course I may be flattering him. I have not personally seen him in action since the heady days of the Hutton and Paxton Community Council so he may be worse than I remember.
If so I apologise.
Profusely
Labels: Inappropriate Development, Planning
Sunday, August 31, 2008
Megaphone Development: The outcome
If you look here*
you will see that Huttonian has tracked down the application referred to in the post immediately below. He thought it might be turned down.
It was.
Lesson there somewhere.
(*On opening the link scroll down to 'Hutton and Paxton Community Council' in the appropriate search slot and put in 01/04/2008 as the start date and 01/08/2008
as the finishing one and Bob's your new friend)
If you look here*
you will see that Huttonian has tracked down the application referred to in the post immediately below. He thought it might be turned down.
It was.
Lesson there somewhere.
(*On opening the link scroll down to 'Hutton and Paxton Community Council' in the appropriate search slot and put in 01/04/2008 as the start date and 01/08/2008
as the finishing one and Bob's your new friend)
Friday, August 01, 2008
Holding back the Concrete Mixers
A bloggee who has been at the cutting edge of development in the countryside has sent Huttonian this extract from the Taylor Review whose sentiments I am confident he shares:
The planning process has to become an engine of regeneration or we face a future of rural decline. Over-zealous or ill-thought through restriction of development has held back rural economies and made rural homes increasingly unaffordable. The right balance of housing and employment opportunities are crucial. We need a can-do system that asks the question of each development proposal “how will this development add to or diminish the sustainability of this community” and includes social, economic and environmental factors in the answer.
‘Living working countryside’ The Taylor Review of Rural Economy and Affordable Housing
I am not sure how the building on green field sites of, say,McMansions-to pluck an example out of the ether, reverses rural decline; If they were destined for thrusting entrepreneurs investing all in the local community, creating employment and patronising local institutions then well and good. But I fear its more likely to be snapped up by either wealthy retirees or well heeled business blokes working in Embra or Newcastle who will neither 'patronise' the local pub nor get themselves involved in the community, Whist in Hutton Village Hall, I don't think so. And all this desirable, basically suburban, property at (well used to be)sky high prices makes housing for local people, in the words of Taylor ' increasingly unaffordable'
But it is all rather academic. With property prices falling and mortgages increasingly unobtainable the day of big developments-or even the odd couple of bijou villas has gone for the moment. So its back to extensions, double garages-house improvemnents rather than moves. And in some cases the term 'improvement' is bit of a misnomer. The '39 Steps' in one property in down town Hutton. Would look good in the Costa Del Developpa' But in the Merse?
Oh Dear
(These Mc Mansions, seen above, are not on the Tweed but they could be. Thank God for the timely recession)
Labels: building in the countryside, Inappropriate Development
Friday, June 27, 2008
Huttonian, as a change from Eyemouth, visited Fife's answer to that Berwickshire gem: Tayport in north Fife-and that feels very north. One thing you can say about the Scottish Borders Planning highheidyins is that, compared to their Fifer colleagues, they know their stuff. Tayport is a case in point. Formerly an attractive wee fishing village it now has a Marina stuffed into its harbour which is surrounded by the most inappropriate development imaginable. On one side MacSeaside, big, pretentious and boring. On the landward side-a row of Neo Marxist East German, 1950s. blockhouses. Their backs turned resolutely to the sea with blank walls sporting one small window each and sharing an unfenced back yard dog loo. Just boring. And no doubt expensive. The only point of interest was the plaque fixed to the end of this Gulag commemorating a visit by a a former US President.Why it was fastened to an unlovely building built 150 years after his visit is not explained
Given this great wasteland of unlovely edifices it was strangely appropriate that one of the boats which had not yet managed to find any room in the Marina was made of
concrete (see image)
If there is any place in Scotland crying out for Donald Crump this is it.
Even he could hardly ruin it any more
(You really need to click on the images to feel the real horror)
Labels: Fife, Inappropriate Development, Planning, Tayport
