Musings from the Merse
Saturday, January 31, 2009
Backwards to the Future
Huttonians do not traditionally show much sympathy or even regard for Paxtonians but one of the latter ilk is on the wrong end of one of the stupider planning decisions to issue from the lowheidyins of the planning office in Duns. Full saga can be found here
But if you want to avoid wading through faff, suffice it to know that a very junior planning officer, on her own initiative, it appears, has turned down a planned extension to an existing building on the grounds that it interferes with the privacy of a house yet to be constructed: rather like:
Yesterday upon the stair, I met a man who wasn't there. He wasn't there again today, Oh how I wish he'd go away.
You might say.
If she had bothered to look closely at the plans for the proposed extension and put them with the design of the house which is not there (and in the present climate likely to stay that way) she could have worked out that the only way that the privacy of the virtual house could be jeopardised by the not quite yet extension would be for some one in the room on top of the extension, when completed, to peer out of a window (someone should hold his legs) proposed to put in and by turning his head 78 degrees to the left and looking down at an angle of 97 degrees might just be able to see part of a corner of a room, as yet non existent, unless of course the eventually to be hung curtain was drawn. Then he could see nothing. Tough being a Peeping Tom in a future Paxton.
I suspect the appeal will find for the applicant. In which case one hopes a sharp rap on the real knuckles of the Planning Officer in question might remind her of the purpose of her office is to be helpful and constructive to Johnny Citizen and not a pain on the collective backside of the Merse community.
Dream on
Huttonians do not traditionally show much sympathy or even regard for Paxtonians but one of the latter ilk is on the wrong end of one of the stupider planning decisions to issue from the lowheidyins of the planning office in Duns. Full saga can be found here
But if you want to avoid wading through faff, suffice it to know that a very junior planning officer, on her own initiative, it appears, has turned down a planned extension to an existing building on the grounds that it interferes with the privacy of a house yet to be constructed: rather like:
Yesterday upon the stair, I met a man who wasn't there. He wasn't there again today, Oh how I wish he'd go away.
You might say.
If she had bothered to look closely at the plans for the proposed extension and put them with the design of the house which is not there (and in the present climate likely to stay that way) she could have worked out that the only way that the privacy of the virtual house could be jeopardised by the not quite yet extension would be for some one in the room on top of the extension, when completed, to peer out of a window (someone should hold his legs) proposed to put in and by turning his head 78 degrees to the left and looking down at an angle of 97 degrees might just be able to see part of a corner of a room, as yet non existent, unless of course the eventually to be hung curtain was drawn. Then he could see nothing. Tough being a Peeping Tom in a future Paxton.
I suspect the appeal will find for the applicant. In which case one hopes a sharp rap on the real knuckles of the Planning Officer in question might remind her of the purpose of her office is to be helpful and constructive to Johnny Citizen and not a pain on the collective backside of the Merse community.
Dream on
Labels: lowheidyins, Paxton, Planning, Scottish Borders Council
Monday, January 26, 2009
Best Laird Plans?
Huttonian is told that the Laird is showing remarkable persistence in the face of non cooperation by the planning highheidyins with a regard to his plot (npi) on the upper Hutton road. You will recall from scrolling down here (june 28th 08) that his application to build two bijou residences on 'scrub land' was rejected as for 'scrub land' read ''small wood' throughout. But after a visit by two burly blokes and a Bull Dozer 'scrub land with stumps' is a fair and accurate description. So we can anticipate another proposal before many moons.
Nothing like creating facts on the ground.
As any Israeli illegal settler in Palestine will tell you
Huttonian is told that the Laird is showing remarkable persistence in the face of non cooperation by the planning highheidyins with a regard to his plot (npi) on the upper Hutton road. You will recall from scrolling down here (june 28th 08) that his application to build two bijou residences on 'scrub land' was rejected as for 'scrub land' read ''small wood' throughout. But after a visit by two burly blokes and a Bull Dozer 'scrub land with stumps' is a fair and accurate description. So we can anticipate another proposal before many moons.
Nothing like creating facts on the ground.
As any Israeli illegal settler in Palestine will tell you
Labels: facts on the ground, Laird, Planning
Friday, December 19, 2008
Chicken Hearted?
Farmer M Junior is not having much luck with his planning applications. First the affair of the four new houses and the access road which got up the noses of his neighbours-and now the mobile poultry unit which might literally have done just that judging from the letter from SEPA as posted on the Scottish Borders Council Planning Application website:
Erection of mobile poultry unit and extension of access road
Land North East Of Hutton Hall Barns Hutton Scottish Borders
As with the previous expansion undertaken in 2007, Environmental Health is unable to support this application as it is in conflict with Section 13.14 of the Code of Practice ‘Prevention of Environmental Pollution from Agricultural Activity (2005)’, due to the proximity of existing dwellings. The risk from nuisance is significantly increased due to the proposed enlargement of the business and although the current operation has not been subject to formal complaint an increase in odour has been detected by some of the occupants of neighbouring housing*. Should the proposal be accepted great care will have to taken to ensure odour and other potential nuisances from flies, feathers and dust do not increase to unacceptable levels.
This application is now withdrawn pending the provision of new information in its favour.
So the recent applications (over the last two years from this gentleman run:
Applications: Three.. Withdrawn: Two Refused: One)
I suggest advice from Farmer C on how to get proposals through the highheidyins in Newtown St Boswells might not come amiss and a glance at McDale Carnegie's famous tome : How to win Friends and not Piss off Neighbours (Chatshow and Windbag , Kelso 1972) would help
All this is a great personal disappointment to Huttonian. Farmer M's organic eggs sold to the public at the entrance to his drive are the best in Berwickshire (if not in the Borders and the known world) and reasonably priced at that.
(* Again the dog did not bark? If no formal complaint was made how does SEPA know that 'an increase in odour has been detected by some of the occupants of neighbouring houses? 'Look I am not complaining but.......?')
The image is of Chicken Licken and a friend going off to tell the King that the planning application has fallen in.
Labels: Hutton Castle Barns, Mobile Poultry, Planning
Friday, November 21, 2008
Borders Confidential
The 'Public Access' website detailing Scottish Borders Council Planning Applications carries this caveat:
NOTE: For reasons of confidentiality, Scottish Borders Council may choose not to display certain Planning Applications.
One wonders, does one not, what applications are to be shielded from public scrutiny in the Borders? WMD Installations? Nuclear Bunkers-might the IRA, for example, seek permission for a facility to put their weapons 'beyond use' outside Ireland.?
Huttonian knows of no examples of 'confidential' planning applications, but then he wouldn't, if they were confidential, would he?
There is one possible case where this rule might have been applied; Fishwick Special Branch's new Head Quarters. So secure was the planning process that the original application was shredded-before submitting to the committee-and for security reasons no copy was made. Moreover it was belatedly discovered that none of the councillors on the Area Committee had been security cleared so they would not have been allowed to see the planning application in any case, as it was classified Secret, Open Eyes Only and Loc Sen (Locally sensitive) The only planning official cleared to deal with classified documents, a certain Hajji Mustafa Ibrahim Renton was in Iran on holiday at the time (may still be there as there is no trace of him at Newtown St.Boswells when the Blog enquired under the Freedom of Information Act)
Planning Permission was therefore never given but as the secret plans for the facility were also destroyed and the exact site not allowed to be revealed to the builder it did not matter very much. So FSB still operate out of the spare room at the Hutton Think Tank Research Complex. Wherever
that may be.
(The image is possibly of one of the sites which may or may not have been considered for the new HQ. Or possibly not. Whatever)
Labels: Planning, Scottish Borders Council
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
For some mysterious reason the Scottish Borders' Planning Highheidyins have made it difficult to access the latest details of the contentious outline planning application for four new houses at Hutton Castle Barns. It may be because this is not a new application but the continuation of an old one which was withdrawn late last year because of local opposition and because the planning flaws in the proposal were exposed. It was a classic case how not to apply. Let the neighbours find out either when they are contacted via the formal notification process or when they log on to the SBC Planning website! It would surely have been more courteous to have knocked on a few doors (5 or so only) and explained what they wanted to do taking account of people's views and comments and seeking to modify the proposal accordingly. Should not be a problem when it is for an outline planning permission and there is accordingly room for manoeuvre. In this case the neighbours were presented with plans apparently showing houses in-your-face-mate-just-right-across-the-road-peering into-your-bedroom-sort-of-thing. In fact the sites were so large that putting the houses at the back of the plot rather than at the very front might have helped to elicit a more positive neighbourly response. And apart from understandable nimbyism there were also real problems of access and excessive traffic.
And then the proposal resurfaces a few months later, unchanged and without any attempt at consultation. Same plans, same in your face bricks and mortar, same access problems, same green field site on good farming land-nothing altered in the light of previous comments. With the obvious result. Same opposition.Same deficiencies
You might think, mightn't you that such a proposal hardly deserves to succeed? And the smart money says
it won't
For some mysterious reason the Scottish Borders' Planning Highheidyins have made it difficult to access the latest details of the contentious outline planning application for four new houses at Hutton Castle Barns. It may be because this is not a new application but the continuation of an old one which was withdrawn late last year because of local opposition and because the planning flaws in the proposal were exposed. It was a classic case how not to apply. Let the neighbours find out either when they are contacted via the formal notification process or when they log on to the SBC Planning website! It would surely have been more courteous to have knocked on a few doors (5 or so only) and explained what they wanted to do taking account of people's views and comments and seeking to modify the proposal accordingly. Should not be a problem when it is for an outline planning permission and there is accordingly room for manoeuvre. In this case the neighbours were presented with plans apparently showing houses in-your-face-mate-just-right-across-the-road-peering into-your-bedroom-sort-of-thing. In fact the sites were so large that putting the houses at the back of the plot rather than at the very front might have helped to elicit a more positive neighbourly response. And apart from understandable nimbyism there were also real problems of access and excessive traffic.
And then the proposal resurfaces a few months later, unchanged and without any attempt at consultation. Same plans, same in your face bricks and mortar, same access problems, same green field site on good farming land-nothing altered in the light of previous comments. With the obvious result. Same opposition.Same deficiencies
You might think, mightn't you that such a proposal hardly deserves to succeed? And the smart money says
it won't
Labels: Hutton Castle Barns, Planning
Sunday, August 03, 2008
Neighbours Revisited
Huttonian gets it wrong sometimes and he has got this one wrong big time. But judging from, incredible as it may seem, that the application to build 4 new houses at Hutton Castle Barns, withdrawn after strong objections to the original proposal, has been lobbed in again. I had told one of the previous objectors that I was confident that the idea was dead. Wrong.Very.
The application is identical in every way to the original one. Not a nod towards the comments made before many of them based on good planning objections. Not even an attempt to address the difficult problem of access. The application is slightly economical with the actualite in that it refers to the Roads Officer having no difficulty with the issue of access-indeed 'supports the proposal': through the existing entrance to the M Farm. A bloggee with a better memory than mine (many of them around) has recalled that the Roads Department said that they had no issue of principle over the building of the 4 houses but were concerned about the access. But, and here's the rub-a reapplication of an unamended proposal (within a year)is free! So lob it back boys and keep your cash under the bed. Otherwise the timing is extraordinary-building now ! When you see all the properties for sale around the area in the midst of a serious recession it seems silly to add to the over plentiful stock.
I doubt if it will go through.I hope not to be wrong this time. The objections* made earlier will be renewed in spades including a well researched comment by the Hutton and Paxton Community Council. I had heard that the original application was likely to fail-hence its withdrawal. And the whole sorry business arises from a total lack of communication and consultation between neighbours. It would have made sense for the Ms to have crossed the road to discuss with the people most closely effected how their plans might be made more acceptable rather than proceeding by formal 'neighbour notification' and the Council Website. Unfriendly or what?
The Council website invites comments.
Go to it.
(* Indeed. Already a neighbour has written covering the ground rather well especially on the lack of consultation and access.
Huttonian gets it wrong sometimes and he has got this one wrong big time. But judging from, incredible as it may seem, that the application to build 4 new houses at Hutton Castle Barns, withdrawn after strong objections to the original proposal, has been lobbed in again. I had told one of the previous objectors that I was confident that the idea was dead. Wrong.Very.
The application is identical in every way to the original one. Not a nod towards the comments made before many of them based on good planning objections. Not even an attempt to address the difficult problem of access. The application is slightly economical with the actualite in that it refers to the Roads Officer having no difficulty with the issue of access-indeed 'supports the proposal': through the existing entrance to the M Farm. A bloggee with a better memory than mine (many of them around) has recalled that the Roads Department said that they had no issue of principle over the building of the 4 houses but were concerned about the access. But, and here's the rub-a reapplication of an unamended proposal (within a year)is free! So lob it back boys and keep your cash under the bed. Otherwise the timing is extraordinary-building now ! When you see all the properties for sale around the area in the midst of a serious recession it seems silly to add to the over plentiful stock.
I doubt if it will go through.I hope not to be wrong this time. The objections* made earlier will be renewed in spades including a well researched comment by the Hutton and Paxton Community Council. I had heard that the original application was likely to fail-hence its withdrawal. And the whole sorry business arises from a total lack of communication and consultation between neighbours. It would have made sense for the Ms to have crossed the road to discuss with the people most closely effected how their plans might be made more acceptable rather than proceeding by formal 'neighbour notification' and the Council Website. Unfriendly or what?
The Council website invites comments.
Go to it.
(* Indeed. Already a neighbour has written covering the ground rather well especially on the lack of consultation and access.
Labels: building in the countryside, Hutton Castle Barns, Planning
Saturday, June 28, 2008
Poor Laird. He does not seem to have much luck with his development schemes. The latest for two bijou modest villas on the fringes of Paxton Village have been given a (very prompt) thumbsdown by the Planning Gauleiters. Just 'Application Refused' That's it- on the Planning website: This seems to have been in the wake of of a site visit by a planning officer during which it would have been quickly seen that the application was slightly flawed in detail: for 'scrub land' read 'small wood' Lack of attention to detail as one of my former Ambassadors used to say.
The decision level was the Berwickshire Area Committee. Grounds for refusal are not recorded on this site.
But one can hazard a guess that 'out with the local plan-building in the countryside' may have been something to do with it. Never mind the potentially vanishing wee wood.
Where next? One wonders
The decision level was the Berwickshire Area Committee. Grounds for refusal are not recorded on this site.
But one can hazard a guess that 'out with the local plan-building in the countryside' may have been something to do with it. Never mind the potentially vanishing wee wood.
Where next? One wonders
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
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
Scrubbing the Truth?
Cognoscenti of planning in this area will see from the Scottish Borders Council Planning website :
http://eplanning1.scotborders.gov.uk/WAM/doc/Consultation%20Reply-2085755.pdf?extension=.pdf&id=2085755&location=VOLUME1&contentType=application/pdf&pageCount=1&appid=1001
that the Laird may be running into a spot of bother with an application to build a couple of bijou villas just outwith Paxton village. Apparently not everyone believes him 100% when he claims that his little development is to be on scrub land. Commentators (including the Hutton and Paxton Community Council, not to mention the neighbours) seem to think that the site is a rather nice little bit of immature wood land. (And one wonders if the L was in receipt of a grant for planting it a few years ago?)
One hates to resort to a cliche: but 'economical with the truth' seems to apply with some recent applications in this area-the now withdrawn one for the managers' house at Hutton Castle Mill-see previous posts-is a case in point. It seems silly for an applicant to be caught out on something which can be so easily checked-so with the planners apparently now on their way to look at the site it might be wise for the Laird to get planting:
some scrubs, presumably
Cognoscenti of planning in this area will see from the Scottish Borders Council Planning website :
http://eplanning1.scotborders.gov.uk/WAM/doc/Consultation%20Reply-2085755.pdf?extension=.pdf&id=2085755&location=VOLUME1&contentType=application/pdf&pageCount=1&appid=1001
that the Laird may be running into a spot of bother with an application to build a couple of bijou villas just outwith Paxton village. Apparently not everyone believes him 100% when he claims that his little development is to be on scrub land. Commentators (including the Hutton and Paxton Community Council, not to mention the neighbours) seem to think that the site is a rather nice little bit of immature wood land. (And one wonders if the L was in receipt of a grant for planting it a few years ago?)
One hates to resort to a cliche: but 'economical with the truth' seems to apply with some recent applications in this area-the now withdrawn one for the managers' house at Hutton Castle Mill-see previous posts-is a case in point. It seems silly for an applicant to be caught out on something which can be so easily checked-so with the planners apparently now on their way to look at the site it might be wise for the Laird to get planting:
some scrubs, presumably
Monday, May 19, 2008
RETURN OF THE LAIRD
After a rather long absence from the development game the Laird is back-see http://eplanning1.scotborders.gov.uk/WAM/showCaseFile.do?appType=planning&appNumber=08/00776/FUL
And despite his frustration over the rejected Knowe's Close and other sites in down town Paxton and his inability to include potential housing estates in the Local Plan,
his Lairdship has now an application in for two pretty little bijou three bedroom establishments just to the west of Smiddy's Cottage on the upper Paxton Hutton road outwith the village boundary. The application talks about building on 'scrub land'
Well one man's scrub land is seemingly another's copse of fir trees-not yet mature and presumably a small scale Lairdian commercial venture now for the chop (npi) and concrete. More over according to the letters of objection from two of the neighbours there is a bit of a history to this site-application to build rejected before and an attempt to include it in the local plan also failed. It seems to be bristling not only with fir trees but also with planning difficulties.
When two or three are gathered in the Cross these days Potential Departures from Berwickshire Local Plan, Policy 7 tend to dominate the conversation.
Time gentlemen please and 50p in the Swear Box.
After a rather long absence from the development game the Laird is back-see http://eplanning1.scotborders.gov.uk/WAM/showCaseFile.do?appType=planning&appNumber=08/00776/FUL
And despite his frustration over the rejected Knowe's Close and other sites in down town Paxton and his inability to include potential housing estates in the Local Plan,
his Lairdship has now an application in for two pretty little bijou three bedroom establishments just to the west of Smiddy's Cottage on the upper Paxton Hutton road outwith the village boundary. The application talks about building on 'scrub land'
Well one man's scrub land is seemingly another's copse of fir trees-not yet mature and presumably a small scale Lairdian commercial venture now for the chop (npi) and concrete. More over according to the letters of objection from two of the neighbours there is a bit of a history to this site-application to build rejected before and an attempt to include it in the local plan also failed. It seems to be bristling not only with fir trees but also with planning difficulties.
When two or three are gathered in the Cross these days Potential Departures from Berwickshire Local Plan, Policy 7 tend to dominate the conversation.
Time gentlemen please and 50p in the Swear Box.
Monday, March 31, 2008
Planning. Trouble at t'mill
Its good to know that our very transparent planning system sometimes seems to work: Cognoscenti should once again visit:
http://eplanning.scotborders.gov.uk/publicaccess/tdc/DcApplication/application_searchresults.aspx
and look at the 2nd application under the Hutton and Paxton Community Council bailiwick: House at Hutton Castle Mill. Bloggees with average memories will recall how popular response has led to an unpopular planning application for four new houses, just down the road, being withdrawn. People power in the form of an angry (but reasoned) comments recorded on this website helped to ensure that with the developer having second thoughts.Does not often happen but good sense prevailed.
In the HCM case the 'associated documents' are worth a read. In support of an application to build a house for a gamekeeper on site to look after the pheasantery, Guinea fowlness, salmon and trout fishing, self catering converted mill on behalf of the main agent for a syndicate who lives in Paxton-excellent idea. But wait- this document is dated November 2004! And we can recall that there actually is a house, recently built and lo and behold the occupant is no other than the gamekeeper who has been in occupation of a very pleasant dwelling for a couple of years. All the other papers, including the formal
application relate to a new house-bungalow- for, yes, a gamekeeper (indeed the same self guy), with exactly the same justification as the original application three and a half years ago. Urgency is stressed as the agent in Paxton really needs some one on the spot to look after his interests in the depths of the Whiteadder valley.
One can only speculate. And one does.
The Planning department at mediumheidyins level, at least, don't seem too impressed and having pointed out that there is one house there already -not a bungalow as it happens- (a fact omitted from the application and its supporting docs) reminds the applicant that permission was given for that house on the understanding that it was for just one building and for the purposes (tied to a gamekeeper) stated in the 2004 application, wonders,politely, what in earth is going on, and suggests equally politely that it might be best if the application be withdrawn.
It might indeed.
Strike one for the Planners.
For once.
In the meanwhile the Guinea Fowl at the mill peck on happily, seemingly not caring if they are to have a two house gamekeeper, or not.
Labels: Borders, Hutton Castle Mill, Planning
Sunday, March 23, 2008
WASTE INCINERATOR PLAN PUT ON THE BACK BURNER
screams the front page of The Berwickshire about how a plan to build a waste incinerator near Dunbar has run into such strong opposition that the company (Viridor) has put the project on hold. So no planning permission for the Incinerator.
Hold on a moment says Anxious of Ayton. Fine about the Incinerator. But did they ever get permission for the
Back Burner?
screams the front page of The Berwickshire about how a plan to build a waste incinerator near Dunbar has run into such strong opposition that the company (Viridor) has put the project on hold. So no planning permission for the Incinerator.
Hold on a moment says Anxious of Ayton. Fine about the Incinerator. But did they ever get permission for the
Back Burner?
Labels: Back Burners, Planning, Waste Borders
Thursday, November 08, 2007
Concrete Deferred
A small item caught Huttonian's eye in the Berwickshire 'House Plans deferred'
Amongst them are the four houses at Hutton Castle Barns, strongly opposed by neighbours and indeed not surprisingly, given the lack of any consultation (Farmer C is just across the road from his neighbours)-see previous posts. According to the Planning Website the application had been withdrawn by Farmer M-so it is slightly puzzling that the Berwickshire Area committee considered it at all-never mind deciding to 'continue' it at a future meeting pending more information. The Berwickshire report mentions that the local planning people had recommended the application for refusal because of difficult access to the site and road safety :' conflict between farm and domestic traffic being considered unacceptable' We had all assumed that the applicant jumped before he was pushed hearing of the planning difficulties-by withdrawing he can apply again within a year without paying any further fees-if refused the whole process starts again from scratch.
Good news for the Bananas but not so good for Mr Brown. He is still 4 houses short of
Three Million
A small item caught Huttonian's eye in the Berwickshire 'House Plans deferred'
Amongst them are the four houses at Hutton Castle Barns, strongly opposed by neighbours and indeed not surprisingly, given the lack of any consultation (Farmer C is just across the road from his neighbours)-see previous posts. According to the Planning Website the application had been withdrawn by Farmer M-so it is slightly puzzling that the Berwickshire Area committee considered it at all-never mind deciding to 'continue' it at a future meeting pending more information. The Berwickshire report mentions that the local planning people had recommended the application for refusal because of difficult access to the site and road safety :' conflict between farm and domestic traffic being considered unacceptable' We had all assumed that the applicant jumped before he was pushed hearing of the planning difficulties-by withdrawing he can apply again within a year without paying any further fees-if refused the whole process starts again from scratch.
Good news for the Bananas but not so good for Mr Brown. He is still 4 houses short of
Three Million
Tuesday, November 06, 2007
Yes we have no Bananas
Whistling past Dunbar en route to Embra on the only-slightly-late-GNER-hardly-any-inconvenience-to-regret 0928 I noticed a lovely green field with a surveyor right in the middle of it doing his thing with his thing -thelodite thing, don't get me wrong. Being a Berwickshire BANANA I cared not too much-Dunbar I sometimes feel with its ill mannered golf club has it coming.
More worrying and more BANANA like a regular bloggee tellsm e that a surveyor was very recently seen surveying Knowe's Close -surely the most surveyed piece of good agricultural land in eastern Berwickshire.
Is the Laird at it again?
The price of avoiding concrete is eternal vigilance.
You read that first here.
(the image is of a prototype surveyor specially developed by Hutton Think Tank for the Eildon Housing Association. Remote controlled and with one very important feature for working in the countryside-it is very
Thick Skinned)
Labels: Bananas, Knowes Close, Laird, Planning
Monday, October 29, 2007
Planning: Power to the People?
Rarely there are cases of concerted community action frustrating inappropriate development in the Borders. One was the successful campaign a few years back to stop, in its tracks, a somewhat devious scheme to concrete over a large field adjoining Paxton village. Not only to prevent the development in question but to keep it out of the newly drafted and approved Local Plan. Full marks to the Community Council, especially its ad hoc planning sub committee and a number of public spirited Paxtonians.
More recently, like the other day, an unpopular planning proposal near Hutton Castle was suddenly withdrawn. Much smaller in scale than the Paxton one-four houses only-it did cause a lot of local resentment. Much of it due to its arrival on the scene with no prior warning to (or consultation with)the people most effected. And it was one of those 'in your face' developments on good farming land just across the road from an ancient row of farmer workers cottages whose outlook would have been ruined. Had it gone through (it was for outline permission only)goodness knows what monstrous Mc Mansions might have sprung up. Once outline planning permission is in the bag it is very difficult to influence the type of building that goes up. The disastrous Orchard complex in Paxton is a case in point-and it is also almost impossible to limit the growth of a site, and the number of houses on it, once the first buildings have gone up-the Orchard tells that tale all too well.
Fortunately in this case it was not just a question of ignoring pesky Nimbys. The planning arguments were stacked against the proposal. And in the end common sense broke out and the proposals have been withdrawn. Perhaps it was belatedly realised that in the countryside community relations matter-and should they resurface in a more palatable form one can only hope that the neighbours are brought along as willing accomplices. There are parts of that area where building would be beneficial and acceptable. It would need active neighbourly cooperation. And that is a good thing
In itself.
Have a look at the documents at http://eplanning.scotborders.gov.uk/publicaccess/tdc/DcApplication/application_searchresults.aspx
Four plots involved-work it out for yourself
PS No we have not yet got McMansions quite like those ( Outer Banks, North Carolina)in the Borders. But Cardrona near Peebles and Farmer C (near Traffic Blackspot Fishwick) are trying to put this right.
Not in My Back Yard? Not in anyone's, we say
Labels: Hutton, local plan, Planning
Friday, October 26, 2007
Crooked or stoopid
From the latest Berwickshire News comes this offering from a resident of Reston who,exceptionally, makes no reference to the proposed station.
SIR, - I can only suppose that the planning committee of the Scottish Borders Council is either deeply corrupt or else incapable of distinguishing its nether orifice from the joint between its upper and fore arm.
Why else are its members so keen to cover good farmland with gimcrack but expensive housing estates?
The hideously rapid suburbanisation of the eastern Borders is not providing rentable or affordable housing for young families in villages with access to a local shop, post office and school.
Since employment in the region is noticeable by its absence, the mushroom growth of tacky dwellings must be predicated on the owners commuting to Edinburgh to work - by car - while the household’s second car drives the school run, and the weekly trip to newly established supermarkets (where parking is easier) rather than patronise local shops which, however excellent, will in due course be forced to close.
So who benefits from this? One can only assume that some of the planning committee are discretely bribed by the big property companies to facilitate large-scale developments (which carry the bonus that Scottish Borders Council doesn’t have to fund the installation of the roads and services), while their more clueless fellows are persuaded as there is a shortage of housing these greedy schemes will bring universal prosperity.
Now I thought we urgently need to reduce carbon emissions by sourcing food locally and cutting back on car use - the latter not easy in these parts where scattered small settlements make public transport unprofitable.
People forget that though agriculture collapsed in the 1930s, when war came and importation of food stopped, we were adequately fed because the land could be brought back into use.
Once it has been built over that option vanishes.
Meanwhile increasing demand will cause problems with the water supply, and increased run-off (as there is less ground to absorb surface water) will place an even greater burden on the drainage and sewerage systems - Eyemouth’s woes spring to mind. It is small comfort that no doubt many of the new houses will remain empty, being over-priced, so that the property developers won’t make their expected killing.
But then what? Squatters move in? (Signed sealed and delivered)
Huttonian is not going to accuse our hard pressed planning staff of corruption. Incompetence? Known it happen. My target remains (a few) greedy land owners more interested in concrete than cereals and their willing accomplices the developers. Without the former you would get less of the latter. But if you are asking is there is an element of something approaching corruption within the ranks of our locally elected tribunes of the people, aka SB Councillors and, one means those with less than tenous links to the farming community?
Well, that's another question
A bloggee has asked for an image of a typical prime site for development in the Borders? We modestly offer the above: it has everything going for it; good road links, excellent drainage, easy reach of bustling Hutton and booming Paxton; commutable to Embra and Geordieland. And above all it is very very good agrcultural land. But surely the Building in the Countryside Legislation?......?
Yeah, right.
Labels: farmers, landowners, Merse, Planning
Tuesday, August 07, 2007
Cognescenti of local planning issues should look at http://eplanning1.scotborders.gov.uk/WAM/showCaseFile.do?appType=planning&appNumber=07/01415/OUT
and note the usual ingredients so familiar in these 'ere parts in recent years-building on prime agricultural land-not envisaged in local plan-a dubious 'sense of place'. And one unusual feature is that the neighbours have given the proposed development of four dwellings the universal thumbs down. (The correspondence bears a a careful read)
One hopes, in the interests of good neighbourly relations, that the applicants, like Edward II, 'think again' and find another site which is less 'in your face'
and note the usual ingredients so familiar in these 'ere parts in recent years-building on prime agricultural land-not envisaged in local plan-a dubious 'sense of place'. And one unusual feature is that the neighbours have given the proposed development of four dwellings the universal thumbs down. (The correspondence bears a a careful read)
One hopes, in the interests of good neighbourly relations, that the applicants, like Edward II, 'think again' and find another site which is less 'in your face'
Labels: farmers, Hutton, local plan, Planning
Sunday, July 08, 2007
FISHWICK BYPASS.
Growing anticipation?
Lovers of building sites are wondering where they can get season tickets for the roadworks of the year: the recently approved Fishwick Bypass. Now that Farmer N has the go ahead for this stretch of public road to relieve the pressure on Nightmare Bend-aka the dangerous corner on the existing road, so dreaded by the hordes of Bebarboured fishermen risking life and limb in their armour plated 4x4s in persuit of salmon at Fishwick Road's End. Soon to be the site, so it is rumoured of a luxury 5* equestrian/fishing lodge provisionally named 'Close Encounter'
Roadees may have a bit of a wait. Cognoscenti of this planning saga will recall that Farmer N can hardly be expected to build the new N1 which he has generously underetaken to finance until he do so from the sale of the 6 building plots with outline planning permission residing some where in his agent's top drawer. And when the gleaming new mansions are up can we then expect to enjoy the security of the old Fishwick Road by then serving only the little hamlet whilst the fishing folk, the tractors, the pantechnicons, the juggernauts, the randy Bulls hurtle down the bypass with only the dead elms to terrorise?
Or is there just a small, remote, barely possible, chance that Farmer N,profits firmly pocketed, may just have a change of heart?
Bypass? Dangerous Corner? Pull the other one. Lots more dangerous roads in the Borders. Irresponsible to encourage more vehicles in such a quiet corner of the countryside.Global warming etc etc.
Watch this space.
Make sure you are sitting comfortably
Growing anticipation?
Lovers of building sites are wondering where they can get season tickets for the roadworks of the year: the recently approved Fishwick Bypass. Now that Farmer N has the go ahead for this stretch of public road to relieve the pressure on Nightmare Bend-aka the dangerous corner on the existing road, so dreaded by the hordes of Bebarboured fishermen risking life and limb in their armour plated 4x4s in persuit of salmon at Fishwick Road's End. Soon to be the site, so it is rumoured of a luxury 5* equestrian/fishing lodge provisionally named 'Close Encounter'
Roadees may have a bit of a wait. Cognoscenti of this planning saga will recall that Farmer N can hardly be expected to build the new N1 which he has generously underetaken to finance until he do so from the sale of the 6 building plots with outline planning permission residing some where in his agent's top drawer. And when the gleaming new mansions are up can we then expect to enjoy the security of the old Fishwick Road by then serving only the little hamlet whilst the fishing folk, the tractors, the pantechnicons, the juggernauts, the randy Bulls hurtle down the bypass with only the dead elms to terrorise?
Or is there just a small, remote, barely possible, chance that Farmer N,profits firmly pocketed, may just have a change of heart?
Bypass? Dangerous Corner? Pull the other one. Lots more dangerous roads in the Borders. Irresponsible to encourage more vehicles in such a quiet corner of the countryside.Global warming etc etc.
Watch this space.
Make sure you are sitting comfortably
Labels: Fishwick Bypass, Planning
