Hi all, we've got planning permission for our Hut in East Lothian :-) Artist's impression:
With conditions.
Most of them are things we've already told them we'll do either because they're within the definition of a Hut or included in the Covenant we signed as part of the purchase of the wood e.g. the foundations will leave no permanent trace, we won't be running a business from there (so why do they feel the need to reiterate?).
The condition we're going to have to do some work on is :
Within three months from the date of this planning permission, a Site Management Plan and a Woodland Management Plan shall be submitted to and approved in advance by the Planning Authority. The submitted Plans shall include a timetable for their implementation. Thereafter the approved Site and Woodland Management Plans shall be updated every 5 years for the written approval of the Planning Authority. The updated Site Management Plan shall include details of the hut should it become obselete or redundant in accordance with the requirements of condition 7 above. The Woodland Management Plan shall include details of any tree felling requirements and volumes per calendar quarter, restocking details including volumes and species, regenerative woodland management proposals, management and protection of new growth from deer/squirrel/rabbit browsing. The site and woodland shall thereafter be managed in accordance with the Site Management Plan and the Woodland Management Plan so approved
I know the other wood owners who have applied for planning permission have done this and have kindly shared a copy. Has anyone else come across this and/or have any views re this requirement?
National Planning Framework 4 (www.gov.scot)
NPF4 is important. Policy 30 (d) removes much of the ability to put false hurdles in the way of hutting. A hut in a woodland, away from other developments, is clearly and obviously supportable by nature and scale and is compatible with its surroundings. Enuf said.
The determination of NPF4 that they "will" be supported (with the statement on our obligations) is far more important than the planning framework commitments prior to NPF4 which were "to be encouraged" (I think). Planning Authorities are only getting away with "conditions" because we see them as Authority Figures and, well, they must be right, right? They are as ignorant, stupid, and short sighted as we all are at times. Huts are new and they will get their response wrong for some time yet. Not their fault, really. Ignore superfluous conditions. Let them try and enforce an ENO. Nae chance. Mark