Scottish Government bid to help with mortgage problem
The Scottish Government is telling planning authorities not to use occupancy restrictions on new rural housing because of the problems they cause when it comes to getting a mortgage.
The advice has come from the country’s chief planner, who said that such Section 75 agreements and planning conditions are "rarely appropriate and so should be avoided".
They have been used by the Cairngorms National Park Authority on a regular basis to tie occupancy to land use such as farming and tourism that requires on-site residency, or to a property.
This prevents homes being sold separately, but the knock-on effect has been that applicants have had huge problems in borrowing cash to build.
The economic downturn means that banks and other lenders have been refusing to lend the money, whilst other people have been unable to sell their property where there is a Section 75 in place.
Local MSP Fergus Ewing (SNP) has been highly critical of their use in the past, and has welcomed the new guidance.
He has gone further by saying they had caused "grave hardship", and called for all such agreements in planning conditions to be scrapped.
Mr Ewing said: "These Section 75 conditions have, in my opinion, had effects on people which have cause much more unfairness than the feudal system."
Jim Mackinnon, director and chief planner of the Directorate for the Built Environment, has just issued the guidance in correspondence to all of Scotland’s planning authorities.
He said a number of issues had arisen with the use of occupancy restrictions, some of which had been exacerbated by the current economic situation.
He stated: "Occupancy restrictions can also be intrusive, resource-intensive and difficult to monitor. Scottish planning policy promotes a positive approach to rural housing. It does not promote the use of occupancy restrictions.
"The Scottish Government believes that occupancy restrictions are rarely appropriate, and so should generally be avoided."
Mr Mackinnon said the Scottish Government believes that a "vibrant populated countryside is a desirable objective".
Gregor Rimell, park board member and local Highland councillor, defended the authority’s track record.
He said: "The chief planner sometimes forgets that the Government wants national parks to be conserved, and members of his staff criticise over-allocation for housing.
"Without Section 75s how does the park authority make sure that housing, necessary to sustain the economy and family businesses, is allowed in the countryside while whimsy housing is not?
"He should consider how many applications have been made on the basis of business need, then the successful applicant tries to overturn the Section 75, to sell the property concerned."
A CNPA spokesperson said that they will be discussing the guidance in the New Year.
She said: "This is in a climate where mortgages are not easy to obtain anyway.
"This is not unique to the park, and we have been proactive in working with the Scottish Government and lenders to find a solution.
"The recent letter from the chief planner to all planning authorities is something we’ll be asking the planning committee to consider at their meeting in January.
"In the meantime, CNPA has demonstrated in specific cases that it is prepared to be flexible."
CASE STUDY:
A Laggan hotel owner said that he has been through a "living nightmare" because a Section 75 has prevented him from obtaining a mortgage to finish their family home.
David Huisman first applied nearly five years ago to build a five-bedroom house next to the 28-bedroom Laggan Country House Hotel.
He was granted consent in December, 2008, by the CNPA with a Section 75 agreement as part of the approval, meaning Mr Huisman could not sell the house on separately from the hotel.
As a result, he and his wife, Jannet, have now lived in a caravan on-site with their four children, Joshua (14), April (12), Kimberley (10) and Jurgen (8), for the past six years.
He said: "It has been a living nightmare for us but the house is now 90 to 95% finished."
Mr Huisman applied to have the Section 75 condition removed by the CNPA, but was refused.
"I would not want anyone to go through what we have. We’ve all been unwell because of the living conditions," he said.
"Jannet and I have been trying to bring up four kids in a caravan, trying to run a hotel business and build a house all at the same time.
"If I had known what I do now I would never have started; I’d rather our application for our own home had been turned down."
