Farming families disadvantaged by an aspect of PPS 21
26 November 2008
Traditional Unionist MEP Jim Allister has expressed grave disappointment over an aspect of draft PPS 21. He says retiring farmers stand to be grossly disadvantaged over the removal of the free-standing right in planning policy to a retirement dwelling, something which was in the now discarded PPS 14. Now retiring farmers will have to let 10 years pass, if they obtained permission for a house for a family member, before they can secure a retirement dwelling for themselves.
In a statement the MEP said:-
“Draft PPS 21 abrogates a retirement dwelling (CTY 3 in PPS 14) as a free-standing basis upon which a planning permission could be obtained on a farm and subsumes it, without distinction, into CTY 10 (farm dwellings).
In consequence a grave disservice and inequity is being done to the farming community. Under CTY 10 if a planning permission is obtained for a son or daughter, then the farmer must wait 10 years before he could hope to attain a retirement dwelling. This is unfair. Frequently when sons or daughters are looking for dwellings the father might be 60 years of age. Yet, under this proposal when he comes to 65 years he can't attain a retirement dwelling, but must wait a full 10 years after his son/daughter got permission. Meanwhile the transfer of the business, for example to another son, who would expect to live in the farmhouse, is disrupted.
I, therefore, believe it is wrong and misguided to remove retirement dwellings as a free-standing basis upon which a planning permission can be obtained. In many cases PPS 21 will diminish planning opportunities for farming families because of this abrogation of the retirement dwelling category. Surely, a retiring farmer is in a particular position and this requires to be reflected in planning policy. He should not have to choose between giving a site to a family member or having a retirement dwelling for himself and his wife.
I trust that this flawed aspect of draft PPS 21 will be re-examined and I have written to the DOE Minister accordingly.”
