Here is an excerpt from Article "All agricultural policy, strategies or policies?" , taken from the January 2009 issue of Contact, periodic edited by the "Civic Participation Corte Franca." Given that the article takes its cue from the "Cantinone", the content is particularly interesting, not only effectively exposed, because they still value the concepts of a general nature.
1) cantinone But where I put it?
the Council of 27 November '08 was officially approved on the identification of strategic agricultural areas throughout the municipality, according to specified criteria. It was game to force the Administration can not ignore the question of the location of the industrial structure required by Ber SpA lucchi: in fact
at Borgonato, the AC was cut in the middle of valuable farmland, an area of \u200b\u200bpossible change, not to exclude the possibility of moving this productive activity! This is despite the province has indicated its opposition.
2) Why is the letter to the Province?
Our Association has sent a complaint to the Province of Brescia in asking if the BC Court of France, "justifying" his decision give reasons seems to precede that private interests to those of the community, has not operated in contravention the objective criteria laid down by the Regional Board.
3) A lot of development in agricultural areas of value, how is it possible?
A provision of the Lombardy Region allows farmers to produce agricultural areas in their buildings and facilities for the conduct of the funds, the structure built with a low index, due to the fact that agricultural lands have high extensions. So the motivation that pushes the legislature to introduce this procedure is to allow farmers to build on their land to allow for growth, "physiological" company.
4) To what extent the building is "physiological" for the company?
Until it is saturated with the possibility to build in relation to the extension of land that the farmer owns. So if a farmer has not yet saturated its possibility to build (and still needs facilities in relation to the management of funds) can make simply by requesting a building permit, procedure
"due" just passing by the building commission and by ' technical department which checks the technical conformity and compliance with the Plan. 5) How do you turn the soil in this case?
The land on which there are agricultural buildings and, once admitted the building, remain agricultural. Is not a change of use of land, that is, its legal use is unchanged.
6) And in the case of cantinone?
In this case the company has already saturated its building capacity. This means that the proposed structure comes from the logic of necessity "physiological" which is in the spirit of the rule in point 3 above). If the company wanted to build on agricultural land would then buy more land to grow and then grow.
7) So you have to use another procedure?
Yes, unable to follow the steps to the building in agricultural areas, is uses the one-stop shop for productive activities (OSS). This instrument provides for the edification and contextual variation on the urban built-up land that is a necessary condition to allow the building further on the funds owned by the farmer who would not allow it if it would remain agricultural.
6) It 's not the same thing?
No, the procedure of the OSS with the land changed from agricultural production, ie
change their legal status in an irreversible way.
7) What does this mean?
authorize the intervention means in terms of planning, open a new production plant in front in an area whose characteristics are also valuable landscape, compromising it irreversibly.
8) What 's the risk?
E 'Everyone knows that the worst environmental disasters and landscape are made with the policy of "small steps". May be added in the future continue to target production neighboring lots (as the area is already compromised ...) and you're done: we have yet another production center
served by an infrastructure of territorial connection (poor Provincial). This may not be a concern of the current administration. It is certainly a concern that requires a long term vision and is a consequence that all citizens pay. 9) should just say yes?
The procedure of the OSS, just because it is "due" and requires the creation of structures more than those granted, provides for a political change and not just because tecnico.Ecco the request for assistance does not stop at the technical office but passing through the City Council decides not to allow the implementation of the intervention.
10) So?
Then the realization of the structure with the OSS tool depends solely on a political administration. However, it is inconsistent with the strategic local and extra-local (provincial) for our area.
11) The one-stop shop 'and then just a tool?
Yes, a tool to achieve a clear political will. It works just like a musical instrument you can play well or play badly, you can even decide not to play, especially knowing that they produce only false notes! The administration is not obliged to accept the proposal because there are no "cages" procedural or bureaucratic.
12) PGT or OSS?
We are, however, on the eve of the PGT. It would perhaps be more appropriate to include intervention in proposing a systemic logic more suitable alternative locations (eg near an existing production site), perhaps to be assessed within the Strategic Environmental Assessment: a unique opportunity to prevent further disasters and environmental landscape.
.
.
12) PGT or OSS?
We are, however, on the eve of the PGT. It would perhaps be more appropriate to include intervention in proposing a systemic logic more suitable alternative locations (eg near an existing production site), perhaps to be assessed within the Strategic Environmental Assessment: a unique opportunity to prevent further disasters and environmental landscape.
.
.
0 comments:
Post a Comment