Article 75 can currently only be amended in agreement with the planning authority. Since there is no formal procedure for the discharge of an agreement under Article 75 or a formal discharge document itself, only an agreement under Article 75 can currently be discharged by the conclusion of another agreement under Article 75. On a practical level, this means that land-based property deeds can become very cumbersome, as there is no way for the cadastre to simply „ignore“ an agreement discharged under Article 75. All he can do is reproduce in full the terms of the original agreement set out in section 75, as well as the supplementary agreement on „performance“ in section 75, so that the reader of the title can verify whether all the obligations of section 75 of the contract have been fulfilled. The new provisions will therefore be useful as the discharge is now officially for life, but more importantly, the new provisions provide a mechanism for a party concerned – that is, a party against whom a provision of the Article 75 agreement can be applied – to formally request a modification or compliance with planning obligations. There are also appeal procedures against the decision of an authority concerning such a request. The appeal is addressed to Scottish ministers. § 75 Agreements are used when the conditions imposed by the building permit itself are not appropriate. While planning conditions control how a project is built and used, Section 75 agreements generally provide for financial contributions and all requirements affecting land outside the building permit area (outside the „red border“). Of course, responsible developers have been in dialogue with community bodies for some time, and indeed some existing Section 75 agreements require developers to collaborate with community bodies and create formal connection groups. One of the problems with new formal good-neighborly agreements is, from the developer`s point of view, the difficulty of negotiating with a diverse panel that, unlike a commercial enterprise, may not have a clear person or decision group.
. . .